Please shout this at your colleagues. WE KNOW. Also, let them know what happens if you guys repeal section 230 and then the big red states (Florida, Texas) pass laws criminalizing the posting of LGBTQ Content, 'Critical Race Theory' or Criticism of the Trump Regime on any public social media.
Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 protects online platforms and users from lawsuits based on third-party content. It was enacted in 1996 as part of the Communications Decency Act.
Get your mind spoken now because ...
We DEMAND you get it together and start protecting more than entrepreneurial businesses.
Protect our children dammit.
Protect our data and privacy.
Highlight manipulated AI for users.
Put banners on threats/lies.
Force transparency of manipulated algorithms.
Thank you Senator Wyden! You are so often a knowledgeable voice, I hope you can have some conversations with your colleagues to correct the misconceptions they hold!
Require transparency in content moderation limit immunity for platforms that knowingly spread harmful misinformation, give users better tools to flag or verify content.These reforms keep Section 230's protections for small platforms while ensuring big tech doesn’t exploit it to avoid accountability
I run a hobbyist forum with five million page views a month. I was sued because a user claimed he was defamed by another and I wouldn't remove every post that might have referenced him or his company. I won with just a letter.
Again if your site is broadcasting where fraud, slander or incitement to crime or harm of others is no longer a dialectic (telephony or town square) & a manipulating algo and views for $$$ there needs a clause of liability or loss of anonymity at that threshold. (Whatever that may be ^100 or ^1000
I read that same arguement for repealing it. Repealing 230 would lead to higher costs the curate all the contents making it more expensive for smaller companies to enter the market place. But those extra costs would be to prevent them from being sued. Existing platforms certainly would have...
...an advantage based on their size (revenue streams) but they already have that advantage. Repealing 230 does expose them to lawsuits and their size could be a disadvantage at that point as the shear volume of content means a higher exposure to bad stuff slipping through.
They claim to want regulation for stability, but it's also pulling the benefits of 230 that they enjoyed to get to where they are, pulling the ladder for everyone else after them.
Just click the plus sign at the bottom where english is at.
Also thats not a infringement. That just how mirco blogging sites are. All Sites have a limit to how many characters you can post. However you can reply to yourself and that is what the plus sign does.
This change would specifically target Musk & Zuckerberg & Tiktok's ability to shape public opinion by making them liable for what their algorithms subjectively push to people.
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.
Open-sourcing a feed-ranking algorithm communicates very little about how it actually works in practice or what its consequences are for the platform or users. If an algorithm is simple enough open-source does usefully reveal its behavior, then it also makes it much easier to game or manipulate.
There are problems with accountability and social impact of feed rank algorithms, I don't disagree with that at all. But most liability proposals will create a strictly worse state of social media and severely hamper innovation (including innovation on safety and social responsibility).
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
That is… very wrong. 230 is to promote innovation, including in moderation, by not holding sites liable every time they got moderation wrong. Pre-230, the liability shield was not to moderate (can't be liable because they didn't look). Every "responsibly moderated" site *will* make errors.
So, what you get is the algorithm. I’m saying; if you invoke the algorithm, you should be liable. If you’re enabling a network of friends, you’re a common carrier, and not liable. This is what 230 bypasses.
Meta and Google have the lawyers and resources to continue hosting user-generated content, likely in a severely restricted manner, if liability shields are removed. Startups, including firms like Bluesky, do not, and it's a huge financial risk for investors. Bye-bye innovation.
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.
There is no way to create liability for user-generated content that doesn't lead to extremely terrible results, not just for small sites trying to exist without the legal budget of Google or Meta but for you, the individual who's posting on those sites.
Really? If that was true, Meta, Musk & Pichai would be lobbying to repeal 230, & it'd be gone.
You expect us to believe they're completely ruthless and conniving in all other aspects of business, but they are all kumbayah and altruism on the most important legal issue affecting them?
They *are* lobbying for that. Musk, Trump and basically every fascist commentator have had the repeal of section 230 as a talking point for years now. They blamed the existence of section 230 on "censorship of conservatives"
Wasn't their complaint that content moderation was a de facto "censorship"? Seems I made a false assumption that repeal would imply social media companies have more incentive to moderate &/or recommend content responsibly b/c of liability. Not trying to advocate for more hate speech. Do the right-
Wingers still complain about that since Musk bought twitter and Zuckerberg announced they are modifying their CM? Perhaps the outcome would depend on who is in power at the time, and what repeal was replaced with. Wiil need to read more before i continue to publicly confuse myself.
they don't complain as much about censorship now that they get to be the ones doing the censoring no. so their complaints about section 230 also have died down
but I think Trump called to repeal it recently too
It can both be true that compliance with a legal landscape post-repeal is an expense Meta would rather not have to spend and also that the costs of compliance post-repeal could be so great that only Meta and X could afford them.
Theoretically possible, sure.
