I strongly believe we need to make two critical changes to Section 230's platform immunity: 1_ Platforms should NOT get immunity for content they're PAID to pr

I strongly believe we need to make two critical changes to Section 230's platform immunity: 1_ Platforms should NOT get immunity for content they're PAID to promote. If Facebook, X, or any other platform is making money by amplifying harmful content through ads, they should be held accountable like any other publisher. Why should they get special treatment when newspapers have always been responsible for the ads they publish? 2_ Companies need to be responsible for their product design choices. Their recommendation algorithms aren't neutral - they are actively designed to maximize engagement, and sometimes that means promoting harmful content or connecting dangerous people. Friend recommendations, "watch next" features, group suggestions - these aren't random! They're deliberate design choices that are outside the standard "user content" that Section 230 was designed to protect. To do this you need legislation that: clearly defines "paid promotion" versus organic content; is clear which product design elements and algorithmic features would lose immunity, and; sets very clear standards for what constitutes harmful content in these contexts. There have been a number of bills introduced in previous congresses, like the Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act - which would have moved the needle forward. At this point something, ANYTHING, however small is necessary. The US is undergoing a full-blown tech oligarchy coup.