[whatthesmack]

Thanks for the stereotypical reply to this issue. The linked article is condescending and smug, and nobody with anything better to do will read past the first few sentences with the author's "unique" opinion on Section 230.

Do you have anything reasonable that describes the position that Section 230 somehow doesn't mean what it plainly says?

[mcphage]

The entire purpose for Section 230 existing is to allow sites to moderate their content. That’s why it was written. So a site moderating it’s content doesn’t cause it to lose any section 230 protection. I’m not sure where you got your opinion about it, but it is clearly false. Please stop repeating such falsehoods.