I don't know why I bother, but I'll point out all the stuff in your latest claim that you know is nonsense yet again:

"You just said the platform’s own speech can’t conceivably create liability."

And I'll note that you neither agreed with that claim nor disagreed with it. You just moved on to your next talking point.

"Then 230 adds nothing there."

You absolutely know that's not true. Among the dozens of ways 230 could add something would be in a case like Stratton Oakmont where the liabilty was not for Prodigy's own speech.

"Yet platforms invoke it for that very conduct, and no newspaper or bookstore gets it."

I've already explained to you several times, and you have never even disagreed, that newspapers and bookstores do get similar immunity. And this is in a reply after you didn't take issue with my claim that there would almost never be immunity for their original speech anyway. So this is like triply nonsensical.

"Their own speech, plus an immunity no other publisher has. That’s the chart."

As you fully know, none of that is even remotely close to true. Speakers are also publishers. And if I hand you a copy of a book I bought and tell you, "I think you should read this book", I am a speaker and a publisher. I have no legal obligation whatsoever to investigate the lawfulness of the contents of the book and only the same kinds of legal obligations (such as complying with Federal criminal law on child pornography) that social media companies also have.

You know all this is complete nonsense. It's been explained to you several times. You've never even really disagreed, you just pivot to a different talking point.

I keep bothering to give you reasoned replies because I find it hard to believe someone can write in complete sentences and still be so completely immune to reason.