>While I support upholding section 230 I find irony in reddit proclaiming their support for users and everyday citizens. The majority of the site is overrun by zealots and trolls who relentlessly punish any non-conformance woth their chosen orthodoxy. Their moderation rarely maintains communities but rather restricts discussion, dissent and freedom of expression.
So what?
There's nothing in Section 230 or any other US law (this is a US case, so I'll focus there only) that makes being a "zealot" or a "troll" or "relentlessly punish[ing] any non-conformance woth[sic] their chosen orthodoxy" or "restrict[ing] discussion, dissent and freedom of expression" in a private actor's[0] forum a criminal act or (with the exception of defamation[1]) a civil tort.
Don't like what folks say or how they moderate? Ignore them. Or sue them (most likely a waste of time and money, but don't let that stop you).
So what?
There's nothing in Section 230 or any other US law (this is a US case, so I'll focus there only) that makes being a "zealot" or a "troll" or "relentlessly punish[ing] any non-conformance woth[sic] their chosen orthodoxy" or "restrict[ing] discussion, dissent and freedom of expression" in a private actor's[0] forum a criminal act or (with the exception of defamation[1]) a civil tort.
Don't like what folks say or how they moderate? Ignore them. Or sue them (most likely a waste of time and money, but don't let that stop you).
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ru...
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation