>They'd get freedom to control their platform, just without a special legal exemption that gives them immunity from the results of their control on of their pla

>They'd get freedom to control their platform, just without a special legal exemption that gives them immunity from the results of their control on of their platform. Exactly, thats the point. It's a market economy of platforms. >they're censoring politically and control what people see, shaping public opinion in large ways. Companies are allowed to choose what they say and project outward. The problem here is a lack of interoperability between platforms, institutional silos. Standardized data exports and imports. Cross platform messaging and subscription. 230 exists precisely to prevent the world you are advocating. It's not an accidentally careless law that had a loophole, it's intent is to protect private companies first amendment rights. >They should be liable for the content of their platforms since they demonstrated the ability to control whats on them. Says who? I dont think they have at all demonstrated they are good at controlling whats on their platforms. They are ok at at, at best.