The posts should be allowed particularly if they're false. If people are allowed to say true things, then that's not particularly valuable information. However, the content's of someone's lies usually says more than the truth (which can often be obtained elsewhere).
Why should Twitter be forced to take actions based on your preferences? Make a distributed messaging/publication system and use your power to say what ever you like. Twitter has a lot of power and they are free to use it. The internet wasn’t designed with a winner take all philosophy and the technical infrastructure still supports end user as publisher model.
This platform/publisher dichotomy is made-up bullshit. You have to write and publish something yourself to be called a publisher. Moderation on an internet forum doesn't make you a publisher. Is HN a publisher too? dang pretty actively moderates the conversations here.
But editing, rearranging, and deleting someones words can make entirely new meanings of it. In music they call that sampling. In social media they call that 'feed'. In politics they call that propoganda. In reality we call it bias.
Are you saying publishers can’t arbitrarily decide what to publish or not? I think you will find that publishers have a lot more say so over their content than e.g. phone companies.
Publishers can be as arbitrary as they want, but they are held liable for what they publish. Section 230 gives civil immunity to "information service providers". If someone libels you on Twitter, you can't sue Twitter. But if Twitter starts making editorial decisions as to what is fit to publish and what isn't, then they could lose their section 230 protections and open themselves to tons of lawsuits.
I've read that before and I've discussed it with a lawyer (among other related articles & topics). He rolled his eyes at much of it, but he also rolled his eyes at the "platform vs publisher" distinction that so many naive people make. Still, he agrees that social media companies are tickling the dragon's tail when it comes to Section 230 protection.
Before you dismiss my anecdote as one mistaken lawyer, note that the chairman of the FCC (who is a lawyer) and Justice Clarence Thomas both think that Section 230 doesn't offer nearly as much protection as social media companies seem to think it does. In response to recent events, the FCC plans to issue statements clarifying the meaning of Section 230.[1]
1. https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1316808733805236226 "Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."
I think what he said is if twitter wishes to be a publisher they should be treated as such. What they want to be is NOT a publisher but a platform since different rules apply to platforms than are applied to publishers.
Section 230 will NOT get removed. ISPs and email service providers, and blog platforms, will still be able to use it.
But companies that add/remove/replace/gray-out/delete/hide/push-to-bottom content that they claim they did not editorialize -- will be called Publishers.
So these businesses will not be able to use statutory protections that are available for non-publishers under section 45.230.
An analogy might be: a for-profit-business cannot claim tax benefits available for a non-for-profit organizations.
So the tax-code does not get removed, just because somebody was actively abusing it. It stays the same, but the abuser would face criminal investigation.
And if the abuser was found to systemically and purposefully avoiding to be recognized as 'Publisher' (or as a for-profit business in this analogy), then the criminal penalties would be more severe, then otherwise.
