[kdjdoslsn]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the complaint against Twitter and Facebook. The problem that the People have is with the removal of non-illegal content by the publisher on this new type of platform, and that's why states like Florida are passing new legislation to regulate them.

They own the new public square, and Section 230 is insufficient to stop Twitter and Facebook from systematically denying their political enemies a platform.

This isn't about Section 230. We need new legislation to reign in the unchecked ability of Silicon Valley to curb speech they disagree with.

If they are protected by 230, then you've helped convince me that it's time to remove that protection.

Now I'll be downvoted by you Silicon Valley drones without an ounce of self awareness

[Hamuko]

They are actually protected by the First Amendment.

[lfkdksnsk]

The First Amendment protects businesses that won't do business with political opponents?

So if all the banks decided to stop doing business with all Democrats, you'd argue that was protected by the First Amendment?

So if you own a bakery and a Nazi insists you bake them a Nazi cake, you have to bake it I guess?

[TulliusCicero]

You're being downvoted because of the misinformation in your post. Facebook isn't a publisher when it comes to user-made posts, so calling them one is misinformation.

> This isn't about Section 230. We need new legislation to reign in the unchecked ability of Silicon Valley to curb speech they disagree with.

Unchecked? What happened to the free market that the GOP constantly talked about, the sacred thing that the government shouldn't interfere with?

Not to mention there's no actual evidence of this:

> systematically denying their political enemies a platform.

What's happened so far is conservatives breaking the rules much more heavily than progressives, and then getting very upset when the consequences kick in (though to be sure, I've seen leftists getting mad about this too).