@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender According to EFF, Section 230 protects you when you, say, forward an e-mail to a public list. (It's part of their disingenuous it-protects-you-and-me-not-just-big-firms spin.) Mail providers were protected before 230, bc they didn't curate. If you retweet a defamatory tweet, you are not liable, even though you affirmatively chose to do so. Sectio 230 exists to shield discretionary decisions to publish or not, distribution without discretion was already protected.1/

@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender (If 230 didn't exist would mail providers become liable on the theory that spam filtering is editorial discretion? That's an interesting question!) 2/

@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender However counterintuitive, at least under EFF's description, if I privately dish to you by e-mail, and you forward the defamatory speech to a big public mailing list, I am protected but you are liable. Defamation doesn't depend on an intent to publicize. Leaked private defamation is actionable if it's harmful, and in the digital realm all but the original defamer are often shielded. 3/

EDIT: I screwed this up, meant to say u r protected but I am liable. Thx Louis!

@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender Now we are saying the people must protect accurate reports of what ChatGPT said from any leak if they prompted it, because whatever the eff ChatGPT said it's as if they said it themselves, from a liability perspective. A bit weird. /fin