Macedo, Stephen JosephShaw, Daniel2025-08-052025-08-052025-04-05https://theses-dissertations.princeton.edu/handle/88435/dsp01ft848v072Abstract Over the past decade, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides online platforms immunity for certain types of user-generated content, has come under increasing scrutiny. While both proponents and opponents of Section 230 acknowledge that it was instrumental in allowing for the creation of the modern internet, critics of the law as it stands today raise concerns relating to politically biased moderation, centralization of platforms, algorithmic filter bubbles, and other democracy-related issues. Consequently, numerous proposals for the amendment or abolition of Section 230 have been introduced since its passage. In this thesis, we introduce a novel approach to liability protections for social media platforms which better achieves the speech-protection and innovation goods that Section 230 was originally meant to achieve, while also achieving additional benefits relating to democratic governance and digital rights. We begin by outlining some general normative considerations for the regulation of speech on the internet, considering what ends freedom of speech online is oriented towards, and normative difficulties that emerge as a result of private platforms controlling the digital public square. We then outline the current American legal framework for content moderation on social media landscape, and compare it to the frameworks for intermediary liability in other democratic jurisdictions. We consider and reject several existing proposals for the abolition or amendment of Section 230, before introducing the framework of goods achieved by liability protection in several other areas of law. Finally, we propose the approach of tying Section 230 protections to platform federation, and consider several possible challenges to this approach, along with possible resolutions to these challenges.en-USPrinceton University Senior Theses