[ocdtrekkie]

If gun owners are actively advertising to people they perceive to be likely mass shooters: Yes.

There's just so much here. They actively encouraged the practice, they made hundreds of millions of dollars on it, and the perverse incentive of a bidding war caused by all these scammers mean that despite knowing about the problem, Google had no desire to fix it.

[adventured]

> If gun owners are actively advertising to people they perceive to be likely mass shooters

That's an extraordinarily absurd setup legally. How do you perceive someone to be a likely mass shooter exactly? What the hell is likely? Perceive what? Your entire concept is legally broken top to bottom, it would never stand up to a challenge.

And how do you define that they're specifically advertising to that person?

So: first, you have to magically perceive that someone is "likely" to be a mass shooter. Then the company has to be caught having identified someone as a likely mass shooter. Then the company has to intentionally advertise to them. Then it has to be shown that they intentionally advertised to them. Beyond being a non-functioning legal premise, in the best case scenario you just narrowed the risk for the gun maker down to zero.

[ocdtrekkie]

That is my point, that the parent of my comment was not making a really comparable example to the one I was giving of Google's actions and how Section 230 absolves them of responsibility they truly should share in.