This Week In Techdirt History: January 1st – 7th
from the a-new-year-dawns dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2018 (yes, 2018 is now five years ago) Comcast rang in the new year with a flurry of price increases while we looked at what the death of net neutrality would bring as California joined the list of states proposing their own net neutrality rules. At the same time, the FCC was preparing to weaken the definition of broadband to hide issues with competition and coverage. Donald Trump hired Charles Harder to threaten Steve Bannon with a lawsuit, Germany’s new hate speech law went into effect, a confused judge ruled that video game play has no copyright, and a white noise video on YouTube was hit with five separate copyright claims.
Also, for what was hopefully the last time (so far, so good) the US had zero new works enter the public domain. (Speaking of which, the following year, we would begin running our Public Domain Game Jam, and you should go join this year’s edition).
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2013, when an expanding public domain was still a long way away, we took a look at how the Supreme Court helped create the problem. The liberation of Happy Birthday from copyright also still hadn’t happened, so some folks were running a contest to find a replacement. As expected, the FTC closed its investigation into Google with no charges, though the settlement did still have at least one problem (or, in the eyes of Google’s very angry competitors, lots of problems). Meanwhile, Prenda Law was trying to dismiss a case after it was accused of directly violating the judge’s orders, and the lawyers who were going after Charles Carreon upped their request for attorney’s fees.
Fifteen Years Ago
This week in 2008, Australia was continuing down the slippery slope of internet censorship, while Japan was making its own big push to regulate the internet, and China was expanding its great firewall to require government licensing for all user-generated video sites (elsewhere, of course, user-generated video was at risk of private censorship thanks to copyright holders ignoring fair use). Digg and others were hit with lawsuits over an infamous computer solitaire patent, while it was open season on Vonage when it came to VoIP patents, but at least the EFF was out there doing the hard, slow work of busting bogus patents.
Comments on “This Week In Techdirt History: January 1st – 7th”
My "Happy Birthday" Alternative
I threw my hat into the ring by making my own public domain Happy Birthday song. Check it out! Of course, now that the “real” Happy Birthday song is in the public domain, we have so many to choose from!
Ah, remember when antidirt lost his shit when Happy Birthday was declared public domain? Eat shit, antidirt!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Supporters of Section 230 are human scum - hear me out!
Supporters of Section 230 who ignore the rising harms of online harassment, doxxing, and cyberstalking to protect the profits of corporations using this bloated law are scums! I hope these scums get cancer in the worst spot!
No industry is beyond civil law and common sense “duty of care” to protect users. But Section 230 has caused too many people too many harms. The people on Tech Dirt are biased and have monetary incentives to keep Section 230 in its place so they can run their little internet companies and continue harming people with no legal repercussions. That makes no sense, is bad for public safety, and is unfair for victims.
So the people who support Section 230 on Tech Dirt, can just go fuck off! Because these people are the lowest of the low, a bunch of selfish, greedy, pigs who would be perfectly ok to sacrifice the rights of victims to get legal redress just to make another immoral buck.
I hope section 230 supporters on Tech Dirt get cancer in the worst spot. Because that’s what these people deserve. Karma can be a little bitch.
Re:
… said no human being, ever.
Re:
Wow, do you have issues. Let’s see if we can work ’em out.
I’m no fan of corporations, but they’re not the ones doing the harassment, doxxing, and cyberstalking. Section 230 doesn’t even “immunize” corporate employees from legal liability for those things if they’re found to have helped carry them out. I do agree that corporations themselves can and should be held more accountable for data breaches and security fuck-ups. That said: They shouldn’t be held accountable for the actions of third parties.
How far should that “duty of care” extend, and to what cost?
Section 230 is a legal concept. It can’t harm anyone. And even if it could (which it can’t), you’d have to prove that 230 itself, and not real people doing awful things, is the cause of that harm.
[citation needed]
I mean, yes, Techdirt does have an incentive to keep 230 in place. It’s called “the same comments section that lets you shittalk 230”. Take 230 away and this comments section goes away—as would most other small outlets for speech, because they would likely prefer to avoid frivolous lawsuits from people who think suing the tool used to do something bad is preferable to suing the person who used it to do something bad.
