They can argue that all they want, but like, section 230 is part of an actual law with actual words and requirements and they don't let the government just decide to do that lol. Courts are gonna have a good time with that EO.

Good question...but by who?
Thats the question really...

It is not a hard question actually, so not quite sure why you avoided it. If you believe noone can moderate fairly then you should also believe that nothing should be moderated.

So, yes or no - do you think nothing should be moderated?

All the best.

Right, some people are biased. Yet others manage to be professional.

I think we've come a long way from your original description of the notion that some people are capable of being neutral, which was this:

So, that's progress, I suppose.

Twitter is moderated...racism and all that...but fact checking...dunno man...whos gonna check the facts?

Fact checking is usually done by someone called a "researcher" or a "fact checker". Those are real job titles, you can google them if you like.

Asking u politely, can u respond to that one post?
To me thats what its all about...

I understand that...like CNN right?
Please stop!

Like u trust a Fox fact checker right?

I can't respond to Thayer's post because I don't have a view on it, nor do I know enough about this bill and how it relates to the status quo to have a view on it. Unlike you, I try not to spew off about things I am ill-informed about.

My response to you had nothing to do with this bill. DUCY?

Fox have fact checkers? This is news!

Do you think that fact checkers at CNN deliberately lie about what is and what is not accurate information?

It sure as heck shouldnt be articles by CNN, MsNBC or Fox

I'm not following here. Maybe just because I'm a dumb dumb

#LearntoCode.

That's the most obvious example of where social media companies have gone wrong, and you are right, it's not really partisan (the social media companies really only have corporate customers interest at heart, they don't care about dangerous misinformation), and it follows the mob rule as to what's acceptable, or not.

These social media companies are not operating judiciously. They've become publishers, and invited the government overreach listed in the OP. You see the stuff they get right, and say "hey, that's good of them", but are ignoring the stuff like #LearnToCode. I don't think the EO should have been made, but it's entirely the fault of the companies that decided to be publishers.

The only possible outcomes of a law being enforced in that manner on the online platforms are government controlled speech or a complete free-for-all with zero moderation of any type. It's simply not possible to have any functional platform for discourse if the platform doesn't have the protection afforded by section 230. Without the protection from liability the only feasible choices for platforms are to moderate everything before it is made public or moderate nothing. There being a line anywhere between the extremes is effectively just saying the government gets to choose what is allowed speech.

I do not know enough either...but its the core of the whole issue.
More than that...it will be the issue!

Its bigger than the fact checking thingy we have going on.

Who do you want to be the arbiter of truth? CNN?

The truth of what? Statements posted on social media? By whom?

Do you think that fact checkers at Fox deliberately lie about what is and what is not accurate information?

Cable companies seem to do okay, without moderating stuff.

Probably not, but I don't take issue with the "straight news" segments on Fox. The lies spewed on Fox are on shows like Fox & Friends, Tucker, Hannity, Judge what's her face. etc, and I would very much doubt those shows are "fact checked" in any way.

Edit: That's why Trump is always criticising e.g. Chris Wallace. He doesn't lie enough for his liking.

I honestly don't have the slightest clue what point you're trying to make here.

For someone who knows so little about anything (by your own admission), you seem to have very strong opinions about an awful lot. That is the definition of ignorance.

It should not matter. You should be the arbiter of truth in any content you consume, using as many resources as you can. You should not hand that over to an entity with corporate interest.

This is a ridiculous notion. I have sources of information I trust by default (e.g. WaPo) until and unless informed e.g. that a specific article contains an error. As a consumer of information, I have a duty to vet my sources, yes, but once I have arrived on a source I find reliable, I should not be expected to independently vet every single item of information I receive from that source.

Edit: or did you mean social media content only?