From my understanding, stripping 230 protection would just make the censorship worse. They'd have to start pre-approving all content to make sure it's not something they can get sued over.
which would effectively kill all clearweb social media causing a mass exodus to tor, completely eliminating censorship so we could have CP and buy/sell drugs and crowdfund bitcoin hitmen to kill trannies like we've always wanted.
forcing a communication platform to stop censoring people isn't censorship. telephone companies aren't allowed to ban people for saying the N-word over the phone and twitter shouldn't be allowed to either.
I really don't get how people confuse public and private communications. You, in the comfort of your own home can say the N-word as much as you like, you can call your wife a kike and ask her to steal your shekels as part of some weird sexual roleplay. What you can't do is go to your local supermarket and call the cashier a racist name. You can't do this because you're in a public place and racist and xenophobic language and behavior in public isn't considered protected speech no matter how hard you argue 'muh constitution'. Facebook and Twitter are not private spaces. They're publicly accessible, privately owned, for profit, communal spaces and any content you generate there not only becomes their property, it's also considered publicly available for the most part. Thinking of Twitter or Facebook as a medium for communication as a service is ridiculous, they're not communications platforms, they're data driven advertising platforms where you, the user (or at least your thoughts, opinions and browsing history) are the merchandise to be sold to other private companies. Ultimately all twitter have done is post a link to some actual facts on a tweet that could be considered to contain misinformation. Whether you choose to believe Trump or Twitters opinion on mail in ballots is your choice and yours alone. You have to make up your own mind like an adult.
Personally I have no stake, the closest thing I use to social media is this site. I don't have a Twitter or Facebook account and I have no interest in either. The protections they have are based entirely on legislation written to protect any publicly available forum from prosecution in the event that the forum is used to communicate something illegal. The goal is to protect, say a News network from being sued by an offended viewer if a dude walks past a live broadcast with a sign that says "Die Niggers Die" and they don't cut the feed fast enough. That protection does NOT oblige the network or provider to be free and unbiased. If that were the case then no news network, magazine, media outlet or content provider deserves that protection because they're all biased. Trump is attacking outlets that disagree with him but those outlets are no more biased than Fox News, but Trump doesn't go after them because they suck his micropeen every evening. Its all bias all the way down. Trump is biased, social media is biased, newspapers, TV, magazines, everyone is biased. You start stripping that protection and the rabbit hole ends with people like Null being forced to make a choice between giving up all our details or going to prison because of our content and that's dangerous because if that happens, there wont BE platforms for discourse. No fucker is going to risk running a forum if they can be prosecuted because some dipshit half the planet away called somebody a coon.
But ultimately the individual is responsible for critical thinking and often simply chooses not to do it. It's pretty common knowledge that all media platforms are selective in their reporting but people still use them as sources of information over other forms of media which are maybe less biased and more accurate. You find exactly the same thing in conventional print media where two newspapers might print the same story with incredibly different tones. in the uk The Sun, which is the tabloid newspaper of the masses will print any Brexit story with a hugely right wing anti-European stance, glorying in how we, the plucky UK are humiliating Brussels at every turn and fighting for our liberty and freedom from a tyrannical EU. The Guardian, a more liberal broadsheet will print the same story with a pro European stance and a slight sadness that Brexit happened in the first place. Both papers are ultimately reporting the facts, but there's a huge bias on either side. Facebook and Twitter are the same, they're owned and operated by liberals (and in Facebooks case a vaguely humanoid robot programmed the behave like a capitalist/liberal hybrid) and therefore there's a liberal bias. Trump is the president, he can make statements and announcements via the white house press staff and it will find its way to the public, as presidential statements have done for the last two centuries. Trump chooses to engage with a social media company that he knows is biased against his worldview and he doesn't think that's fair. He could choose not to use the platform but he does, and routinely uses that choice as an excuse to start silly fights with social media companies at a time when the US is leading the world in deaths from a virus which the rest of us are managing to get under control with lock downs and social distancing.
