User:ALR Student/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Section 230

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am familiar with Section 230 and Section 230 reform. It's an important topic and the authors of the article are close but are missing an understanding of the big picture. The article emphasizes two options for reform that were purely political and unenforceable instead of spending time on legitimate proposals for reform. The article frames the conversation as just about social media, but section 230 has a much farther influence.

Evaluate the article
The lead of the article is fine. The writing could use some work, but all the necessary overview information is there and it doesn't introduce any information not in the body of the article.

The article is neutral but falls into the trap of spending more time talking about the political stunts surrounding the act than sincere reform. Trump's EO and the EARN IT act are not worth talking about in such depth. They were unenforceable political moves to get people worked up. The PACT Act, SAFE Tech Act, and other proposals not mentioned, are worth more exploration as they actually address the problems in Section 230 and are not simply reactions to the conversations surrounding the 2020 elections.

The article uses poor sources. It cites to a lot of blogs and unknown newspapers for quotes and facts that could be found in scholarly articles. For example, they quote "the 26 words that invented the internet" from an unknown internet publication instead of the law review article that coined the phrase.

The "Application and Limits" section is too short and should be broken up into two sections. "Application" can talk about how the act was initially used and how it has been used as the internet grows. Because 'Application' is its own section, "impact" can be cut. The whole current social conversation about Section 230 is about its limits, so that warrants its own section. That section would be a good place to put the legislative proposals to curb section 230 instead of where they are now. The writing is awkward in places.

The article organizes all the proposals to reform Section 230 under the heading about the debate over social media. While this is why Section 230 became a hot button topic in the last few years, it drastically underplays the importance of section 230 is every other aspect of the internet.

There is no active conversation on the talk page. All the comments are a few years old.

The article provides a strong foundation but shows a surface level understanding of Section 230. It needs more authoritative citation, organization that better explains the chronology of the act without being repetitive, and balance the sincere options for reform against the political stunts.