not really more like If you are peddling dating website memberships; either that are located in the USA or you are a USA person (or entity) -- you should be concerned. Same with webcams or any other interactive platform --FOSTA & SESTA are US Criminal Code 5 to 25 year felonies https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4996380/Doe-v-Facebook.pdf Thanks FOSTA & SESTA ]]] That said, one of the reasons why so many people who rely on the protections of Section 230 were opposed to SESTA/FOSTA was the deterrent effect of the safe harbor. So long as civil litigators around the country knew there was a serious barrier in place to making specious claims against websites in connection with the misdeeds of their users (as opposed to misdeeds by the website’s operators themselves), a lawsuit like Doe v. Facebook was substantially less likely to be filed in the first place. As one attorney put it to me in a recent off-the-record conversation, the complaint filed in Texas is the sort of suit Section 230 used to prevent, which was a good thing because it meant platforms like Facebook “did not have to defend claims with tenuous liability theories.” Even if Facebook manages to get the claims against it tossed out in the current case, my sense is it won’t be the only or last of its kind filed against the social media giant. And if Facebook settles or is eventually found liable in the case (which I greatly doubt it will), similar cases will be filed by virtually every potential plaintiff who can find an attorney who thinks their claim has potential merit.[[[ ^ Doe v. Facebook: The Leading Edge of a FOSTA Lawsuit Tidal Wave? | YNOT I do really hope this case is dismissed as it would set some precedent to a very disturbing change in the Safe Harbor that the Internet has had. Knowingly means willingly and mens rea (the criminal mind [or capacity]) needs to be proven [ hopefully, this argument will prevail as it should.