A right-wing #SCOTUS has now agreed to hear a case that could literally change the 26 words that created the internet.
-
The internet will be a much different place if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 230. ➡️ (podcast)
- slate.com/podcasts/what-… ⬅️ @jkosseff via @Slate #1A Image
2/

Section 230 effects social media, blogs, image sharing, forums and comment sections — any service that enables users to submit content. Literally every online platform that allows users to post information, share content, and comment relies on Section 230. Image
3/
ccianet.org/section230/

Sec. 230 ... is regarded as “the most important law in tech” because it encourages investment and innovation on the Internet by providing legal certainty to services that they will not be held liable for the speech or actions of third parties.'

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with News Views ™

News Views ™ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @VegasVisions

Oct 4
1 to 9 (THREAD) 🧵

Section 230: @EFF Electronic Freedom Foundation:

Do you like blogging? Substacks? Like being able to freely talk about abortion rights and LGBTQ issues on social media?

eff.org/issues/cda230

26 words created the internet. To Supreme Court now. #SCOTUS
2/

Clarence Thomas and a far-right #SCOTUS wants to decide what you can say on the internet, forcing liabilities for platforms.

Here are those 26 words, Section 230, Communication Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1996.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

Liability.
Read 11 tweets
Sep 5
BREAKING: Two #Earthquakes reported, Sichuan, #China. One 6.5 shallow depth, 6 miles, another 6.2 moments later, 29 mile depth #earthquake - both classified critical. 1/ ImageImage
3/ @USGS confirms now 6.6 with a swarm #earthquake #earthquakes #China Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 13
(THREAD) 🧵

"... 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." - @ACLU Image
2/🧵

"Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today."

Full case pdf: tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…
-
Suggested read: YOUR rights to speak. Understand, I'm not defending the propaganda. Hate it, too.
aclu.org/other/freedom-…
3/🧵

Free speech door swings both ways. I know someone is going to mention Fairness Doctrine, so I'll do that as 4/ and explain what it was, which most don't know, from a .gov attorney and why it doesn't apply.

Imagine DeSantis in charge of the .gov agency deciding 'fake news'. Image
Read 11 tweets
Aug 13
1/ 🧵

" ... DOJ says that it executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago to protect critical nuclear weapons and signals intelligence documents, but Donald Trump's new defense is that the entire world is already free to view the documents."
-
Tell us where DOJ said nuclear weapons?
2/

Bombshell report. This is a little exercise in helping you all spot shoddy journalism - even if if turns out to be unsealed and true. Trying to help you spot it.

This is r.e. my earlier thread today, which I'll link later.

rawstory.com/donald-trump-2…
3/ 🧵

The source? " ... according to people familiar with the investigation." WaPo

DOJ? FBI? We don't know. Just 'familiar'. Unnamed.

The rest 'experts"

This is not a defense of the orange moron, so I'm clear.
washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
Read 6 tweets
Aug 8
(THREAD) 1 of 5 ⬇️🧵

Oil companies see ‘net positive’ in climate bill …
-
(And why #BigOil baron @Sen_JoeManchin signed off for $)
#Climate #ClimateCrisis #ClimateBreakdown #ClimateEmergency #ClimateStrike #ClimateBrawl #Manchin #InflationReductionAct Image
2/

At Manchin’s urging, though, it would require the government to offer oil & gas leases on federal land and in the Gulf of Mexico, albeit at a higher royalty rate. It also provides tax incentives for projects that capture carbon dioxide and new forms of energy like hydrogen.”
3/

- @AP The bill would impose a new fee on excess methane emissions from oil and gas drilling while giving fossil fuel companies access to more leases on federal lands and waters.” apnews.com/article/4d5d40…
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(