I am actually OK with this despite the motives of the people who want to introduce this legislation.
The way I understand it, they are not censoring people, the people claiming to be "shadow banned" and "twitter deleting my followers" and "I get no traction on my tweets", are misunderstanding Twitter, or technology, or both. There's a huge misunderstanding of how large twitter is, how many tweets flow through, and how many people are tweeting. My understanding is based on personal research. What's yours based on?
I thought about going into one of the many particular individuals that have been banned, that is well know to most people except exceptional researchers like you, but I figured it would just be easy to start you with a video
People are objecting because they think it should only be used to censor ideas the objectors don't like, not things the platform operators don't like.
that's about the most generation take on his feed I could imagine
edit: people seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying, or maybe misunderstanding what is being implied in the article.
Section 230 is GOOD, and it is something freedom-fighters have advocated for for a long time. What I'm saying is that freedom-advocates have been in favor of using the threat of losing 230 protection as a way of compelling platforms not to censor speech that they don't like.
And back during the Christchurch shootings when there were proposed limitations to section 230 to make companies liable for hate speech on their platform, there was an uproar from the internet freedom advocates that this would result in censorship and less free speech.
Gosh what an ugly URL. It's the lobbying reports for Twitter. The biggest internet "freedom" advocates are the paid lobbyists of the tech industry.
Citation for claim?
So basically: no you can't just remove that anti-government, anti-corporate, etc. stuff, because once you do that you are no longer protected, so you better let EVERYBODY speak (within reason) so or else.
Sites under section 230 are well-within their rights to curate content. They're just not responsible FOR content posted on their platform. It seems like you have an objective misunderstanding of how section 230 works.
For example, HN is a platform covered by section 230 as well. If HN removes political content, do you believe that HN should have its section 230 rights revoked?
Are we next going to say google is responsible for the search results it provides, when it's just indexing the internet and returning the best match algorithmically?
HN is going to start being responsible for every piece of garbage someone posts?
If Twitter / Wikipedia is legally vulnerable for bad claims, such as by Rush Limbaugh, then Twitter would feel incentivized to remove such risky individuals from the platform. If Rush Limbaugh were held responsible for his statements, he may feel poorly about freely disclosing his narratives.