I saw Parler CEO was against 230 being cut out. Like the twitter users screen name says, I have a suspicious mind these days.
If this is true, I see self-interest in play. Parler is distinguished by supporting free speech. If ALL platforms are required to support free speech, then Parler is just another platform.
WE’RE FAMOUS!! OVER THE TARGET!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
(Pelosi spokesman) Hammill framed McCarthy’s concerns over Swalwell as a distraction from problems in his own party with GOP reps who have promoted QAnon conspiracy theories, including Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The Anti-Defamation League has formally called on Congress not to give committee assignments to members who have backed QAnon.
“Minority Leader McCarthy is trying to distract from his continued kowtowing to QAnon and his refusal to heed the call of the Anti-Defamation League to refuse to seat his QAnon members on Congressional committees, including critical national security committees,” Hammill said.
Interesting. I get what the one person is saying, but a liability waiver would solve that problem. You do the same thing at the dentist for Oral Surgery etc. essentially, “if you completely break my jaw and ruin my face I do not hold you liable”
**************************************************************************************
In your example there is only the dentist and you. However, with respect to the internet sites, an interested third party or more may be involved.
For example suppose I post a story and derogatory comments about Person XYZ. XYZ then sues me and the owner of this site. Protection for the owner is what 230 is supposed to be about. Even if the owner of FR and I have signed a liability waiver, that would not take care of an offended third party.
Apologies for not being able to explain it better.