> Thomas is making a careful argument that the opposite is true, that the judiciary has broadly interpreted the law for maximum indemnity, taking it well beyond

> Thomas is making a careful argument that the opposite is true, that the judiciary has broadly interpreted the law for maximum indemnity, taking it well beyond its text. Indeed! And there's some real legerdemain going on by the author related to that "indemnity." He brings up traditional cultural ideas around an open and free internet, and he then argues that opponents of Section 230 are against the spirit of the internet. But this is only the case if you believe the spirit of the internet was 3rd party indemnity, and that's what made it grow. (A cynical position to hold in my opinion.) If you believe that the internet is what it is due to openness, then it's people like Twitter and Facebook that have got it all wrong. They're effectively saying "we don't want to be held responsible for content on our platform" (e.g. bear the costs of editorial oversight), and simultaneously "we also don't want to be held responsible for content we take off our platform" (done so voluntary with the same cost burdens they're fighting against). It's a weird type of Internet Provider Exceptionalism: "The Internet is great because the providers were free to do whatever they wanted."