[oldskewlcool]

More evidence section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act needs to be either rewritten or clarified such that oligopoly media (FB, T) who wantonly censor or maybe even use _any_ sort of algorithmic amplification are not covered by this provision.

NYT or other activist media are free to ignore / interpret as they see fit.

But the wanton and overtly partisan censorship by the massive amplification engine that is FB/T/G needs to be properly reconciled with the definition of "publisher".

If you control views / engagement and in effect distribution but choose to moderate this channel in accordance with a policy that is over and above what is legally mandated, and aligned with your personal whims, it seems you are in effect a publisher and should be held to the same standard.

In this case as the author points out it is plausible the actions of FB/T/G swung a close election without the obligation to justify, in a court of law, why / how / what / when / where those actions were taken which if in place may have led to a more fair and balanced treatment of the 'laptop from hell' story.

Current law does not seem to account for the massive influence suppression or cancelling of distribution has on the influence of the public. It is an act of speech in effect. Nevermind holding the executives of these companies accountable for personal statements that have the same effect.