I don't see how section 230 has any relevance here.
Section 230 protects against liability for not removing user provided content. Removing user provided content was fine before 230 and 230 did not change that.
What section 230 did is make it so that for user provided content that appears on the site if someone has a beef with that content it is the user that provided it that bears responsibility, not the site that is hosting it for the user.
Wonder why I was downvoted for what I think is quite relevant. Do we not think that their whole business model will have to adjust accordingly? For good or ill. And that will affect the whole nature of services offered. Including either better service, “curated” content or complete removal of such services.
> Wonder why I was downvoted for what I think is quite relevant.
Because Section 230 is one of the 5 pillar of Sillicon Valley big-tech impunity-while-at-the-same-time-manipulating-content dogma. Criticizing section 230 is akin to blasphemy, no less. [reference to a well-known intolerant religion totally intended].
