I'm also wary of solving issues with speech or information technology[0] through regulation. That said... if I run a microblogging site HN-rumors.com, somebody

I'm also wary of solving issues with speech or information technology[0] through regulation. That said... if I run a microblogging site HN-rumors.com, somebody might post "xoa is a thief", and harm might come to you because of that. You could sue the poster, but you could not sue me. This holds true even if I moderate the site and remove other content. Good so far, right? Now what if I hand-curate a front page? If I feature this libelous rumor on it, I'm acting like an editor/publisher rather than a platform and the chances you can successfully sue me go up. What if I pick the users who have been most responsive to that sort of content and email it to them in the hope they'll visit my site and spend more time there as a result? I see my legal risk increasing even more. Of course it's easy to hold a person responsible when a person is making the decisions. It's harder to say exactly what criteria an algorithm can use, and not the sort of thing I'd want a politician or bureaucrat deciding. Perhaps what I really want is for people to voluntarily stop using corporate social media so much, but I don't know how realistic that is. [0] Other technologies are better-suited to regulation; I think I wouldn't want to fly on an airplane that got only the maintenance the market demanded.