Hmm. A cynic might think that Trump is really bothered by section 230. (I don't for a minute buy the explanation that it helps enemies' intelligence efforts.)

And a curious person might wonder why that is. Maybe because big media companies aren't accepting his tweets and claims as The Truth(TM)?

But an unbiased person might be concerned about the big media companies' ability to shut down other viewpoints when the big media companies decide that those viewpoints are wrong. Given that the big media companies are made up of humans, who have all the faults that us other humans do, they can be wrong about which viewpoints are wrong. If they have the freedom to shut down "wrong" viewpoints, that can in some instances be a bad thing.

Interesting times. Pity that the military budget is the victim of all this.

> But an unbiased person might be concerned about the big media companies' ability to shut down other viewpoints when the big media companies decide that those viewpoints are wrong. Given that the big media companies are made up of humans, who have all the faults that us other humans do, they can be wrong about which viewpoints are wrong. If they have the freedom to shut down "wrong" viewpoints, that can in some instances be a bad thing.

That doesn't really have anything to do with section 230. Section 230 protects them when they do not remove material. If anything, repealing 230 would make them more likely to shut down viewpoints that they think might be wrong.

The internet sees censorshop as damage, and routes around it.