3 ms·
> I have a hard time seeing how that could be unconstitutional. That case is not about whether section 230 is constitutional, it's about how it should be inter
by amadeuspagel 4y ago
> I have a hard time seeing how that could be unconstitutional.
That case is not about whether section 230 is constitutional, it's about how it should be interpreted.
- ErikCorry 4y agoI think you are right, but this means the 230 haters will be super disappointed. Section 230 is absolutely clear that the social media companies are allowed to censor as much as they want. It's the express purpose of the section to allow "censorship" without incurring liability for those things you fail to censor. The idea that by recommending or curating content the website owner loses the right to censor (that 230 explicitly provides) feels like a huge stretch to me. So the case becomes pretty narrow: Whether a) the action of YouTube promoting content is protected by 230 or b) promoting content is only protected by normal free speech rules including the 1st Amendment.