Sure, right there on the page after dozens of paragraphs of breathless rage-baity hyperbole, after which most readers probably bailed out. But, this law also d

Sure, right there on the page after dozens of paragraphs of breathless rage-baity hyperbole, after which most readers probably bailed out. But, this law also doesn't do what the rage-bait thesis suggests it might do, namely "making the open web a lot more open". Instead, it provides immunity for people who make middle-ware boxes to censor content. You have to remember that this legislation was written during the moral panic about pornography on the web in the 1990's. Look at what the law plainly says: <people> shall not be liable for <creating technical means> to restrict access to <stuff>. Censoring FB's news feed for FB users while they are logged into and browsing FB, as Zuckerman ostensibly wants to do, probably falls within the scope of this law. But, creating tools which make FB content available outside of FB (which is the thesis of the TC article) is the opposite of what this paragraph is intended to do, and is unlikely to succeed.