I wrote section 230 to protect user speech, not a company's own speech. I've long said AI chatbot outputs are not protected by 230 and that it is not a close call. Given that the Trump administration is going to the mat to protect pedophiles, states should step in to hold Musk and X accountable.

I write posts that yell at Democrats too, but I wrote this one deliberately non-partisan because everyone in Congress is failing us. It's just that the Democrats are the ones far more likely to do something about it... yet aren't. www.techdirt.com/2025/11/26/o...

Gotta say, Schumer is, himself, a fucking distraction. Time to get someone in there who can actually do the job of leading an opposition party.

hey remember when a bunch of middle-aged drunk korean lawmakers climbed the locked gates to the national assembly to hold an emergency session after the president gave illegal orders to the military, all of which ended with said president being sentenced to prison

Blog Post: A Massive Roundup of Section 230 Decisions blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/202...

You can make LLMs say almost anything. A news organization reporting "what grok said" is engaging in journalistic malpractice. It doesn't know. It just creates plausible sounding words in response to a prompt.

This is a thread of major media outlets falsely anthropomorphising the "Grok" chatbot program and in doing so, actively and directly removing responsibility and accountability from individual people working at X who created a child pornography generator (Elon Musk, Nikita Bier etc) #1: Reuters

Parker's piece nails why this matters. "Tech companies... would rather not answer for their products’ failures. Every headline that says “Grok apologizes” or “Grok admits” or “Grok says” creates a world where the chatbot takes the fall while Musk and his executives face no scrutiny whatsoever."

Saying ”Grok apologized” is like If I type “YOU’RE A BITCH” into Speak-And-Spell and tell you “Speak-An-Spell says you’re a bitch”

Zohran Mamdani Refuses To Share Plan For Making Rich Richer https://theonion.com/zohran-mamdani-refuses-to-share-plan-for-making-rich-richer/

lol

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich not to throw a huge embarrassing snit over not having his ego fluffed.

"Will you fuckers read the fucking book one fucking time" challenge level impossible. Again.

Ah, I see Bluesky is once again completely failing the is/ought distinction

As do I. To me the question is: in a plural society with competing visions of right and wrong, with a human tendency to abuse power, and a specific American tendency to censor and oppress, what is the appropriate kind of power to give government?

uhhhh I hope Rudy has good legal counsel because "decentralised payment rails using USD that are untraceable to the banking partner and Blacksky" is sparkling money laundering / tornado cash. @kathryntewson.bsky.social holy shit, uh...

Sometimes it feels like Bluesky PBC is the only group working in decentralized social media that has actually read any parts of the US legal code.

The challenge of principled 1A practice is that policy objections (“this speech should not be protected”) are often mistaken for the legal question of whether the speech is protected. Legal experts and academics in this space are often placed in “messenger-blaming” situations like this one.

Now that phones alter our photos without us knowing, how do we know what’s real? | Isabel Brooks

took a peek at the groupings of posts on bluesky over the past 48 hours

If they stopped sucking they wouldn't get challenged.

Remember, without Section 230, we wouldn't have small business websites or platforms like Bluesky, Mastodon, Newgrounds, and Art Fight. There wouldn't even be a Tales from the Horrorweb series anymore. Think about it.

Democrats forcing TikTok to be sold to billionaire Trump supporters will be dwarfed as an own goal if section 230 is repealed. Imagine it becoming legal for Trump to sue a social media app where a post criticizes him. He’s already sued everyone within limits of current laws.

@friesein.bsky.social Fries has an important call to action over on his Twitter feed re: Both parties are trying to ram through dangerous legislation during holidays that radically transforms the internet. If Section 230 is repealed, every site on the 'net becomes motivated to self-censor,

Senators Want To Hold The Open Internet Hostage, Demand Zuckerberg Write The Ransom Note Not this shit again. A bipartisan group of the most anti-internet Senators around have released their latest version of a plan to “sunset Section 230.” We went over this last year when they floated the same…

Fediverse Report 147 - this week's #fediverse news: Threads is putting their fediverse integration on maintenance mode after it has seen very little use, signalling the end to a tumultuous period for the fediverse. Zuckerberg's belief in decentralised social networking, saying in 2023 that he […]

South Carolina has just prefiled a bill that requires your internet provider to block "material harmful to minors" by default. You would have to call your ISP, undergo age-verification and pay a fee to remove it. www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025...

