https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#c

Facebook deleting groups because they're wrong-think is absolutely not in good faith, and the law was made to protect ISPs and Library networks.

As soon as you go beyond spam removal and troll patrol, and start deleting the President's posts or any reference to atrazine causing a potent endocrine disruption in amphibians, you're getting into all the liability of a publisher.

I believe the lawsuits must prove damages. For Facebook and Youtube, ad-clicks and page-views are people's livelihoods. That's where all the lawsuits will be, no need to worry about the Hello Kitty Island Adventure Wiki.

Edit:

Communications with dynamic web content is actually a pretty nuanced topic, but here's my simplistic opinion. I'm saying that with lawsuits on the table, big players can step back and barely moderate, allowing free speech, or they can entirely push people off their site with an honest policy. Deplatforming dissenters might be the best case for civil rights though, if there's no "algorithm" to invisibly mess with discovery and ad revenue. It's well within the website owner's rights to ban anyone they don't like, they just can't claim to be airports and the sky when they're the airlines.

Make the internet splintered again. Diversity of thought, arenas of ideas.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#c

Facebook deleting groups because they're wrong-think is absolutely not in good faith, and the law was made to protect ISPs and Library networks.

As soon as you go beyond spam removal and troll patrol, and start deleting the President's posts, or any reference to atrazine causing a potent endocrine disruption in amphibians, you're getting into all the liability of a publisher.

I believe the lawsuits must prove damages. For Facebook and Youtube, ad-clicks and page-views are people's livelihoods. That's where all the lawsuits will be, no need to worry about the Hello Kitty Island Adventure Wiki.