The problem is, Section 230 is a liability shield for when someone posts child porn on Facebook. It doesn't say that Facebook CANNOT remove non-child-porn posts, it just says that as long as they remove child porn posts when notified, that they aren't liable for it.
Section 230(c):
(2): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—"
(A): "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be [...] harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or" (emphasis added)
Translation: you can censor the fuck out of whomever you want, as long as anyone on the planet finds it objectionable, and there is no affirmative duty to censor evenhandedly or fairly.
You aren't acting in good faith when you hire foreign ultra-leftists to form a council that decides to censor only conservatives and skeptics based on tenuous, imaginary grounds while also openly endorsing or ignoring provably and clearly murderous ideologies and terrorism and child sexual grooming.
The problem is, Section 230 is a liability shield for when someone posts child porn on Facebook. It doesn't say that Facebook CANNOT remove non-child-porn posts, it just says that as long as they remove child porn posts when notified, that they aren't liable for it.
Section 230(c):
Translation: you can censor the fuck out of whomever you want, as long as anyone on the planet finds it objectionable, and there is no affirmative duty to censor evenhandedly or fairly.
You aren't acting in good faith when you hire foreign ultra-leftists to form a council that decides to censor only conservatives and skeptics based on tenuous, imaginary grounds while also openly endorsing or ignoring provably and clearly murderous ideologies and terrorism and child sexual grooming.