Discussion

• @carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x

  I love that the tech media now realizes getting rid of Section 230 means allowing governments to dictate moderation on social media. If abortion is illegal and “Don't Say Gay” is the law in Florida, why is it legal to discuss them on Twitter? Section 230. https://www.wired.com/..…

• @culturejedi Malkia Devich-Cyril on x

  As anti-racist and reproductive justice activists use the internet to resist white nationalism and forced birth extremism, reforming Section 230 is a dangerous road that may lead to mass censorship of our political speech online. Check out @evan_greer's latest on the subject! htt…

• @evan_greer Evan Greer on x

  “Section 230 is not absolute. It does not provide immunity if the platform develops or creates the content, and it does not provide immunity from the enforcement of federal criminal laws. But, crucially, it does protect against criminal liability from state laws.”

• @wexler Nu Wexler on x

  Wired: “Dobbs should be a wake-up call for anyone seeking to undercut the immunity protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” https://www.wired.com/...

• @jkosseff Jeff Kosseff on x

  In recent days there has been understandable concern about states or Congress passing laws that restrict speech that facilitates abortion, and the safeguards that could prevent civil or criminal liability. Here is a brief thread about how Section 230 fits into that discussion.

• @chrisdavislens Chris Davis on x

  forced-birth extremists with intent on mass surveillance of the #internet leveraging #bigtech empire of harvested data to repress abortion patients & providers how well intentioned legislation could backfire https://www.wired.com/... #dataprivacy @dnc #democracy #2022elections ht…

• @evan_greer Evan Greer on x

  NEW: @liaholland and I wrote for @WIRED about how forced-birth extremists want to scrub the Internet of abortion info, advocacy and fundraising. We need Democrats to wake up, listen to experts, and hold the line against dangerous changes to Section 230 https://www.wired.com/...

• @mx_annelise Annelise on x

  It would be really handy if the people who waved away the alarms that we sounded when FOSTA/SESTA raced through Congress would STOP. AND. LISTEN. THIS. TIME. https://www.wired.com/...

• @rightsdissent @rightsdissent on x

  In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the last line of defense for keeping information about reproductive healthcare freely available. https://www.wired.com/...

• @evan_greer Evan Greer on x

  “In a post-Roe world, defending online speech about abortion—and the ability for abortion advocates and providers to fundraise and organize online—is a matter of life or death.” https://t.co/bUwxHVH7A5

• @adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x

  “As Section 230 exists today, a lawsuit from an anti-abortion group concerning speech about reproductive health care or a criminal proceeding launched by a forced-birth state attorney general would be quickly dismissed.” https://www.wired.com/...

• @evan_greer Evan Greer on x

  If Democrats don't hold the line against carevouts to Section 230, we'll live in a country where lawmakers in Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas get to set the rules for online speech nationwide. We can't let that happen. Plz share this widely. https://t.co/bUwxHVH7A5

• @ronwyden Ron Wyden on x

  Section 230 is the last line of defense keeping abortion information online and accessible in the post-Roe world. I will keep fighting like hell to protect this law that I authored so women have access to the health care information they need. https://www.wired.com/...

• @kendraserra Kendra Albert on x

  I am so glad Evan and Lia wrote about this! If you think the problems with online platforms taking down abortion info are bad now, under most of the 230 reform proposals, they would be WAY worse. https://www.wired.com/...