Post

U.K. citizen here, so not an expert on section 230. So what is their role if they’re not ‘neutral’ which I’m taken to mean as ‘hosting other people’s content’?

Pre 230-A personal website where everything you post- you are liable for all speach An internet sewer where anyone can post anything you don't care-only liable to reply to subpoenas and takedowns But then there is the third thing

A site where users can post and the mods delete/block ban when encountering slurs or spam or porn or their ex brother in law Steve or ppl who wear blue or however they want- no one was sure of anything, does this count as curation and create liability- Section 230 says no

The point of 230 was that they shouldn’t have to choose between being neutral, common carrier, or a publisher, as every other medium must, because that choice would inhibit massive growth

That's crazy. You're basically saying that the entire Internet should be censored by Internet service providers. Whatever happened to the campaign for Net Neutrality?

No, 230 allows platforms to moderate as they wish without being deemed publishers and liable for what users post. W/out 230 platforms don't moderate at all and the user posted content evolves them into a mess worse than 4chan, or they mod and deal with lawsuits trying to hold liable for user content

The first part of what you say is definitely true. But the situation without 230 is that you need to make a choice between moderating and not moderating at all. And not moderating at all probably means not using the algorithm, so I personally feel that the dynamic w/o 230 is preferable.

Net neutrality was *only* ever about internet *access* providers.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the idea that they are neutral in terms of merely being a conduit for communication and not being responsible for the content of others which is definitely not going to be neutral.

However, I think it gets kind of muddy when they promote their own content and you consider the role of content algorithms and those biases. But this is something for the upper courts to determine, not civil juries. There are definite 1A ramifications to any decision.

There is no requirement for neutrality anywhere in the law.