You came to a site you hate looking for a fight with people you despise, but you want us to fuck off. That is one hell of a request…
Except we’re not. Nothing should prevent victims from being able to seek redress for the crimes committed against them. But the law says that liability for those crimes can’t be placed on whoever has the biggest bank account for only that reason. We don’t let people sue a power tool company if someone uses a power drill to kill someone else. For what reason should the same principle not apply to a social media service (which can’t even be used to commit actual physical violence)?
May you live in interesting times.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Section 230 allows online harassers to harm victims with no recourse
Dishonest “professors” are actually paid off by Big Tech (Google, Facebook, etc) to write bogus articles and blogs to purposely position “online harassment” as nothing more than “Free Speech”, when the exact opposite is true and victims pain and harms are not addressed. Dishonest people like Eugene Volokh (ULCA), Eric Goldman (Santa Clara), and the Electronic Frontier Foundation spew lies and garbage that is nothing more than paid corporate interests to make sure that victims cannot seek redress and keep Section 230 to protect corporate profits and expense of public safety. Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman, and the EFF are all complicit in harming victims of online harassment, as they purposely ignore the harm of online stalking and make bogus arguments justifying Section 230 at the expense of victims.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Don't trust the writings of Eric Goldman, Eugene Volokh, or the EFF
These organizations are likely paid mouthpieces for Big Tech paid to spew lies and misinformation about Section 230. Section 230 does no good and protects only corporate interests.
Re: Re: Re:
So, please point out where exactly in Section 230 and the First Amendment how victims of online harassment (which would fall under CRIMINAL LAW) cannt seek redress for legitimate cases of online harassment.
Also, with regard to the EFF…
Only an extremely biased reading of that excerpt from the EFF itself would intepret that as “the EFF is against helping people”.
Besides, as noted by the behaviors of the usual suspects, none of them are interested in actual censorship or stopping harassment, but seem to prefer that the law not apply to THEMSELVES.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Your answers are pure bullshit and dishonest
It is beyond well known that victims of online harassment have limited to no legal recourse in either civil or criminal law. Prosecutors don’t take the crime seriously, and victims are told to “go offline”. Civil remedies are limited to defamation and IIED, both of which are ineffective at addressing doxxing, cyberstalking, or other forms of individual or mob based harassment. Victims cannot file a lawsuit using a pseudonym to protect privacy.
There are also jurisdictional issues. What if the harasser is located overseas or hiding their location? What if they are using VPN? In cases like this the platform is the ONLY entity that can stop the abuse, they just have to delete the harmful content. Why should they not be subject to “a duty of care”? Every other industry in the history of civilization has a “duty of care”, why not the tech industry? Why should your corporate profits be more important than keeping people safe? Why should tech be above the law? If you are NOTIFIED of harmful content on your platform why SHOULDN’T you take reasonable steps to help the victims? What type of society is it where victims of online harassment are left with no legal recourse? Should platforms be allowed to ignore Court Orders for removal of content, like Google and Bing often do? What type of society is it where ordinary people are not allowed to seek legal redress for stalking just because it occurs online?
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/section-230-should-not-be-big-techs-get-out-of-court-free-card
Nobody likes Section 230 except for the selfish freaks who own internet companies – because they benefit from lack of regulation and a lack of redress for victims. You fuckers should have to answer for why you keep supporting a social system where victims rights get no legal protection just to fatten your wallets even more.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Why should Big Tech not be held accountable for online harms?
In what world using what logic do you surmise the tech companies should not have a duty of care?
There is no industry besides internet/tech right now that doesn’t have some sort of tort liability or duty of care. Why should tech be any different?
Tech platforms are often the only parties that can stop the online abuse and harassment. Why should they only get the upside from ad revenues and never any of the downside from hosting harmful content that harms individuals? Why should tech be immune from any civil liability whatsoever? What if the harasser is not locatable or moving from country to country? What if the harasser is using VPN or TOR and cannot be identified? Why should victims have NO redress to suffer these harms indefinitely?
Why in the fucken world should tech companies not have any liability for any harms, even they are notified of such harms by users or victims?
