SOLEDAD: WELCOME TO MATTER OF FACT. SOCIAL MEDIA IS JUST ONE OF MANY FACTORS THAT PLAYED A ROLE IN THE DEADLY ATTACK ON THE U.S CAPITOL. BUT IT'S A HUGE ONE. THAT ATTACK WAS OPENLY PLANNED ONLINE FOR WEEKS FOLLOWING THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. BUT FOR YEARS DISINFORMATION, CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND CALLS FOR POLITICAL VIOLENCE WENT UNCHECKED ON SOCIAL MEDIA. NOW THE IMMENSE POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY OF BIG TECH HAS NEVER BEEN CLEARER PROFESSOR OF LAW AT FORDHAM UNIVERSITY. HIS RESEARCH IS IN COMMUNICATION LAW AND POLICY. PROFESSOR OLIVIER SYLVAINE, TWITTER BAN OF THE PRESIDENT OR EVEN ALL THE ISSUES THAT FOLKS ON PARLER ARE HAVING AND SAYING, HEY, THIS IS A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. THAT IS NOW BEING VIOLATED BY A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY. DO COMPANIES ALWAYS HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT LIMITS ON T PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THEIR SERVICES >> SO, THERE ARE LIMITS THAT T COMPANIES SET OUT IN THEIR TERMS OF USE WITH USERS, AND THOSE COMPANIES HAVE TO ABIDE BY THOSE TERMS AS USERS DO. SO THAT'S A LIMIT THAT EVERY PARTY WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE THOUGH, ABOUT WHAT THE LAW LIMITS AND SECTION 230 DOES ALLOW THESE COMPANIES TO MAKE THESE MODERATION DECISIONS THROUGH THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE WITH USERS. SOLEDAD: WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DO YOU THINK THAT TWITTER AND FACEBOOK AND EVEN YOUTUBE, WHICH YOU MENTIONED, DO THEY HAVE IN LIMITING SOME OF THIS SPEECH, HOW CAN YOU HELP SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES DO A BETTER JOB WHEN IT COMES TO MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION. HISTORICALLY, AND MAYBE I'M >> BIASED BECAUSE I'M A LAW PROFESSOR, LAW IS THE WAY THAT WE DO THAT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT, AS I MENTIONED A SECOND AGO, SECTIO 230 HAS CREATED AN IMMUNITY, SAFE HARBOR, FOR ENTRY IF I -- ENTITIES LIKE TWITTER AND FELT THE BRUNT AND BURDEN OF LAW IN WAYS THAT EVERY OTHER KIND OF MEDIA COMPANY WOULD. THAT IS NOT ALLOWING FRAUDULENT CONTENT, HARMFUL CONTENT, UNLAWFUL CONTENT. NOT JUST NOT JUST AWFUL CONTENT, BUT UNLAWFUL CONTENT. SOLEDAD: TWITTER ISVERY DIFFERENT, IS TREATED VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN "THE NEW YORK TIMES." WHY ARE THEY NOT TREATED LIKE MEDIA COMPANIES? >> IN 1996, WHEN CONGRESS ENACTE THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT, WHAT WE NOW CALL SECTION 230, LEGISLATORS DIDN'T WANT TO PUT SHACKLES ON AN EMERGENT BUSINESS, AN EMERGENT LINE OF COMMUNICATION. A VIEW THAT INNOVATION WOULD BE POSSIBLE AND THAT THAT THE INTERNET WOULD BE A TRUE, AUTHENTIC EXPRESSION OF SOCIETY IN WAYS THAT THE PREVAILING MEDIA WEREN'T. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRUE 25 YEARS AGO. THE BUSINESS MODEL THAT EMERGES AFTER THAT IS REALLY JUST ABOUT PRIVILEGING AND OPTIMIZING USER ENGAGEMENT. THE INTEREST OF MAXIMIZING OR OPTIMIZING USER ENGAGEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DELIVERING ADS SOLEDAD: WHA DO YOU THINK HAPPENS, BOTH ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT FRONT AND ALSO HOW SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES ARE GOING TO REALL THINK ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS BEING PUBLISHED ON THEIR PLATFORMS? >> ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT FRONT, I DON'T SEE A LOT OF MOVEMENT. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS HARD TO REFORM. AND THE ONLY ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR REALLY DOING IT IS THE SUPREME COURT. THIS COURT HAS NOT EVINCED A INTEREST REALLY IN NARROWING T SCOPE OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. TO AND TO INCLUDE THE RIGHTS OF COMPANIES. SECTION 230 REFORM, I THINK, IS THE MOST INTERESTING AND THERE ARE SEVERAL BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLAY IN D.C. THAT WOULD REFORM THE WAY IN WHICH COURTS EVALUATE WHETHER AN INTERMEDIARY LIKE TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IS COMPLICIT IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HARMFUL CONTENT. ADDRESSED TO YOUR QUESTION, ARE THESE COMPANIES GOING TO CHANGE? IT'S COSTLY FOR THEM TO NOT HAVE AS MUCH HATEFUL CONTENT. THAT THEY'RE MAKING THE DECISIONS BAS