Liability for Recommendations

by Dennis Crouch

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the major internet-law case of Gonzalez v. Google, focusing on Section 230(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  That provision creates a wide safe harbor for internet service providers; shielding them from liability associated with publishing third-party content.  Section 230 fostered the dominant social media business model where almost all of the major internet media services rely primarily upon user-provided content.  Think YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc.  Likewise, search engines like Google and Bing are essentially providing a concierge recommendation service for user-developed content and data.  The new AI models also work by using a large corpus of user-created data.  But, AI may be different since it is more  content-generative than most social-media.

The safe-harbor statute particularly states that the service provider will not be treated as the “publisher” of information content provided by someone else (“another information content provider.”)  47 U.S.C. 203(c).  At common law, a publisher could be held liable for publishing and distributing defamatory material, and the safe-harbor eliminates that potential liability.  Thus, if someone posts a defamatory YouTube video, YouTube (Google) won’t be held liable for publishing the video. (The person who posted the video could be held liable, if you can find him).

Liability for Recommending: In addition to publishing videos, all of the social media companies use somewhat sophisticated algorithms to recommend content to users. For YouTube, the basic idea is to keep users engaged for longer and thus increase advertising revenue.  The case before the Supreme Court asks whether the Section 230(c) safe harbor protects social media companies from liability when their recommendations cause harm.  If you have ever wasted an hour death-scrolling on TikTok, you can recognize that the the service provided was a steady stream of curated content designed to keep you watching. Each individual vid is something, but really you were latched-into the stream.  The question then is whether the safe-harbor statute excuses that entire interaction, or is it limited to each individual posting.

For me, in some ways it is akin to the Supreme Court’s struggle over 4th Amendment privacy interests related to cell-phone location information. While a single point of information might not be constitutionally protected; 127 days of information is an entirely different matter.  See Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018).  Here, the safe harbor applies to a single video or posting by a user, but the sites compile and curate those into a steady stream that might also be seen as an entirely different matter.

Gonzalez’ child, Nohemi Gonzalez, was killed in the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks coordinated by ISIS.  In the lawsuit, Gonzales allege that YouTube is partially responsible because its algorithms provided tailor made recommendations of pro-ISIS videos to susceptible individuals who then participated in and supported the terrorist attacks that killed their child.  You may be thinking that Gonzales may have difficulty proving causation.  I think that is right, but the case was cut-short on Section 230 grounds before really reaching that issue.

The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Google, and the Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case on the following question:

Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?

80+ briefs were filed with the Supreme Court arguing various positions.  This is a very large number for a Supreme Court case.  Many of the briefs argue that shrinking the scope of Section 230 would radically diminish the pluralism and generativity that we see online.  I might be OK with that if it gets TikTok out of my house.

As noted above, the plaintiffs case seems to lack some causal links, and in my view there is a very good chance that the court will decide the case on that grounds (via the sister case involving Twitter).  Justice Alito’s early question for petitioner highlights the problem.

Justice Alito: I’m afraid I’m completely confused by whatever argument you’re making at the present time.

I also appreciated Justice Sotomayor’s humility on behalf of the court.

Justice Sotomayor: We’re a court. We really don’t know about these things. These are not the nine greatest experts on the internet.

Congress passed a separate safe-harbor in the copyright context as part of the DMCA.  A key difference there was that copyright holders were able to lobby for more limits on the safe harbor. For instance, a social media company needs to take down infringing content once it is on notice. DCMA notice-and-takedown-provision.  Section 230 does not include any takedown requirements. Thus, even after YouTube is notified of defamatory or otherwise harmful content, it can keep the content up without risk of liability until specifically ordered to take it down by a court.  Oral arguments had some discussion about whether the algorithms were “neutral,” but the plaintiff’s counsel provided a compelling closing statement: “You can’t call it neutral once the defendant knows its algorithm is doing it.”

[Note – I apologize, I started writing this and accidentally hit publish too early.  A garbled post was up for about an hour while I was getting my haircut and eating breakfast.]

211 thoughts on “Liability for Recommendations

  1. 14

    link to nypost.com

    Here is another reason 230 has to go! Section 230 was used by the social media corporations and the government (all of whom made massive billions from Covid) to shadow ban and ban people from speaking about all the evidence that Covid-19 came from the Wuhan lab.

    We need the First Amendment to continue as a country. We need the FBI/DOJ/DHS/Congress/President to be held accountable for their role in violating the Constitution.

    The Woke are neo-Marxists.

          1. 14.1.1.1.1

            He bends his knee to the Woke. But interesting stuff overall. Frankly, I don’t trust people that bend their knee to the Woke.

        1. 14.1.2.1

          Regardless of what one may think of the machinations related to his SC nominate nomination, everyone should agree that Garland has shown an extremely low sense of legal judgment in his role as AG.

          Even worse than Buttigieg for legal effects.

  2. 13

    Reality:

    What happens to me now is that defamatory statements about me are left up by the social media sites and my posts are removed that merely state a position contrary to the status quo opinion. This is a direct result of Section 230. It is not about a private corporation who can permit or deny membership as they are acting as a publisher and defaming me.

    I literally have literally cut and pasted portions of essays from famous scholars and social media sites delete the posts and say I have violated their terms of service. The portions of the essays are in no way offensive and merely state opinions contrary to the Woke. And other people write horrible defamatory responses about me and the social media sites leave these comments up.

    Section 230 has to go.

    1. 13.1

      … or not – and just be more appropriately applied to those that ARE mere conduits (or differently phrased: public town squares).

      You don’t want that?
      You want instead to have a First Amendment position?

      Sure, no problem, have at it (you just don’t fall into the protection of Section 230).

      No one (really) is saying that any entity cannot have a First Amendment position if that entity so desires.

      The legal point is that you can’t have both First Amendment protection AND have the special treatment for mere conduit of a public town square.

      (See OC’s post below)

    2. 13.2

      “ other people write horrible defamatory responses about me”

      Good because cr ee ps like you really need to e f f off and die.

      1. 13.2.1

        Really MM? What opinion do I hold that justifies you or someone else destroying my life or attempting to m ur der me?

        See? This is why Section 230 has to go. The Woke Guard use Section 230. Those of us that are still Americans who believe in the Enlightenment want debate and the marketplace of ideas. The Extreme Woke Democrats want authoritarian rule and suppression of free speech.

        Reality.

        MM, I haven’t changed my political views in decades. The Extreme Woke Democrats are neo-Marxists and at this point some are openly advocating for a form of government like CCP.

      2. 13.2.2

        I hope this is one of your defamation claims I posted. Why don’t you call me again from MD breaking two laws. You are not licensed in TN, and you were never my lawyer… Ethics Atty. Really……… LOLOLOLOL

  3. 12

    What this case comes down to is whether a person has a right to defend themselves against defamation.

    The social media platforms put their finger on the scale and chose which comments to delete and which to keep based on their personal political beliefs.

    We need to overturn Section 230. A person’s right to defend themselves against defamation is a cornerstone of our country and English Common law.

    1. 12.1

      defamation is a cornerstone of our country
      No. Defamation claims have always taken a back seat to the 1st Amendment in this country.

      If you read the case law, there is an obvious tension between the government permitting lawsuits against speech (i.e., the form of defamation suits) and the 1st Amendment. However, in most instances, the 1st Amendment prevails.

        1. 12.1.1.1

          Wiper gets his talking points from the same to il et bowl that tells him to drink ivermectin and avoid toothpaste with fluoride.

          1. 12.1.1.1.1

            Funny how you view ivermectin denial and fluoride denial.

            Fluoride denial is as much Far Right denialism as ivermectin denial is Far Left.

            Neither are very smart.

      1. 12.1.2

        Wt,

        As noted, IF the conduit WANTS to have a First Amendment position, then they lose the purpose of why Section 230 was put in place.

        You just cannot have it both ways.

        1. 12.1.2.2

          As noted, IF the conduit WANTS to have a First Amendment position, then they lose the purpose of why Section 230 was put in place.
          You need to explain that position. What do you mean by “lose the purpose”? What is this purpose? How would Twitter (for example) lose this purpose?

          You just cannot have it both ways.
          Says who? You?

          Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social have 1st Amendment rights, on their private servers, to promote whatever speech they want. If they want to be pro-Left, that is their right. If they want to be pro-Right, that is their right as well. If they want to be anti-religion or pro-guns, that is their right as well. The government has no say in the decisions made by these private companies (internet-based or otherwise) to promote whatever viewpoint of their choosing. This is straight-forward Constitutional Law 101 type stuff, and the Supreme Court isn’t going to change this.

          This leaves us with the protections provided by Congress under 47 USC 230(c). Assuming you don’t like those provisions, what arguments can you present to somehow invalidate that law. If you are going to argue that it is unconstitutional, what is the basis for that. MW’a assertion that “[a] person’s right to defend themselves against defamation is a cornerstone of our country” is complete hogwash. This is no Constitutional right to defend oneself from defamation.

          For those of us who took Constitutional law in law school, the concept of “chilling effect” is one that is frequently associated with the 1st Amendment. As it is used, the term “chilling effect” refers to government laws/actions that have the potential to deter free speech. This is an important concept when it comes to defamation/libel cases, because these kind of cases can be used to chill speech. Consequently, this is why in NY Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that libel laws (where are state claims) are subject to the 1st Amendment.

