> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
> (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
Doing something like throttling your competitor's video streaming traffic while zero-rating your own is pretty hard to cast as a good-faith action, especially if it's done on the basis of where the traffic is originating instead of based on the content. And I'm not sure mere throttling or deprioritization is enough to qualify as an attempt to "restrict access to or availability of material". So I don't see how section 230 can give protection to ISPs that want to discriminate against certain classes of traffic.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
Doing something like throttling your competitor's video streaming traffic while zero-rating your own is pretty hard to cast as a good-faith action, especially if it's done on the basis of where the traffic is originating instead of based on the content. And I'm not sure mere throttling or deprioritization is enough to qualify as an attempt to "restrict access to or availability of material". So I don't see how section 230 can give protection to ISPs that want to discriminate against certain classes of traffic.