[webstrand]

Because it's really good misinformation, thanks for the link. I had no idea that it was effectively unconditional protection.

[magicalist]

> I had no idea that it was effectively unconditional protection.

Defamation is still not protected, it's just the person who posted it who is liable. Meanwhile the site's "editorial control" is protected by the first amendment, not section 230.

[JoshTriplett]

Huge credit for actually updating in response to evidence.