If they don't police content, they're covered by Section 230. But if they do police content, and they miss some, then... are they liable for the part that they miss?
Does Section 230 still cover them if they're picking and choosing what they're going to carry?
There's a (mildly sarcastic) article on TechDirt that's pretty comprehensive: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
Holy shit. 230 is LITERALLY ABOUT PROTECTING PICKING AND CHOOSING. That's the entire point!! Carrying everything in common is called a "common carrier". Putting out your own personal speech is publishing. Moderation exists in between and can never be perfect. Section 230 was created so that forums could moderate, imperfectly, however they wish without being liable for stuff that other people wrote. It is what makes the internet as we know it possible, including Hacker News itself.
Seriously, how do these memes get started and gain so much traction!? Why has nobody apparently actually read 230? It's TWENTY-SIX WORDS. That's it. Here:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Does anyone see the word "neutral" or anything like that in there? Any qualifications on "both sides"? No. Because it doesn't exist. Stop.
Section 230 does not prohibit imperfect moderation. In fact, Section 230 exists for mostly this reason, so that platforms can moderate on a best effort and not be held liable as publishers.