Children are being exploited. Let’s respond by dramatically hindering our ability to point out or criticize children being exploited, using methods we don’t understand because we’re old and incurious.

Hi Senator, excuse me for jumping in, but... while I agree with you that this is really damaging, I couldn't help but notice YOU VOTED FOR THE FREAKING BILL THAT GAVE TRUMP THIS POWER (which some of us warned you not to do). www.senate.gov/legislative/...

In a world without Section 230: 😩 Big Tech companies everyone hates would win. Giants like Meta and Google have armies of lawyers to navigate compliance 😩 Alternative platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon would likely shut down, along with Wikipedia, review sites, how-to resources, small forums, etc

someone could do the funniest thing rn

As both the House & Senate look to repeal Section 230, I'm curious who they think should be held liable for the comments they've left open on the Epstein photo dump...? Them? Dropbox? Do they have a trust & safety team watching the comments?

Reminding everyone for no particular reason that Section 230 is one of the last things standing between free speech online and Trump having control over everything you see and say on the internet

NEW: They kept saying they were gonna do it and now they've done it A group of clowns (Senators) have introduced a bill to FULLY REPEAL Section 230. No reform, no replacement, just utter destruction of all online free speech. We can't let this happen. Share & take action www.badinternetbills.com

bsky users: "we need to REGULATE tech companies more" bluesky: *complies with government mandated tech regulation in order to avoid being shut down* bsky users: "they're enshittifying the app!!!"

Section 230 Faces Repeal. Support The Coverage That’s Been Getting It Right All Along. Yesterday, Rep. Harriet Hageman released her bill to repeal Section 230. She's calling it "reform," but make no mistake—it's a repeal, and I'll explain why below. The law turns 30 in February, and there's a very…

Hi. You're talking to me on a platform that was created based on a paper I wrote talking about how to solve a bunch of these problems. There's more to come...

Yep. And I can say from personal experience that several experts within the tech justice space have patiently sat and explained to CCDH why this is a) not true, and b) a position that endangers human rights and each time they have been like "great points, thanks" and then kept pushing the lie

like his complaint is literally that there are people who believe in things, believe those things are right, and believe in those things regardless of whether they are popular.

Today I am once again making loads of new Bluesky friends by insisting on one of my most sincerely held beliefs that makes way too many people fucking furious: that teenagers are autonomous beings who are not their parents' property and who possess independent volition and interiority

Not trying to call out Tony & Devin here, but they are (somewhat confidently) reinforcing a very common, but exactly wrong myth about Section 230 and being a "publisher." Let's use this as an opportunity to do some educating around Section 230 and the idea of being "a publisher."

Hi Senator. Glad you're posting to Bluesky. But kinda weird that you're trying to kill Section 230 at the same time which would make it very difficult for Bluesky to exist. Maybe think through that a bit more carefully?

A couple of bad court opinions. Which held that if you didn't moderate, you didn't have publisher liability. But if you did moderate, you had publisher liability. So the choice was either don't moderate, or moderate but assume the risk of legal exposure if you missed anything at all.

Oh. Cool. Just as the President is using every power he can to suppress dissent and stifle speech, @whitehouse.senate.gov and the @judiciarydems.senate.gov are trying to hand Trump a new tool to suppress speech online. What a joke.

sounds dope tbh. Who wants to split into camps and fight to the death over whether AT URIs should adopt square brackets around the DID to comply with the W3C URI spec?

In general, the following is true: The following two conditions are sufficient to remove your online anonymity completely: (1) you have pissed off someone with sufficient resources; and (2) you have made one mistake ever. I propose that we call this Tewson's Law.

I'm not sure it's in the self interest of America's tech bro billionaires to suggest that we bring back public executions to punish the most destructive people in our society.

Hypothesis: any time a government claims it is combating censorship, it's actually the censorship threat that needs fighting

What the fuck....?