Read on Twitter
Another day, another bad idea from conservatives on Section 230: https://www.wsj.com/articles/goodbye-section-230-hello-liberty-11619476294
This time arguing that social media platforms should be treated like common carriers (like Justice Thomas suggested in Biden v. Knight).
Analysis in the thread:
This time arguing that social media platforms should be treated like common carriers (like Justice Thomas suggested in Biden v. Knight).
Analysis in the thread:
1. There is no basis for concluding that "These platforms have censored and editorialized with blatant political bias" - there is little evidence of disparities on a systematic level (rather than anecdotes) and no proof offered that any disparities are caused by discrimination
2. There is no attempt to grapple with the problem of the First Amendment right to editorial discretion of social media platforms. Repealing Section 230 doesn't automatically create a cause of action for political bias https://truthonthemarket.com/2020/11/17/the-dishonesty-of-conservative-attacks-on-section-230/
3. Instead, the op-ed appeals to the idea of common carriage, which itself comes with a host of problems as @TraceEVMitchell explains well here: https://insidesources.com/social-media-platforms-arent-att/
4. There is no understanding of how Section 230 has increased third-party speech, and how its repeal could actually reduce speech of third parties as social media platforms change their business models in response to risk.
See https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/516799-what-facebooks-planned-change-to-its-terms-of-service-means-for
See https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/516799-what-facebooks-planned-change-to-its-terms-of-service-means-for
5. A cause of action for political bias would almost certainly be unconstitutional as an infringement of the right to editorial discretion laid out in Miami Herald v. Tornillo: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/03/03/gov-desantis-unconstitutional-attack-on-social-media-column/
6. The First Amendment is about protecting the private ordering of speech, not compelling centralized decisions about what is allowed in private spaces. Can't yell about politics at a restaurant and expect not to be kicked out because it's "free speech" https://truthonthemarket.com/2021/04/23/an-le-defense-of-the-first-amendments-protection-of-private-ordering/
