I know about the case and I understand why it was written. It was written at time there were less monthly users on the internet in the US than daily users on Facebook today. It was a simple, one sentence law that has have major ramifications for the good and the bad. There is absolutely no reason it can not be modified/adjusted to be a bit more sophisticated than it currently is. Every other technology we modify the laws regulating them as we go. Commercial aviation isn't held to the same laws that were passed in 1920, in fact new regulations come out every day on commercial aviation. Saying that Section 230 should never been adjusted for modern tech and use cases, is right up there with saying the second amendment should guarantee all arms, doesn't matter that there were no machine guns or nuclear bombs when it was written, any one can have any arm anytime they want it.
The options are not no moderation and no liability or some moderation and infinite liability. There are adjustments that can be made, especially when we start talking about companies selecting third party content and promoting it. No other industry has anywhere near this liability shield. I have never said to eliminate Section 230, I have said it needs to be adjusted so that when companies start making their own business decisions to act as a promoter and publisher, they should be treated as such. Again if Facebook would've pushed the same Dominion conspiracy as Fox News using nothing but third party posts, they would have zero liability, no matter how many damning e-mails were uncovered. If you give me a loaded gun and I shoot up a mall with it, should I have no liability because the gun wasn't mine?
Again, my issue is allowing companies to have unlimited use of third party content with no liability. This is not content moderation, it is content promotion and publishing. Completely different than the Prodigy case and completely different than how Anandtech moderation works.