Eh. I don't know what the edgy Internet is, but I remember the 90s / 00s differently. Can't speak for you but If I told my EFF-loving TechDirt-reading CC0-cheering 2009 self that a startup was being sued for scraping the open web to create a chatbot, I would not have sided with rightholders.

The blatant gutter racism continues on Trump's Truth Social feed with virtually zero attention from Beltway media.

Big "Individual-1" energy here

So, if I were to use newspapers as an analogy, 230 says "can't be sued for op-eds" and Moody (or Tornillo) says "can't pass law mandating op-ed fairness". 3rd Circuit incorrectly assumes these principles to be in conflict. Does that seem like a fair summary?

Curious what your take is on this @mmasnick.bsky.social

I forget. Did they get this mad over Barack Obama's mother?

Well, it's not like he's very big on keeping classified things secret.

FWIW, intent is fine as a legal criteria. We rely on it to distinguish fraud from honest mistakes. But intent is hard to prove (although not impossible, especially in this age of email and chat).

The issue is that dark patterns are a function of the designer's intent, not the pattern itself. Pre-check a box because you think most of your users prefer it checked? OK. Pre-check a box because you think most of your users don't want it checked and will forget to uncheck it? Dark pattern.