> 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.
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.