* There's a controversy in progress over the potential repeal of "Section 230", which limits the liability of social media companies and the like for materials posted on their systems. Section 230 is part of the "Communications Decency Act of 1996", and on the face of it makes perfect sense: should booksellers be legally liable for content in books they have on their shelves? Most people would say NO.
However, now both Republican and Democrat Members of Congress are saying Section 230 needs to go -- but are saying so for entirely different and opposed reasons:
In more detail, Democrats say that Section 230 allows platforms to avoid liability for spreading misinformation, hate speech, and violent content -- and in particular materials related to sexual abuse of children. Online companies are reluctant to perform content moderation, both because of the expense and because they get it caught in crossfires between users. At the same time, they may have algorithms that actually promote bad behavior online.
Democrats, though not Republicans, understand there are downsides to "sunsetting" Section 230; new regulations need to be defined to take its place. Greatly complicating that effort is the reality that the goals of the two sides are in conflict. This issue is not going to be easily resolved.
