Read again. Section 230 protects social media even when they “censor” - meaning, remove or restrict access to content - as long as the censoring was done in good faith, and the statute basically gives the company to decide what it wants in this space (“otherwise objectionable”). In short, Section 230 gives near absolute protection even for censoring.
What you described isn’t even censoring - the original content is still there, remains accessible, and has not been restricted. Fact checking doesn’t even rise to the level of (protected, in any event) censoring.
Then go find another feed. You don’t have to utilize their services to get your news.
Yes, it is that simple and no, there aren’t government regulations designed to prevent Right Wing Twitter from emerging.
Yes, one (Standard Oil) had the ability to limit distribution channels, the other has no such ability. Twitter and Facebook have exactly no monopoly on news - again, I consider myself well-informed and I have no Twitter account and I only use Facebook for funny cat videos.
Btw, I’m no fan of these social media platforms for other reasons (privacy concerns, snooping, etc.), but the idea that we need to regulate their speech because they have some monopoly on our information is based on a nonsensical premise.
That’s exactly wrong and backwards - the service is free so no one is competing on cost to consumer. You have the ability to join Twitter, hate it, quit it, and still get all the news and information from Twitter for the same cost.
At the end of this, all you have is one thing - anger that social media are liberal in spirit and picking on conservative points of view (if they even are - fact checking a pathological liar isn’t picking on anyone). But they are private entities and you have thousands of options. There’s no reason to have the government step in and start regulating speech - especially this government, which no sane person can trust to be fair and even handed even if we thought we somehow thought we needed regulation.
