Thread by @cagoldberglaw

1/ At heart section 230 is about access to justice. It is a statutory limitation on who gets to be sued. As courts have interpreted the CDA since 1996, almost no circumstance can a victim sue an online platform for harms they suffer.

2/ This means that my client who was impersonated on Grindr and had over 1000 men come to his home and job for sex couldn’t hold Grindr accountable. It means my 11 year old client who was blackmailed into sending naked pictures and masturbation videos can’t sue the platform

3/ where she was preyed upon. It means the parents of a 29 year old nurse raped and murdered on a first date can’t sue the dating website that had notice this sex offenders was repeatedly using its product to rape women.

4/There are 2 very distinct categories of criticism about section 230; conservatives claim social media companies are biased against their political views over-censor far right content, while litigators like me say the people who are being horribly injured online deserve recourse

5/ The harms I’m talking about that so desperately require redress could not be more different than what Trump is fighting for. My clients are innocent people horrifically victimized by tech companies in ways they never foresaw.

6/ Meanwhile, Trump and his brethren are voluntarily using these platforms to broadcast their speech. While my clients want the right to hold companies accountable when their lives are overturned by the weaponization of tech,

7/ Trump wants to bully these companies away from moderating the speech of the powerful.

The threat of litigation is a very powerful thing. It’s how we keep industries in check and incentivize their safety innovations.

8/. . It is exceptional and abnormal that there’s a law protecting the tech industry from being sued. We shouldn’t take it for granted that this protection is a market distorting one and basically a government subsidy.

9/ But when it comes to reform, we must do it for the right reasons – to protect the innocent victims against true harms that occur through platforms – and not for the wrong reasons like to protect the right to spread misinformation, conspiracy theory and misinformation.

10/ We should also do it the right way, through legislation. Legislators on both sides of the aisle increasily realize that reform is necessary. This Executive Order doesn’t address the real harms caused by 230, but by letting the GOP claim “mission accomplished” it could derail

11/ bipartisan efforts. There’s a throwaway line in Section 230 that says interactive computer services can’t be held liable for the content moderation decisions they make in good faith. It’s a throwaway line because as a litigator, I don’t see what cause of action

12/ you could sue for regarding a private company’s right to exercise its own free speech to moderate content on its platform. But basically Trump is saying that when it comes to conservative speech, these companies are not acting in good faith, but trying to suppress

13/ viewpoints they dislike. This is his own cognitive bias at work. Liberals could make the same argument. @kathygriffin was censored for saying Trump should inject air into his veins.

There is zero question that Section 230 desperately needs to be gutted.

14/ But not because of censoring far right speech and misinformation, but rather for refusing to intervene in the actual criminal conduct occurring on their platforms. Trump’s proposed executive order further disincentivizes these companies from moderating bad content and bad

15/15 users – saying they could be sued if they do.

If you want to learn more about Section 230 and get information about the harm, please read my book #NobodysVictim. barnesandnoble.com/w/nobodys-vict…

16/15 I will add, that the defenders of Section 230 who say victims should never have any recourse to stop dangerous abuse on platforms, they always argue that it would freeze speech expression on the internet.

17/15 Trump's proposed executive order plays into that bogus argument. Section 230 reform is to give injured people the right to hold evildoers responsible -- even if that means treating tech companies like, gasp, every other person and corporation insofar as they can be

18/15 defendants in lawsuits where they've contributed to injuries. And having a little warning about misinformation on one tweet, which indeed contains misinformation, is not an injury.

*disinformation

To understand Section 230, you need to learn about the human stories and the barriers in the legal system that litigators face. This is not theoretical or academic. My article at @lawfare explains the story of @MatthewSHerrick. lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grin…