Originally Posted by
Latrinsorm
Good try. "The courts" had ruled in multiple contradictory ways, as they tend to do. Sometimes these contradictions are settled by the Supreme Court, sometimes they're settled by federal law, sometimes they're not settled at all - this is one of the middle times, and section 230 clearly and unambiguously says "No provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher of any information provided by another information content provider." No caveats, no provisos, no ifs ands or buts.
It then additionally talks about good faith moderation, but the presence or absence of moderation of any kind is completely irrelevant to the first, clear, unambiguous protection. Don't believe me! Ask Nemet Chevrolet, who sued a website for selectively editing reviews against them and got laughed out of court, or "thoroughly destroyed" if you will.