of others represented, for Congress, simply another form of intrusive government regulation of speech. Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum. Id. Thus, Congress made a policy choice not to deter harmful online speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties’ potentially injurious messages. Id. This is so because interactive computer services have millions of users, and the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is “staggering.” Id. “The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obvious chilling 9, 1123-24 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1030-31 (9th
holding that the plaintiff had standing because the defendant violated her privacy by making unsolicited automated calls to her cell phone holding that an online dating service provider was not liable when an unidentified party posted a false online profile for a popular actress leading her to receive sexually explicit phone calls letters and faxes at home holding that online service provider was immune from defamation claim based on inaccurate stock information holding that an interactive website allowing clients to bank online was insufficient to confer general jurisdiction over a foreign bank holding that a provider of software and hardware was not an information provider and thus could not be charged with negligent misrepresentation