Right, should edit/correct (but can not in original message), I don't think it is a freedom of speech issue; rather, a defamation/libel issue which is complex internationally and very different in otherwise similar jurisdictions.

My understanding that (recent news notwithstanding), generally publisher vs utility law in USA regarding ISPs, social networks, forums, etc, does take into account whether you are simply a platform (you don't moderate, just host) or publisher (you do write and moderate content), and protection against libel etc is different.

I am EXTREMELY not a lawyer but I do understand private websites have been bitten over their content once they started moderating / taking responsibility for it, i.e. unwittingly changed their status under that statute.

My suggestion to the author is merely to ensure they are taking the course that's wise and protective for themselves, in their particular jurisdiction, for their specific use case.

The recent Section 230 executive order[1] would be relevant here. Normally social networks have immunity from prosecution if they publish a defamatory or libelous statement (this is the so-called "magazine stand" model). But if the executive order is legal then selectively censoring (or "moderating") what your users post means that immunity no longer applies and you can be sued for any statement that you allowed a user to publish on your network.

This isn't directly related to First Amendment freedom of speech rights, the issue is one of liability (but the purpose of the liability is -- allegedly -- to force platforms to uphold the principle of freedom of speech).

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...

Democrats in Congress specifically grilled social network execs in the wake of the perceived “fake news” crisis in 2016 and pushed the social networks to adopt these fact-checking measures. Now the White House wants to strip their immunity for it. So, which is it? Rock and hard place?