Thanks, I didn't know about those cases. This is one of my favorite topics in tech and I learned something interesting from our discussion. As I've pointed out

Thanks, I didn't know about those cases. This is one of my favorite topics in tech and I learned something interesting from our discussion. As I've pointed out to other commenters in this thread, I still think your analysis makes too many assumptions based on the present day legal environment of the web. You have to agree with me that, because of the broad scope (granting ALL internet service companies immunity to legal actio) and the timing of the bill (the early days of the popularization of the web) we don't really know what the legal environment for web businesses would be like without Section 230. This legislation came in so early and changed everything so drastically, we don't know if the courts would have found a middle ground to allow for some moderation, or if people would have found more efficient ways to moderate content over the years. Section 230 essentially froze the process in time by handing all legal power to the internet industry. Arguments I've read about why Section 230 is good for the internet tend to rest on statements about how the internet works today - specifically, the way today's internet service companies run the web's most popular sites - but not a single one of these companies existed before the CDA was passed. For all we know, without the CDA, the internet would still be CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy. Or perhaps other business models would have been invented. I think it's a mistake to assume that the current internet is the best possible internet when we haven't really seen any other.