Slobo encapsulated what I was saying -- are the social media outlets to be considered utilities or are they publishers? I think it's obvious that they've become publishers, it's just that they don't attempt to control their writers (reporters, authors, whatever they are.) This has led to very serious societal problems, including rampant racism, politicians who deliberately and widely spread discredited conspiracy theories, foreign intervention in our elections, vicious attacks on individuals who have become unpopular for various reasons, widespread efforts to exploit (monetarily and politically) the naive and stupid, and so on. Part of the reason I posted the original comment was a story I read about a public health official who wanted Californians to wear masks. Somebody who opposed masks on ideological grounds posted her personal phone number and email addresses on rightwing sites, and the woman got jammed up with hate mails and calls.
Making social media outlets into publishers wouldn't be outright censorship, it would simply make those outlets responsible for what they put up, or allow people to put up. Think of it as a jobs program for underemployed people -- Facebook alone would have to hire tens of thousands of people to monitor their spaces. You could even soften it a bit -- once something libelous is published, they have three days or a week to take it down without jeopardy. Or you could say that somebody would have to complain about content before it had to be taken down. I also think all postings should come from verified, non-robotic email addresses.
To Slobo -- I'm not agreeing with Trump. He's at war with Twitter for a specific reason. I think Twitter could leave all of his posts up, as long as they don't create for Twitter a legal liability. Or, they could even leave up those that do create a legal liability, if they want to take a chance on going to court.
To Alan -- you said, "Also, you can't sue anyone for opinions which is in essence biased. You can only sue for defaming someone for libel. Even then, that only applies to regular people not famous people or people in politics." I think you have the last part of that exactly backwards. Politicians and other celebrities who seek public notice are somewhat restricted in their ability to sue ordinary people for their commentaries, not the other way around. If a celebrity says "Alan acted like an asshole," you can sue him. If you say a celebrity "acted like an asshole," there's a very good chance that the courts would throw our his lawsuit on the grounds that he seeks publicity and he has to take the bad with the good. I think things are somewhat different in Europe and the UK.
