URI: 

       feeds.xml - www.codemadness.org - www.codemadness.org saait content files
  HTML git clone git://git.codemadness.org/www.codemadness.org
   DIR Log
   DIR Files
   DIR Refs
   DIR README
   DIR LICENSE
       ---
       feeds.xml (723961B)
       ---
            1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
            2 <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
            3 <entry>
            4         <title>[EFF] Section 230 Is Not A Special “Tech Company” Immunity</title>
            5         <link rel="alternate" href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/section-230-not-special-tech-company-immunity" />
            6         <link rel="enclosure" href="https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/cda-230.png" />
            7         <published>2019-05-01T15:20:36Z</published>
            8         <author><name>David Greene</name></author>
            9         <content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field__items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field__item even&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Members of Congress are fond of wrongly calling Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) a “big tech company” immunity, implying that it doesn’t protect anyone else. And they are not alone in this mistake. We frequently hear the same mischaracterization from friends in academia and legacy news media.  &lt;/p&gt;
           10 &lt;p&gt;The characterization is wrong because Section 230’s protections have been enjoyed and employed by a wide variety of Internet users. The law’s protections are in no way limited to “tech companies,” of any size.&lt;/p&gt;
codemadness.org:70 /git/www.codemadness.org/file/output/downloads/sfeed/atom/feeds.xml.gph:21: line too long