[rowyourboat]

> There is also a parallel legal reality - that people have the right to free speech.

The right to free speech only means you can't be prosecuted for what you say. It does not compel any private entity to distribute everything that you want to say.

[dragonwriter]

> The right to free speech only means you can't be prosecuted for what you say.

It is a much broader protection against government retaliation than just "cannot be prosecuted", but it is a protection against the government, and it includes protection against being forced to endorse and relay others' speech. Compelled speech is the opposite of free speech.

[gosub100]

I don't think they should be able to claim "safe harbor" protection (or am I getting that confused with common carrier?) and then get to use censorship however they like. The spirit of safe harbor is that "we're not responsible for what random people post on here". It doesn't seem logically consistent to claim this legal protection but then curtail the content to anyone's personal sensitivities.

[gizmo686]

Section 230(c)(2)(a) is pretty explicit in allowing moderation.

Just because they are not legally liable for what users post, Congress did not want to prevent platforms from going beyond their minimal legal requirements if they so chose.

The alternative us a law that says "It is unreasonable for us to expect you to perfectly police your users; but we will hold you liable for imperfectly doing so".

[gosub100]

Just curious: do you believe in net neutrality? (I think that's the cause of my conflation with "common carrier"). But if censorship is a valid reason to deny service, why can't charter or AT&T say "we dont like what you're sending over our wires, so we're blocking or throttling you" ?

Is it merely the fact that encryption blocks the carrier from knowing what the line is used for? Or said another way, should AT&T have the right to terminate a user's service if they were certain a user was posting, say, white supremacy?