> According to Section 230, the host of a website is not treated as the publisher of anything uploaded by the website’s users and, therefore, cannot be sued ove

> According to Section 230, the host of a website is not treated as the publisher of anything uploaded by the website’s users and, therefore, cannot be sued over what users upload. I fully support protections of Wikipedia, they are a gift to society. Section 230 protects YouTube (Google) from the bad content users upload. There is a statistic floating around that 400 minutes of content get uploaded to YouTube every minute. This would obviously not be possible if Google had to be liable for the content, because its too much content to manually review. I myself instinctively defend that this is how the internet works, and governments shouldn't intervene because we need this to be how internet businesses work. I don't think I've ever questioned if its a good thing that Youtube gets so much content that it's impossible to review. Obviously a lot of good has come out of it, like the entire YouTuber industry, and social media, but is it the "natural" way things should be? What would the internet look like if companies couldn't do mass aggregation? Surely people would still be social, so maybe they'd just use smaller services, would they be federated, or would there be more 1x1 chatting? Surely people would still share content and media, but would that mean more hosting instead of using Facebook et al? Or would people need digital mailboxes that they had at home and were always online? I'm not saying this is the future we want or a good future, but as someone involved in the tech industry, I've never truly probed the question of what would be.