[timdev2]

The "idea that these providers are simply neutral carriers of content" is a false premise, isn't it?

The piece you link is ... weird. First, it doesn't really describe the problem it's trying to solve. Then it presents some very vague policy prescriptions like "site[s] should be regulated by sector-specific rules that apply to that particular line of business".

[CPLX]

There’s probably better writing on this by Matt Stoller that’s just the first thing I found.

A core premise of this argument is that 230 is bizzare exception to pretty clear core rules that we typically have on things like libel and product liability.

There’s just absolutely no argument at this point that these platforms are fundamentally consequential commercial enterprises. The create products, and profit from them, and those products and and do hurt people and cause horrible effects, but this law designed to preserve free speech utterly insulates them from any consequences of their profit making enterprise.

It’s just bizarre. Like the Washington Post can be sued for publishing content that’s harming people and wrong, but Google can’t?

If my kids are exposed to pedophiles every time they go to Chuck E Cheese, and they know about it and don’t do anything I can sure as hell can sue them. But not if it happens on Instagram? Why?

[jmole]

Any article published by the Washington Post is written by agents of their company, and that's why they are the responsible entity. Should you be able to sue every newsstand in your local city if they are selling a newspaper that defames you? After all, those newsstands are profiting from the sale of libelous content...