[snowwrestler]

Any site that accepts and displays user-generated content (including HN) is covered by 230.

[Simulacra]

Let's call it for what it is: absolutely immunity from libel. Something the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. DO NOT have. Once Twitter stepped across the line and started policing speech is the time for them to lose their 230 immunity.

[ncallaway]

> Let's call it for what it is: absolutely immunity from libel.

This is flat out wrong. If Twitter posted something that was libelous, or a Twitter employee wrote something libelous they would be subject to libel.

This is so wrong, it verges on being misinformation.

Twitter does not have absolute immunity from liability.

[DanBC]

> Once Twitter stepped across the line and started policing speech

Can you post a link to the bit of CDA 230 that you think prohibits moderation? What court case makes you think that a site can't have CDA230 protection if it starts removing content?

[Simulacra]

AH! Thank you for pointing out that Sec. 230 DOES NOT contain anything about prohibiting moderation. It's simply IMMUNITY. Blanket immunity. Thank you for pointing that out. Another great reason why Section 230 needs to be changed.

[nutjob2]

That is not true. The same rules apply to everyone.

Here is a breakdown: https://imgur.com/gallery/wPsPtd7