By your incredibly broad (and wrong) definitions of “censorship” and “free speech”, I suppose we are okay with “censorship” and against “free speech” in some situations. We’re okay with it if it’s completely voluntary or if it’s limited in scope and enacted by private persons without government interference.

That said, that’s not what those words actually mean. Censorship means that the government is punishing you for your speech or you’re unable to say it at all without fear of government-imposed consequences. It does not include the consequences of speech imposed by society or private persons without government enforcement, nor does it include simply making the speech less visible (like hiding comments or adding context). (It can extend to other things, like bleeping out swear words or putting a mosaic on genitalia or something like that, but those are inapplicable here, and your definition of censorship is still too broad.)

Free speech is the right for private persons to say (or not say) whatever they want without government interference. It does not mean that your speech is free from consequences imposed by society or other private persons, including corporations, and those consequences may include (but are not limited to) having your speech removed from or hidden on some privately owned platform(s), being delisted from or downgraded on some privately owned search engine(s), or being banned or having your profile locked (permanently or temporarily) from some privately owned platform(s). It doesn’t mean that you have the right to say whatever you want on someone else’s private property, the right to be heard, or the right to a particular audience or an audience of a certain size.

Under these (correct) definitions, we are very much pro-free speech and anti-censorship. The only ones who don’t understand what free speech and censorship are are people like you who make the definitions so broad that just about everyone is opposed to free speech in some shape or form.

Also, the 1A only restricts the government from interfering with speech, not private individuals, private corporations, or NGOs. What is or isn’t protected by the 1A means nothing to what should or shouldn’t be moderated.

Either websites have free speech and allow anything or they don’t and the censor/moderate it.

You’re presenting a false dichotomy even under your fallacious definitions of free speech and censorship. There’s also the option to allow absolutely nothing.

But seriously, even under a relatively broad definition of free speech that goes beyond being free from the government, it’s actually possible to have free speech and moderate some speech on the platforms. For one thing, even under your own definitions, libel is not protected free speech, and so moderating it would not be infringing on free speech. Furthermore, hiding some comments but still allowing them to be easily viewed or adding context is not against even the broadest plausible (though still wrong) definition of free speech.

If you [c]ensor in any way shape or form then you shouldn’t be protected from suits or lash back. If you don’t censor or mod then you are hands off and therefore immune.

First off, no one is saying that any sites are or should be immune to backlash over moderation decisions. In fact, we have supported that as 1A-protected free speech (even if we disagree on specific instances of backlash). You’re attacking a strawman there.

Second, §230 expressly says otherwise, and the specific motivating intent behind the law was to allow sites to be free from liability for third-party content even if they moderate. There was a court case that held a site liable for third-party content because they moderate their site to be family-friendly, which provided the impetus for §230.

There’s also the general issue that there is no distributor liability for defamation, period, under the 1A, and the right to moderate your own platform is guaranteed under the 1A (free speech and free association) and property rights, so you’d be wrong even without §230.

Nothing will change if 230 is removed.

That contradicts what you just said, and also, you don’t know that. You haven’t even presented evidence to support that claim.

Go ahead and flag this comment to since it goes against what you believe and it will only prove my point even more.

That isn’t even the site engaging in moderation; that’s just users using a tool provided to them to moderate the site.

I also don’t see how it will prove your point at all. You weren’t previously alleging that TD hides content that they disagree with, and that would do nothing to show that corporations control the net (they don’t; they only control parts of it), what sites are protected from liability, or that your definitions of free speech and censorship are true and correct.

Also if you rtfa you would have seen it wasn’t trump that blocked it but, a senator. Anything to bash trump even if you have to lie and make crap up.

If you’re talking about the omnibus spending/COVID bill, you’re partially right. Trump did veto that bill on other grounds, and one senator (Lindsey Graham) is threatening to block overriding the veto of that bill if it doesn’t repeal or reform §230, but it’s not clear if that threat has any weight behind it. That said, Trump did veto another bill (the NDAA) because it didn’t repeal §230. No senator was responsible for even threatening to attempt to block it AFAIK.

Gonna laugh when our internet is just like China’s and NK.

Well, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.