> Need to lose section 230 protection then. Can't be an editorial and have liability protection.
The entire point of section 230 is to enable editorial control so long as you aren't the content creator/submitter without the kinds of civil liability tied to “publisher” status otherwise, for both platforms and users on those platforms who are empowered to act in ways which have editorial impact.
And a one-sentence “you can't do X and Y” isn't really a substantive argument against Section 230.
> My understanding is they receive liability protection because they have no real editorial control,
Your understanding is wrong. They receive liability protection for editorial decisions as a means of removing the disincentive for them to exercise editorial control that would otherwise exist.
You are correct, that is how the law is currently constructed, that is why I am for section 230 reform. They should not be able to objectively edit content as they see fit while also being given liability protection. Give them the option, you get liability protection but can not censor free speech or you do not get liability protection and can edit content as they see fit. Right now they have their cake and can eat it too.
They aren’t editorializing; they are arguably trying to remove potential liabilities from their service.
If you walk into my bar and start screaming racist nonsense, I am well within my rights to ask you to leave the bar, and I do not have to let you back in. That doesn’t also suddenly make me liable for the nonsense you spewed.
Hmm.. That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech? I mean, Twitter is not an editor, whatever it publishes is not its speech, it's someone else's.
> That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech?
The act of choosing to use (or not use) ones resources to relay speech is, yes, an act of free speech (or perhaps more precisely free press, though the two are generally treated as a single right under the name “speech” for most purpose).
> Twitter is not an editor
It is, except for some civil liability purposes because of the specific Section 230 carveout for curated/moderated content which is user generated, a publisher. The choice to publish content, or not, is a speech/press act.
That's where things are getting confused. Anything Twitter publishes is 100% their speech, and they have a free speech right to say what they like, and not say what they don't like.
> So if someone gets defamed (me too entanglement) by someone else via Twitter it’s on Twitter and not the actual person who defamed the other?
It would be, except for Section 230’s explicitly carveout of most civil liability as a publisher for online publishers (whether other users or platform operators) to the extent they are moderating/curating user-generated content, rather than producing/submitting content.
No. They can agree, not agree, have no opinion, have no consideration, not even see. They can also take the position that some things they really, really can't abide.
> Yeah it’s as if they’re saying that indeed they agree with all the Tweets they don’t moderate
Nope, publishers often (sometimes with explicit notice to avoid doubt) publish things they disagree with because they think there is value in publishing it. They often also exercise their free speech/press rights to not publish other things they disagree with, even if they are submitted to them for publication.
People need to stop acting like Twitter is supposed to act as an organ of the US government.