If Fake Insulin Tweet Tanked Stock, Could Eli Lilly Sue? (Opening Arguments podcast OA560)

A viral meme claims that a fake Eli Lilly tweet declaring insulin to be free tanked the stock to the tune of billions and billions. Ignoring for a moment the fact that it seems incredibly unlikely that an easily debunkable fake tweet on fake tweet day would send a bunch of investors into a frenzy, could Eli Lilly sue the tweeter? Or the Twitter? It’s another Section 230 deep dive!

Interview: 

https://openargs.com/oa650-if-fake-insulin-tweet-tanked-stock-could-eli-lilly-sue/

White House renews call to ‘remove’ Section 230 liability shield - POLITICO

Democrats want to hold tech companies liable for extremist content, hate speech and misinformation, while Republicans want the platforms to be liable for censoring conservative viewpoints…

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/08/white-house-renews-call-to-remove-section-230-liability-shield-00055771

Finally, an Interesting Proposal for Section 230 Reform | WIRED

... The SAFE TECH Act takes aim at these Section 230 excesses. It explicitly says that immunity doesn't apply to lawsuits alleging stalking, harassment, or intimidation—as in gossip sites or the Grindr case. It likewise exempts wrongful death actions, so that a site like Armslist might have to defend itself when a gun sale it facilitates ends with someone dead. It also establishes that immunity doesn't extend to advertisements, under the sensible theory that if a platform is directly getting paid to host a piece of content, it shouldn't be completely free of any liability for it. And, in a subtle tweak, the bill would get rid of immunity altogether when it comes to injunctions, rather than damages. That might sound like a technical legal fix, but it's a smart one: Even if Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect platforms from crippling legal battles, that logic doesn't apply when someone like the Grindr victim is merely asking the company to take a certain action, like suspending an account. Obeying injunctions shouldn't drive anyone bankrupt...

https://www.wired.com/story/section-230-reform-safe-tech-act/

Section 230 and Tulsi's Transphobia (Opening Arguments podcast OA451)

Today's show involves two bills that Tulsi has introduced... BUT NOT BOTHERED TO WRITE. For real. They are entirely for vice-signaling purposes and contain no substance. However, Andrew is here to give us a deep dive on what the implications and background are. One involves Section 230 (which Andrew has been dying to tell us about!) and the other is about trans-women and sports. It's... no good. We contrast Tulsi's garbage with an important trans-rights decision. So, it's a good news ending! 

Interview: 

https://www.podbean.com/ew/dir-3hh7u-c8cafbd

Tech Check: The Google Antitrust Suit And Section 230 Edition (The 1A)

Section 230 is confusing. But it’s a law which many federal lawmakers, Republican and Democratic, agree has to change. Yes, you read that right. Bipartisan agreement in Washington.

So…what is it? The Verge defined it this way:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. This protects websites from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal, although there are exceptions for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal criminal law. 

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) crafted Section 230 so website owners could moderate sites without worrying about legal liability. The law is particularly vital for social media networks, but it covers many sites and services, including news outlets with comment sections — like The Verge. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it “the most important law protecting internet speech.”

Speaking to 1A, Sen. Mark Warner said it’s time to reexamine Section 230, even though many tech companies have said they can’t operate in the same way without it. And this is what the president has said while out on the campaign trail.

The case, which was filed in federal court in Washington, marks the most aggressive action by the U.S. government against a tech company in decades. The DOJ accuses Google of leveraging its dominant position in search and search-advertising to elbow out rivals and disadvantage competitors.

The case revolves around some of Google’s antitrust weak spots: the exclusive, billion-dollar agreements that require mobile-phone manufacturers to keep Google as their default search engine, as well as Google’s decision to preload Google search on Android phones. The European Union fined Google $5.1 billion over similar allegations two years ago.

In a blog post, Google Senior Vice President Kent Walker called the lawsuit “deeply flawed.” 

If we change Section 230 — what do we risk? And what could be gained? And does this lawsuit represent the beginning of the end for Google as we know it today?

Interview: 

https://the1a.org/segments/section-230-google-antitrust-suit/