[cetahfh14615]

I can't see this panning over well without the supreme court establishing some sort of discretionary middle ground.

One camp says the platforms are like newspapers, the other says they are like email companies. Imo the platforms are neither.

Content moderation is necessary, moderation of more extreme and malicious viewpoints is necessary, but in recent years a boundary has been crossed with regard to what constitutes "malicious" content (e.g. someone rationally questioning a supposedly widely held viewpoint and being silenced without explanation. The act of censoring someone for making a good faith argument solely because the censor disagrees is in itself malicious)

The companies have shown a lack of discretion in this regard and the current application of the 1st is unsustainable long term