I don’t think that’s accurate but I’m open to correction. I think Section 230 protects them from liability from what 3rd parties post on the platforms. I don’t know how repealing that would stop the activities of censoring speech, limiting distribution, or worse pushing forward the content they want people to see.
They are publicly traded companies but they are private enterprises in the general sense, meaning, they are not subject to the 1st Amendment. They can pretty much do what they want with content, user data, data feeds, search resutls, advertising, and so much more. I’ll say it again it is a MK-Ultra head screw on a massive scale when you can control what people see and hear, and take punitive action for what they say or write that is otherwise perfectly legal.
......well, we’re talking apples and oranges. Your right on Section 230 protecting them from liability of third parties on their platforms for saying bad things.
But, that’s not the point. The point is that Dorsey, Zuckerberg and the other guy “selectively” enforce what in effect is censorship of political thought and they think 230 protects them from being sued when they block you. Trump and others want to STOP that and modify (not repeal) the law to allow people to SUE for being censored and violating their free speech rights. Thousands of lawsuits will bring em all to their knee’s (meaning Zuckerberg, Dorsey and the other guy whose name i can’t remember).