The fight over Section 230 is about so, so, so much more.
@Jack?
Doe v. America Online, Inc.
"She alleged that AOL was negligent per se in violating section 847.0135, Florida Statutes, by allowing Russell to distribute an advertisement offering "a visual depiction of sexual conduct involving [John Doe]" and by allowing Russell to sell or arrange to sell child pornography, thus aiding in the sale and distribution of child pornography, including obscene images of John Doe. Doe asserted a separate claim for negligence based on the allegation that AOL knew or should have known that Russell and others like him used the service to market and distribute child pornography; that it should have used reasonable care in its operation; that it breached its duty; and that the damages to John Doe were reasonably foreseeable as a result of AOL's breach. Doe further claimed that complaints had been communicated to AOL as to Russell's transmitting obscene and unlawful photographs or images and that although AOL reserved the right to terminate without notice the service of any member who did not abide by its "Terms of Service and Rules of the Road," AOL neither warned Russell to stop nor suspended his service. Two of the counts in Doe's complaint were directed at Russell."
Section 230 lets @Jack provide a system for the free flow of child pornography? Can't hold Twitter responsible under Section 230?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13187776317069287091&hl=en&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=80000006