It is mind boggling the greediness of tech entrepreneurs. Truly a bunch of fucked up pigs who don’t deserve immunity.
Re: Re: Re:4
The same world that says “if someone uses a Mustang to run down a pedestrian, Ford shouldn’t be held liable for that”. Twitter shouldn’t be held liable for the actions of its users unless Twitter employees directly aided and abetted those actions.
They can’t stop that sort of thing—all they can do is put a dent in it. And even then, that would require moderation far beyond what most tech companies are doing nowadays—and doing imperfectly, I might add. For example: Your hateful screeds probably wouldn’t even get published by most platforms if they had a duty of care to prevent anti-queer speech from reaching queer users.
It isn’t. 230 puts the burden of civil liability where it belongs: on the shoulders of those who wrote and published speech. Backpage, for example, got dinged because its employees did things that cost Backpage its 230 protections.
That sucks. But I don’t know what you expect tech companies to do about it other than help law enforcement when- and wherever they can.
We have legal precedents in this country that say “you don’t get to go after the deepest pockets if you can’t prove they actively harmed you”. Again: Nobody gets to sue Ford if someone uses a Mustang to commit vehicular manslaughter.
If victims want redress, they can find their victimizer and have them arrested or sued. Until they can prove the tech companies are responsible (or at least legally liable) for that harassment, they don’t get to sue those companies for millions of dollars just because those companies have millions of dollars.
That’s cute, that you think such a level of greed is limited to tech executives.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Stephen T. Stone is wrong, Section 230 should be repealed
Why the fuck should ISPs and internet companies NOT have liability for the tortuous actions of 3rd parties? What if 3rd party is located in another country and using a VPN? how does the victim of such cybercrimes get harmful content removed and stop the attacks? How is it fair for the platform to do absolutely nothing, as was the case with Hendrick v. Grindr, while they are alerted of the harassment and malicious behaviour? If you want to do nothing and absolve all responsibility why do platforms at the same time make money off the content?
Section 230 is the biggest corporate handout in the history of the USA, and it has harmed many victims while at the same time fattening the wallets of fucken assholes and straight up greedy selfish pigs, the internet entrepreneurs.
In no rational or sane universe would one be able to argue that internet companies should NOT have any liability for 3rd party torts committed on its platforms whatsoever. The people who support Section 230 are a bunch of the greediest filthiest corporate pigs the history of mankind has ever seen.
SCOTUS will repeal Section 230 in Gonzales v. Google you human scum.
Re: Re: Re:6
For the same reason Ford doesn’t have liability if someone uses a Mustang to flatten someone’s skull on the pavement: They didn’t do the crime.
Look, Jhon, you’ve been beating this drum for years and I don’t know why you suddenly decided to spam this site in the past week or so. But the fact of the matter is that you haven’t presented a single coherent argument for…anything, really, but especially for the idea that Section 230 is uniquely responsible for the actions of cyberstalkers, scammers, and trolls like you.
Blame and responsibility are two different things. You can blame 230 for “facilitating” cyberstalking—though that argument falls flat in and of itself. You can blame Twitter for the same thing; while you’d have something closer to a point, you’d still be hard-pressed to find anyone here who agrees with you. But the responsibility for cyberstalking is on the actual cyberstalker, and that’s where the bulk of any legal liability should fall.
Now do me two favors, Jhon: Keep my name out of your mouth and please go somewhere for a mental wellness check because—and take this from someone with a shitload of his own problems in that area—you are quite clearly unwell.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Eugene Volokh has done everything he can to protect corporate profit and screw victims
Eugene Volokh is a pure dishonest lobbyist and mouthpiece for big tech disguised as a “first Amendment” law professor. His works are so lop-sided in favour of no regulation for tech companies and protection for cyberharassers at the expense of victims. He fights against every single state law that would keep victims safe from cyberharassment and cyberstalking. None of this works express any recognition or sympathy for victims of cyberharassment and how to deal with this exploding social crime in today’s internet age. His work is basically a pro-corporation, pro-Section 230 one sided propaganda disguised as “First Amendment” scholarship. One could easily argue the other way that doxxing and online harassment are NOT forms of Free Speech, yet he completely ignores this analysis and seems to argue that even the worst types of online harms is nothing but protected speech. The guy literally thinks any crime that can be done online is “Free Speech.”
