SergioVengeance
sergiovengeance.bsky.social
SergioVengeance
@sergiovengeance.bsky.social
Gamer. Progressive. Section 230 and first amendment advocate. I love metal, metalcore and punk rock.
I also got Grok to absolutely roast Jason Fyk with @ericgoldman.bsky.social work. Hilarious stuff
March 10, 2025 at 4:54 AM
The first amendment protects algos and it doesn't change Section 230
February 2, 2025 at 9:01 AM
The First Amendment does not shield web owners when the web owner is being sued by someone with a lot of money claiming legitimate speech about them is defamatory. It's literally the reason Congress crafted section 230. Because Prodigy lost to the Wolf of Wall Street
January 27, 2025 at 2:35 AM
A section 230 repeal would kill the internet. Even basic functions like forwarding emails and sending links to people can carry liability. People could even be sued for reposting on Bluesky and X

reason.com/volokh/2022/...
Retweeters Immune from Defamation Liability Under 47 U.S.C. § 230
From the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision today in Banaian v. Bascom, in an opinion by Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi: the plaintiff was a
reason.com
January 27, 2025 at 1:33 AM
This is a bad idea. Repealing section 230 will hurt millions of small websites and users on the internet before Musk takes damage.
January 26, 2025 at 10:42 PM
Section 230 shields you also and not just the tech billionaires. It also shields millions of other small forums who host speech. Changing it would hurt the small guy before the big guy.
January 26, 2025 at 10:40 PM
The first amendment protects bias, not section 230. A repeal of 230 is just not a smart and logical idea for the internet. Even if a few jerks run some social sites.
January 26, 2025 at 10:39 PM
The FCC has no power over Section 230 so he's saying nonsense
January 9, 2025 at 5:40 AM
Click bait doesn't violate Section 230 (c)(2)(a) lol.
January 9, 2025 at 5:38 AM
Mike pointed out this hypocrisy
www.techdirt.com/2024/11/21/s...
December 27, 2024 at 8:41 PM
The duty to care Section 230 argument was attempted in Daniel v. Armslist but the court is right. Section 230 (c)(1) doesn't have a duty to care and its job is to dismiss lawsuits.
December 16, 2024 at 6:24 PM
Section 230 (c)(1) wins this fight. Review Zeran v. AOL. AOL is immune and can't be held liable because a troll logged in and spread lies about Zeran with his phone number that caused him to be harassed by callers 24/7
December 16, 2024 at 6:19 PM
Section 230 doesn't shield copyright claims. There is a provision in 230 that says it can't be used to override existing copyright laws
December 16, 2024 at 4:21 AM
Section 230 says all ICS websites can't be sued for the nonsense that clown posts
December 16, 2024 at 4:19 AM
Rumble sucks and is home for all the rejects who lost their YouTube accounts for being losers.
December 16, 2024 at 1:22 AM