I was (admittedly) mistaken on the Circuit Court. Yes it did not rely on treating Snapchat as "the publisher", nor was my case. I was "the publisher" and never alleged otherwise. I made that statement clear to the courts but the courts made its own determination. Facebook's actions to "provide content" were completely ignored.

And as far as Enigma, it may have relied on 230c2 but the court found the "Good Samaritan provision" was where it failed. That is the first logical point (230C). That is where my case should have failed 12b6 at 230c.

I would suggest reading the first article I wrote explaining the textual misinterpretations this whole mess hinges on. (The same mess that Thomas wrote about in Enigma)