It’s beyond time for the Supreme Court to curb Section 230 immunity in Gonzales v. Google in February.
Re: Re: Re:3
“It’s beyond time for the Supreme Court to curb Section 230 immunity in Gonzales v. Google in February.”
It’s beyond time for you to accept reality. 230 ain’t going nowhere bro.
Re: Re: Re:4 'We're legally liable for THAT now? Hard pass, get rid of it.'
Even if it does they are not going to like what happens after that.
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Again: I agree that corporations themselves can and should be held more accountable for data breaches and security fuck-ups. But they shouldn’t be held accountable for the actions of third parties.
Yes, they can—from the people who committed the unlawful acts. Twitter isn’t responsible for the actions of its users any more than Ford would be responsible for a Mustang owner hitting a pedestrian.
Section 230 protects every website and interactive web service from frivolous “look for the deepest pockets” lawsuits. It doesn’t prevent the investigation or prosecution of actual crimes.
Legally, morally, and/or ethically? No. No, they are not.
[citation needed]
230 isn’t a corporate handout. 230 isn’t in the law to protect Twitter (which was more than a decade away at the time 230 became the law). 230 is a law meant to protect every interactive web service of any size—from Twitter.com to 4chan to the 5-person Morbius fan forum—from being held legally liable for speech and expression those services didn’t have a hand in making or publishing.
I sympathize with victims of stalking. It’s a horrible thing to go through, in cyberspace or in meatspace. But that isn’t a reason to hold people who had no direct hand in that stalking liable for the actions of the person(s) who did.
The grand irony of your position is that if 230 was revoked in some way, your comments would likely be moderated even harder by Techdirt—if Mike still allowed comments, that is. You want to bitch about 230 and liars and shit, but you don’t realize that getting your way would probably hurt you more than you think. I mean, if you couldn’t bitch anywhere online because no site would want to risk being held liable for your speech, what would you do?
Re: Re: Re:2 'Equal treatment under the law, online or off' makes for a strange 'gift'
230 isn’t a corporate handout.
Even if you grant for the sake of argument that it is it’s one that every other company large and small offline enjoys, which makes framing it as some sort of special ‘privilege’ utterly absurd.
You don’t get to sue Ford because someone used one of their vehicles in a hit and run.
You don’t get to sue the local grocery store because one customer started making defamatory statements against another while inside.
And you don’t get to sue an online platform because some jackass posted content that someone doesn’t like and/or that breaks the law.
Re: Re: Re:2
230 isn’t a corporate handout
Yeah, it also protects individuals. Jackasses just keep skating past this hoping no one will notice.
Also the First Amendment. You can take away 230 tomorrow, and the web will just be less vibrant, more corporate-run one-way communication, and morons will still lose their lawsuits. Only lawyers will make any money from that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Section 230 is for greedy filthy corporate pigs who make money off of the harm they create for society
Section 230 is for greedy corporate pigs. Everyone knows Big Tech has this little peanut gallery of lobbyists including Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Tech Dirt, and a bunch of so called “blogs” that are paid behind the scenes by Big Tech to spew misinformation.
If Section 230 is so good, why does everyone in Congress and the courts want to get rid of it?
Tech Dirt fucken pigs who spew misinformation and put corporate profits above user safety and common sense guardrails.
People on Tech Dirt are a bunch of greedy corporate pigs.
Re: Re:
I see your attitude is because a few people abuse their ability to post on the Internet, you would stop everyone from posting on the Internet. How would you like it, if one person in your town committed a crime, everybody in the town, including you, were put under house arrest.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: No, people who abuse online communications should be sued and stopped
People who abuse online communications should be stopped. This is so victims can have recourse. That is the basis of a fair and equitable society.
Greedy corporate scum like Tech Dirt who argue for absolute immunity for platforms no matter how much notice they are given for crimes committed on their platforms DO NOT deserve Section 230 protection, and victims should be able to SUE THE FUCK OUT OF THESE platforms if they don’t take enough action (with the right duty of care) to prevent the harms from occurring.
