Section 230 should stay, because to eliminate it means that no competitors will ever be able to enter the market. Anyone arguing for eliminating 230 is uneducated on the topic.

The relevant question...and one that the author correctly raises...is whether Big Tech has overstepped their bounds on 230, and should be subjected to anti-trust rules. I wholeheartedly say yes they have.

There are two things wrong with section 230. It has a "good samaritan" clause for removal of content and it's not enforced. None of these big tech kikes act as a good samaritan, they have demonstrated time and time again their actions are always as a bad samaritan. Side note, the idea of a "good samaritan" is laughable on is face, samaritans are jews and are never capable of acting in a good honest manner towards the Goyim.

The right-wing argument against Section 230

muh right-wing

Article lost right there. Only three words deep and we already know it's a jewish piece of propaganda.

They are abusing 230 and yes it's a huge problem.

230 gives them immunity to liability. If someone incites a riot on Twitter, is Twitter legally liable? No. Because by relinquishing their liability they forfeit their right to censor. By banning Trump for such a subjective theory they violated the terms of 230.

230 should make Twitter like the phone. The phone company can't stop you from using the phone. Because they can't stop you they asked the government to free them of liability. So if someone planned a crime using their services they would not be held liable. This made sense considering the fact that it would be impossible for the phone company to screen every call and stop crimes from being committed using their services. Twitter does not have this same problem. It's a bit different because it is digital but they ask for the same immunity from liability.

If Twitter feels like they can control the content published on their platform then we must treat them like publishers. Allow them to ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want but also hold them liable for those they do not ban. Like any other publication.

If they want to use their platform as a public service and gain immunity, then relinquish control of content published as 230 was supposed to be.