[–] 24041048? 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago (edited ago)
I think you will find the Supreme Court rules otherwise. You either a social media platform (open to free speech) or you are a publisher (can control content). If you are controlling content (a publisher) you are subject to a different set of rules.
[–] 24040927? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Actually they have a "monopoly" of sorts and raise antitrust questions. Also, the 230 question is are they "publishers? They act like publishers when they edit or post comments e.g. "fact checks" on OPs. So if they are publishers, then they are liable to lawsuits like any other publishers. Why should they get the special protections that section 230 of the law has provided them.
[–] 24041239? [S] ago (edited ago)
Platforms are protected to censor anything they don't think is good:
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo 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 obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
[–] 24041220? 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
They are a 'public utility' and will now be leashed and regulated accordingly. (after a wave of lawsuits and class-actions).