Once Again, Social Media Bans are Misunderstood

Guys, it's not that Social Media cannot ban/censor by viewpoints. They absolutely can, given that they are a private company. Well, that's assuming that they are not colluding with government interests that are directing their actions. That WOULD be censorship. But, generally, they CAN decide whether or not to allow people access to their platform. Well, except those cases that involve Favored Race (not White, not Asian - those are NOT Favored), or Religion of Peace (excluding Christians, particularly those that actually believe in their sacred books, and Jews, because...), or LBGT... or those wanting to dress in the other sex's traditional clothing, or claiming that they REALLY are the sex they claim to be. You know, IMPORTANT things. But, not viewpoints. ALL Good People - that is, Correct-Thinking People - have the same thoughts on the major issues of our time. Failure to adhere to those rigid lines is clear evidence of WrongThink, and justifies the bans. However. There is that inconvenient legislation known as CDA - the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was passed because of the explosive growth of the online porn industry, and intended to shield minors from exposure to that influence. Like most legislation, it was something of a failure. Porn has increased beyond all imagining, minors find it laughably easy to bypass filters, and, sadly, some have even taken advantage of the technology to get involved in the vast underground porn using minors themselves. The censorship issue comes up under Section 230, which essentially means that the various internet services that allow social media or online interactions to flourish are not personally responsible for that content. In other words, they can't be sued when someone posts something icky or provocative. But, that freedom from responsibility comes at a cost - they have to be neutral in their actions. They can ban bare buttocks, for example, as long as they do so in a neutral way. Censoring a picture of a baby with bare hiney, while permitting a LBGT activist's picture in assless chaps, would be unacceptable. That's viewpoint discrimination. Likewise, they can let their platform become a 'Wild West', and let anyone post anything. Even if bigoted. The SMALL exception to that ability to censor posts is if the post can be connected - however thinly - to porn. Hence, the Decency part. By NO stretch of the imagination does any claim of "False Information" hit that standard. By keeping a 'hands-off' policy in place, the social media providers have adopted the same practices as the telephone companies - you can say anything on your phone calls, and they won't take your phone away, unless a court has ruled that they can (for example, a customer who uses their phone to threaten or harass others - the courts can direct the phone company to refuse them service, based on evidence provided to the court). If, however - and, this is the case with today's media providers - the company interjects themselves into the content of posts, they lose their protection against being sued for those actions. So, like Trump, you can suit for viewpoint discrimination. If the courts rule in favor of the tech giants, they can kiss their 230 protection goodbye.