Google and the various social media platforms are free to *limit* posts at their whim not because of Section 230, but because they are a private company and can set their own terms of service.

Section 230 mostly protects them from liability when they *don& #39;t* limit posts. https://twitter.com/greta/status/1316462520002129922">https://twitter.com/greta/sta...

It& #39;s like these people think that repealing Section 230 is suddenly going to create a situation where they are free to post anything they want because the social media companies will somehow magically become liable for removing content. https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1316467674369724419?s=20">https://twitter.com/RyanGirdu...

I& #39;m sitting here thinking to myself, "Fool, what cause of action would you have *without* section 230?" https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1316476968167190529?s=20">https://twitter.com/seanmdav/...

Of course, this is why most of the "conservative" Section 230 "reform" bills are set up the way they are - to punish social media companies that do not affirmatively enable hate speech.

(This is, to be clear, exactly what Graham& #39;s bill does.)

The Section 230 "reform" efforts are nothing more than attempts by self-proclaimed conservatives to bring the coercive force of the federal government crashing down on private businesses that dare to make business decisions that hurt conservative feelings.