[olliej]

Define free speech in a way that allows a platform to ban offensive content, while requiring them to publish all content.

Also this is contextually a clear retaliation for speech that the government does not like, and their arguments are pretextual.

But also if a platform loses 230 protectIon if it restrict political opinions then sites would need to leave racist and homophobic comments up, personal attacks against the authors, etc. Because if they lose 230 protection they become directly liable for content on their site if the filter any of it.

That was the whole point of section 230 - sites have a legitimate reason to want to stop arbitrary content being hosted by them, but they only had the “i’m just a dumb pipe” defense as long as they left everything up. Preventing that is literally the reason section 230 exists.

But here we have a president who doesn’t like one platform’s content moderation policies, as has decided to rewrite the law in order to make that moderation illegal.

It is clearly retaliatory, and it is clearly with the intent of restricting the speech of those entities.