Um, not so reasonable

Isn't it true that the statute [Section 230] had a more narrow scope of immunity than…what YouTube is arguing here today," Jackson said to Google's lawyer, Lisa Blatt, "and that it really was just about making sure that your platform and other platforms weren't disincentivized to block and screen and remove offensive content? And so to the extent the question today is, well, can we be sued for making recommendations, that's just not something the statute was directed to."

So if Google/YouTube adjust algorithms to amplify neoNazi hate speech and more Jews are attacked as a result, Reason says the internet would fall apart if courts heard the case and held Google responsible?

Meanwhile just last month Republicans were holding hearings about Twitter keeping Hunter's dick pics and home sex videos off the internet, which *would* se m to be a minimum of Section 230, while ignoring President Trump trying to stop being called a "pussy ass bitch", which seems to kinda qualify as speech, and not quite "hate speech" (unless he goes to court to prove he really is a pussy ass bitch and this is slurring him and his kind), even tho Twitter, a private company, can largely do what it wants.