I'm not sure how Brian Armstrong chose those particular five articles to link to at the end of this post, but I don't think that Coinbase meant to say that those articles reflect its own preferred position on speech or intermediary liability, as all five take somewhat different positions, which may even conflict with each other. So I don't think this is a subtle way of revealing Coinbase's new position on §230 reform or something.

I suspect it's a bit more like "hey, in case you haven't noticed, intermediaries' role is a pretty hot debate lately, as indicated by this range of views about it".

(Thanks for the tofu!)

This would preclude HN, which is moderated on much stricter than first amendment grounds.

Virtually everywhere is moderated more strictly because in most contexts to do otherwise is silly or even insane.

E.g. pretty much any communication medium will (try to) ban spammers, even if 'spamming' is legal.

The American constitution is a vaguely worded 18th century document whose interpretation depends entirely on the whims of nine political appointees.

A liability shield isn’t much of a shield if every content moderation decision is potential liability under the extremely murky standard of American constitutionality.

>The American constitution is a vaguely worded 18th century document whose interpretation depends entirely on the whims of nine political appointees.

Feature, not a bug. The concept of living law is one of the most important contributions of english common law to humanity.

If living law is what you're concerned about then I think Brtain's tradition of parliamentary sovereignty is as close as you can get to it.

The constitution and the court system with its legalistic approach if anything contradict living law, which is precisely law not by means of constitutions, statutes or courts.

Keep in mind that this is entirely antithetical to the modern conservative approach to constitutional scholarship ("originalism").

Spot on, the history of horrible decisions (Dred Scott, Kelo v New London, Citizens United, Wickard v Filburn) the weight of some of which still burdens us should be evidence enough of a dangerously broken system. One need not even wander into the impossibly cloudy question of what "shall not be infringed" means.