The intention of 230 is to prevent law suit against agents of connectivity for the contents conveyed by such connectivity. More specifically, prevent use of con

The intention of 230 is to prevent law suit against agents of connectivity for the contents conveyed by such connectivity. More specifically, prevent use of content as a legal weapon to deny access. The abuse of 230 is in what separates a content source from that which conveys such content. It’s not that drawing an objective separation is challenging it’s that nobody wants objectivity. For example some people don’t care that Facebook will be harmed, and perhaps they hope it will be harmed, but cry a river if it prevents equivalent access to cat videos on YouTube. That subjectivity is the only defense potential targets of reform, beneficiaries of online advertising, have and will exploit it to death irrespective of what any such specific reform contains or intends. As such any proposed reformed is going to make people angry no matter how toxic Facebook is. The quantity and directness of evidence towards vile, harmful, and catastrophic behavior doesn’t matter. As I see it there are only two paths forward for successful regulation and they will both make people very upset.