Here’s an irrational thing about the assault on §230 that I haven’t seen emphasized enough. You can’t actually forbid platforms employing their judgment to curate (or “censor”) content. That’s protected by the 1st Amdt, not §230. So nobody who knows anything is arguing that.

Instead, the argument is, effectively: “If you curate in a way I disapprove of, you should be liable NOT for the curation, but for *totally unrelated* speech that you DIDN’T restrict, in case it ends up being defamatory or otherwise tortious.”

But the people who object to the platforms moderation policies don’t make a substantive argument that it’s justifiable or good policy to make Twitter responsible when a user defames someone. It’s just a cudgel to discourage First Amendment activity they can’t directly prohibit.

The inaccurate mantra “you have to choose—publisher or platform!” is basically a way of making liability for third party speech sound like some natural or automatic concomitant of any level of curation, without actually having to argue why that makes sense. Which it doesn’t.

Instead of a substantive argument, you assert that the only possible metaphors are “newspaper editor” and “telephone company”. But why? Why not “bookstore owner” or “talk radio show that takes calls” or “cocktail party host”?

The idea that EITHER you’re a dumb conduit with no control over third party speech, or else you’re fully liable for anything they say, is just silly and doesn’t match our intuitions about any of those roles.

Anyway, the original point was: There’s no logical connection between these things. The fact that a platform removes or fact checks accounts or posts in a way you think is unfair just has *nothing* to do with whether they’re actually responsible for other content.