Sometimes downvotes are used for disagreement instead of a signal that a comment thread is off-topic or boring. FWIW asking why you are downvoted also makes for

Sometimes downvotes are used for disagreement instead of a signal that a comment thread is off-topic or boring. FWIW asking why you are downvoted also makes for boring reading so is also discouraged. I'm somewhat doing the same to explain this but I'd rather you know for future discourse. As far as why they disagree, I'd suspect it is something more or less in the same ballpark as the below. Excerpt from 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... > If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" > I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. > To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.