love @RonWyden and Cox xoxoxoxoxoxoox

"They sought hundreds of millions in damages from Prodigy, simply for hosting the comment on its platform." https://twitter.com/PatHedger18/status/1339927017890983936

"Prodigy argued it should not be responsible for the content its users create. It had no way of knowing whether Stratton Oakmont was a fraud or not and had never expressed an opinion on the subject. But a New York court held in favor of the real-life Wolf of Wall Street..."

"The court specifically cited Prodigy’s efforts at content moderation, aimed at prohibiting online harassment, as the reason for treating it differently than online platforms where “anything goes.”"

"If Prodigy had not attempted to stifle swearing, bullying and “grossly repugnant” content, the court stated, it would not have been liable for damages."

"The alarming message of this case was clear: in the future, online platforms shouldn’t attempt to moderate even the most awful content. Doing so would make them legally responsible for everything their users post."

Repealing Section 230 would be chaos

"Example: if platforms are made responsible for everything millions of users post on their sites, they will have to read it all first. This would mark the end of the internet as a forum for real time communication. "

"It would also force every website hosting user content to create round-the-clock legal and editorial review teams staffed with hundreds or thousands of people to continually monitor every message, video, photo, and blog."

"Alternatively, websites would face exorbitant legal damages at every turn. That is not realistic."

"More realistic is that the many online avenues that ordinary citizens currently use to express themselves would be closed. Hosting user-created content will be too costly & risky. It is difficult to imagine a scenario more chilling of individual speech & public's right to know"