Can someone please explain how repealing Section 230 would result in preventing social media companies from censoring/suppressing stories like the Hunter Biden NY Post story? Wouldn’t removing liability shields from social media companies incentivize them to censor even more information, not less?
I get how it would impact liability to social media companies for defamatory/slanderous/libelous/dangerous content that appears on their platform.
But I don’t understand how repealing Section 230 would expose Facebook to liability for biasing/censoring/suppressing/controlling narratives, because these things aren’t illegal – the first amendment protects people from censorship by the government, not censorship from a privately owned company.
I understand how its being used as a bargaining chip to basically say “hey social media companies, if you don’t stop censoring information in a way that you determine to be most profitable, we’re gonna take away this Section 230 protection you lobbied so hard to get” – I don’t understand the stated argument that repealing Section 230 would legally help prevent issues like Facebook suppressing Hunter Biden NYPost story: it seems like its just to rile up the base to play off of Trump supporters’ anger about how annoying it is that social media companies manipulate and control narratives and suppress some content.
Are people who support #REPEALSECTION230 in support of laws that prevent social media companies from censoring/biasing/suppressing information?
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society