Section 230 is flawed but important. Sites shouldn't be punished due to the actions of users. However it should be amended to require sites to uphold certain sp

Section 230 is flawed but important. Sites shouldn't be punished due to the actions of users. However it should be amended to require sites to uphold certain speech protections of their users in order to receive section 230 protection. In other words making the decision to censor content that isn't illegal or beyond a reasonable standard of moderation (ie: removing spam and the like) means the site is taking responsibility for the content posted by users and therefore is liable for it. Simple as that, you can't have it both ways. I think the provision should also only come into effect above a certain size. We dont want the FCC coming down hard on the petunia enthusiast's forms because they banned someone for starting threads about something other than petunias. And I think reasonable people can agree on the idea of a forum growing large enough to defacto become "public". There is already a legal framework for treating private property as public forums, for example when city councils would meet on private property they couldn't censor discussion just because they weren't on public land.