- Section 230 is going before the Supreme Court: This case will determine whether platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok are liable for the content that their recommendation algorithms promote.
- A loss for Google would be an opportunity for Congress to protect essential rights: If Google loses the case, Congressional action around content moderation could focus on protecting links and the infrastructure that enables access to the internet.
- The top of the stack is about broadcasting: Social media platforms have the right to moderate any content they want, but this should be done with a focus on attracting the broadest customer base.
- Internet service providers have different obligations: ISPs should provide content neutral access, which is essential for the right to be heard and the right to speak.
- The crux of the case goes to the second paragraph: Whether platforms are liable for their recommendations is the key question in this case; a win for Gonzalez could mean more “censorship” of posts.
- The First Amendment and US speech control: Much of the discussion around content moderation forgets that the First Amendment explicitly denies Congress any role in determining what is moderated; Section 230 was essential for the internet in order to protect speech.
Published February 21, 2023
Visit Stratechery to read Ben Thompson’s original post Section 230 in the Supreme Court, Reach and Speech, The First Amendment and U.S. Speech Controls
