Rubric · canonical · MEDIA-PLATFORM-RESPONSIBILITY-v1

Media platform responsibility under speech and harm frameworks

For arguments about whether and how a media platform should bear responsibility for content it carries, hosts, or amplifies.

Status canonical Criteria 4 (equally weighted) Updated May 2026

When this rubric applies

The argument is about whether a platform — social media, search, hosting, AI inference — bears responsibility for the content it distributes. This includes Section 230 reform, content-moderation legitimacy, algorithmic amplification harms, and platform liability for third-party speech.

Not appropriate when: the case is purely about what an existing statute requires (use STATUTORY-INTERP) or about constitutional structure of speech regulation in the abstract (use CONSTITUTIONAL-STRUCTURE).

Criteria

1. Distinguishes platform vs. publisher frameworks

weight 25%

Does the argument distinguish the legal/normative position of "platform" (passive carrier) from "publisher" (editor of content), and apply the distinction consistently?

10Distinguishes them clearly; argues for which framework applies and engages the case for the other. 7Implicitly works in one framework; acknowledges the other exists. 4Conflates the frameworks; demands publisher-style accountability with platform-style discretion (or vice versa). 1Asserts a regulatory regime that contradicts itself across the platform/publisher line.

2. Engagement with First Amendment / speech analysis

weight 25%

Does the argument engage what speech is being regulated, who is regulating it, and under what framework (state action, common-carrier, viewpoint neutrality)?

10Identifies the speech, the regulator (state vs. private), and applies the appropriate doctrinal framework. 7Engages speech concerns at a high level; misses one doctrinal step. 4Treats "speech" as a single category without distinguishing actor or framework. 1Asserts First Amendment protection or restriction without engaging doctrine.

3. Treatment of algorithmic amplification

weight 25%

Does the argument distinguish hosting third-party content from algorithmically amplifying it, and treat the latter as a distinct kind of speech act?

10Distinguishes hosting from amplification; engages whether amplification is itself a speech act. 7Acknowledges the distinction without developing it. 4Treats hosting and amplification as legally and morally identical. 1Ignores algorithmic amplification entirely.

4. Acknowledges scale and context-collapse

weight 25%

Does the argument engage how scale (millions of users, billions of items) and context-collapse (audiences merging across platforms) change the moral analysis?

10Engages how scale changes the harms and the feasibility of remedies; engages context-collapse explicitly. 7Mentions scale without engaging how it changes the analysis. 4Reasons as if platforms were small communities or as if pre-internet rules applied unchanged. 1Treats every platform as identical regardless of scale or context.

Version history

v1May 2026 · initial publication