While I am concerned about the potential negative consequences to altering section 230, there are several elements in the DOJ proposal that I think would be exc

While I am concerned about the potential negative consequences to altering section 230, there are several elements in the DOJ proposal that I think would be excellent ideas: > 3. Promoting Competition A third reform proposal is to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech. Breaking up advertising monopolies (which all of these social media platforms essentially are) would probably be a good outcome. > b. Provide Definition of Good Faith. Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of “good faith,” which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation, unless such notice would impede law enforcement or risk imminent harm to others. Clarifying the meaning of "good faith" should encourage platforms to be more transparent and accountable to their users, rather than hide behind blanket Section 230 protections. Is it too much to ask for social media companies to actually abide by their TOS? How often have we seen people complain (outside the realm of politics) about getting banned without explanation or appeal? If people are going to be building their livelihoods around these platforms (for content distribution, ad revenue, etc.) then I think it's time for these platforms to be more transparent with their content creators.