[cykros]

OR, they should be on the hook more if they're going to exercise this degree of control; ie, a common carrier rule (though its inability to actually get applied to social media leaves me less than hopeful). IF they want editorial capacity on what gets allowed, and what doesn't, then they should be taking on liability for harms caused by businesses they support (ie, going after Visa for lung cancer because they support purchasing cigarettes). On the other hand, if that sounds draconian (it should!) then they should have the option to avoid this by acting as dumb pipes.

If they're saying they want to pick winners, they should be responsible for the harms those winners they pick create. Otherwise, let the police do the policing.

[nottorp]

> they should be taking on liability for harms caused by businesses they support

Who decides what causes harm? The pressure group with the most donors for the lawsuit expenses?