To put this in context, it's helpful to flip the politics around. Imagine if GoDaddy was owned by a Trump buddy, like the 'Pillow Guy', and they were shutting

To put this in context, it's helpful to flip the politics around. Imagine if GoDaddy was owned by a Trump buddy, like the 'Pillow Guy', and they were shutting down a website that helped sexually assaulted women find abortion clinics. How would one's concern about the original situation apply in that situation? I would say Section 230 is a decent bandaid solution but is the opposite of 'neutrality' and we likely need close scrutiny with respect to these things. We don't want Verizon inspecting our packets willy nilly and blocking traffic depending on who we might vote for, clearly at the 'network' level the motion for 'neutrality' is most obvious. Section 230 defines the domain "interactive computer service" , so it's not at all clear which tranches of technology fall under this. But 'hosting' and 'social networks', 'blogging + comments' are different, they are not arbitrary distinctions, and it'd be better if there were more clarity and better boundaries around what kinds of things they can 'moderate' etc.. Section 230 probably applies very well to those platforms that host and manage or publish content, like Social Networks, but maybe not so much the GoDaddy's, Amazon's and VISA's of the world.