That’s the problem with 230 protections. Social media companies are exercising all the editorial power of publishers while having all the legal protections of platforms.
I agree - that's what I said on the other thread on social media. However, if we simply repeal Section 230, then Facebook and Twitter will get *more* heavy with bans and blocking, because they can be sued for what is said on them.
But Internet servers are private property, not public. If I try to put something onto *my* server, I can say whatever I like - just like how I can put a sign on my own lawn. However, if I put something onto a *Facebook* server, though, then they don't have to obey me. They can decide they don't want to host my signs.
Just like a wedding cake shop, right...
Anti-discrimination laws are pitched as special-case exceptions to the general rules of capitalism. The problem is that there are two extremes:
(1) "Whites-only" movie theaters, "no Jews" signs, and other real cases from the first half of the 20th century
(2) "Modeling agencies discriminate against ugly people"; "fancy restaurants discriminate against rude people"; and so forth
Most people are fine with outlawing #1, but think that #2 is going too far. So there has to be some limited middle ground. The U.S. anti-discrimination laws are justified in the same way as other specific business regulations - like how gas stations have to conform to certain standards, and food has to pass FDA inspection, etc. They apply only to certain classes of businesses, and to certain categories of people.
I could imagine having "political party" be added as a protected category - especially if the ultra-partisanship of the country gets even worse. But if that were true, I expect I'd still be hated here for saying that it means that conservatives couldn't discriminate against liberals as well as vice-versa.