Or if they retain Section 230, then they must abide by non intervention/editorial choices. There's been legal testimony in the US regarding low paid staff doing "editorial" work for social media. It's pretty blatant.
But now that it's government officials themselves are demanding censorship of whomsoever displeases them, now that *is* censorship.
Just because censorship laws were written before the existence of social media as a town square, doesn't mean the interpretation of the laws should remain stuck in time, unless one is a literalist, and that's rather irrational.
So long as businesses can opt out by being a private club, it’s consistent with libertarianism.
Social media benefit from a legal non liability law, Section 230, BECAUSE they were NOT content editors.
If they want to be content curators, then they must lose Section 230 and have the same media liabilities as all other media.
Section 230 was basically a legal subsidy to get social media to replace traditional media.
Or if they retain Section 230, then they must abide by non intervention/editorial choices. There's been legal testimony in the US regarding low paid staff doing "editorial" work for social media. It's pretty blatant.
But now that it's government officials themselves are demanding censorship of whomsoever displeases them, now that *is* censorship.
Just because censorship laws were written before the existence of social media as a town square, doesn't mean the interpretation of the laws should remain stuck in time, unless one is a literalist, and that's rather irrational.