![Revenge [720x693 - 38KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/PpfM3s.jpg){kind=link}
That's not even how section 230 is worded. Good faith efforts to moderate content for illegal stuff is different than picking choosing which political ideologies are allowed. That, by definition of that law, makes them a publisher. There's no ruining the internet by taking away special government protections from multi-billion dollar content providers. They can fend for themselves. Small platforms don't have to worry, because they are platforms. Poal doesn't ban left wing speech. Individual users might, but that is irrelevant to topic and the law. And basic common sense. Stanning for leftist billionaires to make sure they can't be sued for allowing libelous and slanderous content to be published is a pointless effort.
There is nothing in Section 230 that restricts a platform from censoring anything that they want for any reason that they want, any time they want. There is nothing in Section 230 that requires a platform to be fair, consistent, unbiased or equal. Nor is there anything in Section 230 that remotely suggests that if you're not a platform then your a publisher or vice versa.
Show me a legal definition of a publisher that suggests otherwise. Show me the law. If that definition did exist, which it does not, it would be unconstitutional. You don't have a right to post 1488 shit on Twitter. You dont have a right to call nogs, "niggers" on Facebook. You don't even pay to use their services. You have no right to access their property. They can run their business any way they see fit.
You are trying to destroy section 230 protections for everyone by demanding that businesses foo what you want them to do. Sorry, but that's not only retarded, THAT'S illegal. If you're being slandered, sue the person slandering you.
(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
Differing political opinions doesn't fall under this civil liability protection. You're mistaking making something illegal and extending government protection to people. The government doesn't have to shield people from civil liability. That's not a constitutional issue. If a company wants civil liability protection, they can moderate in good faith. Curating specific content is the same as become a news source, and a news source is liable for their content if it is slanderous, libelous, or causes other harm. A platform CAN be exempt from this liability for good faith removal of stuff like you described; calling people niggers or whatever. But if all they are doing is picking which voices are allowed to be heard, then they are just another news source.
That is resoundingly wrong.
Section 230 is used to prevent frivolous lawsuits against a platform. If a 3rd party posts something slanderous or libelous or otherwise causes a harm to another party on a specific platform, which allows content creators to post content without prior moderation, then the platform cannot be held liable. If I run a platform and John Q calls you a baby raping faggot and posts a fake video of you raping a baby, then you can't sue me for letting that post go public. You can sue John Q, but not me.
I'm not "curating content" or "acting as a publisher" by censoring content that I feel interferes with my business model, hurts my relationship with my advertisers, or that I find distasteful or inappropriate. Removing your posts, regardless of it's content or my reason for doing it, is not publishing. It is not curating anything. I am allowed to be biased in my censorship. Nothing in Section 230 forbids this. Nothing in 230 turns me into a publisher for doing what I think is best for my company regarding censorship.
You acknowledge that I'm allowed to censor people calling other's nigger, for example. Where is that line between calling people niggers = bad, and therefore censorship is allowed, and saying the election was stolen = okay, so censorship turns me into a publisher? No such line exists. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose what censorship is allowed and what censorship loses your protections. The only clear line, and the only acknowledged legal line, is at where the post violates law. In which case, the platform is required to censor or face civil and criminal charges for the post.
(post is archived)