In order to maintain the protections of S230, don't Twitter and other for-profit forums need to demonstrate that the status quo is manageable and safe? > BBC r

In order to maintain the protections of S230, don't Twitter and other for-profit forums need to demonstrate that the status quo is manageable and safe? > BBC research shows QAnon-related phrases and hashtags were used more than 20 million times on Twitter between January and September 2020. There will come a time where Twitter faces pressure to purge its roster of troll and bot accounts that serve obvious political ends. Not just Russia but also Iran, China, Israel, DNC, GOP, and so forth....Twitter already knows which accounts are used for disinformation, not only from the accounts' content and commentary but also from evaluating and correlating IP data, time of activity, browser specs, and other usage data and metadata. However, they hurt their MAU every time they purge users. In fact, that's precisely why they go after QAnon, I bet. That line of propaganda has fallen out of favor due to the death of Ashli Babbitt, and is on its way out the door with Trump's presidency. QAnon-shilling accounts are arguably likely to go inactive soon anyway, regardless of account suspension. In this case, Twitter finds itself in a bit of a zugzwang because of its long history of inaction. Republicans and Democrats alike have taken the stance that S230 is not a tenable, effective policy for keeping internet fora safe and free of propaganda. Personally I think Twitter has to cull far more than 70k accounts before I will believe they have put decent and truthful communication above the profit motive. Sure, propagandists are willing to set up troll networks and pay for ads, but the cost to our society is so great that Twitter can't just treat that kind of manipulative engagement as "easy money."