> In short, the law’s intent has been perverted. Probably not, if you ask the authors of the law [1]. > The idea that these providers are simply neutral carri

> In short, the law’s intent has been perverted. Probably not, if you ask the authors of the law [1]. > The idea that these providers are simply neutral carriers of content evaporates the minute they decide what you do and don’t see and how much of it. Even if a platform chooses to present itself as neutral and subsequently "fails" to be neutral, Section 230 doesn't make the platform any more liable for user-generated content than if the platform hadn't presented itself as neutral in the first place. [1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-and-former-rep-cox-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-precedent-on-section-230 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...