Search

This report explores the deep divide over the status of social media platforms. Current law tends to confer on these entities extensive immunities from liability for removing any content the platform deems is a form of misinformation, and the law allows the platforms to ban private parties from the platform or demonetize their platform's use. The stated reason is that these platforms are private parties that are therefore not subject to regulation, given the protections they received under both common law and the First Amendment. This position has provoked a vigorous response from those who believe these platforms should be regulated as common carriers because of their dominant position and should be subject to potential antitrust liability because of their collusive behavior or subject to liability because of their close cooperation with the federal government in censoring content. Proposed remedies include limiting or removing protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and holding platforms liable for defamation when these actions are done in bad faith, as is the case when done with obvious political motivations. Texas Law H.R. 20, a recent attempt at such a remedy, proposes extensive disclosure requirements and a nondiscrimination rule to protect dissident voices. These issues require some fresh thinking to break the impasse. In this report, I propose that it is unwise for anyone to make all-or-nothing judgments about the status of social platforms. In the long run, the prospect of new entry might make social platforms competitive. But in the short run, no such entry has impeded their power, so they might well be properly subject to some regulation as common carriers. But of what sort? I think that elaborate disclosure requirements serve little purpose (as is so often the case in securities law), and they could be struck down even if these parties were regarded as common carriers or extensions of the government. But nondiscrimination requirements are both less intrusive and more effective, and these in turn should be upheld, at least until the industry becomes more competitive through new entry. In addition, branding an individual or firm as purveying misinformation is a serious charge that brings people into disrespect and otherwise deters customers from listening to or acting on what these platform messages say. That defamation should be actionable even under New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) if it can be shown (as often will be the case) that the social media platform did so with reckless disregard of the truth or with knowledge of the falsity of the statements. In addition, there is no need to alter the text of Section 230 because these decisions cannot be regarded as having been made in good faith when they are all designed to back the political agenda of the Biden administration and its allies., The role of social media platforms is now under scrutiny as perhaps never before, particularly as their content moderation practices raise several legal questions. Should any platform have the right [...]