          Getting back to Section 230, what is the argument for defeating it? To help you out, I’ll give a snippet from “The American Conservative” which calls for the repeal of this case:
          New York Times v. Sullivan is also inconsistent with the nation’s commitment to the security of individual rights. … Libel is not just an imposition on someone else’s interests but an attack on the rights of another person—specifically, on the right to one’s reputation.
          At a very high level, this sounds very reasonable. However, what concerned the Court was the chilling impact of libel laws. This is from Black’s concurrence in NY Times v. Sullivan:
          The half-million-dollar verdict does give dramatic proof, however, that state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials. The factual background of this case emphasizes the imminence and enormity of that threat.

          Viewed realistically, this record lends support to an inference that, instead of being damaged, Commissioner Sullivan’s political, social, and financial prestige has likely been enhanced by the Times’ publication. Moreover, a second half-million-dollar libel verdict against the Times based on the same advertisement has already been awarded to another Commissioner. There, a jury again gave the full amount claimed. There is no reason to believe that there are not more such huge verdicts lurking just around the corner for the Times or any other newspaper or broadcaster which might dare to criticize public officials. In fact, briefs before us show that, in Alabama, there are now pending eleven libel suits by local and state officials against the Times seeking $5,600,000, and five such suits against the Columbia Broadcasting System seeking $1,700,000. Moreover, this technique for harassing and punishing a free press — now that it has been shown to be possible — is by no means limited to cases with racial overtones; it can be used in other fields where public feelings may make, local as well as out-of-state, newspapers easy prey for libel verdict seekers.

          The issue being addressed by the Court was how to protect the press from being deluged with libel lawsuits. As has been shown in countries not as free as our own — shutting down an independent press is one of first steps in changing a democracy into an autocracy. This is why defamation/libel claims take a back seat to 1st Amendment rights.

          1. 12.1.2.2.1

            Seriously, WT, I just don’t get how people like you can think like this.

            I wonder how communist principles can be so deeply entrenched in your thinking.

            I am old enough to have been around for the passing of the CDA. The whole principle was that the sites were merely offering people a forum to post content and were unable to curate due to the volume. A big part of this was copyrighted music and photos.

            A big part of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is individual rights. That is the cornerstone of what has made this country great.

            A large site now wants to curate content and suppress speech by terrifying people they will be canceled by the Woke. A person needs their individual liberty to sue for defamation.

            Just look at this site. The anti-patent judicial activists constantly write defamatory comments about me. The only reason they aren’t worse is that I have and will sue them for defamation.

            The game of sites like Twitter was to suppress all speech that didn’t conform to their Woke ideology. And many of these sites are like monopolies.

            We need 230 gone and we need some type of common carrier law for social media. Do you want the government deciding what you can say or text on your phone?

            Anyway, if you haven’t followed the Twitter Files, then you are not informed and biased. You should read what Taibbi says about the media in this country and Twitter.

            At its core it is about individuals being able to say what they want (short of defamation) and defend themselves against defamation.

            You are ridiculous since you haven’t followed the Twitter files.

            I just don’t understand how so many educated people in the USA have become communists. All I can tell you is go visit China. I stayed in the USSR for a while. Nightmare. Everything I said and did was monitored. Anyway….talking to the wind.

            1. 12.1.2.2.1.1

              “Just look at this site. The anti-patent judicial activists constantly write defamatory comments about me. The only reason they aren’t worse is that I have and will sue them for defamation.”

              Please provide a link or any other evidence on even one lawsuit for defamation you have filed against anybody posting comments on this site about you. If you do not, then STEFU.

              The purpose of a defamation suit is to compensate you for damages you suffered as a result of defamatory statements about you. You are anonymous on this site. You have suffered zero damages. You could not prove even one cent in damages in a defamation suit.

              It is impossible for me to believe you are an actual lawyer.

              1. 12.1.2.2.1.1.1

                ^^^ someone WAY too hung up on ‘defamation’ as to one person and quite missing the bigger picture.

                Not surprisingly, this person is also of a certain political ideology.

                It’s as if those of that ideology turn off their cognitive functioning when anything disagreeable to that ideology is discussed.

                1. I’m still waiting for ANY evidence of these lawsuits he claims he’s filed, and is willing to file. Until he puts up, you can STEFU too.

                2. ^^^ wait all you want as you continue to miss the point.

                  You want to exclaim that you cannot believe that he is an attorney, even as YOU act like you are not an attorney.

                  As I stated: there is an apparent affliction of turning off cognitive power when a particular politically ideology is involved.

                  And it is as if those afflicted cannot care that they are afflicted.

                3. … and YOU can STFU too…

                  Lol – nice attempt at one-bucketing.

                  But a big No Thank You to that attempt. My position is not what Night Writer says, and need not be.

                  You would be better off clenching tight your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, “Na na na na.”

              2. 12.1.2.2.1.1.2

                Breeze, you have the affliction of the Woke that you think that others must prove things to you. I don’t care what you think Breeze. You obviously are part of the Woke.

                Please run the Woke anti-virus on your brain.

                1. So you got nothing? Just like I thought. Ly!ng p#ssy a$$ b!tch.

                  I await your awesome lawsuit.

                  In the meantime, you and Q can GFY.

                2. That is a charming show of your legal acumen.

                  (and here I thought the Liberal Left “loved everyone” — leastwise per Wt; is that the 1984 version, or the Woke redefinition that is “inclusive” of only those in the select group?)

                3. Breeze, are you like 12? I know the Extreme Woke Democrats (the Woke Guard) recruit at a young age.

                4. I guess I am allowed to comment again on this thread.

                  I keep trying to figure out why I was blocked, especially after reading Breeze’s comment here.

                5. There are a number of different filters, PM:

                  Count filter:
                  This one can sneak up on you, especially when there are several conversations engaged. This is typically a timed filter. So waiting 24 hours by itself will suffice (using the Report feature only works on occasion).

                  George Carlin filter:
                  This one is often even more hit and miss (I have been nabbed in portions that I have directly copied from someone whose post went through unimpeded – as noticeable by direct conversation flow and timing).

                  This filter thus may have a global component and an individual component.

                  Numbers for letters, spacing (even sometimes single letters per lines) often can avoid this filter, but sometimes it is very difficult to identify the trip point.

                  Link filter:
                  If one is embedding multiple links (even as low as merely more than two), the post can be snagged.

          2. 12.1.2.2.2

            And really WT try to think about this from other people’s perspective.

            Consider someone like me. I am a liberal D but not a Marxist like the current D party. Look at Covid-19 and its origins. There is evidence that it was created in the Wuhan lab. But do you know what the best evidence is that China created the virus is? I bet you don’t because of Section 230.

            The best evidence is that the Wuhan lab will not turn over an Excel spreadsheet of the viruses that were in the lab at the time of the start of the pandemic.

            Consider that the government doesn’t have the right to suppress speech and that websites don’t have the right to defame people that take positions they don’t like.

            And it is not about a private corporation and they can let who they want use it. It is about the private corporation acting as a publisher and defaming and destroying poeple’s lives who take positions they don’t like.

            All I can tell you WT is that your education was lacking. You are not an American in the sense of how I was raised. You are neo-Marxists.

            And just try a thought experiment. Imagine you had a free mind like mind. That you wanted to express contrary opinions to the mainstream like I do. What happens to me know is that defamatory statements about me are left up by the social media sites and my posts are removed that merely state a position contrary to the status quo opinion.

            Think about that.

            1. 12.1.2.2.2.1

              I wonder how communist principles can be so deeply entrenched in your thinking.
              I have zero clue as to what you are talking about. The freedom of speech is part of the bedrock supporting the freedoms in this country.

              A big part of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is individual rights. That is the cornerstone of what has made this country great.
              That’s nice. Why don’t you wrap the star-spangled banner around yourself as you type. Does it make you feel better? However, it doesn’t make your arguments any stronger.

              A large site now wants to curate content and suppress speech by terrifying people they will be canceled by the Woke.
              Still confused about the difference between government suppressing speech (bad) and individual actors curating content to their own liking (protected by the 1st amendment)?

              A person needs their individual liberty to sue for defamation.
              1st Amendment > individual liberty to sue for defamation. Sorry, that’s the law – that’s also part of what protects this country from authoritarian rule. What you exalt as the “individual liberty to sue for defamation” is the quick and easy way to bring down freedom of the press. One is enshrined in the US Constitution the other is not. Let me give you a hint, the right to sue for defamation is not.

              Just look at this site. The anti-patent judicial activists constantly write defamatory comments about me. The only reason they aren’t worse is that I have and will sue them for defamation.
              Good luck with that. What are the damages associated with libeling an anonymous figure? My guess is it is pretty miniscule.

              The game of sites like Twitter was to suppress all speech that didn’t conform to their Woke ideology. And many of these sites are like monopolies.
              Twitters actions are protected under the 1st amendment.

              We need 230 gone and we need some type of common carrier law for social media. Do you want the government deciding what you can say or text on your phone?
              The government doesn’t decide. The government may ask to have something taken down, but that’s all they can do.

              You are ridiculous since you haven’t followed the Twitter files.
              LOL. I’m ridiculous because I haven’t followed Musk’s propaganda campaign? Next, you’ll be accusing me of not supporting Putin’s special military operation in Ukraine because I believe the “leftwing media” who are reporting that that Russia actually invaded Ukraine.

              I just don’t understand how so many educated people in the USA have become communists.
              Because like most of your pals on the right, you don’t know the difference between authoritarianism, communism, and socialism. I would expect educated people would know the difference – bad assumption on my part.

              Consider someone like me. I am a liberal D but not a Marxist like the current D party.
              You are not a liberal D. You and Q are repeating rightwing talking points all the time.

