How can Facebook be a common carrier when Comcast isn’t? Section 230 seems pretty clear and websites have their own first amendment rights, Government compelling speech seems obviously unconstitutional.
while the argument here is that they are common carriers, from outside it looks more like US big tech is like other media producers. Except, instead of producing content to push their worldviews, they are shaping the content produced en masse by the crowd in order to push their message. The semantics are the same, even if the mechanism is diffeerent. The US seems to be in a bad spot under the hegemony of big tech, because they take advantage of this period of legal vaccum. The rest of the world is a bit more lucky because big tech doesn't have immediate interests there currently. But in any case it feels wrong that FB & google are not subject to the same legal duties as TV
Except that they don't dictate what is produced or curate what is posted. They simply moderate content in accordance with this agreed to by anyone who does. That doesn't make them content producers, it makes them content platforms no different than a bulletin board in a town square where the mayor comes along a few times a day to remove advertisements for sex workers and drug dealers or false and misleading information that might cause confusion or harm.
Except that Mayor is elected. Zuckerberg and Facebook aren't. It's either a town square, or it ain't.
I mean they do dictate by dictats (e.g. youtubes guidelines) and curate by moderation so that does not make them a public forum (which would be only subject to the law, not the mayor's arbitrary demands), nor do they claim to be a public forum. They don't actually produce the content, but in the end they dictate what people see . It's not much different