Half truth. Section 230 needs to be reformed to make it consistent.
If a social media company is a service provider for speech, fine. They should be shielded from liability so long as they take reasonable steps to remove illegal content. But, at the same time, they should be required by law to host legal content without discrimination.
If they want to pick and chose what stays up, they are, in fact, a publisher and should be legally liable for anything and everything on their website.
Half truth. Section 230 needs to be reformed to make it consistent.
If a social media company is a service provider for speech, fine. They should be shielded from liability so long as they take reasonable steps to remove illegal content. But, at the same time, they should be required by law to host legal content without discrimination.
If they want to pick and chose what stays up, they are, in fact, a publisher and should be legally liable for anything and everything on their website.
Weird how these old fucks seem to live forever..