Riddle me this:
Which is a bigger threat to innovation? Monopoly, or content moderation?
Now that we know social media destroys social cohesion and destabilizes society, why should we want new examples?
How does AI affect the burden of compliance?
Cont'd...
When were algorithms to "increase engagement" first implemented? How are those algorithms somehow different than an opinion page editor's decisions?
Why should AI and social media companies be excused from reimbursing creators for the use of their intellectual property?
Cont'd...
Which is a more attractive litigation target for a trophy hunter, a $50 million start up with 15 million users, or a behemoth like Meta?
Is there a downside of allowing so few individuals despotic control of social media companies? Is that a COI?
Why are their recommendation algorithms opaque?
Honestly, the $50 million start-up that can't afford prolonged litigation is the more attractive target. There's a bigger financial incentive to settle quickly for whatever's demanded before the bills rack up.
Big companies keep big firms on retainer for compliance fights. Cost of business.
Hey! Thank you for your informed and thoughtful responses! Sounds like 230 shields social media platforms from liability for their content. Still not sure I understand why that is a good thing.
Anyhoo, hypothetically of course, let's say a whistleblower came forward credibly alleging that the...
Section 230 only works if you criminalize DISinformation. There has to be a criminal penalty for knowingly allowing false information to be posted on a forum that has a worldwide reach. Currently it's destroying democracy worldwide. Your "freedom of expression" is going to destroy democracy.
If platforms can be punished for user generated content they will just stop hosting user generated content. It would destroy the internet. It's a bad idea. Shut the fuck up.
If you want a harsh criminal penalty for misinformation say that instead. It would have nothing to do with 230.
“Shut the fuck up” fuck you asshole. Speaking like you do is what destroys the Internet. If you think posting disinformation is good then perhaps you’re part of the disinformation complex, a foreign actor whose goal is to distort democracy by posting information you know to be false.
I want to know what to do if the robber barons in charge cut SS and MC. Should we just stop paying federal taxes and save it for healthcare and retirement? We need answers,leadership, and a voice NOW, not bogus paperwork that will never pass!!!
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?
I have asked multiple people about this event and can get no answers. Who is coordinating it and do they have permits? How to they propose getting thousands to the area? Staging along the metro line? Busses? I signed up and have received nothing but emails asking for donations. What gives?
I switched to Signal and BlueSky, And now added Substack.
Agreed, a clear mind is clear because it is capable of filtering against BS.
Dump Trump and the Oligarchs!
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.
Do more ! You’re my senator !! Thanks for boycotting and doing a shadow speech on Monday. But we need yall to get John lewis up in this bish. Get arrested. Block them sand the gears do ANYTHING!!
Can you explain it to @durbin.senate.gov ? Cause this goes doesn’t seem to understand anything and is a disaster in a leadership position. It’s not 2005
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.
Get your voice heard on the senate floor! Some of your own colleagues have been lying about what Section 230 actually does to attack it, and you need to make sure the rest dont fall for it.
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.
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.
Well, see Wyden, that's the thing. @durbin.senate.gov couldn't give a shit about any of that.
This is about his Fuhrer's need to stamp out online dissent, oppose any form of competition, and eliminate the rights of those fighting against his daddy's pathological urge to destroy.
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 are a hero. dems that did nothing are cowards, those that voted for your censure are traitors and should be primaried and voted out. @hakeemjefferson.bsky.social @housedemocrats.bsky.social @kenmartin.bsky.social
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.
It makes it where websites cant be sued for their users actions. Making it where there less censorship on the web for good actors. Basically its freedom of speech but for the web.
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.
No, don't think so...factual information instead of uneducated opinions on health issues can help individuals make informed decisions(and then take actions) which can protect their health...
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
What musk has done with Twitter has turned him into a publisher. He shouldn't get the protections when he is making non-content neutral algorithmic changes that inflate him and other right wing trolls.
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.
And as a Chicago resident, I would hope @durbin.senate.gov listens to his constituents as well who agree w Sen Wyden like I do. I called to leave a voicemail but they’ve turned off voicemail during business hours. Cowards
@wyden.senate.gov Please educate your colleagues, especially Sen. Blumenthal. They’re completely clueless, or they’re just lying about their true motivations behind repealing 230.
Absolutely — @whitehouse.senate.gov please listen! Stop supporting the sunset of Section 230. I’m not going to stop calling your office about it until you confer with knowledgeable colleagues and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
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?
Can you please remind our dude @durbin.senate.gov of that? His constituents keep asking him to stand up to Musk and Trump, and instead, he’s out here rallying against these protections in the name of “protecting kids”.
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.
Would you like to update or revise anything about it, or are you 100% happy with it as you originally wrote it? Genuinely curious here. Thank you for your thoughts!
Please hold a town hall OR 2nd district during recess next week. Repub. Bentz is hiding from constituents, so you can step in and tell them the truth about Medicaid and Social Security cuts
Comments
Get your mind spoken now because ...
