The issue is the doctored video of Nancy Pelosi that attempts to make her look drunk or perhaps crazy. YouTube quickly decided it violated their policies and removed it. Facebook deemed it a hoax but didn't remove it. Swisher believes they should have taken it down. The key parts of her argument:
Would a broadcast network air this? Never. Would a newspaper publish it? Not without serious repercussions. Would a marketing campaign like this ever pass muster? False advertising.
No other media could get away with spreading anything like this because they lack the immunity protection that Facebook and other tech companies enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was intended to spur innovation and encourage start-ups. Now it’s a shield to protect behemoths from any sensible rules.
However, the President re-tweeted it. Where should the line be drawn?