>>My hunch is we're barking up the wrong tree with 230, and the underlying issue is too much power concentrated in too few entities. I tend to agree there, my

>>My hunch is we're barking up the wrong tree with 230, and the underlying issue is too much power concentrated in too few entities. I tend to agree there, my focus on 230 is simply because that seems to be only avenue open for reform at the moment, it is not the best tool to solve the problem, but it is a tool Ultimately I think the root of the problem comes down to 2 flaws in the foundation of the legal system 1. Data ownership: We have incorrectly applied ownership rights to the companies that collect the data, instead of allowing people to own the data about themselves. This has had wide ramifications on how social media companies have been formed and monetized, as well as in criminal law 2. Failing in contract law to properly designate the current slate of "Terms of Service" and "Acceptable Use" agreements as Unconscionable Contracts, these contracts are soo one-sided that if put in to use for anything other then "Information services" they would be tossed out of court and be unenforceable. Companies should be required to have better, enforceable agreements with their users, that provide CLEAR and OBJECTIVE statement on what the service can be used for, that the process for ending the relationship is, and what the recourse is for the customer (i.e appeal, data portability, etc). Today they have none of that, and are so steeped in self serving legal verbiage with absolutely zero considerations for the user, this type of contract / agreement should not be allowed in a fair and just legal system.