@markn-az.bsky.social
I think this thread is worth your time. For me it is bed time, have a nice rest of your day.
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
The product liability argument for social media is not a good one because it was designed for actual products that cause direct harm to the person using it.
You can't say that social media sites should be held liable when their algorithms unintentionally link together or show posts when ....
You can't say that social media sites should be held liable when their algorithms unintentionally link together or show posts when ....
I think this is why plaintiffs' lawyers have begun to focus on the idea that some apps have design defects and that their makers are liable under product liability law, just as a car manufacturer would be liable for a design defect. epic.org/design-based...
December 18, 2025 at 6:37 AM
I think this thread is worth your time. For me it is bed time, have a nice rest of your day.
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
I think the reason you are finding conversations like this arduous are because you are not economic with your ideas and conflate a bunch of irrelevant points to the argument you are trying to craft. In this thread alone you start with a critique on 230 and end with a case that is unrelated to 230.
December 18, 2025 at 6:21 AM
I think the reason you are finding conversations like this arduous are because you are not economic with your ideas and conflate a bunch of irrelevant points to the argument you are trying to craft. In this thread alone you start with a critique on 230 and end with a case that is unrelated to 230.
Further, Weirum v. RKO has nothing to do with section 230, how is it relevant?
December 18, 2025 at 3:52 AM
Further, Weirum v. RKO has nothing to do with section 230, how is it relevant?
Here is what you miss. Section 230 is not premised on content neutrality, a neutrality clause would trip over the first amendment. The real problem you face is the first amendment protects speech you might deem incitement, but is actually not.
December 18, 2025 at 3:49 AM
Here is what you miss. Section 230 is not premised on content neutrality, a neutrality clause would trip over the first amendment. The real problem you face is the first amendment protects speech you might deem incitement, but is actually not.
This is wrong. People can advocate for genocide and be protected by the first amendment. If you are sourcing mere opinion articles, then I will as well.
www.thefire.org/news/why-mos...
www.thefire.org/news/why-mos...
Why (most) calls for genocide are protected speech
The tendency to make exceptions for what’s allowed to be said is all too human, but creating a “genocide” exception to free speech only opens the door to more speech restrictions and selective enforce...
www.thefire.org
December 17, 2025 at 1:19 AM
This is wrong. People can advocate for genocide and be protected by the first amendment. If you are sourcing mere opinion articles, then I will as well.
www.thefire.org/news/why-mos...
www.thefire.org/news/why-mos...
Aside from the first amendment issues here, how do you deal with the inherent frivolous lawsuits that would result from this kind of legal system? I see many bad faith politicians more than willing to use this kind of lawfare to silence people.
December 17, 2025 at 12:17 AM
Aside from the first amendment issues here, how do you deal with the inherent frivolous lawsuits that would result from this kind of legal system? I see many bad faith politicians more than willing to use this kind of lawfare to silence people.
It's protected because the machine is a tool used by the human to help craft the opinion.
December 16, 2025 at 11:56 PM
It's protected because the machine is a tool used by the human to help craft the opinion.
Is a bookstore liable for the contents of a book based on where it is placed in the store? Should we apply liability to the Dewey Decimal system? This is to say that I disagree. I'm also not happy with how litigious we are in the US anyway.
December 16, 2025 at 11:50 PM
Is a bookstore liable for the contents of a book based on where it is placed in the store? Should we apply liability to the Dewey Decimal system? This is to say that I disagree. I'm also not happy with how litigious we are in the US anyway.
Yeah, the subject was 230 but I understand some people just not wanting to bother discussing it.
November 29, 2025 at 7:27 AM
Yeah, the subject was 230 but I understand some people just not wanting to bother discussing it.
Did you get blocked?
November 28, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Did you get blocked?
The newspaper still must select the op-eds prior to publication. Social media flips that on its head because they give people the tools to self publish immediately. The business models are not comparable.
November 28, 2025 at 7:50 PM
The newspaper still must select the op-eds prior to publication. Social media flips that on its head because they give people the tools to self publish immediately. The business models are not comparable.
Suggested reading doesn't mean you even have to engage with it. I find suggested feeds helpful because I discover information I would not have been aware of otherwise. Of course that means I need to make more effort to verify accuracy but I would rather not go back to blissful ignorance.
November 28, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Suggested reading doesn't mean you even have to engage with it. I find suggested feeds helpful because I discover information I would not have been aware of otherwise. Of course that means I need to make more effort to verify accuracy but I would rather not go back to blissful ignorance.
This person is quite unpleasant. I understand they care about vulnerable people but the wrong way to go about it is to invoke nazi language and other childish insults. The wrong way to go about it is to attribute positions to you that you never said.
November 28, 2025 at 7:32 PM
This person is quite unpleasant. I understand they care about vulnerable people but the wrong way to go about it is to invoke nazi language and other childish insults. The wrong way to go about it is to attribute positions to you that you never said.
