[guscost]

The problem is that YouTube can do this kind of thing on purpose, with no consequences, whenever they want to. We have no legal recourse according to precedent, our only option is to stir up a PR backlash big enough that they "notice the error" (which in fairness is probably what happened here).

[dahart]

Isn’t that true with or without 230? What does rescinding 230 fix? Again, they didn’t claim exemption because of 230, so what does section 230 have to do with anything here?