Search engines should be sued if they do not remove harmful, doxing. Sue the fuck out of Google and Bing for ignoring court orders.
Greedy corporate pigs won’t last long, Section 230 to be repealed by Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Google
Read the amicus curiae briefs – nobody fucken wants Google to win! Everyone wants to get rid of Section 230 so the greedy corporate tech pigs can start paying the piper!
Re: Re: Re:2
Be very careful what you wish for.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: There is no moral or policy reason to keep Section 230 in place
I don’t care about the profits of Tech Dirt or Big Tech. Big Tech doesn’t deserve to make even MORE money at the expense of victims. There needs to be some type of safeguard and legislation for online content that can protect innocent individuals from online stalking, privacy invasions, doxing, online harms, etc… Enough is enough. Online abuse is rampant because tech platforms have NO incentives to do anything to combat online harassment and tortuous online activity, leaving victims helpless and unable to remove offending content. There are real world harms. The tech industry deserves all the bad karma for harming so many victims just for boosting personal profits over sensible public safety. The fuck with Section 230, the fuck with Big Tech, and the fuck with Tech Dirt
Re: Re: Re:
Being complicit, willingly or otherwise, in a crime, under criminal law, is a hell of a safeguard. As is not paying your taxes. And I’d rather negotiate a payment plan with the taxmen than be an accessory to crime.
It’s one thing to say not enough is being done. It’s another to say that companies and individuals aren’t doing jack shit to moderate as they see fit. Besides, the reason there’s so much harassment is because there’s at least 8 billion people on the planet, and all of them are just as selfish and assholish as you are.
No one has claimed otherwise.
Let me guess, you want companies to stop funding Pride Parades, abortion for women, and whatnot in the name of “public safety” too?
If that’s the case, then let’s start with investigating Koch Industries, News Corp, Shell, BP, Unilever, Phillips, Bayer and all those big Republican funders first in the name of human rights and climate change first. Because those fucking assholes have done more measurable damage to human beings than Big Tech. And mind you, Google and Microsoft would LOVE to do business in China and Russia if the Senate wasn’t gonna fuck them over…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Already you fucker, Section 230 supporters deserve jail time
Re: Re: Re:3
You couldn’t ever be funny on purpose, so you have to be funny by accident.
Let’s say they do. What the hell can they do about it that wouldn’t piss off everyone/severely limit free expression on the Internet? I mean, under your logic, Mike should stop you from posting anything if he feels you’ve been harassing him and Techdirt’s regular commentators.
lolwut
230 has nothing to do with online harassment, and any laws that could conceivably tackle the issue must find a way around the First Amendment. As I noted above, Mike could find your posts to be a form of harassment. Should the law side with him and declare your posts to be harassment only because of the content of your speech?
To be clear: Yes, harassment sucks, in cyber- and meatspace. But the law is “behind the times” on this precisely because “harassment” can be (and often is) in the eye of the beholder. What you consider “discussion” here could be considered “harassment” by Mike; if the law agrees with him and bars you from commenting here, what would you do (other than “break the law”)?
If Section 230 is ever changed or repealed, this comments section would likely disappear. So would most of the smaller interactive web services on the Internet—you know, the ones that can’t afford to hire massive legal teams and pay out large legal settlements. That’s the thing you don’t seem to get about 230: It protects every service regardless of size. And most of them would rather shut down than risk being held legally liable for your hateful (and potentially harassing) speech.
I’m sure you’d do a lot of other immoral unethical things too, Jhon, but the problem there is Trump already beat you to the punch on most of those.
Again: Any law that would purport to do something about cyberstalking would still need to get around the First Amendment, Section 230 be damned. If you can craft a law that can criminalize cyberstalking without also affecting the free speech rights of everyone besides the assholes you’re trying to intentionally target, feel free to share that idea. But if you can’t: Fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:3
“If you really care about cyberstalking, you would update Section 230 and call for a duty of care for internet companies”
Hey jhon, just tell us how many restraining orders you have against you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: To hell with Section 230
Your logic is fucken messed up, it’s clear you are gaslighting victims and just want Section 230 to keep protecting your fucken profits at the expense of victims. That needs to end!
