Let's put it another way. Bookstores are not liable for defamatory books they sell (unless they authored them). That has never been conditioned on the bookstore

Let's put it another way. Bookstores are not liable for defamatory books they sell (unless they authored them). That has never been conditioned on the bookstore being "neutral"- a Marxist bookstore is treated the same as Barnes and Noble. > it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism Is it clear? Have you read what the authors of Section 230 have had to say recently? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/00260045345/authors-cda-230-do-some-serious-230-mythbusting-response-to-comments-submitted-to-fcc.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/00260045345/autho... "The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to "interpret" Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website's moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment" (pg 17) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-Cox-Wyden-FCC-Reply-Comments-Final-2.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-C...