No, I'll reiterate my prior comment: Section 230 was written to fix that glitch. The law, as written, doesn't allow that to happen. The cases you're citing pre

No, I'll reiterate my prior comment: Section 230 was written to fix that glitch. The law, as written, doesn't allow that to happen. The cases you're citing predate the law, so they aren't precedent on how the law should be handled. If you want actual precendent, here's some: - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/batzel-v-smith https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/batzel-v-smith - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/universal-communications-systems-inc-v-lycos-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/universal-communicat... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/perfect-10-inc-v-ccbill-llc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/perfect-10-inc-v-ccb... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/parker-v-google-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/parker-v-google-inc - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/ma-v-village-voice-media https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/ma-v-village-voice-m... - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/jurin-v-google-inc https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/jurin-v-google-inc That basically all says that the provider can't be held liable even if they moderate things, due to 230, the most recent in that list is from 2011, but there are more recent rulings that exist. Here's matching precedent from 2018/19: https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230...