Section 230 is trending

Section 230 is trending on Twitter. Popular tweets on Section 230.


Ad - Top movies on iTunes Germany


MalwareTech
 @MalwareTechBlog
"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"
10 Jan, 04:43 AM UTC
Peter Navarro
@RealPNavarro
Backbones in short supply in the DC Swamp. Money doesn't talk it swears. https://t.co/buRL7QZeZh
09 Jan, 08:54 PM UTC
Anonymous 👥
@YourAnonCentral
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
09 Jan, 01:22 PM UTC
Anonymous 👥
@YourAnonCentral
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
09 Jan, 01:13 PM UTC
Scott Walker
 @ScottWalker
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.
09 Jan, 05:43 PM UTC
David Sacks
 @DavidSacks
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
09 Jan, 03:14 PM UTC
Ginny Levin
@GLevin23
@TheHyyyype I was more impressed by how he noted that Section 230 was not a constitutional right and could be repealed by congress.
09 Jan, 04:36 PM UTC
Benedict Evans
 @benedictevans
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
09 Jan, 08:01 PM UTC
Bernard Chatanoosh
@BernardEatsMeat
@GLevin23 @TheHyyyype OMG my 4 yr old will not stop TALKING about the constitutional ripple effects of repealing Section 230! It's adorable.
09 Jan, 04:44 PM UTC
Molly NYC
@Molly_NYC
@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.
10 Jan, 01:12 AM UTC
Brian Kight
@kight_brian
@Cosbybill6 @TheBluePlanet1 @M0rtaldude @stillgray But you then lose your standing as a platform and become a publisher without section 230 protections.
09 Jan, 03:07 PM UTC
Osita Nwanevu
@OsitaNwanevu
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.
10 Jan, 07:00 AM UTC
Chart Topping Podcast Guest
@B_REInvest
Fam they literally just tried to repeal section 230. This is not a matter of opinion https://t.co/OuzqrzHoiv https://t.co/hBvcEinlgV
10 Jan, 06:28 AM UTC
Holly Zane
@holly_zane
@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.
10 Jan, 06:55 AM UTC
Daniel Foster
 @DanFosterType
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
10 Jan, 06:54 AM UTC
Bobo the 3rd
@NelsonSkinner4
@goodbye56789 A revision to Section 230 is necessary. At least to make the platform owners liable for civil damages, libel, defamation, etc
10 Jan, 07:02 AM UTC
Dr Mad Mike Andrew
@MadMikeAndrew
@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.
10 Jan, 07:02 AM UTC
Curt McDowell
@csmcd
@William53415757 @ball1_ball @RubinReport They are. Section 230 needs a revisit. #uninstall
10 Jan, 07:01 AM UTC
Flora&Fauna Rule
@TXenByBirth
@himeforever3 @Dadadata16 @JasleeneJ @MrBizzel @ahabyael You don’t know the First Amendment. You don’t know Section 230. Get informed!
10 Jan, 07:01 AM UTC
Steven 'Dasher'
@swiftdasher
@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.
10 Jan, 07:01 AM UTC
ᴏꜰꜰɪᴄɪᴀʟ ꜰᴀᴄᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋᴇʀ
@JoeRandNumbers
@DavidSacks @barnes_law Why doesn't section 230 apply to Parler?
10 Jan, 07:00 AM UTC
Empress-Elect Sunflower
@sunflow03459537
@basartl @BuswellPam @vmarolt @AndrewFeinberg Why do they have section 230 protecting them if they are a private company? Doesn't seem fair.
10 Jan, 07:00 AM UTC
ᴏꜰꜰɪᴄɪᴀʟ ꜰᴀᴄᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋᴇʀ
@JoeRandNumbers
@gruberchris @DavidSacks @Aaronontheweb Why doesn't section 230 apply to Parler?
10 Jan, 06:59 AM UTC
Improv
@dachte
@because_logic @01rezistor10 @flanman88 @parlertakes Section 230 shields them from civil suits.
10 Jan, 06:59 AM UTC
larstherationalist
@larstherationa1
@LuLuRoche @tedcruz @WilsonShilo That threat of folding Section 230 just bit you conservatives in the ass like a junkyard dog! Love it, man! 😂
10 Jan, 06:58 AM UTC
ᴏꜰꜰɪᴄɪᴀʟ ꜰᴀᴄᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋᴇʀ
@JoeRandNumbers
@truth_tesla @DavidSacks Why doesn't section 230 apply to Parler?
10 Jan, 06:58 AM UTC
Em Aroward
@marrynaedwards
Section 230...let's see what #CensorshipIsReal really looks like shall we? https://t.co/5jZcP4wFbb
10 Jan, 06:58 AM UTC
Gail
@becurious2
@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🙄
10 Jan, 06:58 AM UTC
UncreativePothead
@UncreativePoth1
@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.
10 Jan, 06:56 AM UTC
Jon Oliver
@PresBurrito
@DineshDSouza While I abhor the events at our nation’s Capitol, Section 230 would have been a gross oversight of government control.
10 Jan, 06:56 AM UTC

Ad - Top movies on iTunes Germany