Thanks for reading, and taking the time to comment. Please send me a link to your article when you finish it.

To your points, I’m a lawyer by training, so that’s the perspective I bring to this. Re: making social media sites “publishers,” my aim here is to hold them responsible when the speech they facilitate actually violates existing law. In other words, when they pass along fraudulent, defamatory, inciteful, or harrassing speech, they should be on the hook.

I agree policing demonstrably false claims would be challening. Still thinking about how that would work.

Re: teaching media literacy, I’m not sure that it’s necessarily the case that young people are less likely to believe misinformation than old people. But let’s assume you’re right. It’s still a good idea to target young people with our interventions for the simple reason that they will be alive for many decades to come, and will need these tools. Old people, on the other hand, will die pretty soon (sorry I know that’s harsh).

Regarding your idea of a right to reply, I mentioned in the article bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, which is basically a right to reply in the cable news setting. As for social media, I know right now some social media allow you to opt into an algorithm that shows you not only things you will agree with, but also things you will not (based on your reading history). Combined with a filter that filters out unreliable sources (you can use media watchdogs sites like mediabiasfactcheck.com and others to provide this service), some kind of Fairness Doctrine could be crafted for social media as well.