[dragonwriter]

> Facebook needs to act as a content neutral public utility platform if they want to remain protected by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

No, they don't. The EFF would be lying if they said this, which, however, they do not anywhwere in the piece you link to support this assertion.

Not only does Section 230 explicitly protect non-content-neutral actions [0], the legislative history and context of Section 230 and the Communications Decency Act as a whole—a censorship law whose twin functions were to impose public censorship and enable private censorship beyond what the state could even arguably Constitutionally impose (and every bit of which except the enablement of private censorship in Section 230 was struck down as exceeding Constitutional limits on public censorship)—makes clear that content neutrality was not only not the point, but the polar opposite of the point of the enactment.

[0] 42 USC § 230(c)(2): “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”. If Facebook finds it objectionable for any reason, Facebook is explicitly protected under 230 for blocking it.