The problem is not that Section 230 clearly requires platforms to be neutral. The problem is that it doesn’t.
Section 230 isn't in the Bill of Rights. It's a legislative gift that was given to internet companies to help them grow by granting them a special legal shield for all the highly problematic content that they host and monetize.
If they want to editorialize on the back of that content, then I don't see why they should have such special status.
We do not need to eliminate Section 230. But the definition of 'Good Samaritan' blocking and 'good faith efforts' should explicitly not include the editorial decisions of a publisher.
Section 230 isn't in the Bill of Rights. It's a legislative gift that was given to internet companies to help them grow by granting them a special legal shield for all the highly problematic content that they host and monetize.
If they want to editorialize on the back of that content, then I don't see why they should have such special status.
We do not need to eliminate Section 230. But the definition of 'Good Samaritan' blocking and 'good faith efforts' should explicitly not include the editorial decisions of a publisher.