I have now read the Section 230 [1]. I think everybody should really read it themselves, because it is short and clear. Firstly, clearly, IANAL. It do not have

I have now read the Section 230 [1]. I think everybody should really read it themselves, because it is short and clear. Firstly, clearly, IANAL. It do not have background of related law or case law, or legal uses of certain expressions etc. Again, this is a layman's perspective, based on my own reading both Section 230 and the linked commentaries from above. That said, I am trying my best to understand all sides of the issue myself. I may be wrong, but I am trying to be as honest as possible. My opinion above was wrong on some points. There is no reference to term "Platform" in the Section 230. Also, my comment above can be understood (and I think this misunderstanding is common) in a way that companies need explicitly and publicly claim either to be a Platform, or not to be a Platform. The third point is that Section 230, BY ITSELF, does not force companies to do choose or do anything. It actually may protect the companies from liabilities, if they choose to behave in a certain way. However, these points were not central to my argument. Although there is no term "Platform" in the Section 230, we can just use "Platform" as a shorthand for "interactive computer service", as as apparently some commenters of the law have done. Next, obviously companies do not need choose whether they are Platforms or not in the sense that they somehow would need to explicitly and publicly claim what they are. The issue is more subtle. I think some of the commenters above are not aware of how policies are formed within corporations. I work in the field (finance) where this is done all the time. There always needs to be an interpretation of laws, regulations and guidance from regulatory bodies within the corporation. This interpretation is at least implicitly and sometimes explicitly encoded in the internal policies. The corporate lawyers are central people who participate in creating these policies. The companies do not need explicitly and publicly claim to be a Platform or not. At the same time, it is 100% certain that their corporate lawyers are (and must be) familiar with the intricacies of the laws and regulations, and in a way they need to be very explicit in their thinking when forming these internal policies whether they think their company is a Platform or not, regardless of whether they document this thinking in the internal policies or nor. While the "choosing" happens privately within the company, it is in a way clear from the actions based on those policies, whether they have chosen to be a Platform or not. And this choosing becomes explicit if the said company needs to defend their actions in court. However, the commenters have a good point that the Section 230 BY ITSELF does not force companies to choose whether they are Platform or not. They need to choose only if they want protection by using the Section 230. What the commentaries above miss, however, is both implicit in the title "Good Samaritan" and explicit in the content, with the term "in good faith". If you think I am wrong, please read up or remind yourself what that story in the Bible is about. From my reading of Section 230, I fail to see that this would protect companies that censor opposing political views, for example. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230