This misframes the argument GP was making IMO. That those are reasons to go after free speech on the internet has nothing to do with who they are going after. E

This misframes the argument GP was making IMO. That those are reasons to go after free speech on the internet has nothing to do with who they are going after. Everyone agrees that they should go after the perpetrators, just not everyone agrees who the perpetrators are. The street analogy GP uses is apt if you assume these internet services are just infrastructure. If you do not and assume they are like newspapers or storefronts, you might think differently. > If we narrowly edit the law to specifically go after those cases, then it creates less opportunities for scandal later that end in much broader restriction. We already have law to go after these cases, just not the conduits. We have to keep our eye on who the real criminals are, go after them, and we already have the laws to do it. Unfortunately the emotional appeal will be strong enough to go after others (backpage being a bad example because they may have been actually complicit). And we know these grasps for more power/authority rarely are kept at their minimum state or reduced. Want to actually avoid "much broader restriction"? Stop it where it starts.