This article is about blocking a story by the NY Post. 
    It may be true or may be false, but it already passed 
    the traditional gatekeepers.

It passed a gatekeeper, and was refuted by others. And if you're describing the NY Post as a "traditional gatekeeper", you're not familiar with the NY Post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Style

It represents roughly the midpoint between a serious journalistic operation and the National Enquirer.

In the distant past of 2007, the National Enquirer broke a sex scandal involving democratic politician John Edwards which often is thought to have played a major role in the 2008 dem primaries.

Should factually accurate information that matters to people be rejected or hidden because of style? Who gets to decide the correct style? Would you apply the same standards to alternately aligned publications of questionable style, like WaPo/HuffPo?

Almost all of the stories in the National Enquirer are factually correct. You might not like the subject matter but they are journalists.

The National Enquirer is listed at the edge between "Propaganda / Contains Misleading Info" (2nd lowest category) and "Contains Inaccurate / Fabricated Info" (lowest category).

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2...

The National Enquirier is NOT a reputable journalistic outlet.

The argument that Twitter or FB need to restrict/block content is based on the idea that Twitter/FB built readership for "lunatics" in the first place.

Bu that argument doesn't apply here for two reasons:

1. The NY Post has existed in some form for 200 years, and has built its own reader base.

2. Twitter blocked even direct messages.

The NY Post is old (founded by Alexander Hamilton!) but in recent decades has truly evolved into a gleefully trashy and conservatively opinionated newspaper, having been run by Rupert Murdoch for some time.

I completely fail to see how their rights are somehow being impinged here. They have their own mini-media empire and are part of a larger media empire.

How... exactly are they being stifled and why is Twitter obligated to amplify their voice?

I would certainly agree that this does fall afoul of Section 230, which I think was a great foundation but could use some serious rethinking.

Just because it passed the bar at NY Post doesn't mean it passes the bar at Twitter.

That's the crux of it. There is surprise that Twitter even has a "bar". People used to think of Twitter in one way, and now Twitter's actions have encouraged people to think of Twitter in a different way.

So twitter is not an impartial conduit - instead it is editorial and opinionated, and should face legal accountability for it's views as such, in the same way as newspapers?

According to Section 230, probably yes.

But I don't think Section 230 is adequate to the task.

You realize, of course, that even HN is strongly moderated? The mods kill a lot of stories here. And HN is a better place for it.

By your logic, HN should now be liable for anything that anybody posts. Is that what you want? Does that seem like it's in anybody's best interests?

NY Post is a tabloid/rag with a pretty bad reputation

and even their reporters didn't want to publish it

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-nyt-hunter...

> The New York Post’s front-page article about Hunter Biden on Wednesday was written mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it, two Post employees said.

> Bruce Golding, a reporter at the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid since 2007, did not allow his byline to be used because he had concerns over the article’s credibility, the two Post employees said, speaking on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

...

> Many Post staff members questioned whether the paper had done enough to verify the authenticity of the hard drive’s contents, said five people with knowledge of the tabloid’s inner workings. Staff members also had concerns about the reliability of its sources and its timing, the people said.