Post

Or that Brendan Carr, Trump's pick to head the FCC, sent Meta a letter right after the election telling Zuck that fact checking was against the First Amendment and Carr was poised to take action if Meta kept fact checking. www.fcc.gov/sites/defaul...

Is there a nuance, given by Carr, that using fact checking as a basis for *removing posts* is against 1A (again, I personally am not claiming that), but not fact checking commentary like community/company notes next to the post.

You can read is letter for yourself since I linked to it. I don't see that nuance. Second, private companies removing speech is not a 1A issue at all (other than that their own editorial discretion is protected under 1A) unless it was under orders from a gov't entity.

Outside of 1A, isn't there a grey area where removing posts, even without govt pressure, shows editorial discretion in content, which removes section 230 protections more broadly.