What is Section 230? (A #thread): [I] Two important cases are relevant. Cubby v. CompuServe is the first one. CompuServe was (maybe still is, idk this was the 90's) essentially a listserve compilation platform where users could go sign up for newsletters...

...[II] One of the newsletters defames Cubby. Cubby sues CompuServe for providing this content. Court rules distributers like CompuServe can't be liable because they're essentially digital bookstores or libraries just carrying information. Second case is...

...[III] Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Prodigy hosts chat boards, and someone posts defamatory stuff ab Stratton. Stratton sues, court rules in their favor for 2 reasons. 1st, Prodigy presented themselves as the controller of the message board. 2nd, Prodigy screened content...

...[IV] Court says, if you're gonna screen content, and you let defamatory content go up, you're liable. Two congressmen identify what's known as the moderator's dilemma: Do we merely provide and have no control over what's on our website, or do we monitor and create legal risk..

...[V] So they draft 230 and create the sword and shield of big tech. Shield: content providers can't be liable for things their users put on the site. Sword: content providers are allowed to moderate content on their site...

...[VI] To put this in context of today's debate: Twitter is within their 230 rights to censor the NYPost story. (were they when they suspended accounts who distributed it? different story). The debate will be if these companies content moderation is too biased...end thread.