[southeastern]

The fact that there even is a discussion about whether what he's saying really is sedition is enough. They're a private company, that just opens them up to way too much liability. It's not their responsibility to be a platform for all sides, for better or for worse

[chr1]

Twitter was very happy when after vote fraud in other countries it was helping to promote revolutions, several years ago. Section 230 specifically frees them from responsibility if they behave as a platform and opens to much more liability if they decide to filter out some speech.

[wilsynet]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

You should read Section 230. It doesn’t say that if you filter some speech that you have liability. In fact it says quite the opposite: if you make a good faith effort to filter some speech then you aren’t liable.

[wilsynet]

Sorry, I meant to say: You aren’t liable for good faith efforts to filter speech. It doesn’t say anything about being liable forever more.

[chr1]

Thank you, i was misremembering the description of how someone wanted to change section 230 as the actual section 230.