              The best evidence is that the Wuhan lab will not turn over an Excel spreadsheet of the viruses that were in the lab at the time of the start of the pandemic.
              Let’s just assume, for a second, that the Wuhan lab created COVID-19 and it escaped. What of it? COVID screwed China just as much as the rest of the world. And if that’s the “best evidence” you’ve got, then that isn’t much evidence to go with. Regardless, what does this have to do with defamation/libel and Section 230?

              websites don’t have the right to defame people that take positions they don’t like
              A website’s algorithm (or policy) that filters out the “positions” that people take isn’t defamation.

              It is about the private corporation acting as a publisher and defaming and destroying poeple’s lives who take positions they don’t like
              Can you give me an example of someone who was defamed by Twitter/Facebook/Etc.? Can you explain to me how they were defamed and how their lives were destroyed?

              You are not an American in the sense of how I was raised. You are neo-Marxists.
              Attack the other. One of the most dangerous political tools around. The Russians are using the same tactics in explaining their “special military operation” in Ukraine. It is much easier to commit atrocities against people after they have been dehumanized. For example, you calling me a “neo-Marxist” is laughable on its face. If you and I were to meet at a bar, you and I would probably agree on 90% of things – far more than if you were to meet someone from another country. However, because you and I disagree on these political issues, you feel a need to make me less of an American in your eyes to justify your position. You see this tactic used all the time. It isn’t hard to find those on the extreme right talking about taking matters into their own hands (using their firearms) to get rid of liberals and those that think like them. You can find those in Congress as well (MTG and Boebert are a couple of good examples).

              What happens to me know is that defamatory statements about me are left up by the social media sites and my posts are removed that merely state a position contrary to the status quo opinion.
              Then sue the person making the defamatory statements. Twitter isn’t making those statements. Facebook isn’t making those statements. And if you don’t want your posts removed, then go to Truth Social or Gettr. This isn’t hard. You are also free to start your own social media website. Perhaps you’ve read about the Counterspeech Doctrine in Constitutional Law. This derives from the following statement by Justic Brandeis in Whitney v. California (US 1927):
              “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
              This relates back to aversion to chilling speech I have written about previously. As such, rather than chill bad speech, the proper remedy is more speech. The same principle was cited by Clarence Thomas in Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly (US 2011), in which he wrote:
              if the state of Massachusetts’ “concern is that tobacco advertising communicates a message with which it disagrees, it could seek to counteract that message with ‘more speech, not enforced silence.’”
              For someone who accuses me of having a lacking educations, I would highly recommend that you finding your old Constitutional Law text book, open up the section on the 1st Amendment, and start re-reading the case law that you have apparently forgotten.

              Now let’s see if Dennis will allow this to be published ….

            2. 12.1.2.2.2.2

              “ I am a liberal D ”

              You are so full of s h – t that it’s coming out of your eye sockets.

              1. 12.1.2.2.2.2.1

                MM, it is sad that you have been afflicted with the Woke virus.

                You remind me of a Moonie but with poor manners and a tendency to violence. More like the Red Guard than a Moonie in those respects.

                It truly makes me sad that people like you have been so misled.

                1. You err Night Writer.

                  By that I mean that given that being Woke occurs across a spectrum, those like Malcolm and Greg are NOT on the spectrum of being (simply) misled, but are further to the Left and are doing the misleading.

                  This is beyond sad.

                  It is culpable.

          3. 12.1.2.2.3

            Wt,

            Obtuse? Is it deliberate?

            You continue to peddle logical fallacies (including moving goalposts and attempting to insert other people’s arguments into my mouth while entirely ignoring points already given to you with your questions already having been answered.

            I have to wonder if you even understand what Section 230 is about, as you seem fixated on this red herring of “Must have First Amendment.”

            A couple of easy points for you to dwell on:

            I have never implicated that First Amendment is lost.

            An entity wanting First Amendment is entirely ok with me.

            An entity wanting First Amendment is simply different than the public forum – mere conduit entity that Section 230 was drafted to protect.

            You seem really confused on these basics.

            Sadly, this appears directly related to your wanting to ‘protect’ your political views: your cognitive shutdown is unmistakable.

            1. 12.1.2.2.3.1

              … by the way, First Amendment protection AND defamation co-exist NOW.

              You seem to be insisting on one or the other.

            2. 12.1.2.2.3.2

              You continue to peddle logical fallacies (including moving goalposts and attempting to insert other people’s arguments into my mouth while entirely ignoring points already given to you with your questions already having been answered.
              Generalized assertions without the backing of facts. Sounds like an Examiner. Next …

              I have to wonder if you even understand what Section 230 is about, as you seem fixated on this red herring of “Must have First Amendment.”
              You are the one who wrote “IF the conduit WANTS to have a First Amendment position, then they lose the purpose of why Section 230 was put in place” — not me. You are the one who put them side by side.

              I have never implicated that First Amendment is lost.
              Then what did you mean by the statement that I reproduced immediately above? I read it to mean, ‘if one wants 1st amendment rights, then they lose 230.’ The obvious corollary to that is if one wants 230, then they lose 1st amendment rights — otherwise, your statement doesn’t make sense.

              public forum – mere conduit entity that Section 230 was drafted to protect
              Not a public forum — it is a private forum with stated policies that the participants agree to abide by. Arguments based upon NOT THE FACTS are bad arguments.

              You seem really confused on these basics.
              You seem really confused on the facts.

              Sadly, this appears directly related to your wanting to ‘protect’ your political views: your cognitive shutdown is unmistakable.
              My political views have nothing to do with it. My positions apply equally well to the policies employed by Truth Social and Gettr — or are you claiming that they are just “moderate” forums expressing viewpoints like yourself?

              … by the way, First Amendment protection AND defamation co-exist NOW.
              Yet they are in tension — see the limits placed on defamation lawsuits by NY Times v. Sullivan. Again, this is Constitutional Law 101. I’m not breaking new ground here.

              You seem to be insisting on one or the other.
              You seem to have reading comprehension problems. I’ve NEVER written “one or the other.”

              1. 12.1.2.2.3.2.1

                That is a lot of rambling from you which boils down to:

                Wt does not understand the issues involved in the Section 230 cases.

                You are insisting on seeing a “Must First Amendment” scenario that is just not there.

                Come back when you figure out that the issue is Section 230, and not the First Amendment.

                1. Thank$$ Shifty — Spring special nets me double on your choice of “whack-a-m0le” posts.

                2. Ok genius. They decided 90 Yuan is the final offer. Take it or leave it. It’s out of my hands.

                3. Have you noticed just how much YOU repeat yourself, Shifty?
                  ANY repeat from me in regards to you is merely an artifact of your own gamesmanship and the fact that a prior statement of mine very much remains applicable to YOUR repeats.

                  And yes – your choice here obtains for me additional coin because of the enterprise that I have set up that functions from YOUR CHOICE of your gamesmanship posts.

                  Keep playing friend!

                4. Your statement is true, Shifty — just not how you may be intending to have it applied.

                  (stop projecting – now THAT is a proper application of your statement. You just are not very good at this).

                5. Thank$ for the game$

                  You’ve descended into your (rather b0r1ng) tactics — let me know if you want to advance a conversation.

                6. Another triple payout from your choices, my pal Shifty.

                  Let’s see if you can figure out why your choices provide a triple here.

                  I have a side bet on your next response, but if won’t tell you on which choice of yours this bet is on.

                7. You missed another one, genius. For 30 Yuan I’ll show you where it Is. You’re only fooling yourself, Snowflake.

                8. Back to back triple payouts from Your choices – thank$$$

                  To have some entertainment here, can you identify the payout points?

                  Let’s see if you are intentionally feeding my entrepreneurialship or just mindlessly flubbing about.

                9. Tell me, do you have a “spin the wheel,” or do you write your rather bland snippets on pieces of paper and pick them from a hat?

                10. A double payout from your choices.

                  Sweet.

                  Your 0bsess10n does have its upside since i enterprised on your proclivities.

                11. Given as I make coin from your choices, your descriptions tied to relative payouts evidences more projections from you.

                  You want to try adding something, anything, to the conversation?

  4. 11

    There’s a ton of confusion in these comments. I’ve been following the CDA since it was passed in 1996, so maybe this comment will help some understand the issues in this case. To be clear, the pending Supreme Court case is NOT about immunity for content moderation decisions, such as the allegedly politically-based removal of content on social media platforms. That is the subject of a separate provision of the CDA, 230(c)(2), which is not at issue here.

    This case is about 230(c)(1), which is about an online service provider’s civil immunity for statements by its users. The statute was motivated in part by the famous case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. (Yup, the very same “Stratton Oakmont” that was the subject of Wolf of Wall Street). Basically Stratton sued Prodigy, a big on-line service provider in the early 1990s, because one of its users posted a message to a bulletin board on Prodigy saying (surprise surprise) that Stratton had engaged in fraudulent activity. A state court in New York held that Prodigy could potentially be liable for statements by its member, even though Prodigy was little more than a passive bulletin board relaying textual messages posted by members with not much in the way of content moderation controls.

