> I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act challenged on this notion I would also not be surprised, but I think it would b

> I would not be surprised to see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act challenged on this notion I would also not be surprised, but I think it would be a mistake. If YouTube's algorithm makes them ineligible for 230 protections, then it seems like the same rules should apply to DuckDuckGo -- after all, they're using algorithms to rank sites. Not everything is a slippery slope of course, but absent some kind of consistent line it's not clear to me that the removal of 230 wouldn't very quickly lead to a world where very little user content was allowed online at all. The definition of an algorithm will be constantly evolving, and few small companies will want to risk running afoul of the law. This is probably not what people want when they talk about neutrality -- content gatekeepers aren't neutral. I'd give the same warning to people coming from the opposite perspective -- that YouTube shouldn't get 230 protections because it's not moderating enough. If 230 goes away, there's another way that YouTube can avoid liability, and it's to stop moderating anything at all, regardless of how foul it is. This is also probably not what people want when they talk about moderation -- Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are pretty bad about removing hate speech, but at least they're not 8chan. They at least do some moderation. The purpose of Section 230 is to avoid punishing platforms for moderation/curation attempts, and to let companies accept user content from diverse sources without needing to pre-vet all of it. Get rid of 230, and we'll end up with a smaller selection of services that are less eager to let users upload content; and the services we're left with won't be in a hurry to moderate or curate any of the content that users do upload.