I've seen reform-section-230 folks have literally nothing to say about this point. 230 is the only basis that protects those who would host speech online. Murkying the freedom to host seems murderously bad for the internet & speech.

> Section 230 increases free speech by limiting the liability of the platforms.

Section 230 decreases free speech because platforms are able to curate their content and shut down certain voices.

"The ability to curate their content" does not come from section 230, it is guaranteed by the First Amendment and the prohibition against compelled speech. All Section 230 does is ensure that a site which does more moderation is not exposed to more liability than a site which does less.

Between this and your other comment above, you seem very confused as to what Section 230 actually says. I think you need to do some more reading about it before posting comments here.

> I think you need to do some more reading about it before posting comments here.

Unnecessary. I am aware. It allows you to moderate yet still be treated as a neutral non-moderated purveyor of information.

No, it allows you to attempt to moderate all illegal content, and not be punished if you miss some. It doesn't have anything to do with curation vs dumb firehose. It was made to allow websites to have user generated content without fear of the obvious result of user generated content. Without section 230, or the protections it provides, website operators are liable for the crap that users put on their website. Zuckerberg would not open himself up to liability, he would lock down posting anything on facebook that wasn't extremely, obviously mundane, and probably try to pivot.

It doesn't say illegal, it says good Samaritan blocking of objectionable material.

If it doesn't have anything to do with curation (publisher) vs firehose then what does this mean:

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker

What is a publisher and why do they need to say this? What distinction is there? Were they treated as a publisher before Section 230?

> I have a hard time seeing how that could be unconstitutional.

That case is not about whether section 230 is constitutional, it's about how it should be interpreted.

I think you are right, but this means the 230 haters will be super disappointed.

Section 230 is super clear that the social media companies are allowed to censor as much as they want. It's the express purpose of the section to allow "censorship" without incurring liability for those things you fail to censor.

The idea that by recommending or curating content the website owner loses the right to censor that 230 explicitly provides feels like a huge stretch to me.

So the case becomes pretty narrow: Whether the action of YouTube promoting content is protected by 230 or perhaps promoting content is only protected by normal free speech rules including the 1st amendment.