Internet Association Endorses Internet Censorship Bill
The Internet companies lost the high ground in regard to censorship and 3rd party speech when they tried to shutdown Daily Stormer. When Google or CloudFlare were told that the website was using their services, instead of taking the high ground with regard to the principle of free speech and 3rd party speech on their services, they used their right to free association to withdraw service.<p>Now when you use free association to withdraw internet service that you oppose, you implicitly are saying that you endorse the services you keep.<p>Now most people agree that if people who advocate Nazism are bad, people who actually engage in human trafficking are even worse. And if you are ok with making sure that the former are not on the Internet, you should be even more ok with keeping the latter off the Internet.<p>This is the reason why the ACLU has historically been pretty absolutist about free speech, even defending and making sure that the government does not censorship even the most odious of speech.<p>In the past, section 230 made sense  as most of the companies had a lassez-faire attitude to speech on their services. With companies now doing more to me censor 3rd party speech on their platform, section 230 is seen as the tech companies wanting to have your cake (bot have any liability for 3rd party speech) and eat it too(be able to censor 3rd party speech whenever they want).