That last article equates merely seeing content on the internet you'd rather not with "harm" and it is impossible to take seriously as a result. Additionally, t

That last article equates merely seeing content on the internet you'd rather not with "harm" and it is impossible to take seriously as a result. Additionally, there is a very simple solution to this problem, and it uses tech every social network in the world already has: categorization, as used when determining which ads follow which content. As to the first amendment concerns, OK. We tie the section 230 protections to keeping their hands off the delete key instead. There are no first amendment concerns for holding nigh-monopolist social media companies responsible for the libelous, threatening, defamatory, terroristic content they choose to host every day. These companies are not good faith actors. It is time to stop treating them as such.