> It doesn't protect Twitter any more than it protects its competitors or anyone else who publishes contend uploaded by other people. That's technically true,

> It doesn't protect Twitter any more than it protects its competitors or anyone else who publishes contend uploaded by other people. That's technically true, but practically, I'm not so sure. Section 230 created the conditions for the high level of online centralization and corporate-driven censorship we see now. > Force is not the answer to non-violent problems. I agree with this in general, but the first use of legislative "force" was the Congressional decree that libel and slander arguments against internet platforms will not be entertained in American courts. Is it okay to "force" citizens to endure violations of their rights without legal recourse? Does the justification for applying this "force" still apply in 2020?