When making legal argument's you'll often do things like: "this recommendation algorithm is legal because any algorithm would be legal, but even if you don't accept this then this algorithm is legal because it didn't consider the content of the video in making a recommendation, but even if you don't accept this then..."

That they asserted that any algorithm would be legal doesn't tell us that their case stands or falls on that assertion alone.

Sure, they want to argue the most extreme interpretation of 230 to get the court to either side with them completely or "compromise" by getting to what I wrote.

At the same time they are lobbying congress to keep 230 the way it is but do what I wrote as a compromise if they have to.

They just don't want to lose Section 230 protection because it would mean the end of user generated content. Without 230 protections, every user submission would have to be reviewed before going live, even here.

> Without 230 protections, every user submission would have to be reviewed before going live, even here.

Yep. And if that goes, then the last major good thing about the web will be destroyed. Or second-to-last, since some real people still actually do still put up their own noncommercial websites.

I don't think that they made this argument because they want to promote ISIS. I think they made it because they want to promote content for CNN, MSNBC, Pfizer, Fox News and whoever else gives them money to do so.