[trcollinson]

That's actually not the point of Section 230. The point is that if you remove Section 230 and then you accuse someone of trolling, flaming, or swearing, that could be considered libelous.

If you would like to learn more, and see exactly what happened when Section 230 was not in effect, check out this case:

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. and Daniel Porush, v. Prodigy Services Company, "John Doe", and "Mary Doe".

Stratton Oakmont (yep, the one that was made by Jordan Belfort, the Wolf of Wall Street), won that case against Prodigy and, yes, John Doe and Mary Doe. You, the user, are John Doe or Mary Doe. Section 230 protects you.

[NOGDP]

What's not the point of section 230? I literally didn't say anything about section 230 or suggest that sites that moderate should have those protections revoked.

[trcollinson]

You are right, my apologies. You were responding to another person who was having a discussion about Section 230. I thought you were adding on to their thoughts about Section 230. If your point is entirely that users can backlash against a platform, then your point is correct.

[NOGDP]

I'll also add that the excessive censorship and manipulation of opinion on massive sites such as reddit, facebook, youtube, etc. is somewhat disturbing. People tend to think that only governments can censor excessively, but the fact is most public discussion in the West now happens on a few massive private platforms, and these platforms have a lot of power over public opinion.