    Stratton was cited by several members of Congress as a key motivator behind 230(c)(1), with Congress worried that if an on-line service provider could potentially be liable for statements by a potentially countless number of its users, statements the service provider had no part in creating and no practical ability to verify or investigate, on-line services would never have been able to exist during those early days of the Internet. The language of Section 230(c)(1) is thus extremely broad, and the clarity that it provided to Internet companies ended up giving U.S.-based companies a huge competitive advantage in the 1990s and early 2000s in building and deploying large scale interactive on-line services. Other countries back in those days simply did not have Section 230 or anything equivalent, and that cloud of uncertainty chilled investment in Internet-based online services outside the U.S. for years. For example, it’s hard to get venture capital or investment in a business when the answer to the question, “can we be liable for user-posted content?” is “possibly,” “it depends,” or even “who knows,” which were the correct answers in Europe and many other jurisdictions at that time. The answer to that question in the U.S., for the most part, was an unequivocal “no.” And that certainty fueled not only the growth of on-line services themselves in the U.S., but all of the companies that provided the supporting infrastructure for the Internet.

    The issue under Section 230(c)(1) here is a seeming straightforward one. Today’s on-line services have evolved quite a bit since the comparatively quaint Prodigy bulletin board at issue in Stratton Oakmont. A recommendation by a modern on-line service, according to the petitioner here, goes beyond providing a passive forum for relaying content by other users. The recommendation, it is argued, constitutes a further endorsement and encouragement by the service for the user to consume the recommended content which, according to the petitioner, goes beyond the protection of the statute.

    The stakes are huge because modern on-line services could not simply remove recommendations if this case went against them. Today’s services see massive amounts of new content being added constantly, and without some type of targeted recommendation system, many users would get lost or lose interest in the service. Most users will simply not sift through an enormous volume of new content (most of it pretty awful) to find something interesting to read/watch.

    1. 11.1

      >>Today’s services see massive amounts of new content being added constantly, and without some type of targeted recommendation system, many users would get lost or lose interest in the service.

      Total mischaracterization. The issue is whether the online platforms can put their finger on the scale and help others defame a person and still be immune from prosecution. The issue is the recommendation engines are not neutral.

      1. 11.1.1

        Please pardon potential repeat (count filter):

        Completely agree.

        This “oh noes too much volume” simply does not cut it.

    2. 11.2

      You left off the part where the social media companies went from we are only a repository of other people’s comments to we will curate and recommend based on our private beliefs and based on what the government tells us to do.

    3. 11.3

      The first issue infects the second, so your attempt to distinguish is a little off.

      For example, you provide a case with a fact pattern that includes “even though Prodigy was little more than a passive bulletin board relaying textual messages posted by members with not much in the way of content moderation controls.

      Lacking that basis (and witness that this is being PUSHED hard here that the existence and use of moderation controls are a given), the entities at point cannot have their cake and eat it too.

      Engage in shaping the narrative and you cannot be deemed to be “like Prodigy,” and your analysis goes sidewise.

      This need not even rise to the level of abject censorship, as mechanisms of shadow banning and other “filters” definitely come into play with narrative shaping.

  5. 10

    Don’t forget that we’ve got a real-time experiment going on regarding whether BigTech curation is actually a business practice for maximizing profit or whether it’s a ideology based policy implemented at the expense of profit. And that experiment is called Twitter!

    It was reported in December 2022 that musk was offering shares of (private) Twitter at only $54.20.

    How many of you who think that Twitter was acting based on ideology reached out to acquire some shares?

    1. 10.1

      “Don’t forget that we’ve got a real-time experiment going on regarding whether BigTech curation is actually a business practice for maximizing profit or whether it’s a ideology based policy implemented at the expense of profit.”

      It’s obviously a little of column a and column b.

      “It was reported in December 2022 that musk was offering shares of (private) Twitter at only $54.20.”

      Well that is what he bought it for not long before that date iirc.

      “How many of you who think that Twitter was acting based on ideology reached out to acquire some shares?”

      Not sure what you’re even asking here, need to correct any typos and reword this.

  6. 9

    99% of the “anti-woke” whiners are just f a s c i s t creeps and mentally-challenged huffers of right wing sewage. They need to be mocked, scorned and (yes) canceled (endlessly) by decent people. There’s no point in engaging.

    Before “woke” it was “political correctness” which was the “worst thing ever” and which was “destroying the country.” What’s actually happening is white fungelical s watching their power slip away and throwing a massive infantile tantrum about that (surprise!) involves rightwing governments trying to rewrite history and the teaching of it, not to mention direct targeting of minority groups and women.

    1. 9.2

      “Before “woke” it was “political correctness” which was the “worst thing ever””

      They’re practically the same thing ta rd, one (woke) is just a new generation’s word for the old thing (PC), save with a bit more emphasis on various victims. I swear to g od MM, could you kindly at least keep up with the convo that’s happening?

      “There’s no point in engaging.”

      “There’s no point in engaging with your fellow man that you’re busy sociologically beating everyday!” Also, nobody can figure out why!

      “What’s actually happening is white fungelical s watching their power slip away and throwing a massive infantile tantrum about that (surprise!) involves rightwing governments trying to rewrite history and the teaching of it, not to mention direct targeting of minority groups and women.”

      Do you think they should just go ahead and reassert their power bro?

      1. 9.2.1

        I swear to g od MM, could you kindly at least keep up with the convo that’s happening?

        Want have long pointed out now that Malcolm was “woke” before “woke” was a thing.

        Note as well that Dr. James Lindsay even identified one of Malcolm’s prime tactics in the phrase, “iron rule of Woke projection.”

      2. 9.2.2

        Further 6, the current state of Woke proves the point that Malcolm wants to dismiss in that the PC were not squelched down hard enough, and their P01s0n was permitted to take root and infect others.

        That infection can be viewed in a spectrum, from the fervent ‘deep beliebers’ to the mindless Sheeple, even to the “allies” that are f001ed by the Motte and Bailey approach, not aware of the multiple (intended) meanings and overall power grab of the Liberal Left.

  7. 8

    >Nevertheless, a certain faction of “anti-woke” activists want the government to step in and constrain private actors who are perceived as “woke.”

    This is ridiculous. The social media platforms are Woke. They have colluded with the DOJ/FBI to censure speech on the Right and to push government positions.

    What I want and I think many other Americans is for the Constitution to be enforced. I want free speech. I don’t want some social media platform to defame me or anyone else without consequences if they are curating content with a finger on the scale.

    I also don’t want my phone rights to be taken from me because the DOJ/FBI don’t like what I say on the phone.

    The division here is between those that embrace the Constitution and freedoms and those that want an authoritarian government, which they see as supporting their positions and which they see as not oppressing them but just those other bad people.

    Read books on the Enlightenment. Go visit authoritarian countries.

  8. 7

    When merchants of cultural grievance bewail the rise of “woke” culture, the bill of particulars includes things like the Seuss estate withdrawing a variety of books from publication, replacing the green M&M’s high heels with sneakers, college students at Oberlin decrying banh mi sandwiches in the dorm cafeteria as “cultural appropriation,” and Twitter blocking dispersions of the NY Post’s story on Hunter Biden. Notably, these are all actions taken by private actors. If an “anti-woke” activist wants to serve banh mis in a cafeteria, or wants to draw cartoon candies in high heels, or wants to publish children’s books with drawings that gesture toward racial stereotypes, there is no actual obstacle to their doing so, because these private actors have no power to stop such things (other than to complain, a power that is common to both the “woke” and the “anti-woke”).

    Nevertheless, a certain faction of “anti-woke” activists want the government to step in and constrain private actors who are perceived as “woke.” The problem, of course, is that it is hard to see that the government can actually do much to resolve the “problem” that the “anti-woke” perceive in these situations. Can the government really mandate that Oberlin college (a private institution) serve sub-standard sandwiches and label them “banh mi”? Can the government really order the Seuss estate to publish every book that Seuss ever authored? Does the government actually have the authority to direct Mars candies to run advertisements with an anthropomorphic green candy in high heels?

    The same problem lies behind the §230 controversy. The NY Post was not actually forbidden to publish its Hunter Biden story. One particular, non-governmental actor simply refused to distribute the story. Plenty of other non-governmental actors (various radio, television, and print media) were quite active in distributing the story.

    Those non-governmental actors who refused to distribute the story (and who refuse to carry other stories or who censor other comments) were doing so—in large measure—because they know that such editorial and censorship policies are necessary to the longer term success of their particular business models. This is real point at issue, and one that the Supreme Court cannot solve, no matter how they rule on this case.

    Regardless of what happens to §230(c), it will remain the case that QAnon conspiracy theories and photos of Hunter Biden’s genitals will be off-putting to a broad mass of readers—particularly those readers with enough disposable income to make them a valuable target audience to advertisers. Regardless of what happens to §230(c), it will remain impossible to run media outlets with the reach of Twitter or FaceBook or Google without algorithms and policies more-or-less like the ones that currently exist. These algorithms and policies are the evolutionary product of contemporary market forces, and laws that ban such algorithms and policies will no more do away with them than laws outlawing gravity will make us all weightless. Reality will still have the last word.

    1. 7.1

      And another “hidden” hyperlink from Greg…. (section symbol, last paragraph)

      Just who is Greg signaling, and why is he (attempting) to be so sneaky about it?

    2. 7.2

      The light dove cleaving in free flight the thin air, whose resistance it feels, might imagine that her movements would be far more free and rapid in airless space. [Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason]

      Much of the “anti-woke” right is in the same position as Kant’s dove. They already have a network of colleges, broadcast media, print media, businesses, communities, etc. where they can hear their favored opinions validated and lionized, but they simply crave the validation of more prestige colleges, prestige media, prestige businesses, etc. Gov. DeSantis is winning over voters by promising (just as Pres. Trump promised before) to use the power of the government to force these prestige colleges/media/businesses, etc. to exalt conservative opinions, but just as the dove could not actually fly in an airless world, these prestige outlets will lose the very prestige at issue once remade in the new, “anti-woke” image.

