Citron, Danielle Keats, and Mary Anne Franks. “The Internet as a Speech Machine and Other Myths Confounding Section 230 Speech Reform.” Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law, 2020, https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1833&context=faculty_scholarship

The main point of this debate was around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is an attempt to get tech companies to get rid of any offensive content on their platforms. The writers then discuss how Section 230 can be weaponized and used to the company’s benefit instead of protecting the general public, as it was intended to. Many different groups and companies have things to say about Section 230. For example, “enthusiasts” of the section say that “it's even better than the first amendment,” but others argue that it must be changed now that it is the 21st century and more people have access to the internet than before. This paper cites many other people, mainly congressmen, senators, and others involved in legislation. They also provide a list of solutions in order to fix the problems with Section 230.

Persily, Nathaniel and Joshua A. Tucker. “How to fix social media? Start with independent research.” Brookings, 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-fix-social-media-start-with-independent-research/

The main point of this debate is that in order to start fixing the problems that social media prompts (which is a long list of many issues such as misinformation, eating disorders, etc) is by allowing independent research on social media. The writers argue that the companies keep the “raw data” to themselves and do not share it with independent researchers. They propose a solution, the Platform Transparency and Accountability Act, that will essentially help outside researchers gain data without “endangering user privacy.” This would help increase transparency with the intentions of social media platforms and ties into my research of teens on social media because the algorithm social media promotes definitely is tied into this issue.

Both articles show efforts to try and make social media better for the user and keep the companies accountable for the wellbeing of their users. The mechanism that the first source uses is a reform in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Acts whereas the second source focuses on a reform of data sharing. Both also show the stance that legislators and congress has on these issues as well as how they contrast from the thinktanks and other professionals who oppose their ideas. I think both will help my argument of what can be done in order to mitigate the rise of mental illness amongst teens.