Not without consequences. If a social media company censors content (this makes them a publisher), then the government should remove 230 protection for THAT company (opening them to litigation).

230 protects platforms that do not (or cannot) censor. These companies are PLATFORMS. They are typically small, alt-tech sites.

230 protection needs to be rescinded for companies that DO censor. These companies are PUBLISHERS. You know who they are.

But, because of AI and the high cost of litigation, the punitive removal of 230 protection from a censoring company would probably not be a real problem for them (because they're so big and flush with cash).

Removing 230 protection for ALL companies would only hurt small companies that don't have the technical capability to prevent users from posting illegal content. This would result in them being sued out of business or forced to sell out to a bigger company.

Edit: Overall, I think Styx does a pretty good job of political analysis. On this issue in particular, I think he makes things particularly clear.

Not without consequences. If a social media company censors content (this makes them a publisher), then the government should remove 230 protection for THAT company (opening them to litigation).

230 protects platforms that do not (or cannot) censor. These companies are PLATFORMS. They are typically small, alt-tech sites.

230 protection needs to be rescinded for companies that DO censor. These companies are PUBLISHERS. You know who they are.

But, because of AI and the high cost of litigation, the punitive removal of 230 protection from a censoring company would probably not be a real problem for them (because they're so big and flush with cash).

Removing 230 protection for ALL companies would only hurt small companies that don't have the technical capability to prevent users from posting illegal content. This would result in them being sued out of business or forced to sell out to a bigger company.