Fair, which is what I assumed was the case, rather than the idea that we wake up one morning to literally zero recourse for someone stealing our stuff. That as

Fair, which is what I assumed was the case, rather than the idea that we wake up one morning to literally zero recourse for someone stealing our stuff. That assumption of cohesiveness of argument is what I’m trying to get at with my question. The argument we should be having is in the terms of the academic work, rather than the one-line phrase. My point overall is that no equivalent academic work has been presented that actually attempts to remove Section 230 protections (as the protections stem ultimately from the first amendment), so it’s not fair to compare the two. I may have gotten separated a bit from that point along the way, so I apologize for my lack of clarity!