You linked to an article that does not support what you say, as the EFF (who you link to) has repeatedly made clear. Nothing in section 230 requires a platform to be content neutral. It protects publishers who are blatantly biased as well as those that are neutral.

For example, suppose you run a site that is dedicated to getting Republicans elected to office, must of the site content is user comments, and you ban users who criticize Republicans. So you are not content neutral. Section 230 still protects you: if a comment libels someone, the person that posted it, not the site, is legally responsible.

> Facebook needs to act as a content neutral public utility platform if they want to remain protected by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

No, they don't. The EFF would be lying if they said this, which, however, they do not anywhwere in the piece you link to support this assertion.

Not only does Section 230 explicitly protect non-content-neutral actions [0], the legislative history and context of Section 230 and the Communications Decency Act as a whole—a censorship law whose twin functions were to impose public censorship and enable private censorship beyond what the state could even arguably Constitutionally impose (and every bit of which except the enablement of private censorship in Section 230 was struck down as exceeding Constitutional limits on public censorship)—makes clear that content neutrality was not only not the point, but the polar opposite of the point of the enactment.

[0] 42 USC § 230(c)(2): “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”. If Facebook finds it objectionable for any reason, Facebook is explicitly protected under 230 for blocking it.

This is misinformation. There is no such requirement. "Content neutral public utility platform" is not a legal concept and no similar concept is alluded to in CDA S230.

Stop spreading this confident lie.

That's quite literally not how 230 works, and completely ignores the historical reasons of why 230 was created.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...