The fact that Apple conditioned Parler's access to the App Store on adding content moderation is another hint that this is a coordinated industry defense of Section 230, opportunistically engaged while the national discourse is, naturally, focused on the fascist coup plotters.

My hunch is that the plan behind Trump's push to repeal Section 230 has less to do with its protection of published content, and everything to do with its protection of content moderation. He wants the freedom to post, as well as the standing to sue anyone who mutes him.

I really hadn't looked into the law until this week, and I assumed that it was all about (c)(1), which is where it says that a service isn't considered the publisher of content provided by a user or another service, and can't be sued for hosting that content.

But then I read (c)(2), which protects a service when it takes an action to restrict access to or availability of material that the service considers to be objectionable; i.e. protects moderation of content

When McConnell refused to remove the Section 230 repeal from the $2k bill in the senate, I only saw discussion of it that characterized it as a poison pill, bad enough that no one would vote for it, Dems or Repubs.

But now it's becoming clear that there is significant backing for repeal of Section 230 on the right. Which doesn't really make any sense from the perspective of (c)(1), since so much right wing content is plainly objectionable.

But it does make sense from the perspective of (c)(2). Right wingers love to complain about censorship and shadowbans, and certainly, those things are worthy of complaint. But Twitter's use of these tools, for example, are explicitly protected by (c)(2).

Now, arguably, (c)(2) is just a restatement of a legal right that Twitter should already enjoy prima facie, that as a private company, in the scope of its own platform, moderation actions (including censorship and outright bans) do not violate the 1st Amendment.

But it also serves as a judicial short-circuit, apparently. A lawsuit arguing for civil damages due to unfair content moderation won't get far enough to hear arguments about political motivation, or anti-competitive activities, etc. A court will just point to (c)(2) and throw out

This provision hasn't really been exercised as much in court, though, because up til now, any victims of unfair content moderation have been too insignificant to argue on civil rights or monopoly grounds, and too cash poor to launch a lawsuit against a corporation on their own.

But what if you are the President of the United States? With an extensive history of frivolous litigation. Who leads a movement backed by serious PAC funding. Who has just lost an election arguing that it was stolen. And who, for weeks leading up to the election, was "moderated".

Maybe then the bigger arguments on political motivation, monopoly power, collusion, etc., don't seem so out of reach for your legal team. And the potential rewards of a judgment in your favor? Massive. If only that damned Section 230 (c)(2) weren't standing in the way.

So, Trump pushes for repeal of Section 230 at the same time he pushes for $2k checks. $2k checks gets the attention, repeal gets barely a mention. But Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon see the tactic for what it is. Because they know what Section 230 really protects.

It protects Twitter's moderated forum, Facebook's moderated network and marketplace, Google's moderated search results and app store, Apple's moderated app store, Amazon's moderated marketplace and moderated web services.

And so, when Trump and his militant shitposters give Silicon Valley the best opportunity they could have hoped for, by being wild insurrectionist asshats on live TV, Twitter/FB/Google/Apple/Amazon use their monopoly power to silence Trump and crush Parler and look good doing it.