Protect our children dammit.
Protect our data and privacy.
Highlight manipulated AI for users.
Put banners on threats/lies.
Force transparency of manipulated algorithms.
Appreciate it senator
https://www.thefire.org/news/your-guide-section-230-law-safeguards-free-speech-internet
https://www.thefire.org/news/why-repealing-or-weakening-section-230-very-bad-idea
A smaller site or organization may not have any full-time lawyers. And likely couldn’t retain many for long.
A tiny site is probably run by 2-3 normal guys as a weekend project, working 9-5, where paying for a lawyer would be very painful.
If the small company gets sued enough, they lose a lot of money possibly causing them to fold.
If someone sues FB, it barely affects them.
How pathetic is the Democratic party? Seriously
Also thats not a infringement. That just how mirco blogging sites are. All Sites have a limit to how many characters you can post. However you can reply to yourself and that is what the plus sign does.
Please explain this to Sen. Durbin.
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.
Project 2025 explicitly proposes undoing your work.
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-28.pdf
You expect us to believe they're completely ruthless and conniving in all other aspects of business, but they are all kumbayah and altruism on the most important legal issue affecting them?
but I think Trump called to repeal it recently too
Riddle me this:
Which is a bigger threat to innovation? Monopoly, or content moderation?
Now that we know social media destroys social cohesion and destabilizes society, why should we want new examples?
How does AI affect the burden of compliance?
Cont'd...
Why should AI and social media companies be excused from reimbursing creators for the use of their intellectual property?
Cont'd...
Is there a downside of allowing so few individuals despotic control of social media companies? Is that a COI?
Why are their recommendation algorithms opaque?
Big companies keep big firms on retainer for compliance fights. Cost of business.
Pre-Section 230, being good on liability meant an active incentive to be willfully ignorant of content on a site.
Now, a moderator doesn't have to be perfect in order to be.
The safe harbor rule under 230 means that you can be actively looking for stuff and have rules and have a legal shield.
Also, remember that Trump's DOJ will be defining illegal content
Anyhoo, hypothetically of course, let's say a whistleblower came forward credibly alleging that the...
I have no idea how someone so absolutely clueless can be part of Democratic "leadership."
If you want a harsh criminal penalty for misinformation say that instead. It would have nothing to do with 230.
We need people!
Millions of people to descend upon DC to PEACEFULLY
PROTEST.
Please ANNOUNCE, join us, and support!
We need your help NOW!
https://bloomingtonian.com/2025/03/06/veterans-called-to-rally-nationwide-on-march-14-2025-in-protest-of-project-2025-and-va-cuts/
https://nowmarch.org/
Agreed, a clear mind is clear because it is capable of filtering against BS.
Dump Trump and the Oligarchs!
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.
Liability is the deterrence to mis/disinfo.
Also, dude, Xitter won’t survive being liable. It’s barely surviving as it is.
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.””
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
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.
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.
If 230 only gave immunity to ISPs that would be fine. But it extends to the publishers.
Publishers should not be immune from their own published content.
Some voices not getting amplified is not suppression of speech.
Not trying to silence you tho.
If you have a better idea you you need to reach the honorable Dick
Durbin.
I’m not sure he has one, and without one, removing this section will be worse than leaving it as is. Choose the moment.
Peace out, carry on.
https://bsky.app/profile/durbin.senate.gov/post/3ljqksdzinc2f
Both adds an incentive culling bots and protects “the little guys”
Which is why it will pass, right?
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.
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…
If Company A makes slander against Company B, company A is liable.
Amplifying slander is slander & should be clearly made civilly liable.
Changing the order of posts changes their meaning and value.
It’s nonobvious to people when order is changed.
They would have to prove no bias, and no agenda. They would have to prove they used a neutral algorithm.
This might create a market place of algorithms, and smaller businesses that focus on algorithms, each having their own liabilities.
This should create an open social market with less hegemony of agendas.
We need to stop the secret agenda algorithms!
This couldn't be further from the truth.
Algorithms are guided by human hands.
We deserve know how much our data is worth.
Knowing means we can walk our data, attention and money to responsible social networks.
This has become a moral issue to unplug billionaires...
This is about his Fuhrer's need to stamp out online dissent, oppose any form of competition, and eliminate the rights of those fighting against his daddy's pathological urge to destroy.
There are total 4 screenshots.
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.
Remind Lindsey Graham of his epic performance with Zuckerberg during the last ‘bipartisan’
Senate Committee.
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.
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
Tell Durbin that he needs to retire, because he is clearly going senile.
In
Period.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996
This link may be helpful, too:
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Oligarchs don’t want to do what is right, they just want to use whatever means necessary to enhance their own interests.
we need term limits FFS
We need protections from the toddler-like whims of every human whether it's a man walking down a street or one sitting on a throne made of gold.
We need to address the risk that X and FB pose.