I think this is a warning in case of a ruling against them on 230- in that case, the censorship may actually increase if they are forced to choose between viewpoint-neutral moderation (230 protected) and operating as a publisher (where they stand to lose protection). If they go the publisher route, expect a Youtube-like strike system or similar, designed to limit their exposure to suits arising from libels on their platform.
To their slight credit, FB at least have been making small movements away from censorship and 'publishing', but there's a lot of bullshit to roll back.
Shouldn't they just stop the banning accounts to avoid regulatory impact?
I think this is a warning in case of a ruling against them on 230- in that case, the censorship may actually increase if they are forced to choose between viewpoint-neutral moderation (230 protected) and operating as a publisher (where they stand to lose protection). If they go the publisher route, expect a Youtube-like strike system or similar, designed to limit their exposure to suits arising from libels on their platform.
To their slight credit, FB at least have been making small movements away from censorship and 'publishing', but there's a lot of bullshit to roll back.