Section 230 is an internet legislation that gives social media companies a pass on their users actions. E.g. if CNN/Fox/BBC publishes something fake on their website, as a publisher they will be legally liable to what they publish. If a user on facebook posts something similar then facebook wont get in trouble because they are not regarded as the publishers. It was created to help boost social media site momentum during the Obama administration.

Now recently since facebook/twitter have been moving into becoming the arbiters of what is true and not which makes them publishers.

From a fairness point of view, why should these social media sites benefit from section 230 while traditional media doesn't?

EDIT: Added legality

But that's not the really bad part.

Section 230 means that you can't be sued for something I say.

But it doesn't just apply to FB and Twitter. It applies to HN. It applies to Github repos and Discord channels and every person and device connected to the Internet in the US.

Get rid of Section 230 and then you can be sued for what other people say.

Which would pretty much kill all but the biggest platforms, because only they could afford the liability.

Section 230 has been protecting free speech on the Internet for 25 years. We should keep doing that.

See here[0] for more details. The title is snarky, but it has lots of good information.

[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...