Post

I wrote section 230 to protect the little guys and the upstarts like Bluesky. Repealing section 230 only helps Meta, Musk, and Donald Trump.

3.5K reposts16.2K likes

I’m an Illinoisan represented by Dick Durbin. Can you please sit him down and explain to him why repealing Section 230 is a huge Trump win?

Zuckerberg and Musk went all in on Trump and now they are going to make the laws. Stopping this will require more than a post on BlueSky. The people will need to a violent revolt or a Tax Strike. If you can't endorse either, then you are supporting the Trump agenda.

Not really, it would make it legally intractable for new firms (including Bluesky with its Discover feed) to compete with Musk & Zuckerberg & Tiktok, including on features like "less fascism". It would also make it a lot harder to deliberately surface less popular or less frequent posters.

I don't think Bluesky's selling feature nor driving content feed is via Discover, vs being the alternative to twitter. Either way, I think any sort of Discover/For You algorithm should have to be open-sourced or face liability claims.

The purpose of 230 was to free websites from responsibility for harmful 3rd party postings. It is what allows the algorithms to remain unchallenged and unexamined. If websites are responsible for postings, that is worse for X and Facebook and better for responsibly moderated Bluesky

We know what happens when we carve out things from §230 protection, and it's bad. Copyright is exempt from §230 protection: large IP rightsholders abuse the copyright claim process to silence criticism, stifle innovation, and punish people who say or do things they don't like.

YouTube copyright strikes demonetizing or removing people's videos for containing three seconds of a copyrighted song: abused by the police, who now routinely play copyrighted music when they're doing something they don't want streamed or made public, because they know it makes YouTube take it down.

Or FOSTA/SESTA, which is supposed to prevent sex trafficking by making sites liable if they don't remove user-generated content that enables it. Used daily against consensual, legal sex work like live shows and erotic photography, but also against queer people just talking about sex, not for money.

Thanks for your work. Will you please talk to the fearful GOP Sens who might oppose Trump in any way? Would you ask them whether they really want their children to grow up in a world led by Trump? Ask that they say "no" when principles demand it and to be as courageous as our founders. Thank you.

Can someone in the government explain to me why I’m supposed to be able to sleep at night knowing the White House is aiding and abetting a foreign enemy and backstabbing Ukraine?

Please do not vote for the CR! It is dirty, the language allows Trump to move funds you approved to any account. My husband a federal worker and a vet knows this would destroy America. We will take the financial hit to make sure America has something to fight for. Do NOT sell out to Putin!!

Without liability there is no accountability, and consequently no credibility. It’s binary. Just look around. Allowing publishing platforms to be free of liability is the most corporate thing ever. And algorithms are not speech and therefore may be regulated. I hate this needs to be explained.

230 allows platforms to limit or censor free speech as a condition of non-liability. Liability is the deterrence to mis/disinfo. Also, dude, Xitter won’t survive being liable. It’s barely surviving as it is.

This coming from somebody who understands the issue and disagrees and thinks that platforms should not have the right to censor, limit or decline third party free speech as a condition of 230’s non-liability clauses.

www.thefire.org/news/why-rep... “The answer isn’t to harness govt power to control private platforms’ editorial decisions. Repealing or undermining Section 230 would lead only to less expressive freedom and viewpoint diversity online — to the detriment of us all.”

thefire.orgWhy repealing or weakening Section 230 is a very bad ideaSection 230 made the internet fertile ground for speech, creativity, and innovation, supporting the formation and growth of diverse online communities and platforms. Repealing or weakening Section 230...

Pull the thread. Even this pro-230 piece concedes it allows platforms to censor or limit free speech as a condition of non-liability. “The statute “also grants the services broad immunity from liability for declining to host, publish, or platform third-party speech.””

There’s a difference (especially lately) between on-paper liability and actual real world liability. Here’s a gaming example: PvP is allowed on the server. There’s some super-rare kit that only 2-3 players can afford. Who do you think will win? I am inclined to agree with @wyden.senate.gov

In other words, the patient is too far gone to change the treatment. That means the problem needs re-diagnosis. I also reject the conceit that purveyors of mis/disinfo should have immunity in the town square they were given and then walled off. No, you need a better thesis than that.

Hey I’m liking your post because I think discourse is important. We’re both commenting in the thread of the person who wrote this section of law. Nobody “should” get away with disinformation. @wyden.senate.gov is pointing out that this could be a moment used to turn against what you (and I) want.

230 needs to be rewritten with a staged ‘virality’ clause at minimum. Where liability or anonymity removal kicks in when a post has over a few hundred or a 1000 views. The threshold of telephony or town square to broadcast. You did not have the foresight back then.

Algorithmic ordering of posts should be considered editorial control & should have editorial journalistic responsibilities. User generated content that is not promoted or amplified, but is user organized should fall under section 230. Musk, Zuck shouldn’t be immune from editorial responsibilities.

Algorithms can promote an agenda, they have their own voice separate from an individuals speech. They tune a choir of voices and amplify the message they want for the parent corporation. This tuned voice of a corporation should have the same responsibilities as WaPo, Ads, NYT, Reuters, etc…

An algorithmic timeline is not the speech of the people making a post, it’s the speech of the corporation promoting it. If Company A makes slander against Company B, company A is liable. Amplifying slander is slander & should be clearly made civilly liable.

