Again I’m not a lawyer and this is my interpretation of the #3 requirement of section 230: “The information must be "provided by another information content pr

Again I’m not a lawyer and this is my interpretation of the #3 requirement of section 230: “The information must be "provided by another information content provider", i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue” If grok is generating these images, I am interpreting this as Twitter could be becoming an information content provider. I couldn’t find any relevant rulings but I doubt any exist since services like Grok are relatively new.