I'm so mixed up about this whole Section 230 thing. It seems like it absolves Twitter from liability about things that its users post. But due to various pressu

I'm so mixed up about this whole Section 230 thing. It seems like it absolves Twitter from liability about things that its users post. But due to various pressure points or cultural factors or whatever, they act they're liable for things posted and have invested a lot of money in moderation, fact checking, trust & safety, "censorship" -- whatever you want to call it. None of this is illegal. Republicans seem to being missing the forest for the trees here, but I'm not sure what the forest looks like. Section 230 is the very same law that would prevent a conservative or right-wing site being liable for its users' content. The tweet "corrections" seem unwise, because those seem to not be immune from cvil liability under section 230 being that they fail the 3rd prong of section 230 where "defendant (Twitter) must not be the 'information content provider' of the harmful information at issue". So if someone posts libel on Twitter, you can't sue Twitter, but if Twitter "corrects" someone's tweet with something that is actionable libel, couldn't you sue them then?