>Except under section 230 of the communications act it makes it pretty clear that platforms like Reddit can’t have it both ways. They can either be a platform that allows people to share their own opinions and viewpoints; or they can be a publisher that specifically curates content that people can see. Wow... Who lied to you? Websites do not fall into either publisher or non-publisher categories. There is no platform vs publisher distinction. Additionally the term "Platform" has no legal definition or significance with regard to websites and doesn't even appear in the text of 230. All websites are Publishers. Section 230 specifically protects online Publishers. "[AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1075207.html#:~:text=Id.%20at%20803)" >Plus we know for a fact that a lot of the censorship going on with social media platforms has absolutely been directed by pressure from the federal government. The government are using these companies as a proxy to get around the 1A, they are absolutely limiting our freedom of speech. In the case of coercion, government is the bad actor, not the websites which are free (1st amendment right) to accommodate or coordinate with the government according to their own will. [This has been litigated in court multiple times.](https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/10/government-jawboning-doesnt-turn-internet-services-into-state-actors-doe-v-google.htm) The Government (both Parties) shouldn't be asking for content removal. >Just look at the Covid pandemic as an example. Social media companies were pressured by the government to crackdown on opinions about the origins of Covid as well as people who questioned (rightfully) the efficacy of the Covid vaccine and Covid mitigation efforts (social distancing, masking, lockdowns etc). Again, website can do as they see fit.