> You precisely describe the nature of section 230 In the original authors' own words (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-and-former-re

> You precisely describe the nature of section 230 In the original authors' own words (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-and-former-rep-cox-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-precedent-on-section-230 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...): > Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content presentation. [...] That interpretation enables Section 230 to fulfill Congress’s purpose of encouraging innovation in content presentation and moderation. The real-time transmission of user-generated content that Section 230 fosters has become a backbone of online activity, relied upon by innumerable Internet users and platforms alike. Section 230’s protection remains as essential today as it was when the provision was enacted. The original authors believe that algorithms are protected. The original authors of Section 230 also don't believe that Section 230 prohibits biased platforms or prohibits platforms from having an agenda. Ron Wyden's take on the "platforms are biased" argument (https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-section-230-facebook-regulations-neutrality https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-sect...): > Section 230 is not about neutrality. Period. Full stop. ---- That being said, should we have better protections for platforms being strong-armed by state actors? Yes, absolutely. The government has many levers it can pull to influence private speech, and those levers need careful safeguards and we need checks in place to prevent state actors from threatening platforms and using political power to bully them into making specific moderation decisions. But while that is an admirable goal, it has nothing to do with Section 230, a law that is itself a check on government power to punish companies over moderation decisions. If you're worried about private entities being influenced by state actors -- as you say "often with the implicit threat of regulation and anti-trust action" -- then giving the government more power to determine what is and isn't "good faith" moderation is heading in the wrong direction and would make the problem even worse. The solution to the government strong-arming platforms into removing content is not to give the government more power over moderation decisions.