Elaad Eliyahu

A complaint was made about the website to which they said, hey, we didn't write that.

A commenter wrote that.

Don't sue us.

We didn't say it.

And the argument was it's published on your website.

That's your responsibility.

So they create Section 230 to say two things.

You are not liable for what someone else for user generated content on your platform.

And you will still not be liable if you decide to remove things that are objectionable.

That's it.

A new question has emerged.

Are you the publisher of the content personally when you are offering money to someone to publish it?

That is, YouTube has a contract with Candace Owens.

They say to Candace, whatever content you make, we'll make money together.

That is entirely different from the original intent of Section 230.

And so now, with this court case where YouTube is liable for what they promote, the question is...

When YouTube cuts a deal with someone, does this now change the narrative?

It matters culturally what we ultimately decide.

But I think the fair argument is, if you remove YouTube from the equation and said,

Let's say this, Ian, you decide to rob a bank.