Revoking Section 230 immunity for algorithmic platforms would lead to excessive corporate censorship, harming free speech, and algorithms are not equivalent to editorial news desks.

“I've long held the view that if you want to make online platforms liable as publishers for every piece of user-generated content, then you're going to have very little free speech left cuz I just think that corporate risk aversion is going to force these guys to become even more censorious than they”

Algorithms should be subject to new laws or regulations that reflect their active role in shaping content and influencing user behavior in the 21st century.

“We need to understand the current moment in which we live which is that these computers are thinking actively for us and that is just true. And so, I think we need to acknowledge that because I think it allows us at least to be in a position to rewrite these laws through the lens of the 21st century”

Section 230 should be maintained and potentially expanded because it protects smaller companies and provides a necessary procedural tool to dismiss frivolous litigation early.

“If you have 230 as this procedural benefit that allows you to get out of these cases at the earliest stage very quickly and say you can't bring this case because 230 protects it, you can have smaller companies, you can have competitors, you can have new entrance into the marketplace”

Section 230 has allowed companies to act without accountability, and the law should be reconsidered to address bad behavior while protecting speech.

“I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the trade-offs that are involved in you know the stated one of the stated purposes of section 230 which is to pro protect free speech on the internet. It's also I believe allowed a lot of bad behavior.”

Section 230 was originally designed to promote free speech and treat platforms as public utilities rather than publishers.

“230 was meant to promote speech, not to censor it. 230 allows these big platforms, Big Tech platforms to be treated as de facto utility companies.”