nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqypvdkvqdxp038zkn46lkky8gc32dantqtjl5y275dukl59ua4plr2gxglz5 nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyp48tys0cmtpj4qq5k7yw2w7tfx5sqgm5hcye9t8qmyqat85lde5shfwsp3 nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqypayx8xlul3vy5ufzmtuclm36eymv5grgg4n50588nlsghp4xyf9jg4r5z7 I’m saying - just like you should be - that the laws are *different* outside the US. There isn’t a direct equivalent of Section 230 outside the US. That’s the key here. Your ITIF document explicitly says “these laws differ from Section 230 in a few key ways”.

The point is that Section 230 is **broader than any of the equivalents in other countries**; and that most other countries offer narrower protection to the service provider (but still significant protection).

You say that the lack of Section 230 makes any form of online hosting unworkable. This is provably false - because the rest of the world doesn’t have Section 230 or the wider protection that clause gives. And we're all still using the internet.

(To link to China here is “whataboutism” that I’ll not give you the satisfaction of responding to.)