A Double-Edged Sword Cuts Both Ways

Ok. So I'm not making the news here. Just reporting what's already overwhelmingly accepted as fact, and I'm curious what you think. If you're so inclined, please read this short summary of a law put into play back in 1996. While you're at it, consider how many people in 1996 were on Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twatter and all the rest of those "interactive computer service providers" shielded by this law. Damn, you're quick! Those companies didn't even exist and thus, NO ONE cared. Now BILLIONS are impacted in attempts to be manipulated by it every second of every day around the world. Some of us know that. Others are oblivious, and there are even those that like it. Take a look for yourself. Keeping in mind a double-edged sword cuts both ways. Then I'd be curious to know which of the ironies poked you in the eye first.

"Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish."

Still not sure what you think? Maybe you don't like nutshells so there's more detail below.