> Well the current debate is on if it SHOULD not if it does

Then say that instead of saying that 230 means they “need” to be neutral.

As far as “should”, the answer is a hard no. It is not wise or prudent to inject the government into regulation of private speech to achieve short term political aims.

And yes, your plan is an attempt to regulate speech, snuck in via the back door. You would give the government the ability to decide which forms of protected speech receive extra special protections, creating a 3 tiered system. It is wholly unconstitutional, and represents a massive growth in governmental power. Hard pass.

>>Then say that instead of saying that 230 means they “need” to be neutral.

umm, read the entire line.. I clearly states "many people say that is... then they need" in this context that is clearly an opinion that people are taking on CDA 230,

>the answer is a hard no. It is not wise or prudent to inject the government into regulation of private speech to achieve short term political aims.

The very fact that CDA230 exisist is government injecting itself into the market place, it is providing a liablity shield.

your statement is akin to the people holding a sign saying "keep the government out of my social security"

We are talking about reforms to an existing regulation, if you want the government out of it, then CDA should be repealed in its entirety

>You would give the government the ability to decide which forms of protected speech receive extra special protections

Incorrect, forcing companies to abide by the 1st amendment would in no way grant the government the authority to decide which forms of speech is protected, that is not how constitutional law works

>Hard pass.

Well it is hard pass from me in allowing Authoritarian left wing Silicon Valley companies that enjoy market dominance largely on the back of government regulations that prevent competition in the market place to control public discourse in a way that is clearly biased and has the objective to rig national elections in favor of a single political party

To be clear I would equally support a total repeal of the CDA and have no liability shield for these corporations. This would likely return us to Open Protocols and decentralization which I would prefer anyway. The world was a better place before Twitter and Facebook

Anything that ends Silicon Valley's reign over human communications is a Win in my book

> umm, read the entire line.. I clearly states "many people say that is... then they need" in this context that is clearly an opinion that people are taking on CDA 230,

You used weasel words to imply that 230 requires neutrality, which it clearly does not. If you want to make a prudential argument about what the law should do, do it directly. Don’t hide behind “many people”.

> The very fact that CDA230 exists is government injecting itself into the market place

No, 230 is allowing the market to decide, not the courts. That in fact is what judicial conservatism is supposed to be about; letting the markets decide and not the courts. Without 230, all online action would be subject to civil lawsuit, and I personally don’t want the judiciary to have final say over what is and is not allowed online.

> Incorrect, forcing companies to abide by the 1st amendment would in no way grant the government the authority to decide which forms of speech is protected.

You have already said that companies should be allowed to moderate violent speech; except most forms of violent speech are actually protected! So you are saying that the government should shield some protected speech, but not others. Where, pray tell, do you draw the line? And who draws it? And how do you survive the constitutional challenge from say, porn makers who argue that their protected speech should also be censorship proof?

> allowing Authoritarian left wing Silicon Valley companies that enjoy market dominance largely on the back of government regulations

This is the kind of argument that works well on people who agree with you, and sound like utter jibberish to everyone else.

> I would equally support a total repeal of the CDA and have no liability shield

Enjoy total moderation then! If Twitter comes liable for defamatory content posted on their site, they are going to clamp down on politics hard. Why risk it?

As an added bit of irony, without 230 Trump’s account would have been banned in 30s flat; way too much risk of a lawsuit.

> You have already said that companies should be allowed to moderate violent speech; except most forms of violent speech are actually protected! So you are saying that the government should shield some protected speech, but not others. Where, pray tell, do you draw the line?

And, going back to what spurred this; what would one call Donald's little outburst? It could easily be considered both political speech and violent speech. Which wins? Even more to the point, what about his libel? That's both political, and something that Twitter could easily be sued for without CDA230.

Of course, in the case of such narrowing actually happening and surviving the courts (which seems pretty implausible), Twitter would presumably just ban him on the violent speech thing (or for no stated reason at all, as permitted by their ToS); far safer. There is some considerable irony in the fact that it's only due to the strong protections provided to websites via the CDA that he has a platform.

And that’s the core of the situation; the politicians (well, most) at the heart of this know that an end of 230 means that Trump will get banned. This is about partisan posturing, not a bona fide attempt to change how internet regulation occurs. It’s exactly like Trump’s threats to “open up” the libel laws; ignoring the fact that he has no authority to do that, he would be the first victim of such a change.