[lliamander]

Absolutely! Indeed, the protection was crafted specifically for platforms to engage in moderation without being held liable for the content they host. The whole point is to encourage moderation.

But section 230 is not a blanket immunity for anything a platform may wish to do with their content. If the actions of the social media platforms fall outside of section 230 protections (and I think such a thing could be argued) it is on the following grounds:

1. One of the stated purposes of this legislation was to maximize user control over what they view (230[b][3]). Social media censorship and algorithmic feeds take away that power.

2. Protection from civil liability extends only to those actions taken in "good faith" (230[c][2][A]). I'm not fully prepared to to outline what I think is meant by good faith here, but I think it is fair to say that not all moderation actions we have seen are "in good faith".

Outside of section 230, I also think that platforms which employ "fact-checkers" should be open to defamation suits if they make false statements of fact. Recently a court ruled that these fact-checks were "protected opinion", which is utterly stupid.