Clarence Thomas is begging someone to sue over Section 230
&gt; Section 230 says that &quot;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&quot;<p>So in other words, Twitter and Facebook censored content (and even references to the URL of that content) despite having no obligation to do so.<p>And they censored content that not only they did not create, but was put forward by a traditional newspaper on their &quot;series of tubes.&quot;  As the content is not prohibited by law, how is that _not_ functioning in an editorial capacity?<p>If Comcast or Cloudflare blocked this exact same content via ipfilters or URL rules, where would the Net &quot;Neutrality&quot; crowd be on this issue?<p>Outside the legal arguments put forward, there is a huge moral hypocrisy here.  Net Neutrality advocates have argued that content should not be allowed to be blocked via certain providers (ISPs), while endorsing censorship on others (CDNs, social communication platforms).  In the case of Thomas, he&#x27;s argued against Net Neutrality not on content grounds--but on technical arguments around resource utilization and distribution.<p>Thomas&#x27; view is at least consistent as it preserves the idea of _not_ limiting speech, which is more than can be said for the Net &quot;Neutrality&quot; crowd.