> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content b

> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre. They can try to censor content published on their site. But they risk losing CDA 230 immunity; in which case they could be liable for everything their users post to their site. They would be liable for child porn, copyright infringement, etc. See 2007 9th circuit decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/05/15/0456916.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/05/15/04... Roommate is not immune for publishing materials as to which it is an “information content provider.” A content provider is “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) (emphasis added). In other words, if Roommate passively publishes information provided by others, the CDA protects it from liability that would otherwise attach under state or federal law as a result of such publication. But if it is responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing the information, it becomes a content provider and is not entitled to CDA immunity. As we explained in Carafano, “an ‘interactive computer service’ qualifies for immunity so long as it does not also function as an ‘information content provider’ for the portion of the statement or publication at issue.”