> Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech Section 230 is not limi

> Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech Section 230 is not limiting speech, these companies would've had the right to delete people's posts and ban users with or without section 230. The intent was to encourage free speech by telling companies: "Don't worry, you won't be held liable for posts from your users, but you do have a responsibility to moderate". Which you can argue they weren't liable for in the first place, because they only provided the platform not the speech. You can definitely argue for an expansion of section 230 into a new "opinion neutrality" law, but it is not the true intent of section 230 that you make it out to be.