      If you remake Harvard in the model of Liberty Univ., it will have exactly the same cultural cachet as Liberty presently has. If you remake the New York Times in the model of Gateway Pundit, it will have exactly the same influence as Gateway Pundit presently has. The effort to use the government to force the doyens of prestige culture to respect and admire your own social strata is simply doomed from the start, as is the hope to highjack prestige institutions for the ends and goals of cultural conservatives.

      1. 7.2.1

        Y
        A
        W
        N
        Yet another hidden link (bracket in front of Kant) with Greg “signaling” his political views.

    3. 7.3

      All of this is just as much as to say that if your big complaint about modern life is “wokeness,” then neither law nor politics is going to be of much help to you. “Wokeness” is a cultural phenomenon. Both law and politics lie downstream of culture.

      1. 7.4.1

        I definitely do believe in the Constitution. The Constitution gives Suess’ estate the freedom not to publish books in his opus, and Tucker Carlson (or any other similarly situated malcontent) the freedom to publish children’s books with whatever theme he wishes. The Constitution gives the NY Post the freedom to publish a story about Hunter Biden, and it gives Twitter the freedom not to distribute the Post’s story. The Constitution largely leaves us each free to pursue our own ends and delights.

        This broad, Constitutional freedom is precisely the problem for the anti-§230(c) activists. Right now, Twitter (a private, non-governmental actor) is free to discriminate against their preferred viewpoints. They want a mechanism by which they can compel Twitter to respect their preferred viewpoints, and they (rightly) perceive §230(c) as an obstacle to achieving such a victory in the legal system. So they are working (via both legislation and litigation) to dismantle §230(c), so that their larger litigation project may proceed. Nothing about support for §230(c) amounts to an opposition to the real Constitution (as opposed to the imaginary constitution that animates the readers of National Review or the viewers of Fox).

        1. 7.4.1.1

          One overlooks what Section 230 is purporting to provide with this “emphasis” that Twitter can SAY what it wants….

          Greg is most likely caught up in his errant Motte and Bailey here, forgetting that IF Twitter wants to be able to SAY what it wants, then it is no longer a mere public conduit.

          If it loses that status as public conduit, then the protections of Section 230 should rightfully not apply.

        2. 7.4.1.2

          “Right now, Twitter (a private, non-governmental actor) is free to discriminate against their preferred viewpoints.”

          Correct, but without legal repercussions if they post defamatory material etc. etc. The issue is not them getting to discriminate, the issue is them getting to discriminate and not suffer legal liability (as is normal).

      2. 7.4.2

        “ You do not appear to believe in the Constitution.”

        Go choke on a flag, Gramps, you miserable lizard-brained trash pile.

    4. 7.5

      “policies are necessary to the longer term success of their particular business models.”

      No they didn’t lol. They did it for politics and to protect/stop those in their carefully constructed lefty bubble who are their readers from reading the story (or from giving it credence). You know this. Stop pretending it’s about their long term business to not print x news.

      And I disagree with you overall anyway, they want to be able to sue these outlets if they defame people or publish such materials.

      “it will remain impossible to run media outlets with the reach of Twitter or FaceBook or Google without algorithms and policies more-or-less like the ones that currently exist.”

      Doubtful, the audience you’re referring to had been seeing “objectionable” stories and ads prior to the current regime, they can handle it.

      1. 7.5.1

        “Can handle it” is not the relevant standard in a competitive marketplace. If someone else is willing to give your customers what they want while you content yourself to observe that the customers “can handle” what you are giving them, you will soon find yourself in a bankruptcy auction, selling your inventory and capital stock to those competitors who were willing to provide that which was actually wanted.

        1. 7.5.1.1

          “is not the relevant standard in a competitive marketplace. ”

          Sure it is, if we’re talking about them getting to discriminate against content they host/publish. Either they are a publisher (they have editorial/discriminatory control) and suffer publisher liability, or they are not (they do not have editorial/discriminatory control).

          Why this goes over lefty’s noggins all of a sudden is a mystery, not 50 years ago they were they ones halfway fighting on a very similar editorial liability issue.

          1. 7.5.1.1.2

            … and yet 6, to a Tee — every Liberal Left leaning on these boards makes that same mistake.

            It’s as if cognition is shut down.

  9. 6

    I’m confused. Isn’t a recommendation that is published by Google/Youtube not information provided by “another”? Doesn’t that end the dispute? If Youtube/Google is providing their own information to users, they may be liable if their provided own information violates some state/fed law.

    1. 6.1

      The publishing of the recommendation is the provision of the material itself. This happens by way of algorithms that determine which of the “trillions” are prioritized or served up.

      (Conversely, there is shadow banning and other ‘tricks’ to reduce that is effectively censorship)

    2. 6.2

      It seems a stretch to say that YouTube “publishes” a recommendation. What they “publish” is the video, which is the video of “another.”

  10. 5

    FYI-I believe this quote was Kagan, not Sotomayor-“We’re a court. We really don’t know about these things. These are not the nine greatest experts on the internet.”

  11. 4

    “I might be OK with that if it gets TikTok out of my house.”

    D confirmed to be a victim of Tik Tok (and worse to be even more of a victim in the future no doubt).

  12. 3

    “A garbled post was up for about an hour while I was getting my haircut and eating breakfast.”

    Thank you for not linking to an Instagram of you getting your haircut and eating breakfast.

      1. 2.2.1

        All is well that ends well. Meanwhile, it would harm nothing if you simply deleted comment #2 and its sequelae. They add nothing to the conversation now that the correct post is up.

        1. 2.2.1.1

          “it would harm nothing if you simply deleted comment #2 and its sequelae.”

          Delete?! Delete!?

          Censorship! Censorship! Section 230! Section 230! :-)

  13. 1

    What if you were a homeowner. A and B are running for Mayor. You like A and dislike B. (Maybe A is secretly giving you money.)

    You say anyone can post billboards in your yard. People post all sorts of billboards and you remove all the ones that are negative about A and leave up all the ones that are negative about B. The government has passed Section 230 saying that you can’t be sued for defamation for billboards in your yard as you are merely providing a place people can place billboards.

    So, now A has nothing but positive billboards and B has nothing but negative defamatory billboards.

    See the problem? Government action.

    1. 1.1

      It’s worse than that, as the Government is actively “informing you” as to which billboards to remove.

    2. 1.2

      Here, I could just leave up all the billboards and turn the ones that are defamatory of A towards my house so no one can see them and turn the ones (recommend) defamatory of B towards the street.

      The recommendation engine. Government action. The government is enabling me to defame B.

    3. 1.3

      There is statutory angle here, too. Extending your analogy, the law says you “can’t get sued if you are a billboard platform.” Then, you exercise “editorial judgment” to selectively remove any billboards critical of A. Are you still a “billboard platform” i.e., does the plain/public meaning of that term require viewpoint neutrality?

      It’s complicated (i.e., sloppily drafted) b/c the law also appears to contemplate the ability to remove illegal content, porn, etc.

        1. 1.3.1.1

          If you curate, then you should have liability.
          Do you seriously want Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube et al. not to curate? Do you have any clue what that will look like?

          1. 1.3.1.1.1

            I think WT that we need a new law that would remove liability as long as the curation is even handed.

            1. 1.3.1.1.1.1

              as long as the curation is even handed
              And who is going to decide whether the curation is even handed? The 5th Circuit? The 9th Circuit? The Supreme Court?

              Also, how even handed is even handed?

              1. 1.3.1.1.1.1.1

                >And who is going to decide

                We already have a well-developed framework for this problem e.g., advertising on public transportation. It’s not perfect, but good enough for the real world.

            2. 1.3.1.1.1.2

              It’s more a question of whether you can simultaneously claim to have editorial discretion if that ruleset benefits you in a particular case.

              In other words, you’re a platform OR you’re a publisher… just like every other business in the world (i.e., Internet companies aren’t special snowflakes).

              1. 1.3.1.1.1.2.1

                Exactly.

                Why are (certain groups of) people having difficulty grasping this?

                Why are those people predominantly belonging to one certain group?

                (There is a spectrum of reasons why)

          2. 1.3.1.1.3

            The issue is that the text of the law lists “otherwise objectionable” as content that can be taken down. That is too broad. They need to take that out. And possibly ” harassing” as well. Too subjective.

      1. 1.3.2

        I should have said “did,” rather than “does.” The relevant time should be when the CDA was passed i.e., back when we still had a standards-based, open-access Internet.

        The fact that Google et al. have subsequently taken to calling themselves “platforms” should be irrelevant.

    4. 1.4

      See the problem? Government action.

      I guess that I see “the problem,” but how big of a problem is this, actually? What your hypo boils down to is the possibility of anonymous defamation with no accountability. That is a problem that we have always had (how many times have you used a men’s lavatory with “for a good time, call ______” scrawled on the wall? I know that I have seen that too many times to count).

      Anonymous defamation is not good, but neither is it an unbearable burden on society. For the most part, we all recognize that anonymous accusations are the least credible sort (have you ever actually called _____, expecting a good time to follow?), and just ignore them. The social costs of trying to stamp out this sort of bad behavior could rather easily outweigh the good that one hopes to accomplish by ridding the world of them.

      1. 1.4.1

        Well, that is interesting take to try to say the harm is de minimis. I don’t have time to cite all the commentators and poll takers who say the opposite of what you have said.

