AT&T backs Trump war on Big Tech, says it’s more crucial than net neutrality

> AT&T argued that "Section 230 immunity should be modified to reduce the gross disparities in legal treatment that have emerged between the dominant online platforms and the traditional purveyors of third-party content, such as book publishers, newspapers, or radio and television businesses. There is no longer any reason that the nation's most powerful online platforms should enjoy legal immunities unavailable to similarly situated traditional companies."

Comparing communication mediums that are 1 entity to many is vastly different than any online forum where the communication is many to many. It's easy to regulate what a newspaper, TV program, or radio station says to its customers because the source of information is controlled by a single or small number of publishers. When you have everyone on the internet communicating to everyone else on the internet, it becomes a lot more difficult to regulate. Not saying it should or shouldn't be, but the comparison they are making doesn't really fit.

Also, not only does the internet have an entirely different communication ecosystem by allowing everyone to communicate, but all the other mediums mentioned are a subset of internet content, which just adds to the complexity. I do not think the current folks in government OR at AT&T are capable of devising a fair and comprehensive law or rewriting an existing law to manage how communication takes place on the internet.

I'm not surprised that this comparison would be made by AT&T.