Section 230 is important for freedom of speech.

 WITHOUT SECTION 230 SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNET NEWS AND OPINION PLATFORMS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE

ANY TALK OF ELIMINATING 230 IS AN ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH

We often hear that section 230 gives immunity to all kinds of internet practices. This immunity is limited to internet platforms that host third party content. It protects them from civil lawsuits of slander, or other lawsuits from what is posted by those using their platform. It does not protect those using the platform from their activity, especially if it is illegal content.

Most of the discussion arises from the coordinated censorship of speech by many of the biggest platforms, Twitter, Facebook etc. Removing the protections of section 230 would in effect eliminate the possibility of such platforms and also give these platforms more reasons to censure speech.

Censorship should be abhorrent by all Americans, without free speech we are not a free country. Much of this has to do with political speech, the real reason we have a first amendment. It was not written to protect pornography or crude displays against religion, but to protect political speech, the bedrock of self government. Censorship is the bedrock of totalitarian governments whether socialist, communist or fascist.

The best solution is if internet platforms would adhere to their own guidelines originally drawn up as conditions of service, prohibiting illegal content, child pornography, drug transactions or human trafficking and other such activities, also threatening others with physical violence etc. Just plain common sense things that people should not do.

When Barack Obama's political campaigns used social media, it was considered and touted as genius, when Trump did the same it was touted as criminal. Obviously it immediately showed the possible bias in these platforms that have in effect replaced the written press and is in the process of replacing broadcast media. It is indeed the town hall of the future, if not now.

The best way to address this situation is to consider these platforms as utilities that are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, sex or political view. There should be heavy penalties for this discrimination and we could indeed have a more vibrant discussion by all of the citizens of the country. 

It would be big step forward for representative democracy and encourage participation and sharing of ideas throughout the country and the world.

It is a fact that we NEED this open communication, it needs to replace the corporate media which has for some time had a monopoly on information, particularly political information. They choose to enhance what they think is in their or their patrons best interest and ignore and not report what think people should not know about. These practices have been so obvious that their approval is in some polls down to single digits, their viewership is declining and they are soon becoming irrelevant. 

They should have the right to pick and choose what they report, and citizens should have the right to listen and watch what they find most credible and revealing. That is America as we know it.  

All truth in an open and accessible information age will reveal itself. The truth will win out if it is given a fair hearing. A discussion where ideas that are opposed can be articulated by either side would be in the best interest of the nation. Only those who want a continued  monopoly on information consisting of lies and half truths want to maintain such a monopoly. Our nation and the world will be a better place with free and open display of free speech and ideas.