| > The core sticking point is, I think, is that Section 230 was envisioned as a 'common carrier' exception. Common carriers do not apply editorial control to the content they transmit. No, the writers of Section 230 (Ron Wyden and Chris Cox) envisioned the opposite, that websites hosting user-generated content would not be common carriers, would be free to develop new ways to moderate and curate content as they wished, and could not be punished for applying their own viewpoints to their moderation. From Wyden's and Cox's amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google confirming that targeted recommendations are protected by Section 230 [1] (related summary at [2]): > Section 230 does not permit the Court to treat YouTube’s recommendation of a video as a distinct piece of information that YouTube is “responsible” for “creat[ing],” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). [...] > Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content curation and presentation. Any other interpretation would subvert Section 230’s purpose of encouraging innovation in content moderation and presentation. From Wyden's and Cox's reply comments to an FCC rulemaking process regarding whether the FCC has authority to interpret Section 230 (it does not) [3]: > The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to “interpret” Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website’s moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment (regarding which, see section VIII below). [...] > The reason that Section 230 does not require political neutrality, and was never intended to do so, is that it would enforce homogeneity: every website would have the same “neutral” point of view. This is the opposite of true diversity. The above quoted statements denying a requirement of political neutrality apply equally if you replace "political neutrality" with the more general "viewpoint neutrality". [1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/211333%20bsac%20W... [2] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a... [3] https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/2316/ |