Dear pedes, Section 230 is an important topic. It grants public "platforms" the right for self-protection against government threats. But in my opinion the definition of platform does neither apply to Facebook, YouTube nor Twitter because they have a moderation team based on user feelings. If it were solely based on hard law like criminal content then it would be OK and could be excused as maintenance of a public forum.

Now, obviously it does not match for us because every post on this website is the inherent opinion of the website community. This is reflected by the fact that we upvote and downvote content as well as the ability to "deport" users. This signifies the importance of resonance between posted content and the userbase. The moderration team abides by the "Trump supporter" rule thus we do not allow all kinds of content. Thus the mere existence of Section 230 does not have any effect on us. But you know about newspapers and their "opinion" labelled content. I think we could argument for our website more in that way if we would be facing any legal questions.

What is the limit of opinion-based content? I think due to the first amendment we can assume a very broad definition unless it infringes on somebody's character.

I know that legal questions are not something that the moderator team can answer due to the costs associated with them. A better idea is to scatter our servers across the global to prevent the question in the first place.

What do you pedes think?