"Giving broad immunity to platforms that purposefully blind themselves – and law enforcers – to illegal conduct on their services does not create incentives to make the online world safer for children. In fact, it may do just the opposite.
In addressing the myriad online harms today, we must remember that the goal of firms is to maximize profit, while the mission of government is to protect American citizens and society. Sometimes private incentives will create an optimal solution, such as the free market’s ability to determine the best price for a given product. When it comes to issues of public safety, the government is the one who must act on behalf of society at large. Law enforcement cannot delegate our obligations to protect the safety of the American people purely to the judgment of profit-seeking private firms. We must shape the incentives for companies to create a safer environment, which is what Section 230 was originally intended to do. The question for us, and for this Workshop, is whether those incentives are working or whether they need to be recalibrated"
Clear and respectable outline of role of government in tech from what I would call the middle of the rational debate. Less government than described here, would require parental responsibility and a level of education saturation that is not currently seen in US. People would need to understand anonymity, cryptography, theory of government, Constitutional law, contract law, and how to set their own filters, to be able to provide the decentralized protection for children that no government can ever provide. More government than described here, might bridge a gap worth bridging in the interest of our most vulnerable.
BAKER NOTABLE
Barr / Wray DOJ Workshop re: Section 230 Online Platforms, relevant to social networks opoly, role of government