They do have a regulatory shield though. Section 230 allows platforms to moderate their sites, while leaving them not liable for any content they do leave up. It's considered speech of the user.

This has come to a head as plarforms have grown larger. Note that even if some platforms were strictly neutral, they'd still be affected by the changes the government is proposing. It would have been very unlikely that none of the major platforms would have moderated beyond legal minimums.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...

i realize it's hard to draw a bright line on acceptible moderation, but then, is it fruitless to strengthen such laws?

seems like a lot of lawsuts and not a lot of legislating, from the wiki.

>good point, but from a tactical perspective, not moderating might have made sense, to force lawmakers' hands in passing stronger laws about spam, harrassment, propaganda, etc.

Why would companies find that preferable to moderating themselves? If the government makes laws prohibiting that stuff, then that means the companies could get in trouble if they let any of that through. If companies self-moderate, then there will be less pressure for laws like that to exist, and the companies won't get hit with penalties for missing a few things here and there.

The US government is practically incapable of taking on that role because that actually would make it a First Amendment issue.

But, as graeme has pointed out, this idea of any moderation increasing a platform's liability is as wrong as it is widespread.