These conversations seem to make more sense if you think of Facebook and Twitter as bars. They're open to the public but there's some rules for entry (e.g. sta

These conversations seem to make more sense if you think of Facebook and Twitter as bars. They're open to the public but there's some rules for entry (e.g. state/federal laws precluding minors and the establishment's policies around dresscode/behavior). The staff can ask you to leave or remove you when you're acting up and ban you from reentry if they deem it necessary. Other patrons of the establishment and the staff are welcome to listen to you but are not required to - and they certainly don't owe you a seat at their table just because you're inside. Open mics don't require "both sides" and typically have the same enforcement mechanisms as above. One can expect to get booed off, muted, and potentially expelled from the place if the crowd doesn't like your singing or the content of your lyrics. While I very strongly support viewing internet access as a utility - Facebook and Twitter (and similar) aren't essential (much like bars) and might be better off treated as vices to begin with. These arguments should be focused on how to build protocols that everyone can use for communications instead of platforms. I think that the concepts, expectations, and regulations of the post office and post roads should be extended into the digital world. Of course you'll need to deal with the political vulnerability that was recently exposed when bad actors are put in charge of crucial communications mediums such as the post office. Section 230 is a remarkably clear and short law which is surprising considering how recently it's been written and the protection it provides but it is probably because it is mostly stating that which is self-evident. Even opening the door to moderate reform of Section 230 is ceding ground to censors and "speech-forcers".