        Plus, is de minimis really a defense against government action that violates your rights? I think the person that is defamed would disagree with you and there are numerous lawsuits and a vast array of research papers that agree with me.

    5. 1.5

      But the person being defamed can still sue the person who placed the billboard, right?

      I dont fully see the problem here. The defamed sill has recourse, just not against the billboard person

      1. 1.5.1

        No, the defamed person can’t sue the person who placed the billboard because they are anonymous.

        1. 1.5.1.1

          No, the defamed person can’t sue the person who placed the billboard because they are anonymous.

          What a silly statement. Ignoring the fact that IP addresses are logged and therefore the individual is discoverable, you could just sue the account and when nobody defends the account you could get an injunction requiring the account’s content to be deleted. With the content deleted the system can’t publish it anymore.

            1. 1.5.1.1.1.1

              You haven’t used anonymizing VPN’s have you….

              haha I’m pretty familiar with them, but here my knowledge comes from law, not engineering – you don’t need personal jurisdiction when you’re moving against property because in rem jurisdiction exists. An anonymous VPN is a barrier to, e.g., copyright infringement actions because the goal of the action is a human’s money which requires personal jurisdiction. But if your goal is to remove defamatory content you can just bring suit against the account itself and have the account turned over to you. Then you can delete the video from your own account.

              To use Night’s analogy, just because you can’t find who put up the sign and you can’t make the landowner take down the sign doesn’t mean you can’t get rid of the sign, you just need legal ownership over the sign itself and then you can do whatever you want with your sign.

              1. 1.5.1.1.1.1.1

                but here my knowledge comes from law, not engineering

                You have shown yourself to be woefully inadequate at both.

      2. 1.5.2

        Plus, the defamed person should be able to sue the person that is continuing to display the billboard.

    6. 1.6

      I think this is a really helpful analogy in that it illustrates what is at stake.

      If NW’s home owner is liable for the curated billboards, they will not respond by leaving all the billboards up. To do so would allow people to put billboards on their yard offensive to them personally, and it may lower their home value or offend their visitors. They will instead react by being very careful about what billboards are allowed on their yard.

      In other words, we will have less speech. Not more speech.

      1. 1.6.1

        The analogy is so ridiculous off point it has no bearing on anything.

        In actuality “billboards” are “posts” and there are trillions every day. Faced with the requirement from europe that requires curation and the constitutional protection in the US that is based on no curation, we clearly could not have a world wide communication network anymore. US systems will be regulated to US users and will be entirely unedited because it is de facto impossible to prescreen trillions of posts by hand. It would put Texas and Florida back to the stone age if they got what they wanted.

        1. 1.6.1.1

          Random, you are brainwashed.

          Read about the Enlightenment! Embrace freedom!

          Section 230 in its application is unconstitional.

          1. 1.6.1.1.1

            You’re advocating for holding a weapon to these companies’ heads in order to get them to favor your faction’s speech.

            You’re no friend to freedom, NW.

            1. 1.6.1.1.1.2

              Ben, you are gone off the rails again.

              I don’t want anyone’s speech favored. I am a person of the Enlightenment that believes in the marketplace of ideas.

              The social media platforms have been colluding with government. The social media platforms have been using Section 230 to unfairly push their views.

              Do you want an AI bot listening in to your telephone calls and or private texts and censoring you?

              1. 1.6.1.1.1.2.1

                The social media platforms have been using Section 230 to unfairly push their views.

                How is it “unfair” for a private actor to push the private actor’s own views? What is “unfair” (or, more to the point, unconstitutional) about a private actor advancing the private actor’s own views?

                1. It is unfair Greg because the social media platforms have delete defamatory statements about ideas they favor and leave up defamatory statements about ideas they don’t favor.

                  It makes them a publisher. I am fine with them doing this if they are subject to the common law and I can sue them for defamation.

                  But the government should not be giving them the opportunity to defame people with immunity.

                  And, I am old enough that I remember 230 being passed. The whole argument was that the platforms could not possible moderate the content as there was too much of it. And that they did not want to be a moderator (or curator) but merely a platform to enable others to publish.

                2. social media platforms have delete defamatory statements about ideas they favor and leave up defamatory statements about ideas they don’t favor.

                  Do you have specific examples in mind? It seems to me that most of the brouhaha about §230(c) concerns objections about stuff that has been taken down, not about stuff that has been left up.

              2. 1.6.1.1.1.2.2

                “I am a person of the Enlightenment that believes in the marketplace of ideas.”

                You’re clearly not as you’re trying to leverage liability to force the distribution of certain ideas.

                If you actually believed in a market place of ideas, you’d be content to avail yourself of alternative distribution channels, and be content to let BigTech suffer the consequences of excluding those ideas.

                1. Ben, talking to you is like talking to a Moonie in the 1970s.

                  I am advocating for the removal of Section 230, which unfairly gives websites immunity. It gives big players the ability to defame people with immunity.

                  That is not have it is supposed to work. You are advocating for social media to have special privileges that skew the marketplace of ideas.

                  Please–seriously–try to deprogram yourself. You and the other Wokies are just like the Moonies. It is scary as most of you are violent and want an authoritarian government. You don’t even seem to care about the twitter files.

                2. This is an excellent point. Google does not litigate in an attempt to force the Apple store to carry Android phones. If Apple does not want to give Google a channel by which to sell Android phones, Google finds a different distribution infrastructure by which to sell the Android phones. That is how a marketplace works.

    7. 1.7

      You say anyone can post billboards in your yard. People post all sorts of billboards and you remove all the ones that are negative about A and leave up all the ones that are negative about B. The government has passed Section 230 saying that you can’t be sued for defamation for billboards in your yard as you are merely providing a place people can place billboards.
      Except that doesn’t happen. Actually, there is some bias, but at least in Twitter the bias is for rightwing politicians. Look up the article entitled “Twitter admits bias in algorithm for rightwing politicians and news outlets.”

      1. 1.7.1

        At least through the Guardian, the “revelation” provides:

        Twitter said it would make its research available to third parties but said privacy concerns prevented it from making available the “raw data”.

        This article was from 2021.

        Given the subsequent releases post Musk, it is more than fair to say that this “Right bias” is nothing more than misinformation, with the bias decidedly in the opposite direction.

        Oh, so 1984.

        1. 1.7.1.1

          Surely Twitter is one of the “good guys” now that Musk is in charge, no need to threaten them, right?

          1. 1.7.1.1.1

            You are so misguided.

            It is NOT whether or not “good guys” are doing the bad acts, as it is the bad acts themselves.

            So while certainly Musk spent a ridiculous amount of money to put the government’s involvement into the sunshine, this is most definitely not a “no need to do anything else since Musk now has Twitter.”

            We got to this point because the juristic person of the corporation has become too powerful and there is an unholy alliance of that power with the Government and the ideologies therein.

            1. 1.7.1.1.1.1

              It is NOT whether or not “good guys” are doing the bad acts, as it is the bad acts themselves.

              My point – which you so wonderfully illustrate in your next sentence – is that for you whatever “good guys” do are not bad acts.

              For example, the very states complaining about Section 230 themselves passed restrictive laws that were specifically drawn to avoid conservative social networks. It rings a little hollow to complain about favored treatment while simultaneously engaging in favored treatment, but I don’t see any complaints about those “bad acts.”

              There’s a lot of complaining about defamatory statements on the internet here, but let’s be clear – the only thing keeping all of trumps followers from being sued when they hit the retweet button on some lie he’s spreading is Section 230. Retweeting is unquestionably publishing but-for the fact that 230 protects users of computer services from being construed as publishers.

              It’s always interesting to consider just giving people what they claim to want. If you start punishing social networks for curating what their users contribute, they’ll just respond by curating their users. If you start punishing people for amplifying defamation, you better make sure you’re not following defamers. Social networks were kicking conservatives off when they were MAKING money for the social networks, imagine how quickly they’ll be kicked off if they start COSTING money.

              1. 1.7.1.1.1.1.1

                My point – which you so wonderfully illustrate in your next sentence – is that for you whatever “good guys” do are not bad acts.

                You’ve got that simply wrong.

                I have asserted, implied or suggested no such thing.

                You want to add new situations not present, and then assert I have taken a position to these things not present.

                You then want to assert some other rambling about Trump re-Twits, and again, this is entirely disconnected to my statements.

                You appear to have lost all connections to what is being exchanged on this thread.

        2. 1.7.1.2

          Q writes:
          Given the subsequent releases post Musk, it is more than fair to say that this “Right bias” is nothing more than misinformation, with the bias decidedly in the opposite direction.
          LOL. Every time you write something, your sprint to the right couldn’t be more pronounced.

          And BTW, excuse me but I had to clean something off my shoes … oh here it is — it is Musk’s credibility.

          Since you OBVIOUSLY didn’t read the releases, I won’t bother to explain them to you. You get your news via podcasts from right-wing personalities, so there is little helping you now.

          But for those who have an open mind (don’t worry, you are excluded from that category so you can skip ahead), the twitter files shows that the company (during the Trump era — just to be clear, the Federal “government” as this time was the right) wrestled with disclosure of what many considered “hacked” materials (a violation of Twitter’s policy) as it pertains to the Hunter Biden laptop. To be clear, both the left and right contacted twitter in efforts to ban certain people.

          The rest of the twitter files (produced by Musk’s hand-picked flunkies) — were of course entirely without bias [eyeroll]

          That being said, what they showed was how the powers that be implemented their own policies, which included policies against the advocating of violence and its COVID misinformation policy. Many of the right-wing commentators who were banned (and in many instances, only temporarily) were banned for those reasons. Oh, and its not like left was completely excluded from bans as well.

