nostr:npub109x0x9dlft64y4h9vz9mxu92qpqn752sd8p4xe2zkcanlzmk2fcq3pwvvl nostr:npub1y7urda0puhzwr8rsw9vs7fclzk9c8fhc5zhpc8y2kyr68g9z4axqynagv7 nostr:npub108zt8c43ulvdwnax2txurhhr07wdprl0msf608udz9rvpd5l68ascvdkr5 nostr:npub1znavx0efn9y7a9tjux6pchjdurmw2e84fxwxflmauupjz0558x0sqmwtpl Adding additional content isn't **edit**orializing.
Section 230 allows one to limit the availability of UGC, but not to edit it.
I disagree. I think adding any content is defiantly editorializing. If things are fair, everyone should get their content displayed equally.
..and my blog post is about what changes I would make to Section 230, and I think getting rid of ALL contextual blocks around a person’s posts is a good idea and meaningful reform.
nostr:npub109x0x9dlft64y4h9vz9mxu92qpqn752sd8p4xe2zkcanlzmk2fcq3pwvvl nostr:npub1y7urda0puhzwr8rsw9vs7fclzk9c8fhc5zhpc8y2kyr68g9z4axqynagv7 nostr:npub108zt8c43ulvdwnax2txurhhr07wdprl0msf608udz9rvpd5l68ascvdkr5 nostr:npub1znavx0efn9y7a9tjux6pchjdurmw2e84fxwxflmauupjz0558x0sqmwtpl I edited my post. The mistake you're making is the word "editorializing". You are correct that opining about content is, by definition, editorializing. However the word "editorializing" does not appear anywhere in section 230 and has nothing to do with the protections offered by section 230.
The protections are for screening/limiting availability of content, and not being treated as a publisher as long as the host is not a speaker.
