I don’t concede that social media is the public square; at most, it is one piece. It also seems to be one of the less useful, judging by the overall timbre of the engagement.
Even if true, what right does the govt or people have to reprieve the companies of their property rights? Nationalization is not generally in line with our system of laws in the US.
I certainly don't think nationalization is the ideal outcome. I'd hate for Twitter to become "the" official state communication medium. I'd far rather we stop making social media public squares by requiring social use decentralized protocols, like email.
But if we're not nationalizing, we need to accept that companies operating these platforms must at minimum be regulated, just like privately owned utilities are. They're conduct should be transparent, the public should be able to inspect the algorithms in use, and most crucially, these companies must be liable for their behavior. And that is directly contrary to the goals of Section 230.
Even if true, what right does the govt or people have to reprieve the companies of their property rights? Nationalization is not generally in line with our system of laws in the US.
reply