Section 230 - Why eliminate it?

[taiwan_girl]

There has been a lot of talk about Section 230, and the article from @Jolly on OpSec got me thinking about it more. Below is the part of the article in the thread that jolly reference that talks about it.

QUOTE
While Donald Trump is on his way out of the White House in just under two weeks, the fact remains that the two largest social media outlets in the world, Facebook and Twitter, have suspended the accounts of a sitting President of the United States. Now, they’re private businesses – they get to make their own rules and they’re protected from any legal fallout by Section 230, unlike the rest of us folks on the internet.
UNQUOTE

Section 230 of the code is only 26 words long.
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

I think that @xenon had a good point in a earlier forum thread. If I am reading the section correctly, if the internet companies (Twitter, etc) can be held liable for what people put on their software/apps, they would probably be MORE strict in what they allow on their, not LESS strict.

Am I understanding it incorrectly?

[xenon]

Yeah - I'm no lawyer, but repealing Section 230 helps no one.

I think "repeal Section 230" is just a branding exercise for "make new rules". Which is fine.

But, Section 230 is not a "gift". It seems like basic free speech protections for platforms and users.

If platforms were liable for their users speech, everything would have to be pre-moderated.

[jon-nyc]

TG - that interpretation is exactly right. THere's actually a twitter handle called "Bad 230 Takes" that makes fun of the popular misconceptions on this topic.