> But in any event Section 230 Safe Harbor is a rather novel immunity and most other industries have no such protections, so it's not like it would be the end o

> But in any event Section 230 Safe Harbor is a rather novel immunity and most other industries have no such protections, so it's not like it would be the end of the world. I have to disagree here. What other industry revolves around distributing user generated content in such unmanageable quantity, and for free? Without liability protection, who in their right mind would operate a site like Reddit without charging users a membership fee? > plenty of people worried about EARN IT also argue in other contexts (e.g. fake news culpability) for the removal of Section 230 protections altogether I seriously doubt that a well informed person concerned about the effect of EARN IT on Section 230 would turn around and speak favorably of stripping Section 230 protections for failing to moderate user content regarding current events. (Unless I've misunderstood you?) (On the other hand, the recent drama surrounding Twitter was because by adding their own annotations to certain posts they were arguably behaving as a publisher instead of as a mere host for user content.) > I can't see how it'd effect Signal, period. They have no real need for Section 230. Honest question - I have no idea how liability works for encrypted content. Even thought their user content is encrypted, could they be held liable under EARN IT if their platform was used for sexual exploitation of children? I'm assuming that strong end-to-end encryption with no backdoor wouldn't qualify as a "best practice" under that bill. More generally, I'm not clear to what extent intent is required in these cases. Consider pinning an IPFS object whose content is encrypted or operating a Tor exit node. Is plausible deniability alone enough to protect you from civil proceedings? What about criminal ones?