[NE2z2T9qi]

> when the law in fact does the exact opposite

Yes. That’s exactly the problem people who want it repealed are pointing out: the current law offers broad blanket protection to social media companies to moderate content however they want, even if their moderation practices are highly editorial and partisan, akin to traditional publishers.

Techdirt seems to think people don’t understand that the law doesn’t distinguish between platforms and publishers. On the contrary, that’s precisely why people want it repealed or modified. Either attach platform “neutrality” requirements to these broad protections, or eliminate the protections and allow social media companies to be subject to the old legal regime attached to publishers.

[zerocrates]

There are an enormous number of people who say things like, "by doing X, Twitter (replace as needed) is no longer a platform and loses its protection."

Not in the sense of, that's how it ought to be or that a change in the law will bring it about, but under a belief that that's how things already are.

The balance has shifted a bit as calls for its repeal have become louder, so "repeal 230" is now a much more common response to disliked moderation actions, but you still don't have to look far to find people saying that a ban or notice or whatever "violates section 230."

[michaelmrose]

I don't want offensive or hateful people to have free reign on Twitter and Facebook indeed most don't.

[depressedpanda]

Sure, but are you comfortable with the effect that private companies with greater political reach than many nation states can arbitrarily censor speech and push their own politics?

I'm not, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or censorship.