The 1996 Law [Section 230] That Ruined the Internet

It's well past time for an Internet Bill of Rights that re-implements the vision of freedoms given to us by the Founding Fathers and later architects of the Constitution, and applies it in a way that is contextually aware of the current lay of the land.

Anyone who has actually spent time online understands that private companies control all of the spaces that are akin to the "public square". Sure, you can start your own site, but by doing so you're effectively shutting yourself out from where the vast majority of people are spending their time. We cannot cede control of all dialogue to a bunch of American corporations who care far more about their own bottom line than they do about freedom or personal rights.

The author is writing in The Atlantic, a notably left-leaning publication; does it surprise you for a second that they want more censorship? In the present order, the left is advocating for censorship because they believe that it will only be used against the right. Of course, the shoe has been on the other foot in the past.

The only correct answer is a principled answer: censorship is wrong regardless of political affiliation.

Part of this, of course, needs to be an understanding that "free speech" was always intended to be speech first and foremost, i.e. political speech, scientific dialgues, etc. with a focus on defending things which are iconoclastic.

Obscenity is not the same thing at all, there's no need for confusion here, we can continue to ban people posting things that all good people believe should be illegal (i.e. the exploitation of children).

It's also totally reasonable for people to want to carve off curated spaces; this is why the law needs to be nuanced enough to differentiate between platforms, subforums, communities, publishers, bloggers, etc. rather than hoping to lump everything together with blanket statements that fail to accomplish the real goal of free speech.