"Don't be fooled - many of Section 230's detractors claim that this criticla law only protects big tech." What about the detractors who claim it protects _all_

"Don't be fooled - many of Section 230's detractors claim that this criticla law only protects big tech." What about the detractors who claim it protects _all_ websites, regardless of size. "The law is not a shield for Big Tech." It is commonly understood that Section 230 is what allowed "Big Tech" to get so big. In fact, Big Tech's lawyers have argued this in front of the Supreme Court. "Critically, the law benefits the millions of users who don't have the resources to build and host their own blogs, email services, or social media sites, and instead rely on services to host that speech." "Section 230 protects individual bloggers, anyone who forwards an email, and social media users who have ever reshared or retweeted another person's content online." According to EFF 230 protects people who don't have resources to host and it protects people who do have resources to host, e.g., individual bloggers, etc. Then EFF tries to suggest 230 "is not a shield" for Big Tech. That 230 does not protect Big Tech. No one hosts more than Big Tech and no one has Big Tech's resources. 230 protects Big Tech as much as anyone else. As a constant target of litigation that is dismissed on 230 grounds, arguably it protects Big Tech much more than anyoone else. However the question is not who is or is not proetced by 230. The question is what effect 230 has on the internet. 230 is what allowed Big Tech to grow so large. Every internet subscriber paying fees has the resources to host: a computer and an internet connection. The assumption EFF makes is that the internet must be used for advertising (because reasons), and consequently it must be used to publish to large audiences suitable for advertising. That is what Big Tech does. Nothing requires the internet be used for such purposes. Big Tech requires it for their survival. Big Tech solicits and exploits "user-generated content" for surveillance and advertising purposes. 230 also allows small websites publishing controversial information to survive, if they are targeted with litigation. Who gets targeted more: (a) the small website hosting one person's content or (b) the mega-sized Big Tech website hosting the content of millions of people. 230 protects _all_ websites. "As EFF has explained, online speech is frequently targeted with meritless lawsuits. Big Tech can afford to fight these lawsuits without Section 230." 230 does not discriminate between cases that have merit and those without merit. It prevents them all. Big Tech does not want unfavourable decisions by courts relating to their operations. Decisions that might favor internet users. Big Tech can afford to fight but history shows it settles. It avoids trials that it could easily afford. Section 230 results in countless cases being dismissed that might lead to decisions, or at least settlements, favorable to internet users. "Engine has estimated that without Section 230, many startups and small services would be inundated with costly litigation that could drive them offline. " EFF reminds me of Mozilla. EFF wants to protect startups. It is like Mozilla wanting to protect the "advertising ecosystem"and claiming they are protecting privacy. Advertising services fund the invasion of privacy for the purpose of selling more advertising services. These so-called "startups" that EFF is concerned about usually envy, emulate and often want to be acquired by Big Tech. EFF cannot claim to be on the side of "everyday internet users" and then proceed to campaign for the interests of "startups" that exist to exploit those internet users, conducting wanton under-the-radar surveillance to support noxious online advertising services. Big Tech once called themselves "startups". 230 enabled them to grow and become "Big Tech". Perhaps the most concerning omission in this blog post is the failure of EFF to disclose its own interests. Without 230 would EFF's interests one affected. Does EFF itself rely on 230 protection. Questions for the reader. This feels much like Mozilla proclaming they are protecting web users but at the same time selling them out to Google and arguing that online advertising, the very thing that users do not want, is essential. The title of this blog post is "230 Protects Users, Not Big Tech" The truth is it protects both.