There is also a good deal of misunderstanding regarding the liability limitation which is provided under current U.S. law in regard to distribution of specific types of online content. That liability limit has nothing whatsoever to do with "protection" of content providers to determine, at their sole discretion, what or whose content they deem acceptable or unacceptable or their ability to prohibit content they deem unacceptable or choose not to distribute or publish thru their online service. That ability is already guaranteed by the First Amendment which prevents coercion of content providers into providing distribution of content they don't freely choose to provide based on whatever criteria or reason they may freely decide.
There is no difference in liability between online content providers and their print and broadcast competitors regarding the creation of original content. If you are a business or individual that creates, edits, or produces original content for distribution, then you are liable for that content whether it is online, printed, or broadcast as the creator and originator of that content. No difference in liability... none. One example would be articles and editorials which are created; solicited by; or contributed to Luminous Landscape which they review, edit, and publish. They are responsible for that content and bear a liability for it. That liability is distinguishable from the forum content and commentary — over which they exercise much more limited review and control — thanks to existing law which limits their liability for what you or I might generate in their forum. Without that limitation of liability for our content generation, they may risk responsibility and liability for it.
There is a realistic recognition in U.S. law of the differences between legacy media content and certain specific online media content. Those distinct differences are the ready access provided to third-parties by some online platforms to generate unreviewed and unedited content and commentary along with an unprecedented speed and volume in the production of such third-party content and commentary compared to traditional print and broadcast mediums. For instance, I cannot log into a newspaper or magazine printing press and insert my own content into their publication as it rolls off their presses. I can't insert myself into a TV or radio broadcast without getting permission from someone screening my presence beforehand or without their having the ability to cut me off if I engage in conduct or language which they find objectionable. However, my online comments or content can be instantly distributed to the world whenever and wherever I have access to an online platform or service that permits it. Limited liability for third-party user generated online content is what U.S. law provides... period. That limit on liability is just that... limited. Online content providers can still be sued over third-party content, but the current law provides for a strong defense unless gross negligence can be shown and proved.
If you want to see online commentary reduced, filtered, edited, or eliminated entirely then getting rid of the current liability limitations for third-party user generated content would likely accomplish that goal. The best protection from liability would probably be requiring pre-screening of any and all comments and content before posting and distribution. Some might think that a good idea, but it would not provide for greater freedom of speech. It would more likely reduce it dramatically! And all of the above applies not just to social media platforms, but to every website that allows for online commentary whether conservative, moderate, liberal, political, nonpolitical, or any other kind of website or online platform. Take away that limited liability protection for online commentary and watch the comment sections and forums dry up or the lawsuits soar. However, it would provide lots of new income opportunities to libel lawyers if that's your chosen profession.
I'll repeat, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting" content providers or publishers ability to choose what or whose content they may choose to prohibit from their platform, publication, or distribution. That "protection" is a First Amendment right which prevents coercing the distribution of content and allows them free choice as to what they do or do not distribute or "publish". [Please forgive the repetition, but some folks don't get it the first, second, or third time.. or ever in some cases.] As a completely irrelevant aside, antitrust law has zero impact on the First Amendment right of publishers and content providers to freely choose whether or not to publish or distribute anything from anyone. Antitrust law is focused on anticompetitive behavior not First Amendment rights regarding what a company freely chooses to publish or not publish or what content they choose to distribute or not distribute. Size, reach, or popularity are also not antitrust violations; it's the behavior exercised toward competitors or potential competitors that's of issue.
