[1lint]

I think this ruling is overall a good outcome, but one loophole I see emerging around Section 230 protections is that social media sites are free to censor/shadowban content according to their ambiguous and arbitrarily enforced TOS. This allows them to favor user content they find agreeable, thus implicitly promoting their own viewpoints while still hiding behind Section 230 protections.

For example if a hypothetical billionaire acquirer of a social media site wanted to (implicitly) promote a cryptocurrency project, he could shadowban negative comments against the project, leaving comments in favor of the project to dominate on the site. At the same time, Section 230 would still shield his company from liability for those comments in favor of the project. This creates a situation in which the social media is in essence promoting the project, but in a roundabout way that shields them from liability. I can see this being especially problematic as it is applied to influencing elections.

In my opinion, Section 230 protections should come with some obligation to respect the principles of free speech.

[jaredklewis]

I don't think that's a loophole. On the contrary, if 230 were reinterpreted to mean that online content providers were legally required to have no editorial control over user provided content, that would be a pretty significant departure from current case law.

Section 230 is quite short and (to my mind) somewhat vague, which I think lends itself to different understandings. But I don't think it could be reasonably interpreted to mean that online publishers cannot moderate user content as they see fit.

[1lint]

I did not advocate for any reinterpretation of Section 230.

Loopholes in the law should be fixed by the legislature, not by misinterpreting the law as it is written.