> Google doesn't want an Internet strong and rich in content: All of it's actions have been in the direction of moving towards the AOL model. Absorbing all the

> Google doesn't want an Internet strong and rich in content: All of it's actions have been in the direction of moving towards the AOL model. Absorbing all the content it can, not paying for any of it, This is extremely apocalyptic scaremongering & I see no basis in factor for any of this. I see no basis-in-fact for fear of Google becoming a predominant content network, in subsuming media. Google links. They link outbound. Again and again and again. They are the hub that users trust to get to good content, but they don't profit from that content. Such an elementary & grevious mis-perspective as yours harms an assessment as to the real dangers at hand. Your fear uncertainty & doubt grows only more misleading as we go through your post. Whatever secondary impacts Section 230 has, it's intended effects have been working effectively & to the benefit of both society & competition. Hosting speech online would not be possible without Section 230. Sites could be quickly overrun by dissent activity, forcing them to shut-down as desires. To insist that a site maintain 100% certainty that all hosted content was benign, safe, legal is to insist on authoritarianism. You can either have freedom or security. Your post, to me, shrills desperate alarms for security, but at no point do you acknowledge or accept any trade-offs, recognize what freedoms you consign to doom. Your ask insists on complete & total moderation systems, something few upstart companies could ever have hopes of achieving, and something that would cause countless outer voices to be expunged from the net immediately. Sites also require protection from their users, another huge facet of this article you've disregarded. I'd like to see some actual clashes with the article. You've made a bunch of alarmist, freaked out accusations. But none have direct bearing on any of the worlds in this article. You've brought new points to bear that, to me, have few bearings on the moral certainty Cato here raise: your points aren't irrelevant, but the moral fabric of society depends far more on the ability to speak, to host, to create a rich, diverse society of views, than it is threatened by some shitty low-grade actions which aren't great, but honestly don't seem that important to me. Your claim that 230 creates a complete escape from liability also rings false to me, another shrill & hollow freak out, scream for alarm, when in fact the world is no where near as on fire as your pleas would claim. I think you do a misservice.