[billjings]

It is, in the sense that companies like Meta operate assuming that 230 gives them carte blanche to act as they please.

But:

"Plaintiffs characterize Meta’s duty as one of product design—that Meta should not have built Facebook in a way that boosted incitements to violence. Still, the alleged defects relate to Facebook’s core design as a publishing platform, particularly how Facebook promoted or downplayed third-party posts using algorithms. Under our case law, matching users with content is publishing conduct, even when the user has not requested the content."

At issue the question of who, if anyone, is responsible for the speech issues at play when Meta chooses to show me X rather than Y of the near infinite pool of content at its disposal.

Some are indeed looking to completely get rid of 230, but if you ask me, assuming that Meta has 230 protections for all editorial decisions it makes should be considered overbroad. I'm no lawyer, but as a citizen it seems to me that it puts Meta's influence beyond legal accountability in a way that no individual is. And that seems totally unfair.

[rpdillon]

Section 230 applies to millions of sites. It's important to consider how repeal affects most of them, rather than just the biggest.