social media: holding platforms accountable
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants social media platforms protection from being held liable for information provided by another person. It was intended to foster free expression while protecting platforms from being overwhelmed by lawsuits over user-generated content. However, I believe that social media companies are in violation of Section 230(c)(2), which provides legal immunity only when content moderation is conducted in good faith.
When social media first emerged with platforms like MySpace, there was little to no algorithmic control over content. Today, platforms have developed sophisticated algorithms that can boost or suppress posts, giving them unprecedented power to shape public discourse and influence the hearts and minds of Americans. These platforms have the potential to push specific agendas—agendas controlled by a small group of decision-makers and increasingly by AI-driven systems.
The algorithmic sorting of posts allows social media platforms to amplify certain voices and suppress others, creating an uneven playing field. This selective amplification is not done in good faith—it is done to maintain influence and reinforce Big Tech’s priorities. In doing so, these platforms undermine the principles of free and fair speech that Section 230 was designed to protect.
Section 230 Reform:
Clarify that algorithmic manipulation for the purpose of profit or agenda-pushing does not fall under "good faith" content moderation.
Require platforms to disclose how their algorithms work and what criteria they use to sort or suppress content.
Transparency and Oversight:
Establish an independent oversight body to monitor algorithmic practices and enforce transparency requirements for social media companies.
Platforms should publish regular reports detailing how many posts they remove or suppress, as well as their rationale.
Algorithmic Control Opt-Out:
Give users the right to opt out of algorithmically sorted feeds and choose chronological, unsorted timelines instead. This would return control of content visibility to users, rather than platforms.
Political Independence:
Prevent political contributions from Big Tech companies from influencing regulatory processes to ensure fair enforcement and reduce conflicts of interest.
We must hold Big Tech accountable for their outsized control over public discourse. Politicians may be reluctant to act due to the influence and lobbying power of Big Tech, but the American people deserve to know that their voices aren’t being silenced or distorted by hidden algorithms.
Social media was meant to foster connection, discussion, and innovation—not to serve as a tool for manipulation and influence. By standing together and advocating for greater transparency and fairness, we can restore the original promise of these platforms and ensure that they serve the public good, rather than corporate interests.
