Section 230 did not create the internet as we know it. The shift from subscription based profit models to "free" user data-mining and advertising profit models is what created the internet.

It's when the user stopped being the customer and started being the commodity.

Section 230 was extravagantly interpreted so that users could never hold accountable a tech company for harms on the platform. The plain language supports the idea that platforms can't be sued for things like defamation

or editorial decisions. But starting early on, courts interpreted it to also prevent law suits for things like negligence by platforms. And more recently, the Second Circuit said platforms also can't be sued under product

liability laws. A lot of people spread the idea that changing section 230 will destroy the internet. To them I say, is it really so great here? But also, the frivolous cases get thrown out b/c 1st Am rights of the platforms and the very harsh

pleading standards in our courts. And if your fave platform over-censors, it might, yikes, cause a user exodus to other emerging platforms. And OMG, some new competition! As for the argument that tech can't sustain itself if it's liable for harms caused,

consider literally every product and brand you use and have ever heard of -- cars, planes, chainsaws, staplers, computers, tractors, cribs, ketchup, aspirin, Burger King, Four Seasons. They all still exist and yet are liable for harms they cause.