It is relatively common to see HN thread discussions that complain about some form of "censorship" by Big Tech, or, more generally, about "free speech" issues (real or imagined) with respect to Big Tech websites.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to ask ourselves what is it that allows such "censorhip" or threats to "free seech" to happen. A few ideas:

1. Big Tech's position as intermediaries, aka "middlemen". Web users and to some degree internet users (cf. "tech" workers) are not expected to communicate with each directly without using Big Tech to do it. All web traffic must be observable by Bog Tech in ways that allow Big Tech to sells its "online advertising services". End result: "Surveillance capitalism".

2. Section 230. Without this immunity from litigation, arguably Big Tech could not "censor" successfully. If they could do so, then why would they oppose any changes to Section 230 interpetation. Of course, neither "censorship" nor "free speech" is really the correct word to describe the activity Big Tech is engaging in that draws controversy. Big Tech promotes certain content. It does not matter how they do it, whether they measure "popularity" or whether they accept payment for placement of ads that look like search results, or "targeted" ads or whatever.

In Gonzalez, the facts are around "recommendations". Unsolicited promotion of certain content to certain users. This is done not at the request of the user, it is not optional. It's done for Google's benefit.

These companies that profit from surveillance and associated advertising are not "neutral". They are not "dumb pipes". Given that they are under no contractual obligations to any web user, only a fool would claim they are "critical infrastructure". They are surveillance, data collection and advertising companies.

Does Big Tech need Section 230 protection in order to continue to pull this off.

When Section 230 was enacted, there were no "tech" companies. Online service providers such as Compuserve, Prodigy and for a while AOL all charged fees. There were contracts between these companies and their users. There was customer service. Users were not ad targets, they were not "the product", they were customers. Users could sue these companies for not performing the job that they were being paid to do. Then came Section 230.

People always envisioned that the internet would be used for commerce. However today "tech" companies and most importantly "Big Tech" try to make all web activity commercial. Everything anyone does using the internet is surveilled with an eye toward its commercial significance, if any.

And that practice is itself, the surveillance of all internet activity, even academic or recreational use, is considered a "business model". Users pay nothing. Why would anyone pay to be surveilled and served with targeted ads. Advertisers pay for the surveillance.

Don't be evil.

Everyone anticipated selling widgets^FN1 over the internet. No one envisioned "tech" companies. Websites with no products for sale that conduct surveillance and collect data about web users as a "business model" and, unsuprisingly, in most cases, cannot turn a profit. No one envisioned a few gigantic websites with billions of pages doing this that manage engorge themselves with advertiser spend and take over the web.

What (who) is Section 230 really for.

If centralisation and single points of failure are undesirable, and Big Tech represents centralisation and gatekeeper chokepoints that can and do "fail", then perhaps it's worth considering that Section 230 protection for Big Tech is what allows this status quo to continue and for the situation to worsen.

FN1. In Bezos' case, books.