> The bigger issue is these platforms only get those free speech protections because they're platforms. The moment they start editing content like this, they become editors to a publishing platform, and they should be held liable for all that they've published. You can't just have your cake and eat it too, today they make you happy to censor the evil orange man, tomorrow they may censor those you support.
No, this is totally incorrect.
> 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" (47 U.S.C. § 230)
It appears that removing the liability shield for social media platforms[0] is a popular position for both Republicans and Democrats by a wide margin. Nothing has transpired, yet.
However, the §230 is nuanced. There's case law where the liability shield defense has been rejected. See the defamatory information issues [1] where the site merely editorialized the headlines and was deemed a publisher.
No, this is totally incorrect.
> 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" (47 U.S.C. § 230)