My company consulted for AOL in 1996. At the time AOL provided an Interactive Computer Service because it was a dial-up Internet On-Ramp. We also consulted for Aurora Technologies, which manufactured Access Control Software and licensed the software to a system integrator that worked with an Internet On-Ramp for a library or or for a school.

The System Integrator/Access Control Provider set up a (usually headless) server at the school or library. The server either connected to the Internet On-Ramp by dial-up or by leased line. Client software was installed on a number of PCs that connected to the server by serial lines, by Ethernet, Token Ring, or by Arcnet.

47 U.S. Code § 223 (e) Defenses (6) indicates that Congress put an ICS or an Access Control Provider at least in some situations into the category of a user of a dial-up phone line.

I don’t see how either Salesforce or a 2022 social medium platform meets either the definition of a 1996 ICS or the definition of a 1996 Access Software Provider as ICS and Access Software Provider are defined in 47 U.S. Code § 230.

To a 1996 user of an ICS or an Access Software Provider, the definitions of these two entities is perfectly clear. A Court struggles with the definitions in 2022 because the technology is obsolete, and everyone has forgotten what these definitions mean. § 230 is equally obsolete and should be ignored by the Courts until Congress writes a enacts a new statute.

Here is § 230 (f)(2).

Interactive computer service

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

47 U.S. Code § 223 (e) Defenses (6) tells us that to Congress and ICS was a dial-up service.

(6)The Commission may describe measures which are reasonable, effective, and appropriate to restrict access to prohibited communications under subsection (d). Nothing in this section authorizes the Commission to enforce, or is intended to provide the Commission with the authority to approve, sanction, or permit, the use of such measures. The Commission shall have no enforcement authority over the failure to utilize such measures. The Commission shall not endorse specific products relating to such measures. The use of such measures shall be admitted as evidence of good faith efforts for purposes of paragraph (5) in any action arising under subsection (d). Nothing in this section shall be construed to treat interactive computer services as common carriers or telecommunications carriers.