Looking into it a little further, I see that protection under the Act is not dependent on being a neutral party:

The intent of the safe harbor was to protect service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer speech or content, and who would have otherwise become publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers

https://www.bna.com/insight-communications-decency-n73014482221/

Indeed, it appears the Act is designed to protect non-neutral platforms, like alleged International Socialists Facebook, even thought they claim to be neutral…like Finland during the Cold War or something. But I digress…

To make matter worse, the Trump admin has moved to eradicate Net-Neutrality. So even ISP’s can pick and choose who gets the top spot without worrying about the Government coming in to tell them to stop.

So I don’t see how Google gets wacked under your proposal.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is not about Google Fiber, unless there is a Google Time Machine I haven’t heard about.

Either way, the Trump admin’s repeal of net neutrality would make the point moot, no?

Google is NOT entitled to common carrier status under the FCC or the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Those legal privileges were granted and can be rescinded, if they no longer behave in the way that they claimed they did when they sought those privileges.

I doubt Google qualifies as a monopoly as an economist would understand the term (though Youtube might). There are readily available alternatives.

What’s puzzling is why Zuckerberg, Brin, et al painted this target on their back. It’s another episode of gleichschaltung.

The other puzzling business is why companies like MasterCard and PayPal have elected to take orders from the $PLC. Morris Dees is a scam artist and anyone who’s done minimal research into his organization has not excuse not to know it.

I thought the same thing Cornhead. It’s a cult, they are cultists. I work at a big, successful tech company, have for a very long time. There are people here who are true believers in the company and its products and services, in a Catholics vs Baptists, mine is better than yours sort of way. They stay with the company until they no longer believe. For me this is a job that finances my life. I watch the cultists come and go. Fortunately I’m never made to swear my fealty, by wearing a silly hat or any other gaudy way.

I mean, all you have to do to qualify is engage in speech. Once that’s established, the burden of proof is on the government. They have to prove that their law or action is constitutional, and often that mean they must go thru “strict scrutiny”, the highest level of judicial review.

Google doesn’t have to prove that they are entitled to constitutional protection. That’s assumed, once speech is demonstrated.

The author of the article moves the goalposts. Now Google must demonstrate that they are like the NYTimes. Well, that’s not the standard. Worse still, even if they are assumed to be neutral platform like a public square, which they are not, this doesn’t mean they do not enjoy 1A protection.

The cited precedent, Rumsfeld v Forum of Academic and Institutional Rights, involves government funding…or whether 1A protests expressive platforms from losing government funding is they refuse to allow certain viewpoints to use their platform (in this case, military recruiters on campus).

Scotus said the 1A doesn’t apply. But that’s a very long way from the 1A not allowing for viewpoint discrimination.

This social dynamic has been incredible well explained by Nassim Taleb (the author from The Black Swan).

The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

2. What’s up with adults wearing hats with propellers?