Some thoughts on the toxic debate on the right to exercise editorial judgement by internet platforms.

Culture war in American politics has made online content moderation into an untouchable topic. While the right cries censorship, the left criticizes that there is not enough intervention when it comes to protecting marginalized and vulnerable users. What is being said online, and the role that internet platforms are having in taking these decisions has become a partisan issue and debate on the right to exercise editorial judgement by internet platforms has turned toxic.

In the past content moderation was once internet standard. Now, it is an issue, which has found its way for consideration at the Supreme Court. In deciding to hear Gonzalez et al vs. Google and Taamneh, Mehier et al vs. Twitter et al. the Court will broach the question of whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be narrowed.

This certainly will have implications for the interpretation of Section 230 as it questions whether, the previous status quo of the existing liabilty shield still immunizes the owners of websites from legal liability when they algorithmically “recommend” third part content into user’s feed.

Taking the issue of content moderation / liability to the Supreme Court, is an attempt to reestablish some government authority to amend Section 230. The left wants internet platforms to be more active in their moderation and do more against the proliferation and amplification of mis and disinformation or conspiracy theories. The right wants to see them be more permissive and censor less content. It’s intriguing that both camps consider weakening Section 230 as a means of achieving that.