>On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Because section 230 protects everyone. There is no limitation i

>On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Because section 230 protects everyone. There is no limitation in the law that says "if you have x% market share, you are not covered under the law." My point WRT Prodigy/AOL, etc. was that there certainly wasn't the intent to exclude the large players (which is what you asserted without evidence). In fact, a major impetus for section 230 was the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision[0]. And so I'll ask you: On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 wasn't intended to protect everyone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....