> suggesting that without it companies would be inherently violating the law any time one of their users violated the law, Well, that’s almost literally what i

> suggesting that without it companies would be inherently violating the law any time one of their users violated the law, Well, that’s almost literally what immunity means in this case. I’ve read that post of yours you linked downthread, and you’re basically just saying “courts will be wise enough and make reasonable decisions”. I’m somewhat sympathetic to some expansion of liability. Revenge porn, for example, shouldn’t exist. That’s real harm being done every day to real people. And the tube sites are not just unwilling to spend money on moderating uploads. They obviously know that a large percentage of uploads are made without full consent, and that content represents a significant chunk of their revenue. BUT Sec 230 is specifically aimed to indemnify websites that do try to moderate content. Before Sec 230 there was a brief period of time where that theory everyone on the internet believes in even though it is completely stupid was actually true, namely that the act of moderating some content somehow creates an obligation to moderate all content.