My understanding is that documented evidence exists that Backpage.com directly intervened and edited “user postings” which were flagged as potentially underage,

My understanding is that documented evidence exists that Backpage.com directly intervened and edited “user postings” which were flagged as potentially underage, to make them less obviously illegal. And that their direct knowledge and moderation of the postings makes the Section 230 liability moot. So why is someone like NPR which certainly should know better raising the specter of Section 230 protecting abetters of child sex trafficking when in fact it does not? I expect a much more reasoned argument from “unbiased media sources” for a proposal to change a law which is universally regarded as having ushered in the modern internet. In the case of Backpage.com, if anything it was allowed to exist all the better to be able to track and analyze the data in the open rather than have it move to a modern dark-web platform which would be much more difficult to track. Since all technology can be used for good or evil in equal proportion, it’s clear the best technology can also be used for the worst evil. The most private, distributed, and secure social network would be at once a boon for law abiding and law breaking citizens alike. You can’t make the tool work for one and not the other, without compromise. The legal standard for years has been if you can demonstrate sufficient legal use of a tool and that you haven’t intentionally solicited illegal uses then it passes muster. I am greatly concerned by any legislation which shifts the balance because great tech will always be used by bad actors. I.e. Since the Bitcoin blockchain can be used to pass messages between parties anonymously then anyone running a node on the network could be supporting anonymous message passing for any purpose, obviously including underage prostitution. That doesn’t mean you shut down Bitcoin. The government would love to make it illegal for any technology to exist which doesn’t provide them the means to inspect it and control it. But providing those same means would deeply compromise any attempt to implement a truly private and secure distributed network. I worry that the 1st amendment could be compromised to allow for such a law.