Something about the idea of Internet platform regulation makes lawyers forget their training. /1
We all throw our personal theories at it, as if this were some kind of blank slate issue with no precedent, lessons from the past, or existing law. /2
As a reality check, might I suggest approaching platform regulation issues like a law school exam? /3
What harms are we talking about? What area of law already speaks to them? Does that law fall short in some way? What changes would address that specific shortfall? Is there any other law/policy question you need to consider? /4
If your answer is something like “Facebook should share all its data with competitors and also protect users’ privacy,” you might need to think more carefully about both those areas of law. /5
But that’s OK. You’re thinking about actual laws, which is a great start. /6
If your answer is “platforms should have to be fair,” think about whether anyone’s tried that before. For decades. In a policy the GOP opposed in every platform since 2008. (Research hint: the doctrine has "fairness" in its name!) /7
I’m not saying precedent tells us all the answers. The present is not the past. The Internet is not broadcast. But pretending all that stuff didn’t happen means reinventing wheels, and sometimes broken ones. /8
It also means tripping over the same First Amendment problems that came up (and were left messy by the Supreme Court) last time. /9
In closing, lawyers: 
(In this metaphor, the force is something you learn in law school. All apologies to George Lucas.)
