I almost lost interest in the article's stream-of-consciousness style rambling until its discussion of Section 230: > In the United States, online speech is go

I almost lost interest in the article's stream-of-consciousness style rambling until its discussion of Section 230: > In the United States, online speech is governed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a piece of legislation passed in 1996 that grants Internet companies immunity from liability for user-generated content. Most public argument about moderation elides the fact that Section 230 was intended to encourage tech companies to cull and restrict content. But moderation is complex and costly, and it is inherently political. Most companies have developed policies that are reactive rather than proactive. Many of the largest digital platforms have terms-of-service agreements that are constantly evolving and content policies that are enforced unevenly and in self-contradictory ways. I highly recommend reading from this point forward.