Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections.
Under US law, yes, social media companies can do what they want in this particular case. But should they? They are massive and they control narratives. The fact that we have real freedom of speech proves this because we have other channels to discuss and bring attention to this issue.
There is another angle: Because of FB/Twitters massive size and control over their audiences, is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? It most certainly is.
they might only control the narrative on twitter. only around 10% of americans would be a monthly active user on twitter. the world is not twitter, or social media. It might feel like that. Plently of people are still getting their news from other places. the article is still on nypost.
> is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference?
Lets say CNN decides to not publish this story, is that election interference? Now their viewers won't know about it.
You could also say its election interference to run an unfounded story in the first place
But there's two layers here, does free speech apply to social media. No it doesn't, it's not the government. What would be free speech violation is if you criticized the government then had the government tell the social media company to remove something.
Then there's the hypothetical, if social media companies had to listen free speech. Is spreading manipulative false information protected free speech? That seems abusive to me, close to slander.That's not protected speech.