It should be observed that CDA 230 only operates to preclude the bringing of
a suit against the platform seeking to ﬁnd it liable as if it was the publisher of the
defamatory content. Even if it did not, the fact that many acts of political
disinformation will target public ﬁgures of various kinds may mean that
claims like defamation and libel may as yet be relatively weak legal tools to
bring to bear. For instance, even without CDA 230, a successful suit by a public
ﬁgure would need to meet the standard set under New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, which requires proof of “actual malice.” This is a challenging
burden that requires plaintiffs to show that the act was committed with
“sufﬁcient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact
entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.”24
Social_Media_and_Democracy