Yup, and this is also why we can't keep it as is. It's not a matter of enforcement - there are no provisions limiting the protection given by (c)(1). There's no, "unless you act like a publisher" limitation.
Yeah, removing 230 altogether would be terrible. Maybe not quite as much as people are currently saying - I mean look at net neutrality and what a nothing burger that turned out to be (so far) - but still potentially very bad.
But if people want to keep making the publisher v platform argument, which I agree with, they really need to recognize that it's not possible to make an argument for enforcement on those grounds with section 230 as it currently is.
Moderation by topic would still be Ok as long as they still had access to the service in general. They might have to make a .win for lefties. Harassment would still get removed. The point is, even the header of what you posted corroborates this, removal from service was meant to be for objectively offensive material, not opinions. They are abusing this law, but gaining all of the legal benefits.
Yup, and this is also why we can't keep it as is. It's not a matter of enforcement - there are no provisions limiting the protection given by (c)(1). There's no, "unless you act like a publisher" limitation.
Yeah, removing 230 altogether would be terrible. Maybe not quite as much as people are currently saying - I mean look at net neutrality and what a nothing burger that turned out to be (so far) - but still potentially very bad.
But if people want to keep making the publisher v platform argument, which I agree with, they really need to recognize that it's not possible to make an argument for enforcement on those grounds with section 230 as it currently is.
Moderation by topic would still be Ok as long as they still had access to the service in general. They might have to make a .win for lefties. Harassment would still get removed. The point is, even the header of what you posted corroborates this, removal from service was meant to be for objectively offensive material, not opinions. They are abusing this law, but gaining all of the legal benefits.