We do everything online. We shop, travel, invest, socialize, and even hold garage sales. Even though we may not care whether a company operates online or in the physical world, however, the question has dramatic consequences for the companies themselves. Online and offline entities are governed by different rules. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, online entities -- but not physical-world entities -- are immune from lawsuits related to content authored by their users or customers. As a result, online entities have been able to avoid claims for harms caused by their negligence and defective product designs simply because they operate online. The reason for the disparate treatment is the internet's dramatic evolution over the last two decades. The internet of 1996 served as an information repository and communications channel and was well governed by Section 230, which treats internet entities as another form of mass media: Because Facebook, Twitter and other online companies could not possibly review the mass of content that flows through their systems, Section 230 immunizes them from claims related to user content. But content distribution is not the internet's only function, and it is even less so now than it was in 1996. The internet also operates as a platform for the delivery of real-world goods and services and requires a correspondingly diverse immunity doctrine. This Article proposes refining online immunity by limiting it to claims that threaten to impose a content-moderation burden on internet defendants. Where a claim is preventable other than by content moderation -- for example, by redesigning an app or website -- a plaintiff could freely seek relief, just as in the physical world. This approach empowers courts to identify culpable actors in the virtual world and treat like conduct alike wherever it occurs.

翻译：我们在线上做所有事情：购物、旅行、投资、社交，甚至举办庭院拍卖。尽管我们可能不关心一家公司是在线上还是线下运营，但这一问题对公司自身却有着深远影响。线上和线下实体受不同规则管辖。根据《通信规范法》第230条，线上实体——而非线下实体——在由其用户或客户创作的内容引发的诉讼中享有豁免权。因此，线上实体能够避免因其疏忽和缺陷产品设计造成的损害索赔，仅仅因为它们在线运营。这种差异化待遇源于过去二十年互联网的急剧演变。1996年的互联网充当信息存储库和通信渠道，第230条能很好地适用于它，该条款将互联网实体视为另一种形式的大众媒体：由于Facebook、Twitter及其他在线公司无法审查其系统中流动的海量内容，第230条免除了它们与用户内容相关的索赔。但内容分发并非互联网的唯一功能，而且现在这种功能比1996年更为次要。互联网还充当着实体商品和服务交付的平台，因此需要相应多样化的豁免原则。本文提出通过将豁免权限制在那些可能对互联网被告施加内容审核负担的索赔上，来完善在线豁免权。如果某项索赔可以通过内容审核以外的方式（例如重新设计应用程序或网站）加以预防，那么原告可以自由寻求救济，如同在物理世界中一样。这种方法使法院能够识别虚拟世界中的责任主体，并无论行为发生在何处，都能对类似行为予以同等对待。