Taken from the CQ Researcher: “Internet-based services enjoy broad legal protections over the third-party content they distribute, a safeguard offered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Signed into law in 1996 when social media was in its infancy, Section 230 grants immunity to social media companies from virtually any form of civil litigation, including defamation, for third-party content on their platforms. The law also allows the companies to restrict content that violates their terms of service if they act in “good faith.” But as social media platforms’ influence grows, critics across the political spectrum argue that Section 230 needs to be amended. Victims of online harassment say tech companies should be held accountable for violent or deceptive content they allow on their platforms. Some Republican lawmakers accuse social media companies of moderating user content with an anti-conservative bias. Yet free speech advocates argue that Section 230 is among the most valuable protections for free expression and innovation online. The result is a robust debate over whether Congress should weaken — or even eliminate — the protections offered by Section 230.”
That’s what “they” say about the topic, and you should read their positions to educate yourself on the issue before deciding what you say: Should protections be curtailed for social media platforms
In this essay, you will use the research you compiled in the annotated bibliography to take a stance on the issue of Social Media Regulation. Your goal is not to prove that you are “right” and someone else is “wrong.” Instead, a good argument focuses on presenting the author’s position as reasonable, credible, and well supported. This is exactly what you will do in this essay: you will take a stance on what should be done about Social Media Regulation, identifying a specific audience you intend to persuade to action.
Your paper must address: the causes of the problems and how your solution will either fix or ameliorate them, an argument about why your solution would be effective, the benefits of your solution, and you must acknowledge your own opposition (what problems might stem from your solution or what reservations might another group have about your solution).