[Goronmon]

Lastly, does anyone know if Facebook and YouTube are also protected under 230? I imagine that GOP wants to make an example of Twitter but for the sake of consistency Facebook and Youtube should get the same treatment.

My understanding that any website on the internet that allows users to post content is protected under 230. Including Hacker News, which then becomes potentially liable for any content posted if its removed.

[DanBC]

Can you post a link to the bit of the CDA, esp section 230, that you think makes HN responsible for content if they moderate it?

[Simulacra]

Facebook and Twitter should face the same liability as the New York Times. How many companies do you know that have absolute immunity? That's how Facebook, Google, and others have grown so large. They don't have to worry about what goes out on their platforms.

[imadethis]

> Facebook and Twitter should face the same liability as the New York Times.

They already do? Comments on NYTimes articles are covered under Section 230 just as comments made on Facebook or Twitter.

[jjjensen90]

They do worry, and actively moderate, which is covered under 230 and has been proven repeatedly in court, including the 9th circuit decision.

[ncallaway]

Section 230 is not absolute immunity. It's immunity from what _users of your platform_ post.

The NY Times also enjoys 230 immunity if they host comments on their site. Literally every site on the internet that has comments (including HN) have this protection.

[Goronmon]

Facebook and Twitter should face the same liability as the New York Times.

...and every other site on the internet, including this one. Or IRC channels, or Discord, or search engines...