Discussing section 230 and the SCOTUS threat to the internet

 So, it has come to my attention that SCOTUS is going to rule on a case involving section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996. This is basically what the foundations of the free and open internet we have today currently are based on. It does two things. First of all, it holds that companies aren't liable for what their users post, and second, it establishes that companies can remove user content from their pages. This is important because without this, we might either have far more internet censorship in the form of companies ruthlessly deleting any content that could be held liable for if they could be held liable, leading to the internet being a lot less free. And the other prong being removed could go the other way, making companies powerless to remove content for fear of violating one's free speech. 

The case seems to be focused on whether social media companies can systematically delete content from people of certain political ideologies. While I feel like this is an interesting case that needs to be heard in some form, taking aim at section 230 is dangerous, and this is why. This LITERALLY IS the foundation of the internet. If companies can be held liable for content users post, then this means that the freedom of speech we users have on the internet is over. Anything remotely controversial would be removed. But if the prong suggesting that companies cant remove content is removed, then that suggests that companies can't moderate content at all, leading to entire communities collapsing. No moderation is just as bad as insane moderation in some ways. 

Now, I'm going to be honest, I'm NOT a fan of some aspects of the status quo post 2016. I feel like there is too much of an effort by some groups to heavily moderate content they don't like. i've encountered censorship happy lefties and SJWs particularly that seem to want to remove right wing spaces from the internet. And that's scary. But, whatever free speech issues these attempts at censorship create, I think removing section 230 would be FAR WORSE. We want companies to be able to moderate and curate SOME content. Otherwise the entire internet could just turn into a big version of 4chan. I mean, removing these provisions can have far reaching consequences, possibly beyond what can even be predicted. 

I do believe we need to potentially consider reining in the powers to moderate political content, but we need to do it without taking a hacksaw to section 230. Perhaps large social media companies with no stated political aim and have a platform larger than so many users (say, 1 million) cannot discriminate against political content. I could imagine carving out exceptions in other laws to rein in the kinds of undesirable censorship that the far left is trying to impose on people. Perhaps we could apply the rules of net neutrality on them. 

 I just think that it would be better to largely leave the current legal framework in place, than do something to upend it. Even though I don't like certain aspects of the status quo, it does tend to reach utilitarian outcomes considering the alternatives, and removing it would do more harm than good in my opinion.

 As to which way I think the court will rule, who knows. I would say historically the court would have been pro section 230 largely, as many of them seem to see corporations as people and seem fine with private entities behaving in authoritarian ways. but in recent years, the right has called out, rightly, to some extent that I may add, that the left doesnt value free speech and wants to censor people who they don't like. To be fair the right can be just as bad if not worse at times, but yeah. I mean, who knows what the current court will do. They dont seem to care about law, precedent, traditions, etc. They just engage in judicial activism to reach whatever conclusion they want. So I really don't trust them and them hearing a case on anything this important is scary. Normally we're dealing with professionals who hold themselves to very high standards, but again, the current court doesn't believe in those standards, they're just crazy judicial activists who do whatever they want.