My understanding that any website on the internet that allows users to post content is protected under 230. Including Hacker News, which then becomes potentially liable for any content posted if its removed.
They already do? Comments on NYTimes articles are covered under Section 230 just as comments made on Facebook or Twitter.
The NY Times also enjoys 230 immunity if they host comments on their site. Literally every site on the internet that has comments (including HN) have this protection.
...and every other site on the internet, including this one. Or IRC channels, or Discord, or search engines...
They're not required to, of course. They are exercising their right to free speech. They are also not required to publish, amplify or otherwise create a platform for any speech they don't want to.
This is flat out wrong. If Twitter posted something that was libelous, or a Twitter employee wrote something libelous they would be subject to libel.
This is so wrong, it verges on being misinformation.
Twitter does not have absolute immunity from liability.
Can you post a link to the bit of CDA 230 that you think prohibits moderation? What court case makes you think that a site can't have CDA230 protection if it starts removing content?
Here is a breakdown: https://imgur.com/gallery/wPsPtd7
On the other hand, and maybe its due to my lack of knowledge on the 230, how's report-and-remove of posts different? Twitter already has mechanisms to remove flagged content so how's this incident different (apart from being blatantly political).
Lastly, does anyone know if Facebook and YouTube are also protected under 230? I imagine that GOP wants to make an example of Twitter but for the sake of consistency Facebook and Youtube should get the same treatment.