I don't like this malware example. Yes Section 230 protects Google from that and yes google is in a position of trust for the content they serve up but there's

I don't like this malware example. Yes Section 230 protects Google from that and yes google is in a position of trust for the content they serve up but there's something wrong with your stance. The point in your old lady's chain of actions where a law was and should be considered broken was when the malware ads were injected, not before. You can't go that far up the chain, there are too many proxies, too many people with intents that are not obviously malicious. People should be given the benefit of the doubt in most cases. In addition, in your profit explanation that you linked to you stated that if the service can't scale up human interactions to match with complaints then that service shouldn't exist. That's laughable. To do so would make service owners so vulnerable to automated complaints that legitimate ones would never make it through, that goes for up and down the business scale. What your proposal ends up doing is creating a non-anonymous internet by necessity.