Section 230 is trending

"we must repeal section 230, leaving tech companies liable for the content they host" AWS: *deletes Parler* "how dare these tech companies take liability for the content they host"

Backbones in short supply in the DC Swamp. Money doesn't talk it swears. https://t.co/buRL7QZeZh

Any U.S. politician supporting the repeal of Section 230 in light of Trump's suspension makes it clear that they'd fully support a right-wing coup d'etat in the United States. Although, not that shocking... https://t.co/gA8Fsa6Qkt

Trump loyalists in the United States government are now pushing to lift protections for social media (Section 230) after U.S. President Trump is banned for inciting a failed coup d'etat and violence. Does @LindseyGrahamSC support treason? https://t.co/2ONfRGGHQX

FREE SPEECH ALERT: @Twitter and @Facebook are 💯 percent wrong to try and block @parler_app from having a free platform for people to post on. If they oppose those who do act like a publisher, then they should NOT be exempt from liability under Section 230.

Many people rn think we have to choose between censorship and incitement. They opt for censorship as lesser evil. This is false choice. First Amendment does not protect incitement. Big Tech could have adopted moderation consistent with FA principles. See: https://t.co/231MAnS9zI

@TheHyyyype I was more impressed by how he noted that Section 230 was not a constitutional right and could be repealed by congress.

While the USA keeps arguing about section 230, the EU just launched the DSA. This creates binding content take-down liabilities for big platforms. And when it becomes law, in 2-3 years, it will apply everywhere, just like cookies laws and GDPR. https://t.co/xXUYo7I1fH

@GLevin23 @TheHyyyype OMG my 4 yr old will not stop TALKING about the constitutional ripple effects of repealing Section 230! It's adorable.

@SaraCarterDC Y’know, Section 230 only protects online media. It doesn’t protect any liars who use those media. I see no reason why the Bidens shouldn’t sue you for slander.

@Cosbybill6 @TheBluePlanet1 @M0rtaldude @stillgray But you then lose your standing as a platform and become a publisher without section 230 protections.

It's probably true that some conservatives misunderstand the implications of Section 230 repeal, but the push makes more sense when you consider that it would allow major companies - not Big Tech but Big Everything Else - to control more of what people post online via lawsuits.

Fam they literally just tried to repeal section 230. This is not a matter of opinion https://t.co/OuzqrzHoiv https://t.co/hBvcEinlgV

@LastmanOnFire They lie and continue to lie to keep their section 230 protection. Since that's their business plan, everyone should dump their stock from their portfolios.

If it’s actually true that social media couldn’t exist without section 230 then social media’s existence, and everything else about it, is very much within the purview of the federal government. https://t.co/JwaUvdrk5Z

@goodbye56789 A revision to Section 230 is necessary. At least to make the platform owners liable for civil damages, libel, defamation, etc

@envious_angels @Censoreddaisy @donald_keedic @PersistentSeekr @MsMelChen The business shouldn’t profit from both sides. Either be an open platform with reasonable restrictions or get Section 230 benefits. If they can censor bc their private, should they also be able to discriminate? Free speech is as important.

@William53415757 @ball1_ball @RubinReport They are. Section 230 needs a revisit. #uninstall

@himeforever3 @Dadadata16 @JasleeneJ @MrBizzel @ahabyael You don’t know the First Amendment. You don’t know Section 230. Get informed!

@DrFehr @WeaponizedRage No Section 230 provides protection against legal liability by granting Platform status. This forms an argument against actions against accounts. If they were Publishers, they could be held responsible.

@DavidSacks @barnes_law Why doesn't section 230 apply to Parler?

@basartl @BuswellPam @vmarolt @AndrewFeinberg Why do they have section 230 protecting them if they are a private company? Doesn't seem fair.

@gruberchris @DavidSacks @Aaronontheweb Why doesn't section 230 apply to Parler?

@because_logic @01rezistor10 @flanman88 @parlertakes Section 230 shields them from civil suits.

@LuLuRoche @tedcruz @WilsonShilo That threat of folding Section 230 just bit you conservatives in the ass like a junkyard dog! Love it, man! 😂

@truth_tesla @DavidSacks Why doesn't section 230 apply to Parler?

Section 230...let's see what #CensorshipIsReal really looks like shall we? https://t.co/5jZcP4wFbb

@Strawder2019 @thehill It is a slippery slope; maybe I got it wrong. Trump vetoed a bill bc of Section 230 he wanted big tech co held accountable for disinformation on platform. Is that right? Can't have your cake & eat it too. Seems Twitter made it easy for him & gave him what he wanted, ijs🙄

@jack imagine not only imitating but utilising The National Socialist German Worker’s Party ideological tactics against your detractors. Section 230 can only protect you so long.

@DineshDSouza While I abhor the events at our nation’s Capitol, Section 230 would have been a gross oversight of government control.