[ch4s3]

> some sort of obligation to allow free speech

Isn’t that the opposite of what the text of the law says? Doesn’t it provide for protection when moderate content that “one may find objectionable”, which could basically be anything.

[notahacker]

The text of the law is a mess: it gives content providers the ability to define whatever moderation policy they want, but also gives objectors the right to sue for punitive damages in the event that they disagree with how it is applied, with their claims being judged by an whether they uphold undefined 'fair dealing standards'.

It's not so much an attempt to defend free speech as to bury the affected companies in litigation if their moderation policies aren't either nonexistent or up front and aggressive: exactly the situation Section 230 was written to avoid. It's just in this case the lawsuits will come from the parties seeking to cause offence rather than the offended.

[ch4s3]

I can see how it could be read that way, but are content providers really buried in litigation in practice? I actually don't have much insight here personally, so I'm quite curious.

[Nasrudith]

No because have section 230 protections in the first place. They can arbitrarily start playing Mao and banning people for arbitrady undisclosed reasons and it would be legal. That is a major Chesterton's fence.