No where does the article argue for that outcome nor does it advocate for such practices. What is does do is make the accurate legal argument that the state cannot penalize just the speech alone. If you want to make an argument, it is best to not create strawmen to argue with.
November 28, 2025 at 7:23 PM
No where does the article argue for that outcome nor does it advocate for such practices. What is does do is make the accurate legal argument that the state cannot penalize just the speech alone. If you want to make an argument, it is best to not create strawmen to argue with.
Why are you conflating a legal position with a moral position? The article also clearly states that malpractice suits and other remedies are still valid for holding bad therapists in check (second to last paragraph). Seems to me your are approaching this in bad faith. Why?
November 28, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Why are you conflating a legal position with a moral position? The article also clearly states that malpractice suits and other remedies are still valid for holding bad therapists in check (second to last paragraph). Seems to me your are approaching this in bad faith. Why?
The end result are laws that dictate editorial standards. This would not fly in the US due to the first amendment.
November 28, 2025 at 5:43 PM
The end result are laws that dictate editorial standards. This would not fly in the US due to the first amendment.
I find this thread very helpful for some preliminary legal analysis.
bsky.app/profile/aric...
bsky.app/profile/aric...
1/ Blaming platforms for Charlie Kirk's murder because algorithms showed users content hating on him is a cop-out oversimplification.
A bill introduced as a "fix" likewise fails to ask important questions, like "if Section 230 was gone, would this liability exist?"
www.thefire.org/news/you-can...
A bill introduced as a "fix" likewise fails to ask important questions, like "if Section 230 was gone, would this liability exist?"
www.thefire.org/news/you-can...
You can’t eliminate real-world violence by suing over online speech
With so much of our national conversation taking place online, there’s an almost reflexive tendency to search for online causes — and online solutions — when tragedy strikes in the physical world.
www.thefire.org
November 25, 2025 at 7:02 AM
I find this thread very helpful for some preliminary legal analysis.
bsky.app/profile/aric...
bsky.app/profile/aric...
Dominion would be unlikely to succeed in a judgment against Meta because Meta did not create the speech and did not act with malice. It fails to meet the standard for defamation. It is good 230 exists to save the legal system by getting bogged down by such frivolous lawsuits.
November 25, 2025 at 6:59 AM
Dominion would be unlikely to succeed in a judgment against Meta because Meta did not create the speech and did not act with malice. It fails to meet the standard for defamation. It is good 230 exists to save the legal system by getting bogged down by such frivolous lawsuits.
"Surely ALL the vaccine makers could sue for damages due to antivaxer content, and win Billion $ judgements."
What damages? People have a right to deny vaccines no matter how dumb the reasoning. Companies are not guaranteed customers. Do you have a more rational idea or am I wasting my time here?
What damages? People have a right to deny vaccines no matter how dumb the reasoning. Companies are not guaranteed customers. Do you have a more rational idea or am I wasting my time here?
November 25, 2025 at 3:55 AM
"Surely ALL the vaccine makers could sue for damages due to antivaxer content, and win Billion $ judgements."
What damages? People have a right to deny vaccines no matter how dumb the reasoning. Companies are not guaranteed customers. Do you have a more rational idea or am I wasting my time here?
What damages? People have a right to deny vaccines no matter how dumb the reasoning. Companies are not guaranteed customers. Do you have a more rational idea or am I wasting my time here?
Suing because of harm to society is way too subjective of a metric to measure. Such a lawsuit would fall flat on its face.
November 25, 2025 at 1:51 AM
Suing because of harm to society is way too subjective of a metric to measure. Such a lawsuit would fall flat on its face.
Seeing disinformation online is not generally a lawsuit you would win with or without 230. All you seem to want to do is waste time in litigation with frivolous lawsuits. Besides, why should a website be liable for speech it did not say? I don't see how reducing free speech solves your problem.
November 24, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Seeing disinformation online is not generally a lawsuit you would win with or without 230. All you seem to want to do is waste time in litigation with frivolous lawsuits. Besides, why should a website be liable for speech it did not say? I don't see how reducing free speech solves your problem.
Do you really want to go down the road of making speech a campaign contribution? The first amendment stands in your way largely there.
November 5, 2025 at 5:36 AM
Do you really want to go down the road of making speech a campaign contribution? The first amendment stands in your way largely there.
Is a bookstore owner suddenly the speaker/publisher of a particular book because the book is placed in a more visible spot than another book? I say no. Same principle.
November 2, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Is a bookstore owner suddenly the speaker/publisher of a particular book because the book is placed in a more visible spot than another book? I say no. Same principle.
"Now its hundreds of thousands of people pretending to be "anti fascist" running around killing people"
This is not happening. There are not that many people running around killing people. You are not speaking factually.
This is not happening. There are not that many people running around killing people. You are not speaking factually.
September 10, 2025 at 10:19 PM
"Now its hundreds of thousands of people pretending to be "anti fascist" running around killing people"
This is not happening. There are not that many people running around killing people. You are not speaking factually.
This is not happening. There are not that many people running around killing people. You are not speaking factually.