No reason to add or subtract anything. It should be a classification issue. Either Twitter, Facebook, etc are social media companies and do not publish their own content or they do. 230 is written in 1995?? I think and this was before all this new tech, but whatever happens is a direct result of their own actions and I don't really care either way because I only use Facebook messenger/Instagram to communicate with my local tracks. When the discussion came up it was about the "broad" interpretation of 230 and how it can shield Twitter, Facebook, etc from litigation based on their own actions, the legal opinions vary as well. So in my view, it just makes sense to either adjust the wording more appropriately or adjust their classification based on their own actions.
I haven't changed my mind. I tried explain this to you last time. Last you you got hung up and kept saying Twitter shouldn't be liable for what I post. I never disagreed with this. I routinely made the point they should be liable for what they do and under the current language it can be interpreted they are still protected under 230.
