[codeecan]

And you should understand the law, techdirt bases is "What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.", which is only true as long as you "do not exercise significant editorial control" from Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy [1].

[1] https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-...

> the court held that because Prodigy was exercising editorial control over the messages that appeared on its bulletin boards through its content guidelines and software screening program, Prodigy was more like a "publisher" than a "distributor" and therefore fully liable for all of the content on its site.

[amanaplanacanal]

That case was based on previous law. Section 230 was written to supersede that.

[mcphage]

I’m really confused where you’re coming from, in that you’re aware of that case enough to cite it, and yet not aware that it is (and this is a direct quote from one of the first lines on Wikipedia about it)

> The result of the case is central to the rationale behind passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, aimed to allow internet service providers to avoid liability for user content on their services while still giving them the means for removing illegal content.