Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I do believe social media entities have an ethical duty to step in if narratives are inciting violence. They are in effect giving that narrative a megaphone to make the possible range of violence even greater if they don't step in. This would be enabling violence.

The difficulty in separating false narratives that are dangerous and those that are unpopular is something that should be left to the social media entities in my opinion. If left to the government there would be one arbiter of truth. If left to each social media entity at least the user has the option of switching to a platform he/she thinks does it more fairly.

An adjusted Section 230 is the likely outcome of the debate in Washington, good insight. I should have been more clear in that I was directly challenging President Trump's idea of full repeal of Section 230.

I understand why FB and other entities would censor sponsored content. This is the same as any other enterprise choosing what they advertise, it's part of their brand. I think private enterprises should have close to full control as to what does and does not get advertised on their platforms, whatever they may be.