          One big difference between the left and right is that the left likes to pronounce their love for everyone — particularly the downtrodden, whereas the right is very proud of their firearm ownership and their stated willingness to use those firearms. With that it mind and also considering Twitter’s policy against advocating violence, it is easier to see how the ban hammer disproportionately impacts the right.

          The most famous ban occurred shortly after January 6th, which Twitter banned a serial-violator of its policies — one who they had to rewrite their policies in order to keep from banning — otherwise he would have been banned years and years ago. Notably, he was headed of the government at the time of his banning. However, certain people here think that the “government” is the one controlling Twitter — a laughably farcical statement on its face.

          And in case there was any doubt, January 6th was violent. Over 100 US Capitol Policy officers reported injuries as a result of that incident — an incident that was incited, in part, by the tweets of the former President. He was justifiably banned thereafter (and could have been banned years ago).

          Now let’s see if this post makes it through Dennis’s algorithm for determining what posts make it and what do not.

          1. 1.7.1.2.1

            [Y]our sprint to the right couldn’t be more pronounced.

            What “sprint”? Not that I would recommend that anyone do this, but if you scroll through the PatentlyO archives you will see that Q has been plying his “I am a ‘moderate’ who spouts right-wing talking points” line for decades. This is not a new posture for Q.

            1. 1.7.1.2.1.1

              Lol – the push down the Central Stick Figure who makes valid observations of the Left Stick Figure, and then have the Left Stick Figure scream out how the pushed down figure is “Far Right.”

              Classic.

          2. 1.7.1.2.2

            Your own post here is nothing more than validation of Musk’s XKCD stick figure presentations.

            Way to confirm that.

            1. 1.7.1.2.2.1

              validation of Musk’s
              I’m sorry, but anyone who speaks of Musk is a positive manner doesn’t have much credibility with me.

              1. 1.7.1.2.2.1.1

                Having “credibility” with you for anything other than patent law discussions is simply not a meritorious endeavor.

                You have not shown yourself to be able to have an objective viewpoint for these political discussions, and not even have recognized that.

          3. 1.7.1.2.3

            incident that was incited, in part, by the tweets of the former President.

            Yes, because “non-violent” really means “violent”

            Who is Ray Epps?

          4. 1.7.1.2.4

            Lololol.

            Oh my! The censorship definitely went in one direction, and it wasn’t of the left. Anyone discussing the laptop was censored. Anyone discussing alternatives to vaccines was censored. Anyone discussing the dangers of vaccines was censored. Do you not agree with this?

            1. 1.7.1.2.4.1

              Oh my! The censorship definitely went in one direction, and it wasn’t of the left. Anyone discussing the laptop was censored. Anyone discussing alternatives to vaccines was censored. Anyone discussing the dangers of vaccines was censored. Do you not agree with this?
              You seem to be confused. Twitter was exercising their already-stated policies against use of hacked materials, the inciting of violence, policies against COVID misinformation (among others) — policies that the users agreed to when they signed up for Twitter. Why were these policies in place ? It’s called capitalism. Advertisers don’t like to be associated with people who post stuff of that nature so Twitter created policies more in line with the wishes of their advertisers.

              Oh and since we haven’t chatted since the last election, how are the suits for Kari Lake going? Did you by chance see the lawsuit filed by Dominion against Fox News? Even their talking heads weren’t buying these whole “steal the election” BS that was be spouting about. They were afraid that their views would go to Newsmax or OAN so they kept repeating the lies despite not believing them.

              What is funny is that the Fox News people could critically assess these wild accusations of the vote being stolen but their viewers could not. Talk about sheeple … LOL.

              1. 1.7.1.2.4.1.1

                None of that is protected under Section 230.

                Kari Lake will have to appeal. And that is her right. It is not over until she can no longer appeal. Many people were disenfranchised. Machines were not working, and ballots were too small. So, we shall see.

                As to Dominion, again, I direct you to the actual emails produced during discovery in which Dominion admits everything about their machines that others have been saying — lots of bugs, including ones that change results, and can be hacked. Let me know if you have trouble finding them. You seem to know only one side of the issue. Now, this may not show intent, but it certainly shows incompetence, and negligence.

                As for the election, Trump got 74 million votes. That is almost 10 million more than Hillary in 2016, and 5 million more than Obama ever got. Trump increased his totat by 12 million. Do you really think that a man who could not get people to rallies, and did not really campaign, got 13 million more votes than Obama? I would love to see your answer to that question. Because that is what it boils down to.

                I stopped watching Fox after they called Arizona for Biden almost immediately after the polls closed, and have not watched since. Biden only won AZ by around 10,000 votes. There is no way they called it based upon exit polls with a race that close. No way. Something has been off with Fox since Paul Ryan got on the Board, and Murdoch’s liberal sons took over.

                1. S
                  I
                  G
                  H

                  There is a spectrum and one NEED NOT embrace all of the views of PatentMom in order to fight what the Liberal Left are doing.

                  That path leads to accusing Joe Rogan of being Far Right.

                  that type of “one-bucketing” is utter n0nsense.

                2. I cannot respond to Sarah directly, so I will here.

                  What fact I provided is not true?

                  As for Dominions emails, they are referenced on page 15 of this document filed by Fox in court. Perhaps you think the lawyers lied?

                  link to deadline.com

                3. “Do you really think that a man who could not get people to rallies, and did not really campaign, got 13 million more votes than Obama?”

                  I doubt there is a crowbar on this planet strong enough to pry the tinfoil hat off your head.

                4. Do you really think that a man who could not get people to rallies, and did not really campaign, got 13 million more votes than Obama?
                  A couple points …
                  First, Democrats are not part of the cult of personality that has inflicted the right. They don’t feel the need to huddle together (in the middle of a pandemic) with others to exclaim their allegiance to the orange. It is of no surprise that deaths from COVID have disproportionately impacted counties that voted for the Orange. The people on the left were less likely to congregate during a pandemic than people on the right.
                  Second, the issue isn’t so much that Biden got more votes than Obama. Many people weren’t voting for Biden. They were voting against Trump. Biden just happened to be the name on the ticket who was opposite Trump. For those of you holed up in your rightwing safe places, Trump’s approval rating hovered around the low-40s for almost the entirety of his tenure. While I’m sure everyone you know love him, a LOT of people didn’t.

                  I stopped watching Fox after they called Arizona for Biden almost immediately after the polls closed, and have not watched since. Biden only won AZ by around 10,000 votes. There is no way they called it based upon exit polls with a race that close.
                  They didn’t call it just based upon the exit polls. Many of the results were already in. As explained by the guy who was at the Fox decision desk, they were looking at whether the actual vote totals being reported matched up to the exit polling numbers that they had. He said that their polling numbers were spot on (which gave them confidence in their model) and as the night went on, it was apparent that Biden was going to win. As he further explained, they had a bunch of people in a room (academics, Republicans, Democrats) and they needed unanimity to make the call. They got that unanimity and proceeded to make the call.

                  BTW. The Cyber Ninjas recount of approximately 2.1M voters in Maricopa County (costing about $6M — although I read the total may be as much as $9M) showed Biden actually having a slightly bigger margin of victory than that reported. However, the difference was about .008% of the total votes casted. In other words — an insignificant amount.

                5. Trying again. This comment was censored. Ironic.

                  “So, Breeze, you think Biden got 12 million more votes than Obama? Just answer the question honestly. Say “why yes, I do believe that!”

                  Why do you have to ad hominem. If you believe it, say it. With emphasis!

                  What are you so shy about?”

              2. 1.7.1.2.4.1.2

                Wow, talked about being brainwashed:

                Twitter was exercising their already-stated policies against use of hacked materials,

                Except the Hunter Biden laptop was not hacked — and the the misinformation that it was WAS direct political propaganda.

          5. 1.7.1.2.5

            You really did not read the actual emails themselves between Twitter and the feds, did you? They were re-writing policy to take Trump off Twitter. Many conservatives were permanently banned and are still not back on, even under Musk.

            And please explain how over 40,000 child exploitative accounts remained active under the trust and safety guy who wrote his dissertation on Grindr?

            Who is your news source? Read the actual emails.

            1. 1.7.1.2.5.2

              You really did not read the actual emails themselves between Twitter and the feds, did you? They were re-writing policy to take Trump off Twitter.
              LOL. Are you getting your news from the same people who told you about how the election was stolen but they really didn’t believe it themselves?

              Let’s be clear, Trump should have been off Twitter years before January 6th for violating Twitter’s stated policies. Twitter resisted calls from people pointing out Twitter not enforcing their own rules by keeping Trump for many years. Apparently tired of justifying their lack of action against Trump, in January of 2018 Twitter instituted a policy by which world leaders would not be banned. Although not naming Trump, he was widely recognized as the impetus for this policy. Consequently, Trump was then given wide latitude to tweet whatever he liked.

              And please explain how over 40,000 child exploitative accounts remained active under the trust and safety guy who wrote his dissertation on Grindr?
              I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with many of the latest right-wing conspiracy theories. You are going to have to further elaborate on this one. However, I’m sure you are delighted to know that since Musk came onboard that the incidences of hate speech has dramatically increased on Twitter — that must warm the cockles of your heart. Who needs Truth Social when Musk is working to transform Twitter into a rightwing safe space?

              1. 1.7.1.2.5.2.1

                Now you are yet again showing YOU to be the brainwashed one Wt:

                Let’s be clear, Trump should have been off Twitter years before January 6th for violating Twitter’s stated policies.

