The issue with 230 is it uses a broad word like "offensive" to describe what kind of content can be removed. We need clear legal and limited examples of what can be removed, and requirements atleast that a forum who cencors thing outside of those limits clearly states it in their mission statement (like td.win)
I like it as a more target option, but I'm skeptical as to whether it would do anything to help the specific issue of overzealous electioneering cencorship.
They shouldn't have had special protections in the first place.
They technically don't, 230 should not apply to them as written.
The issue with 230 is it uses a broad word like "offensive" to describe what kind of content can be removed. We need clear legal and limited examples of what can be removed, and requirements atleast that a forum who cencors thing outside of those limits clearly states it in their mission statement (like td.win)
Maybe we should just break up Facebook, Twitter, and Google like we did Ma Bell.
I like it as a more target option, but I'm skeptical as to whether it would do anything to help the specific issue of overzealous electioneering cencorship.