Oops
Not at all, the “big chiwawa” was citing cases from thirty years ago which created 230, irrelevant to the exchange
Oops
Both of the cases you posted are irrelevant, both 30years old, and were used at the time to create 230, not what the Court has facing them this week
Try to keep up “big chiwawa”
Of course they are relevant. They illustrate the difference between a distributor and a publisher.
I dont really give a shit I just want the rules whatever they are to be applied to everyone.
If they were relevant the Court wouldn’t be deciding on the two cases this week
As I explained, they are thirty year old cases used when 230 was instituted, when social media was in its infancy, and if they throw it out, it won’t matter what you are, the sites will be vulnerable to legal action on whatever they run
Still missing it, reading it all with partisan glasses
Not at all, the “big chiwawa” was citing cases from thirty years ago which created 230, irrelevant to the exchange