Thread by @shellenberger

Facebook and YouTube say they're "social media platforms," but they're not. They censor accurate info in response to White House demands and spread state-sanctioned disinformation. Congress should stop protecting them from lawsuits, which enables their unchecked abuses of power.

When Congress protected social media platforms from liability in 1996, its intention was to increase freedom of speech, not reduce it.

By censoring "often-true content" and promoting government disinfo, Facebook & YouTube are violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

The risk of Congress taking away Section 230 protections from YouTube and Facebook is that they would disallow even more content, which is true.

But users would still have Rumble, X, and other Section 230-protected platforms for posting content.

The problem now is that Facebook and YouTube are censoring accurate information, including information about their own censorship. This is an abuse of power in the extreme. The Supreme Court must act, but so too must Congress.

https://twitter.com/akheriaty/status/1684982500035366912?s=20

It's true that Facebook executives complained about the demand from the White House that they censor accurate information about the origin of Covid-19, but they went along with it anyway, revealilng the essential cowardice of Facebook executives.

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1684901777374650369?s=20

Normal media companies can censor and spread bad info, but they don't get liability protection. A court recently ordered Fox News to pay $788M to Dominion for defamation.

A court can't order YouTube to pay $788M — and yet YouTube censors anyway!

apnews.com/article/fox-ne…

So what's the difference between Fox News and Facebook/YouTube?

The difference is that Facebook/YouTube can censor and spread disinformation without any consequence for doing so, while Fox News cannot.

The current situation is unfair to news media companies and violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Section 230 law.

The remedy is simple. Congress should make companies choose between being a social media platform that doesn't censor or a news media company that does.

If Congress doesn't act, private news media companies should re-register as Section 230 social media companies and promote and censor content willy-nilly as YouTube and Facebook do. All they need to do is create the minimally necessary means for users to post content.

This morning I gave a live interview on Fox News. There was no way it could be censored because it was live.

foxnews.com/video/63320901…

By contrast, when the attorneys for @akheriaty gave a "Lunch and Law" talk, @YouTube censored it!

Why in the world does @YouTube get sweeping liability protections but @FoxNews is vulnerable to defamation lawsuits?

https://twitter.com/akheriaty/status/1684982500035366912?s=20

@akheriaty @YouTube @FoxNews Congress allows @Google / @YouTube & @Meta / @facebook to act as news media organizations, with the power to censor and spread propaganda, often at the behest of the government, while making billions in profits — all while bankrupting news media companies vulnerable to lawsuits!

@akheriaty @YouTube @FoxNews @Google @Meta @facebook The situation is untenable. Something has to break. Either the Supreme Court must act or Congress must act.

If they refuse to act, then news media organizations should re-register as Section 230-protected social media platforms so that we can enjoy protection from lawsuits, too

@akheriaty @YouTube @FoxNews @Google @Meta @facebook What's happening is unAmerican and unconstitutional.

We won't stop fighting for our First Amendment rights until the situation changes.

We will do what it takes.

LFG! 🇺🇸