Wasn't one of Trump's end-stage obsessions as potus getting rid of Section 230?

[ck4829]

And this lawsuit mentions section 230 several times. He is arguing against it.

In censoring (flagging, shadow banning, etc.) Plaintiff and the Class, Defendants relied upon and acted pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
163.
Defendants would not have deplatformed Plaintiff or similarly situated Putative Class Members but for the immunity purportedly offered by Section 230.

Section 230(c)(2) is therefore unconstitutional on its face, and Section 230(c)(1) is likewise unconstitutional insofar as it has interpreted to immunize social media companies for action they take to censor constitutionally protected speech

https://www.dropbox.com/s/odzfmfbninyn6cu/2461b9b5-69db-452a-b3b7-25a89366376f.pdf?dl=0

This is something he tried to do as president and failed to get done.

To me, this just screams lack of standing.

[RockRaven]

1. Getting rid of section 230 would have gotten Trump banned quicker, because Twitter would have

been liable for all.of the defamation the former guy engaged in on their platform.

However, it's hard to see how Twitter or Facebook, etc could exist in anything close to their current form/function without something like Section 230, so this move is really about attempting to do two things: punish social media companies by destroying their businesses as they currently exist, and silencing the masses so that the only voices heard are those with sufficient resources to make it happen on their own (corporations and oligarchs).

[marble falls]

2. Let him whine and spend as money as he can.

[WarGamer]

3. Read this

Clarence Thomas Is Begging Someone to Sue Over Conservatives’ Most-Hated Internet Law

https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/clarence-thomas-section-230-cda-content-moderation.html

Thomas seems to be saying that if your company meets the definition of publisher, it can be held legally liable for any content it ever carries, whether or not it originated the content. That notion flies in the face of what most legal scholars consider to be the First Amendment case protecting publishers, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In Sullivan and in the cases that follow it, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment requires that no publisher should be held responsible for defamatory content without being shown to be at fault—e.g., by publishing falsehoods negligently or with “actual malice.” But the justice is untroubled by the fact that his framing of publisher liability would undo Times v. Sullivan—just last year Thomas let it be known, by concurring in the court’s refusal to hear another case, that he’s ready to dispense with that precedent altogether.

[-misanthroptimist]

4. There is one thing you can say about Trump

And that is...he's stupid.

[Initech]

5. His Twitter feed is literally a crutch for him.

No wonder he's obsessed with Section 230.

[ColinC]

6. ...

Who?