No it's not, not any more than your phone company is liable for content you send. Section 230 just lets them have it both ways.
If what you say is true 230 would have never been needed in the first place. It was the rare case of govenment being proactive. What do you mean both ways? Oh the publisher vs platform thing? does not apply to 230, in fact, those words aren't even used.
Both ways: immune to liability from user generated content, like a phone company, and yet able to determine what speech is and isn't acceptable for publishing, like a newspaper.
It was not proactive, it was created in response to an early internet lawsuit that had large liability implications.
Basically, they would have made every website like either 4chan or newsweek dot com. At this point, you must be deliberately not getting it.
I think it's you that is not getting it. I guess you want the baker to bake the case, because that's what you're asking for, to compel a business to provide services.
immune to liability from user generated content, like a phone company, and yet able to determine what speech is and isn't acceptable for publishing, like a newspaper.
THIS. DOES. NOT. MATTER. 230 allows this, the answer would be to reform it, as removing will remove "instant" posting.
(post is archived)