Comment by Danielle Coffey

We can agree more the hypocrisy that there would be a contradiction. So, it's good to hear, then, they're saying that they're the creator of the content because they're saying that in courts over copyright right now. ``We're creating this new expressive content. We're not taking your work. It's ours.'' So, it would be contradictory to then be immune for hosting others' content if they're the ones creating it. Which is why it's different from original Section 230 applications. It would lead to a healthier ecosystem here, too, like you say, because they would outsource their liability to those who already carry their liability, and they would license, like we're hoping that they will, they would serve attributions because they would want to attach a credible brand to what they're serving. Then it would be good for users because it would be a healthy ecosystem. It would be a win, win, win. We would be very supportive of that accountability and legislation, and also, I believe, lead to licensing that we're looking for as well. Unverified source (2024)