For example, Yelp shouldn’t be able to extort money from small businesses to reorder and hide bad reviews. Doing so should be clear that positive reviews are paid promotional ads. Changing the order of posts changes their meaning and value. It’s nonobvious to people when order is changed.

Even simple algorithms such as ordering posts by how many likes they got? I think it would be fair to put the burden of proof on thecompanies to prove their algorithms are "fair" and "unbiased", but this is a bit short sighted. Algorithmic feeds are good, they just be used for bad things.

You would be kneecapping smaller companies by forcing to not use algorithmic feeds. Same issues as repealing section 230 would bring. Large companies have the resources to comply with virtually anything, less so the smaller companies.

This wouldn’t force companies to avoid algorithms, they would just become liable in court for promoting an addenda. They would have to prove no bias, and no agenda. They would have to prove they used a neutral algorithm.

This is true, and those who own the platforms that are dominated by algorithms would have you believe that there is no editorial control involved. This couldn't be further from the truth. Algorithms are guided by human hands.

Companies should be required to report logged out and logged in revenue per user. We deserve know how much our data is worth. Knowing means we can walk our data, attention and money to responsible social networks.

With all due respect, it isn't working. It has almost had the opposite effect. I am not sure a complete appeal is the way to go, but clearly the law is protecting the Musks and Metas of by shielding them from any liability for their editorial curation of speech.

This is a message I've heard echoed by many veterans, including myself. Strong leaders aren't just people in positions of power. They are people with fire, grit, and determination. The movement will belong to the people, and they will remember who chose to stay silent, and who chose to lead.

Does anyone else feel like what would really benefit Russia would be to have a Russian asset destabilizing the most powerful country in the world who would typically side with their enemies until it's too late? #Tricked #Krasnov

How is that possible? You wrote it in 1996 and it’s specifically what allowed Facebook and twitter to become what they became. It _made_ them. They didn’t exist in 1996. It may be true that they’re closing the door behind themselves; but only way ending 230 hurts them is if there is no enforcement

When 230 was created, there was no X or Facebook. It is what enabled and coddled them, though; from small to massive and all powerful. It should die. Sites should be held responsible for evil promoted by their algorithms.

You could not possibly be more wrong. bsky.app/profile/raha...

rahaeli@rahaeli.bsky.social

Your regular reminder that §230 protects YOU, the person reading this post, from being sued for reposting things just as much as it protects "Big Tech" from things that still wouldn't be a viable cause of action because your problem is not with §230, it's with the first amendment

I starting getting my posts banned on Instagram simple posts I think violent just posts asking questions talking about protest and now I can’t post there

Options not limited to binary choice, repeal or do nothing. Big mistake if we fail to MODIFY §230 immunity, given erosion of democracy due to large SM companies using attention algorithms to maximize user engagement by promoting false and misleading third party posts for profit. We can do this.

Ron Y'All have to come together Johnson on fox news is telling a narrative that will stick must convene quickly & be PROACTIVE not REACTIVE measles for example - RFK Out of town & website down- getting word out WHERE folks can get it! DON'T REACH ACROSS THE AISLE- REACH OUT HERE TO ME

Except Alphabet, Apple, Meta, _et cetera_, are not "the little guy" -- and are using the same protections. In <precisely> the same way Peter Thiel is protecting *billions* of dollars in a Roth IRA -- which was intended to "help the little guy" save for retirement.

I’m not a genius but section 230 is the law of the land and Meta and Musk have the disinformation fire cannon and the little guy has screaming into the void. Whatever the implications of repeal are can be discussed but it is not protecting the little guy or the people.

Yeah but section 230 is unacceptable as is. Fox News paid 800m for their lies and Meta and their ilk platform lies as bad if not worse on the daily; it's their business model. There has to be accountability for civil society and democracy

Why don’t cable news stop with regular BS and report real news for a change. Get Republicans on record(not behind closed doors with Dems)to say what they really think.Why is no one pushing back. Lawsuits go unnoticed and Trump continues to rip off taxpayers. Why do Dems vote with Rs to censure Ds.

THIS would be really, really bad. Brad Bondi represented Tesla /Musk against the S.E.C. Gave $25,000+ to Trump political comte's. Owns $3 mill. of Trump Media. Aslo running, Ed Martin’s Asst & DC Attorney Alicia Long for treasurer to control DC’s ethical watchdog www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/u...

nytimes.comAttorney General’s Brother Seeks to Lead D.C. Bar Association (Gift Article)Bradley Bondi, brother of Pam Bondi, is running for president of the D.C. Bar, which may consider complaints against political appointees in the Justice Department.

Feels quite likely the majority of the House and Senate will see it differently. Follow the money a step further who paid what to win the election and who has threatened to fund campaigns against those who don’t vote as directed. Bought and paid for by…really what’s a billion or 2 to the big 3?

Gee, maybe you could, you know, meet with the other fucking Democrats who are trying to take it away! You have the head of the Democrats on the judiciary committee arguing the other way. Get in a room, and work on him or come out against HIM.