Your link supports GP's assertion. There is no rubicon to be crossed. Both the letter and the intent of Section 230 is to allow Twitter and Facebook to moderate however they wish. (Although the fact checks are authored by them, and therefore don't fall under Section 230; Twitter would be liable if they were shown to be defamatory).

Fact checks on Facebook at least aren't authored by them. They come from third party "fact checkers" of dubious legitimacy.

Nothing about section 230 says that platforms have to publish what people say, or that they are unable to moderate or editorialize the content:

>This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments.

Hall's quote from "The Friends of Voltaire" describes Voltaire's views concerning the revoking of Helvétius's right to publish De l'esprit, its ban in Rome, and more. By my reading, Hall doesn't imply that Voltaire meant to also 'defend to the death' the right for Helvétius to force a given company to publish his book - something which wasn't needed as it was quickly re-published across Europe.

Caesar has crossed this Rubicon so many times there's a 4-lane highway with a Waffle House at the rest stop. Forum moderators have been exercising their right of free association for a long time.

Why would Twitter (and FB) agree to be regulated as common carrier, with limited ability to discriminate in its service to the general public? What should it/they get in exchange?