Legal Opinions

Recommender systems employed by the boost and distribution features of social media constitute PUBLISHING. Avoiding "prior restraints" on freedom of speech, the Court should allow plaintiffs to hold platforms accountable, when they are shown to promote and recommend illegal content. The Court should not grant "social media" platforms an entitlement to immunity, based on an unwarrentedly expansive interpretation of section 230.

We hold with Robert Katzman's dissent in Force v. Facebook 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019), and with the legal opinion of the X.com content moderation team, holdin that "freedom of speech does not entitle you to freedom of reach". We call on all "social media" platforms to open-source their recommender algorithms, to be held accountable by their own user bases, and to start valuing humanity over profits, and users over advertising revenue. These platforms favor Censoring "misinformation" and goverment disfavored speech, while defending their right to promote violence, obscenity, theft, and defamtion on "free speech" grounds. This is a hypocritical and perverse double standard, and we adjure the Legislature, Courts and the FTC to start regulating these as "common carriers".

A "chilling effect" on illegal speech is desirable, in order give space for legitimate debate to occur.