The reasons for this law are to protect free speech and to encourage the availability of information on the Internet. See generally Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing, “Making interactive computer services and their users liable for the speech of third parties would severely restrict the information available on the Internet.”). See also Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc., 167 F. Supp.3d 1056, 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (purpose of CDA immunity is “to spare interactive computer service providers the ‘grim choice’ of becoming fully responsible for third-party content” by permitting them some ability to edit third-party content without also becoming liable for all defamatory or otherwise unlawful messages that they do not edit or delete.) We cannot possibly monitor the accuracy of the huge volume of information we are receiving for this list. If interactive websites were liable for information that the site did not create, this would restrict free speech, as fewer and fewer sites would be willing to permit users to post anything at all.