More loosely, the fact that they deem this to be an appropriate action when it comes to their own interests would seem to condemn them if they refuse to take it when it comes to others’ interests, particularly those with whom it has a relationship of trust in any capacity.
1. Section 230 was largely enacted in 1996 to solve the 1995 ruling that "because Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and was legally responsible for libel committed by its customers" (i.e. one of the biggest purposes of section 230 was to allow companies to make editorial decisions without causing them to become legally liable as a result).
2. The law was "designed to override the decision…, so that a service provider could moderate content as necessary and would not have to act as a wholly neutral conduit."
3. However, Trump has challenged that, including with Executive Orders, although I don't think Trump's rationale is well thought through, including because he explicitly complained that his posts like "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts" being taken down was a specific example of why 230 should be revoked.
4. And some think the opposite as well, such as Democratic leaders who "believed that Section 230 led the companies to fail to take any preemptive action against the people who had planned and executed the Capitol riots" for example.
> Section 230 allows for web operators, large and small, to moderate user speech and content as they see fit. This reinforces the First Amendment’s protections for publishers to decide what content they will distribute. Different approaches to moderating users’ speech allows users to find the places online that they like, and avoid places they don’t.