OMFG...no. NO. There's nothing in CDA 230 about requiring "neutrality," political or otherwise. I don't know why people keep saying this (though I can guess) but it's fiction.
Seriously, stop. And please read up on 230 and the CDA, starting with this:
Hello! Someone has referred you to this post because youāve said something quite wrong about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I apologize if it feels a bit cold and rude to respā¦
www.techdirt.com
to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
Emphasis on User control on content not on the corporations controlling the content.
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
Preservation of a free market. If the service is no longer offering that free market then would it not be able to be challenged?
Protection for āGood Samaritanā blocking and screening of offensive material
Kind of implies doing so as a Good Samaritan not doing so because you dislike a certain group.
Is it the act of a Good Samaritan to suppress info only for one side but not equally apply the standards they've set?
Um What? LOL What are you on about? IF Twitter wanted to go full on Green party they could at will. They could ban any non green party content if they really wanted to. Would likely lose business for it and people would shift to competing services, but there is NOTHING saying Facebook, Twitter or any social media site has to be unbiased.
No one is stopping you or anyone else from making or using competing services though. Have at it if that is what you want to do. They are under no obligation to cater to you or anyone else for that matter though. Their house, their rules. Simple as that.
Ah but that is what people are objecting to the idea of. Fully corporate control is a terrible possible future. I just actually quoted from the Legal information institute above which points out the protections are Good Samaritan not just something given so people can act as they please.
As for "No-one is stopping you or anyone else making a competing service". Yes people actually are. Buy going to various other providers of utilities to try and prevent them being used.
Hosting services.
Security services
Payment processing
Hell literal location for the service servers.
Services these days rely on a lot of other things to work. Lets go with the "Well make it yourself" argument.
Ok you make the site yourself.
You now need to set up a server to host it yourelf.
You now need to create your own security and DDOS protection.
You now need to create your own payment processing system to get money in to afford to keep things running.
You then find you might need to build your own location to live and house the server because any number of private groups are pushing you out of where you are by denying services.
You now find you have to set up your own bank because banks are refusing to let you have accounts there.
All private entities all the way and people can and will go after them to try and stop people "Just making their own".
They very well could post where the USB was found and the date it was found on and describe some of the contents on said USB without going in to detail. Saying something like 'containing graduation photos" and have people describe to them what was on it and what type of USB it was to prove it belonged to them would be sufficient. There is no reason to post photos of what could be their dead child or something because you have no idea the circumstances of said photos. The location, date and generic description should suffice without actually invading their privacy protections.
You act like this is harder than it is, It isn't.
Yet posting a photo from it is normally the far easier thing to ensure it gets back to the right person. The person in question may have thought they lost it elsewhere so the date isn't helpful and many USB's look quite generic sometimes so how would they know it was even the one they were missing?
Huh? "Forced to shut down"? How so? And what do you mean by businesses refused to serve them?
Well I don't use Gab but I know a little about it.
First the server hosts turned it down and so they found new hosts.
Google removed it from the play store so they have to find alternative was to distribute the app.
Cloudflare I think stopped offering protection from DDOS attacks so it kept facing them
Payment providers shut down payments to it.
last I heard groups were lobbying local businesses and others to deny services (food, maintenance, banking) from the person who owns the servers Gab is now hosted and to go after the physical house that hosts the server.