> The great irony is that if you strip a company of their section 230 protections, doesn't that just mean that they're going to censor more things on their plat

> The great irony is that if you strip a company of their section 230 protections, doesn't that just mean that they're going to censor more things on their platform since they're now liable? Why wouldn't they remove Trump from Twitter entirely if they could be held liable for his rants? Please, oh please, don't throw me in the briar patch!