Why Section 230 has to go

Russia Today points out the crux of the Section 230 abuse:

YouTube has benefited from the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for years. Its selective censoring of the 2020 election content, though, makes the case for why Section 230 should be thrown out.

It is becoming more and more common that big tech companies are censoring the opinions of people who upload to their platforms. The latest turn is that YouTube is going to begin deleting videos that are critical of the 2020 election in the United States. It waited until the ‘safe harbor’ deadline of result certification to start doing this, but the election isn’t fully in Joe Biden’s pocket yet, with Donald Trump still counting on a Supreme Court case challenging Biden’s victory in several states.

Most media outlets haven’t even waited that long to declare Biden the president-elect. For those who don’t know, they do not have that kind of power – especially not in an election as momentous and contentious as this year’s.

Dem-GOP divide is a myth. When it comes to true tyranny, Big Tech-style, Congress easily agrees to throw the people under the busDem-GOP divide is a myth. When it comes to true tyranny, Big Tech-style, Congress easily agrees to throw the people under the bus

Trump and his supporters are claiming Biden won because of widespread voter fraud, and claims such as this are what YouTube is no longer going to allow. The ostensible goal is to preserve the integrity of the election – but that’s not the job of a platform enjoying Section 230’s protection. Yet, it’s precisely Section 230 that permits this: declare certain content “harmful” and you can curate it with no consequence for violating people’s free speech.

Notice that this was published even before YouTube banned honest and factual statements about the 2020 election fraud. This is not the time to get cute and start trying to delicately out-pedant the pedantic legalistics of the Big Tech companies, this is the time to kill 230 and break their pernicious influence over the public.