[semimojo]

So when social media companies add content (such as fact checking), they can now be sued for libel because they now have their own content and are now publishers.

I realize this is an attractive argument but it isn't reality. In fact it ignores the heart of the issue.

We have a law called the Communications Decency Act that specifically addresses this situation. It arose because people were wanting to sue Prodigy for moderating posts on their system.

Congress thought the fear of liability would hinder the growth of the internet so they explicitly gave protection to service providers to moderate content and restrict users.

We may wish that wasn't the case and we may think it isn't fair, but it's the current state of the law.

This is the same law, by the way, that let's Jim delete FR posts and zot users without fear of being sued, so think about what it means if you throw it out.

[Monty22002]

You summed it up very well. Thanks.

[EBH]

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

[Dave W]

That is very interesting. I had never heard of the Decency Act. Thanks for enlightening me - I appreciate it!