He also complains that the FCC is a heavy-handed New Deal era agency ... but he also supports the agency nannying television and removing Section 230.
You can't really have it both ways.
Oh you totally can, you just have to give up consistency
> Oh you totally can, you just have to give up consistency
We need a 'CAP theorem'-like thing for political doublethink.
It recognizes that a platform is just an intermediary, not the originator.
Similar provisions are in place in most of the civilized world.
They aren't magazines or TV, where everything is under editorial control.
Not to mention, that magazines and TV outlets are also typically not liable when information in ads or third parties(such as pundits) is litigated against.
The counter to this point, is that torrent providers are also just intermediaries, not the originators.
To some extent, companies/people should be accountable for the actions they facilitate as an intermediary.
I'm just not sure how accountable.
It's wild how such a simple premise is totally willfully misconstrued (or maybe you happen to just be way off base, but there's huge ranks of people inventing all sorts of wild delusional fictions about Safe Harbor).