Right, the purpose of the law was to prevent the act of moderation resulting in the moderator becoming complicit. Moderators' options before Section 230 were e

Right, the purpose of the law was to prevent the act of moderation resulting in the moderator becoming complicit. Moderators' options before Section 230 were either: 1) assert some control over the content, thus showing you are engaged with it, meaning you can be held liable for it; or 2) do nothing and avoid sharing any guilt. My go-to example of a Section 230 defense is a library sued by a mom whose kid looked at internet porn on the library's computers. It's not the library's fault there's porn on the internet, so even if they had policies and safeguards trying to prevent this, it doesn't make sense to punish them.