3 ms·

Section 230 reform feels to me like gnawing around the edges of the problem. I've started thinking that we should consider going nuclear on online platforms wit

Section 230 reform feels to me like gnawing around the edges of the problem. I've started thinking that we should consider going nuclear on online platforms with some version of "social networking platforms funded substantially by advertising revenue are prohibited". Something that will restrict, as powerfully as we can, the existence of platforms incentivized to solely maximize user engagement. Congress can strip them of their liability shields. Facebook can set up all the moderators and review boards it wants. In the end, we all know how their bread is buttered.

xpe 6y ago
For the sake of argument, assume I agree with you. Next, would you be willing to talk about the complexities of gathering places, free speech, and who funds those gathering places? Would you be able to formulate one, two, or three basic theories (or models) of how these factors relate? Could you test them? The reason I ask is this: I think there are some recurring patterns that connect these factors. I won't claim these patterns are universal, but I would expect to find useful patterns across many regions and many periods of time. Having a tested, applicable model of how these are connected can help find the leverage points to target with regulation to achieve particular goals. Caveat: what I've stated above is, more or less, a compact statement of how I think public policy should be made, at least for the most significant issues that we face. And, if an issue is not deemed significant enough to warrant this kind of analysis, that's understandable. However, I don't think anyone should fool themselves into thinking that some 'obvious' action will also be verifiable *solution*. It might happen to seem effective to some people, but that doesn't make it an effective policy or decision -- very few of us are provably good at separating association from cause and effect.

xpe 6y ago

For the sake of argument, assume I agree with you. Next, would you be willing to talk about the complexities of gathering places, free speech, and who funds those gathering places? Would you be able to formulate one, two, or three basic theories (or models) of how these factors relate? Could you test them? The reason I ask is this: I think there are some recurring patterns that connect these factors. I won't claim these patterns are universal, but I would expect to find useful patterns across many regions and many periods of time. Having a tested, applicable model of how these are connected can help find the leverage points to target with regulation to achieve particular goals. Caveat: what I've stated above is, more or less, a compact statement of how I think public policy should be made, at least for the most significant issues that we face. And, if an issue is not deemed significant enough to warrant this kind of analysis, that's understandable. However, I don't think anyone should fool themselves into thinking that some 'obvious' action will also be verifiable *solution*. It might happen to seem effective to some people, but that doesn't make it an effective policy or decision -- very few of us are provably good at separating association from cause and effect.