> But if Section 230 didn't exist, it wouldn't stop bans one single bit and in fact would only encourage vastly more stringent moderation and banning (assuming

> But if Section 230 didn't exist, it wouldn't stop bans one single bit and in fact would only encourage vastly more stringent moderation and banning (assuming any unvetted user created content continued to be allowed at all on the general web). That's one way to look at it. On the other hand : https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... > smart lawyers will say that the best way to avoid that kind of liability is not to moderate at all. So Section 230 explicitly overruled that judicial decision, and eliminated liability for moderation choices. (which would also be bad of course) So I wouldn't be surprised if in the next years we would see changes : There could be an intermediary status between hoster and editor : a "displayer" would not be liable for what its users do. It would (unlike a hoster) be liable for the moderating choices that he decides to do. There might be additional requirements to benefit from the hosting status : of size, power, economic model, &c. https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/10/16/un-tiers-mediaire/ https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/10/16/un-tiers-mediaire/ (fr) (Some of this has now been implemented in the EU.) As for Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, you'll note that it was decided by 1 voice, and there recently was a change in the SC, and the USA generally seems to have entered a very unstable time, so who knows what the future holds ?