[Dracophoenix]

>>§230 explicitly never limited criminal liability,

Thank you for the correction.

>>and arguably didn’t limit civil liability for knowingly distributing unlawful content

Prior to FOSTA/SESTA, would a search engine be considered liable for knowingly distributing unlawful content? The 1st Circuit argued that was not the case[1] by citing Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley vs Roommates.com. Trafficking-related content would require inducement/incitement of action by the website (not mere advertisement, invitation or facilitation thereof) in order to be deemed unlawful. Trafficking-related content on a website was not, on its own, per se unlawful to distribute knowing or unknowingly. That was the case until Backpage's founders were indicted and FOSTA/SESTA was passed.

>>And FOSTA-SESTA adds no-knowledge civil liability for owning, managing, or operating an information system with “reckless disregard of the fact that such conduct contributed to sex trafficking”.

And this is the concerning bit I had in my last paragraph.

[1]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914f772add7b049349953...