These social media companies want to pick and choose what content is allowed on their site. Ok, they have that right as a private company.
That is called being a publisher. Companies that select what they want to publish, like book publishers, newspapers, blogs, or television stations, are responsible for the content that they publish. If it is defamatory, they must pay damages.
If they want to act like a publisher, picking and choosing what viewpoint to endorse, then they should be liable for defamatory content on their site. If they don't want to be liable for that, then they should stop censoring views that they don't like. It's the way the law works for everyone else, and that's how it should work for large social media companies.
Incoming all the experts to tell us how removing 230 is bad, because they know better than POTUS.
These social media companies want to pick and choose what content is allowed on their site. Ok, they have that right as a private company.
That is called being a publisher. Companies that select what they want to publish, like book publishers, newspapers, blogs, or television stations, are responsible for the content that they publish. If it is defamatory, they must pay damages.
If they want to act like a publisher, picking and choosing what viewpoint to endorse, then they should be liable for defamatory content on their site. If they don't want to be liable for that, then they should stop censoring views that they don't like. It's the way the law works for everyone else, and that's how it should work for large social media companies.