🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

Criticizing Trump is protected under the first amendment. Not just so you can yell slurs online.

This you?

Gunther Eagleman™ Hey Grok remember when trump tweeted about Obama golfing all the time?

Women are mad at men and they want revenge, eh? It's a shame men weren't able to curb their misogyny when they made Hunter Moore, a true scumbag a lot of money with his revenge porn site called "IsAnyOneUp" Men have no problem weaponizing revenge to make money to hurt women.

Leo Terrell Ryan Handlarski What are you "on," exactly? This is entirely protected by the First Amendment and you have no power here.

Even if the gov makes the request then the social site still has First Amendment rights to make the final call. This was recently explained when Facebook defeated Armslist because Armslist was crying that they got their account nuked and it was because of all the anti-gun Dems.

A very SIGNIFICANT Section 230 ruling. Section 230 defeats the parents trying to hold Tech liable for the loser who committed the Buffalo shooting. blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/…

Algorithms don't turn people into mass murders. Section 230 and the First Amendment rightfully destroy this lawsuit. I praise the court for using common sense but it was a 3-2 ruling to too close for comfort.

Section 230 and the First Amendment work together, not one or the other. I appreciate that the court pointed out that if the tech sites lose, Section 230 is meaningless. "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose" is the best way to describe 230 and the 1A for content moderation lawsuits.

General Drake A Man Of Memes Private censorship isn't illegal. It is generally protected by Amendment One.

Joey Mannarino 🇺🇸 Spoken like a TRUE Black woman

Section 230 doesn't have a neutrality clause in it because it would violate the First Amendment. It would be funny to see the government try to tell Christian web owners (that are shielded by 230) that they can't censor rainbows. SCOTUS would come running to defend the Christian

Websites get First Amendment protection for the content that they create (fact checks and algorithms) and Section 230 immunity. A court just explained the same thing to give EVERY big social media website a major win.

Founding Ideals Weaporize.com JerryCurlderinoooos ™ Elon Musk Firearms Policy Coalition Facebook and YT were both wrapped up in claims that they radicalized or enabled the Uvalde and Buffalo mass shootings. One of those cases was recently dismissed. But I think the experience has shaped their attitude in handling firearms content. The courts didn't allow §230 here.

It's so funny when you see the folks paying Musk for a free website feel betrayed, and they realize they are wasting their money.