Some on the Right smirk as Sen. Josh Hawley pens legislation to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or to ban “infinite scrolling” on social media apps.

I believe an infinite scrolling ban pertains to social media addiction, not their political bias. Infinite scrolling is used to keep people on their platform longer (since there's no definitive end), thus banning it would allow people more control over how long they use a platform.

Repealing §230 is a terrible idea, I agree. We don't want Saidit being sued because some troll said something mean. (They don't even need to win, a lot of people sue just to waste someone's time or incur legal costs.)

Perhaps it could be re-worded, but really the answer is simple: enforce the law. §230 only applies to platforms, not publishers, so when a company starts removing content in bad faith, they don't get its protection.

But protecting a free and open internet means not using punitive regulations or policies to hamstring social networks because of the scandal of the day.

Punitive regulations and policies are what we need. These companies must be punished for their actions. Rehabilitation can work, and it's something we need to do more, but punishment works too — and you can't just do one and exclude the other.

Rehabilitation without punishment doesn't provide enough risk, and punishment without rehabilitation doesn't provide enough reward. We need good behavior to be more rewarding, and bad behavior to be more risky. It's simple economics: people will do what's less risky and more rewarding.

Big Tech isn’t powerful because it has money, but because it has delivered superior products, those that have left platforms such as AOL, Myspace, and Yahoo in their wake.

This simply isn't true. Firstly, having more money inherently allows them to provide a better product: they can pay more developers, technicians, designers, marketers, etc. You got'o have money to make money, as they say.

Second, platforms that provide better products, such as Saidit and Gab, aren't as powerful as their competitors because that's where all the people are. It's not like these platforms are missing any deal-breaking features. People just don't know about them or care enough to make the switch.

The powerful platforms of today can afford to comply with cumbersome rules, while new market entrants cannot.

Yes, but we need certain minimum requirements that all platforms must meet. In the case of censorship, it's actually easier for companies to just not do it. So the argument doesn't really apply here, though they do have a good point: Congress would probably just help these companies by passing counter-productive legislation that does more harm to small businesses than big tech.

But policy "solutions" dreamed up by technologically illiterate bureaucrats and power-hungry politicians would no doubt be even worse.

Yes, I agree. We need more people in government who not only know how technology works, but also who genuinely want to make a real, positive impact. We simply don't have that. The answer is to vote for someone else: not a D or an R.