Read on Twitter
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't* limit posts. https://twitter.com/greta/status/1316462520002129922
Section 230 mostly protects them from liability when they *don't* limit posts. https://twitter.com/greta/status/1316462520002129922
It'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
I'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
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's bill does.)
(This is, to be clear, exactly what Graham'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.
