> Obsession with supposed censorship This opinion piece forgets or (more likely) completely ignores that these companies have in fact censored people including

> Obsession with supposed censorship This opinion piece forgets or (more likely) completely ignores that these companies have in fact censored people including a sitting president. People, including some doctors, were being censored because of thoughts on the Corona lab-leak theory (which seems to have some meat to it), hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (both of which have been proven safe and moderately effective, though the jury is still out on long-term effectiveness), and vaccine hesitancy (mRNA vaccines are still new and the public has a right to be a little skeptical). Right or wrong, that is what happened. This action is investigating the perceived coordination among the major social media networks that engaged in such censorship. This coordination, if true, is a version of antitrust because it is anti-competitive much in the same way OPEC is an anti-competitive organization. I don't think however that attacking section 230 is going to solve this. I also think that those claiming censorship are going to have a hard fight in court to prove their case, because tbh they don't have much of a case - there are other outlets and other ways of communicating. That and I frankly don't like the thought of the government pressuring companies on matters of speech or press. However this action is _not_ claiming traditional antitrust rules have been violated as the author attempts to inject. The Democrat plan is more traditional antitrust in that it wants to break up companies rather than prevent coordinated censorship.