Just as often, the disillusioned are perfectly open-minded. Especially in cases where the dissent from former colleagues centers around the very issue of open-m

Just as often, the disillusioned are perfectly open-minded. Especially in cases where the dissent from former colleagues centers around the very issue of open-mindedness, as it does with Greenwald. In general and in this case it behooves us to ask what caused the disillusionment. Sometimes the people on your side betray the principles you thought you all had in common, for example. Which is what happened with Greenwald's former colleagues at The Intercept (which ironically he founded) and I would say is happening with the Democratic party in big ways, ever since Bill Clinton's time. When the "left" started cozying up to big money and selling out poor working people, it ceased being on the "left," and you could have predicted today's political climate and events without much effort. You're right about the scope of section 230, and given that Parler is not considered a publisher or speaker (which I think is appropriate), there is currently nothing else to consider holding them liable for, so I was using shorthand. I'm actually mostly talking about each person's individual opinion. Personally "holding them liable" for anything at this point depends on a guilt-by-association argument.