You are right. I just read the bill. I believe 230 needs to be amended and that the damage it provides is real. But, the EARN IT act does not fix that. I do thi

You are right. I just read the bill. I believe 230 needs to be amended and that the damage it provides is real. But, the EARN IT act does not fix that. I do think it's important for people to understand why 230 is bad. But again, this act does not remove the designation as an "interactive computer service." It just provides exemptions for CSAM. I added an edit up top. When I read in the article: > the EARN IT Act would, if passed, pare back online service providers’ broad immunity under a federal law called Section 230, exposing them to civil lawsuits and state-level criminal charges for the child sexual abuse material (CSAM) posted by their users. I assumed it was reclassifying social media companies, which would have broad implications, under the stated purpose of CSAM. I wanted to provide background on why 230 should be changed, not on the content of EARN IT. But I agree it conflates two separate things. Here is the bill for anyone else that wants to read it. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6544/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22EARN+IT+act%22%2C%22EARN%22%2C%22IT%22%2C%22act%22%5D%7D&r=2&s=3 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6544...