3 ms·

Thanks. The crux of this is just about what they failed to moderate and if they were acting in good faith?

• jcranmer 4y ago
  The crux is that the plaintiffs want to go after Google in any way they can, and they're grasping at straws to try to eviscerate §230 immunity. (No really, they're arguing that the URLs in search recommendations are original content that therefore doesn't get §230 immunity). §230 is explicitly pretty broad on immunity: it states that providers are neither liable for failing to moderate nor for the consequences of their moderation. "Good faith" is a requirement, but only for actions taken to restrict access to the material (i.e., it doesn't apply to a failure to moderate.)