IANAL, but I'm not sure how the proposed change would have any effect. If the whole idea is to treat digital content platforms the same as distributors, distributors can stop carrying publishers and specific works on their own whims regardless of whether or not they are protected speech subject to the contracts that they have in place with those whose works they are distributing. The distributors don't have a government-backed monopoly that might come along with requirements that they adhere to laws that prevent the government limiting speech. You only have recourse if the contract in place between you and the platform stipulates the terms of distributing your content. It is my understanding that this law and the updated change don't specify that the government can compel you to produce specific speech, they specify that the government can't punish you for the speech of others that you distribute.
Am I missing important context? If someone can point to resources that would better explain this to me, I'd appreciate it.
If I understand correctly, he's proposing changing 230 from
permitting service providers to moderate user content using their own judgment and values, to moderating content using the First Amendment as the baseline. So, removing a post with a controversial opinion is fine under the current law, but not covered by the proposal. The whole "publisher versus common carrier" argument is sidestepped.
My question is, what'll happen if somebody moderates beyond the bounds of the First Amendment? If Twitter deletes an unpopular opinion that's legal to publicly express, would the poster be able to sue for unlawful removal?
Am I missing important context? If someone can point to resources that would better explain this to me, I'd appreciate it.