The subtle point is that the public forum cannot be owned, and that while the public forum is subject to the law, no one can moderate its content.
What has effectively happened is that the public forum has arisen in the cyberspace. We were not prepared for that since that has never happened.
If the govt hired a contractor to oversee a public good, the contractor could not decide who was allowed in or not, or who was allowed to speak, that wouldn't fly under the law.
Some of the large platforms have (accidentally?) come to own the commons. They cant exercise control just like any other standard property, while the commons are still subject to the law of the land.
Instead of a blanket statement like "my property, my rules" we should be working to define the commons. That is a valid debate. We can debate that definition, which is similar to "what constitutes a monopoly?"
This is the correct perspective imo. Our tech has outpaced our laws. We as a society need to rethink how we operate and move forward with these new technologies without being buried under the wave of change they bring.
Section 230 was our first attempt and it has served us decently. I think it's time for a tune-up with a fresh perspective now that we have a few decades of experience under our belt.
The subtle point is that the public forum cannot be owned, and that while the public forum is subject to the law, no one can moderate its content.
What has effectively happened is that the public forum has arisen in the cyberspace. We were not prepared for that since that has never happened.
If the govt hired a contractor to oversee a public good, the contractor could not decide who was allowed in or not, or who was allowed to speak, that wouldn't fly under the law.
Some of the large platforms have (accidentally?) come to own the commons. They cant exercise control just like any other standard property, while the commons are still subject to the law of the land.
Instead of a blanket statement like "my property, my rules" we should be working to define the commons. That is a valid debate. We can debate that definition, which is similar to "what constitutes a monopoly?"