Re: Re: Re:
Then let’s start with investigating Koch Industries, News Corp, Shell, BP, Unilever, Phillips, Bayer and all those big Republican funders first in the name of human rights and climate change first. Because those fucking assholes have done more measurable damage to human beings than Big Tech.
Big Oil has HIDDEN RESEARCH OVER CLIMATE CHANGE.
Koch Industries (and all the fucking Kochs) continue to fund MAGA assholes.
News Corp has enabled shitty voter information, Trump’s rise to power and basically helped create the white supremacist problem.
Bayer is Bayer. Big Agriculture has also done measurable harm to the people in the name of profits.
I can keep going on, asshole.
So point out where exactly in Section 230 and 1A where this actually happens. Because apparently, the only problem is an issue of money. Or clout, in Keffals’ casse.
And that’s not an issue with the law, but of an imbalance of legal representation.
Again.
It’s one thing to say the corps aren’t doing enough, and that’s another discussion wotrh having.
Its another to be so disingenuous as to say corps fo nothing, even though they have an actual financial motive to not abet crime.
No, I’d be calling for criminal law reform, because it’s pretty clear that SOME states have laws regarding online harassment, stalking, revenge porn and whatnot.
I highly doubt you care about people if you’re calling for a repeal of Section 230, since harassment and the like will still happen regardless.
Then again, I suppose you also would want companies to cut funding to worker health plans, not provide health insurance, actively fire pregnant women, ban prostitution, and all the fun stuff white supremacists hate.
If you truly cared about people, you’d at least not make hollow claims about repealing Section 230 and abolishing 1A. Because that way lies the enslaving of the human race to a few dictators.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: I have issues?
You think I have issues for disliking Section 230?
How about these people:
Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996
Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2021/08/its-time-to-update-section-230
Carrie Goldberg: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/section-230-should-not-be-big-techs-get-out-of-court-free-card
White House/Prez Biden: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/08/white-house-renews-call-to-remove-section-230-liability-shield-00055771
Plus many more amicus curiae briefs in Gonzales v. Google all in FAVOR of amending or repealing Section 230.
The only people who like Section 230 are the FAGS and PIGS in the tech industry who put corporate profits before public and user safety.
Fuck Tech Dirt and Fuck Section 230.
Re:
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
TechDirt supports online harassers by gaslighting victims
TechDirt has over the years tried to do everything possible to harm victims of online harassment and prevent laws protecting online privacy from getting passed to help fight the scourge of online harassment.
TechDirt is run by internet entrepreneurs who couldn’t care less about the use of the internet by criminals. Rather, TechDirt only cares about protecting profits and making money, hence why they keep pushing the Section 230 narrative and gaslighting the issue of online abuse, stalking, doxxing, and harassment.
If TechDirt actually believed in any of these causes they would be advocating for the REPEAL of SECTION 230 as this would be the most direct, most efficient, most commonsense approach to fighting online harassment.
Why should internet companies be absolved from tort liability? Why should internet companies be able to have it both ways – make money off online harassment yet have no legal liability, EVEN WHEN presented with a court order?
Even worse, you have the tech industry hiring false “bloggers” like Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman, and others who spew misinformation about Section 230 and the First Amendment to fight AGAINST any good law that would keep victims of cyberstalking safe. Tech industry is nefarious and trying to sacrifice the safety of America in place of raking up more profits. This is just wrong, and should be addressed by legislation.
None of the amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the Gonzales v. Google case support Google. Everyone wants Section 230 to be FIXED and to HOLD TECH COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE for the harms they have caused society!
Fuck Tech Dirt!
Re: Impotent little bitch
Hey jhon, wheres the lawsuit you promised me. And all the police investigations that are just moments away from shutting this place down?
Re:
“hence why they keep pushing the Section 230 narrative and gaslighting the issue of online abuse, stalking, doxxing, and harassment.”
How many restraining orders jhon?
Thanks for sharing such an informative and Fantastic post,I bookmarked this page and will get through all your posts.Keep sharing such nice posts