It is, in the sense that companies like Meta operate assuming that 230 gives them carte blanche to act as they please.
But:
"Plaintiffs characterize Meta’s duty as one of product design—that Meta should not have built Facebook in a way that boosted incitements to violence. Still, the alleged defects relate to Facebook’s core design as a publishing platform, particularly how Facebook promoted or downplayed third-party posts using algorithms. Under our case law, matching users with content is publishing conduct, even when the user has not requested the content."
At issue the question of who, if anyone, is responsible for the speech issues at play when Meta chooses to show me X rather than Y of the near infinite pool of content at its disposal.
Some are indeed looking to completely get rid of 230, but if you ask me, assuming that Meta has 230 protections for all editorial decisions it makes should be considered overbroad. I'm no lawyer, but as a citizen it seems to me that it puts Meta's influence beyond legal accountability in a way that no individual is. And that seems totally unfair.
Frankly, when you look around and everyone around you is focused first and foremost on getting rich, that's a good indication that the rich veins have already been mined.
Wealth is built on creating something of value. There is gamesmanship played to acquire that value once it is created, but without the thing itself they are all just picking each others' pockets.
Facebook did exactly this with a VPN acquisition. They didn't break into customer data; they just mined it for usage patterns.
So as a pure speculation on Goog's motives, it doesn't sound farfetched enough to call ridiculous. Competitive data is valuable, particularly if you want to strangle the youth in their cradles (or acquire them).
They also are the largest employer of doctors in the United States.
They've essentially constructed their own single-payer health care provider, but instead of being paid for by tax dollars it's a publicly traded company whose primary goal is to increase shareholder value.
As described, it is a fair ways away from what RealPage is doing. Specifically:
* RealPage sells raising rents, not just market info.
* RealPage pressures clients into taking their higher rents.
* RealPage also pressure clients to refuse to rent at lower rates for their own narrow economic interest - in other words, they actively seek to circumvent competitive pressure to keep rents high. (edit: to clarify, I mean they discourage lowering rent to attract a renter)
Pave does sound like it gives businesses a leg up over employees in wage negotiations, but until it e.g. starts promising clients that they will be able to pay lower salaries, the critical element of coordination won't be in the mix. Pave gives you the data, but you can still choose to pay above market to attract talent.
But:
"Plaintiffs characterize Meta’s duty as one of product design—that Meta should not have built Facebook in a way that boosted incitements to violence. Still, the alleged defects relate to Facebook’s core design as a publishing platform, particularly how Facebook promoted or downplayed third-party posts using algorithms. Under our case law, matching users with content is publishing conduct, even when the user has not requested the content."
At issue the question of who, if anyone, is responsible for the speech issues at play when Meta chooses to show me X rather than Y of the near infinite pool of content at its disposal.
Some are indeed looking to completely get rid of 230, but if you ask me, assuming that Meta has 230 protections for all editorial decisions it makes should be considered overbroad. I'm no lawyer, but as a citizen it seems to me that it puts Meta's influence beyond legal accountability in a way that no individual is. And that seems totally unfair.