I understand your position but I'm curious. There's more depth to the subject. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availabilit

I understand your position but I'm curious. There's more depth to the subject. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; That's section 230. Yes if it's defamatory or libel. Then section 230 is explicitly allowing the platforms to censor. The 2 sides of the problem come when it's speech that isnt listed right there. It can be offensive, unpopular, or controversial but section 230 does not allow the platforms to censor those subjects. Section 230 outright says constitutionally protected. So the main problem is that platforms have illegally broken good Samaritan protections and have effectively removed their section 230 protection on their own. However, that's problem #2. Section 230 never made allowances for punishment or lawsuits. If Twitter lost their section 230 protection, they stop existing the next day. That's the only punishment but that would be tremendous wealth destruction.