Just saw the "Parlor" thread (which is now locked) and I wanted to give clarification on what section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 actually says because this is something politicians are lying about and it's clear people like @LuckilyARedRaider are taking politicians at their word instead of looking it up themselves.
230 does not make a distinction between publishers and platforms. It does not say anything about if you are exercising too much editorial discretion then you cease to be a platform and you then become a publisher which exposes you to more legal liability.
Section 230 does 2 things:
1. It says if you're running a website then you're not treated by the law as the speaker of things that other people put on the website (so Twitter isn't responsible when you defame someone on their site).
2. It says websites are not liable for moderating comments that are put on their website. Websites can moderate comments as they like based on their perception on what they find objectionable (though there are a few exceptions to this such as the must moderate sex trafficking)
230 was created to incentivize websites to moderate content on their sites. It made it so websites wouldn't refrain from moderating out of fear they would be held liable for content that others posted. It was literally created to do the exact opposite of what many politicians are claiming.
There is no "requirement of neutrality" clause. Moderates can moderate how they see fit. The closest thing to a "neutrality clause" is the words "in good faith" in the following part:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected "
But after "good faith" it goes on to say "that the provider or user considers to be.....or otherwise objectionable". This gives websites EXTREME broad leeway to moderate content how they see fit.
Now, if you don't agree with this law or you think something needs to be done about Twitters "censoring" conservatives that's fine but to say 230 requires website moderators to be politically "neutral" or else get branded as being a publisher of the content and held liable for all postings; that's politicians being misinformed at the very minimum.
If you would like to read 230 and decide for yourself; here is a link.
TL;DR
Politicians lie which is why you should look stuff up yourself.
230 does not make a distinction between publishers and platforms. It does not say anything about if you are exercising too much editorial discretion then you cease to be a platform and you then become a publisher which exposes you to more legal liability.
Section 230 does 2 things:
1. It says if you're running a website then you're not treated by the law as the speaker of things that other people put on the website (so Twitter isn't responsible when you defame someone on their site).
2. It says websites are not liable for moderating comments that are put on their website. Websites can moderate comments as they like based on their perception on what they find objectionable (though there are a few exceptions to this such as the must moderate sex trafficking)
230 was created to incentivize websites to moderate content on their sites. It made it so websites wouldn't refrain from moderating out of fear they would be held liable for content that others posted. It was literally created to do the exact opposite of what many politicians are claiming.
There is no "requirement of neutrality" clause. Moderates can moderate how they see fit. The closest thing to a "neutrality clause" is the words "in good faith" in the following part:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected "
But after "good faith" it goes on to say "that the provider or user considers to be.....or otherwise objectionable". This gives websites EXTREME broad leeway to moderate content how they see fit.
Now, if you don't agree with this law or you think something needs to be done about Twitters "censoring" conservatives that's fine but to say 230 requires website moderators to be politically "neutral" or else get branded as being a publisher of the content and held liable for all postings; that's politicians being misinformed at the very minimum.
If you would like to read 230 and decide for yourself; here is a link.
TL;DR
Politicians lie which is why you should look stuff up yourself.
