“First of all, the old phrase “no shirt, no shoes, no service” comes to mind here. Can’t Instagram and Facebook and Twitter simply refuse service to someone?”
If a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a couple of queers then SM platforms should not be able to refuse service to anyone either.
What Twitter did is tantamount to editorializing personal content posted by one of their members. In this instance I think Trump is correct and if we get the House back this should be on the agenda day 1. Eliminate the immunity clause for these organizations.
There is no immunity clause for them. They are abusing the existing clause that is intended to keep child porn and snuff films from being posted and not being able to be removed.
It’s not meant to police political thought and what you think is satire/funny and what isn’t. At that point that’s an editor/publisher and they are now subject to lawsuits.
Trump is just telling the executive branch to enforce section 230 as it is intended. Social media took the slippery slope and gradually increased their editorializing. Now it got noticed. This is basically a warning to them to stop it or the administration will back lawsuits against them saying section 230 doesn’t apply to them any longer.