Thanks for the link. Having skimmed through it, I still maintain that your analogy is overreaching, and I think the reason is that there's a level of indirectio

Thanks for the link. Having skimmed through it, I still maintain that your analogy is overreaching, and I think the reason is that there's a level of indirection that you're not acknowledging. Section 230 of the CDA doesn't say "ISPs don't have to monitor their subscribers"; it says "content providers aren't liable for their subscribers' content, as long as the provider's actions are limited purely to publication of content" which happens to have the effect of making it so that in many situations, providers don't have an obligation to monitor their subscribers or exercise editorial control to cover their bases. In this case, the court opinion is quite clear that it's OK for AirBNB to publish information about unregistered listings, even if they get paid to do so. The problem is when they actively participate in transactions that go beyond simple publication of information. That seems in line with what the law actually says, and I don't see how it would apply to an ISP that is merely conveying information back and forth between third parties.