It seems as though the world may never get to see the promised cage fight between Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, but we can still make sure that both billionaires are big losers by restructuring Section 230. To refresh people’s memories, Section 230 refers to a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects internet hosts from liability for third-party content. This means that Facebook and Twitter/X cannot be sued for carrying defamatory material posted by their users.

This contrasts with the treatment of print or broadcast media. If the New York Times prints a libelous letter or runs a libelous ad, it is not just the person who produced the material who can be sued — the paper is potentially liable. Similarly, if CNN carries a defamatory ad or features people who make outlandish and defamatory statements, it can be sued for defamation. In fact, much of Dominion Voting System’s successful defamation case against Fox News was based on statements from guests on its shows, not from the company’s paid reporters.

The logic of holding a print or broadcast outlet liable for third-party content is that, by wholesaling a defamatory claim to a large audience, they are amplifying the problem for the person or entity being defamed. A person yelling on a street corner that a particular restaurant sells rotten meat and gave them food poisoning is not likely a big problem for the restaurant. Yet if that assertion is printed in the New York Times or carried over CNN, it can be a serious problem.