That’s precisely the problem: the platforms should NOT be free to select which posts should be shown and which not – as long as those posts are written by individuals and not the employees of a publication.

Your question essentially asks whether Internet exceptionalism is justified. We get many benefits from the Section 230 rule, but the most obvious is that we get classes of user-to-user online activities that never existed in the offline world, such as consumer reviews, free and instant access to a huge database of how-to videos, livestreaming and real-time social media services like Twitter, marketplaces like eBay, and so much more. All of those categories exist only online, and only because Section 230 permits the services to publish third-party content without traditional publisher liability. Thus, society benefits from the services “having it both ways” (as you described) because of the content and services that we get from that rule.

Two nomenclature notes: I don’t use the term “platform” because it distractingly implies that there’s some relevant activity taking place that can be legally distinguished from publication; and I note that your comment doesn’t negate my point to not use the term “censorship” to describe non-governmental editorial decision-making.

No disagreement there. He’s awesome and Trump is a buffoon. But, when a legal analysis gets infused with personal animosity, it becomes less persuasive.

Except Donald Trump is actually deranged; Eric Goldman is not.