                You are conveniently ignoring the facts presented in the sunlight shone on the released Twitter internal files that show your statement to be false.

                It’s like you ladled into your noggin ALL of the Main Stream Media propaganda without even a thought.

              2. 1.7.1.2.5.2.2

                This is blatantly false:

                Trump should have been off Twitter years before January 6th for violating Twitter’s stated policies.

                Per Twitter’s own internal documentation.

                It’s like you ladled into your noggin ALL of the Main Stream Media propaganda without even a thought.

                1. He did not read the emails. Sadly.

                  Here is a link to a CNN article. Even they struggle to spin a violation. When you read the discussion, the struggle to retroactively call the tweets problematic is real.

                  ttps://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/tech/elon-musk-trump-twitter-rules/index.html

                2. What’s worse than “did not” is his “will not.”

                  Along a spectrum of the political points that break out here, I have provided him direct links to well documented points — that he refuses to engage with.

                  Rather, he simply takes the lemming position of the indoctrinated, and lashes out with the mindless ad hominem propaganda.

                3. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable. So, many refuse to entertain facts that will disrupt their worldview.

                  I knew that Fox talent said different things off air than on air from the articles I read that presented both sides. But WT did not know that Dominion’s own employees have trashed their products.

                  A Harvard analysis right after Trump’s election showed that most media outlets were 80% negative in their reporting of Trump. Fox was 50/50. And that shows why people think Fox is more biased. It is simply because they are not left-biased.

                4. Per Twitter’s own internal documentation.
                  Always light of the facts, aren’t we?

                  Why don’t you post a link to those particular documents that showed Trump didn’t violate Twitter’s own policies.

                  Remember this tweet from June of 2020?
                  “when the looting starts, the sh00ting starts”

                  Someone wrote those same words on their account within days of the original words and that account was suspended — despite the same words being found in he-who-shall-not-be-named’s account.

                  BTW — it was a nice little echo chamber that you and PatentMom are engaged in. You’ve created your own little safe space to discuss conspiracy theories. How precious (and typical).

                5. You are doing that “push the Central Stick Figure down and scream, ‘Right Wing’” thing again.

                  It’s just not a good look for you.

              3. 1.7.1.2.5.2.3

                Define hate speech. Anyone who calls themselves a lawyer knows that all speech is protected, except for direct calls for violence. The ACLU used to defend the likes of the KKK. Now, they call it hate speech.

                It is subjective. For example, what you say about Trump is hate speech.

                1. Sorry. I meant to say “except for direct calls for violence and other limited circumstances like yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

          1. 1.7.1.3.1

            It is absurd WT to reference anything pre-the Twitter files.
            Let me guess. When Tucker Carlson shows you a cutup of the 40,000 hours of surveillance footage from the January 6th Capitol attack, you will believe in your heart of hearts that you’ll be getting an unbiased look at what happened.

            Anyway, let’s discuss facts. What about the Twitter files gets your hackles up the most? What do you think is so onerous that it must be shared with everyone?

            1. 1.7.1.3.1.1

              It will be footage hidden by those in power.

              That being said, my view is — and has always been — that NO source gets a “bye” from critical evaluation.

              Quite unlike you that has consistently clenched tight your eyes and clung to your preordained propaganda.

    8. 1.8

      Holy cow. Some of you people are lawyers? Who did you bribe to get your diplomas?

      See the problem?

      There unquestionably isn’t one. Is the problem that let people post things? I have a right to use my land as I see fit. Is the problem that I choose what messages I let be conveyed by my private property? I have a constitutional right to that one.

      So, now A has nothing but positive billboards and B has nothing but negative defamatory billboards.

      You agree that if I took down the negative defamatory billboards I’d be constitutionally protected in only allowing pro-A billboards on my private land, right? In other words, regardless of whether 230(c)(2) protects me from liability you have no cause of action against me for taking down pro-B billboards because I’m not required to like B, endorse B, or otherwise give B a fair shake. In fact, if the government tried to compel me to endorse B when I didn’t want to, that would violate my constitutional rights.

      The government has passed Section 230 saying that you can’t be sued for defamation for billboards in your yard as you are merely providing a place people can place billboards.

      So then the question is “Do I have to take down the defamatory billboards?” I unquestionably cannot be sued for letting people post defamatory billboards in my yard, and this was well before Section 230. I am not the speaker, nor am I publishing others’ speech, and I don’t have an affirmative duty to stop someone else from speaking just because it happens to occur on my land.

      Your hypothetical removes a necessary fact – Affirmative action to promote the defamation. But lets add that in just for fun: Assuming I engage in an act, I unquestionably could stop editorializing and be constitutionally protected under Smith v. California.

      So the question is: Does any editorializing whatsoever require me to fully editorialize? Its pretty clear that if you impose liability for any amount of editorializing the entire internet would be entirely unedited, because each post would have to be independently reviewed before it was communicated. So you *could* adopt that rule, but that would be the end of online discussions like this one, as Prof Crouch has better things to do than prefilter our posts by hand to ensure they’re not defamatory.

      So Section 230 is entirely proper. The only plausible question is whether an editorializing algorithm is good faith or not. You certainly can’t tell that without looking at the algorithm.

      The recommendation engine. Government action. The government is enabling me to defame B.

      All a recommendation engine does is report other people’s content. If you don’t like that a person is defaming B, you unquestionably could go after the person who put up the billboard about B and force them to remove the content. It’s certainly not illegal to report that someone else is making an allegation.

      I think WT that we need a new law that would remove liability as long as the curation is even handed.

      hahaha and who would determine that curation is even handed? Let me guess – government action?

      Why is even handed a goal? Does the constitution require you to like people equally? Facebook has first amendment rights, is it not allowed to prefer particular politicians?

      It sure seems like your position isn’t “I’m mad that I have to sue individuals that defame me rather than distributors” and more like “Facebook should be sued unless it stops disliking me.” This is a typical Republican ideal – they purportedly are for free business, but only if those businesses don’t make Republicans feel bad. Notably, laws passed by texas and florida just *happened* to be drawn in a way that avoided liability for right-leaning platforms but captured platforms that republicans view as left-leaning. Government intimidation.

      1. 1.8.1

        There unquestionably isn’t one.

        I doubt that you are intelligent enough to be gaslighting, so I will chalk this up to your tendency to be a mindless Sheeple.

    9. 1.9

      Not government action, because the government isn’t making the determination of which speech to permit and which to remove. You’ve turned the entire thing on its head: the government telling Google that they can’t remove content would be government action, and knowing your political background, I’m pretty sure that your beef is with your favored content being removed, repeatedly, for violating common sense terms of use.

      But let’s set all that aside and tweak your analogy to make it more applicable to the Internet scenario, because it falls woefully short.

      You say anyone can post billboards in your yard. Your yard becomes popular, and over time, millions of billboards are posted there. Then it becomes millions posted per year. And then millions posted per day.

      YouTube gets roughly 3.7 million videos posted to it every day, according to 2022 stats. And that’s not a still image – that’s video. More than 270,000 hours of content posted every day.

      The billboards being posted in your yard range the whole gamut, from billboards with ponies on them, to political billboards, to billboards with huge juicy cheeseburgers, to billboards showing horrific scenes of violence and gore. So you establish rules for what content is acceptable to show in your yard, and you hire a small army of people to respond to complaints and remove billboards that violate your rules.

      But then there become so many billboards that people just look at your yard and their eyes glaze over. So you develop a way to help people find billboards that seem relevant to them. You set up a computer system that finds out information about people, tracks which billboards they look at, and figures out based on their viewing and the viewing habits of other people, which billboards might be of interest to them, and then points them in that direction. No human is making this determination manually, because with millions of billboards going up in your yard every day, there’s simply no way to keep up with it all.

      Until you get to that point, your analogy falls short of the situation at hand. And that is why Section 230 is so important, because it enables those 270,000 hours of video to show up every day (and that’s just on YouTube), it facilitates regular human beings finding the content they are interested in, and it allows these services to make their own decisions on which content is acceptable or not under their terms of use without fear of government interference in those decisions.

      1. 1.9.1

        Not government action, because the government isn’t making the determination of which speech to permit and which to remove.

        You obviously haven’t been paying attention.

          1. 1.9.1.1.1

            I’m not the one in denial here Wt.

            That would be you.

            I suggest that you stick to patent law subjects.

                1. The projections from the right are so amusing.

                  BTW, when are you finally going to admit that you are squarely within the right? I cannot remember the last time you made a comment that could even marginally be considered left leaning. Rather, you’ve been repeating rightwing talking points for quite some time now. Just man up and embrace who you are.

                2. Lol – the Liberal Left is well-known for their use of projection (wait, you want to clench your eyes to that source)….

                  Here, it is you projecting in your accusation (completely baseless as it is).

                3. Center is…

                  Center.

                  We’ve been over this – you sprinting Left does not change the fact that I am center. Your (Malcolm-like) one-bucketing does NOT make everyone that disagrees with you to be Right Wing. Joe Rogan is not Right Wing. Bill Maher is not Right Wing.

                  You are the epitome of one blinded by their own ideology.

        1. 1.9.1.2

          Actually, they have been paying attention, just to the wrong sources. If they read the actual emails between the feds and the platforms, they could not possibly make such an assertion. Well, they could, but it would be with knowledge it is untrue.

          Jonathon Turley (whom I am sure they hate) called it “censorship by surrogate.” I suggest they read Turley’s opinion piece in The Hill, February 4, 2023. He provides links.

Comments are closed.