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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
Twitter are not editing they are editorializing.
Especially if they determine its not in their financial interest.
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.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We're seeing with YouTube that they're deleting posts against Communist China:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23324695
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221264
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317570
Worse what happens when you cross Facebook imposing Chinese censorship on the whole world?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13018770
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12479990
What happens when Google is used to push liberal bias?
Vimeo deletes videos claiming such bias from Google despite clear evidence in video:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20302010
"If we break things up, we can't stop Trump" replace Trump with any political candidate you've ever supported by the way to understand why this sort of thing is dangerous:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20265502
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20697780
I am sure I will get into fire for this comment, considering my citations were flagged to death because people don't agree with others. But mark my words, if the tables were flipped and they were censoring all your favorite candidates, you'd be outraged and against anything that would hinder free speech.
If you take away anything from this post be sure to be this:
Twitter, Google, Facebook etc are considered "platforms" the moment they editorialize content, they become publishers. Platforms are protected for obvious reasons, they cannot reliably contain every single thing a user posts, but a publisher dictates what is published, and is definitely liable for what they publish. These platforms want to be hybrids, but that gives them dangerous power to push agendas as they claim they are trying to stop.