And stratton oakmont, ugh. Even if you forgive the ruling's treatment of Anderson, the basic theory of publisher liability it presents is already completely backwards.

As for the duty, I think it got halfway to something that might have made sense if it was fully ruined by pretending it's not a publishing decision? Like, sure, a law that is otherwise constitutional can impose a duty, in narrow circumstances, to inspect third-party content. This will typically have to be triggered by certain voluntary non-expressive conduct by the bearer of the duty.

But I think the only just interpretation of 230 wrt contracts is that no defendant can be treated as having waived the law's protections, or their own editorial freedom, unless they had promised something so specific that a waiver is implied, at least in that regard.