>The claim is that these actions fall under the purview of "curation" and "moderation" from either side respectively. IIUC, if Twitter/Facebook chose, they cou

>The claim is that these actions fall under the purview of "curation" and "moderation" from either side respectively. IIUC, if Twitter/Facebook chose, they could legally just block those tweets/posts altogether under the guise of Section 230. In fact, they do that sort of thing all the time. The only reason they've started putting "labels" on these is because they prefer not to block stuff completely. Either way, both section 230 and the fact that they're private (rather than government) entities give them that latitude. Without Section 230, they'd likely just block all those posts and much, much more in order to avoid litigation. That said, I'm less concerned about section 230 WRT to Twitter and Facebook and more concerned about small sites and blogs. Without Section 230, anyone with deep pockets could just bury anyone who allows comments on their site in lawsuits. Twitter and Facebook could fight back and likely succeed. But anyone without millions to spend on legal fees could easily be forced offline. And so I wonder, what value would be added by removing section 230 protections? I'd expect that the only folks who would really benefit would be lawyers -- and the rest of us would be poorer, both in terms the diversity of voices and diversity of platforms, for it.