This is a news story, published by Technology & Marketing Law Blog, that relates primarily to Thomas news.
For more Thomas news, you can click here:
more Thomas newsFor more civil rights activism news, you can click here:
more civil rights activism newsFor more news from Technology & Marketing Law Blog, you can click here:
more news from Technology & Marketing Law BlogOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best politics news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about civil rights activism, you might also like this article about
Bonkers Opinion Repeals Section. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest banc review news, Supreme Court Moody majority opinion news, news about civil rights activism, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
content curation algorithmsTechnology & Marketing Law Blog
•
64% Informative
Opinion Repeals Section 230 In the Third CircuitAnderson v. TikTok is a terrible example of judicial activism.
The majority implies that any effort to curate third -party content automatically converts the content into first -party.
Ergo, Section 230 never will work in the third Circuit .
This opinion urgently needs en banc review.
Riddle me this: If qualifying for the First Amendment simultaneously means that the service automatically disqualifies for Section 230 , then why did Congress enact Section 230 at all? The majority’s reliance on Moody for its content -character-changing conclusion is especially baffling.
Invoking Justice Thomas ’ Doe v. Snap statement exacerbates the majority's logic problems.
Judge Matey ’s concurrence/dissent is perhaps even MORE bonkers than the majority.
Section 230 applies exclusively to content hosting; everything else is outside its scope.
The panel majority felt comfortable overruling longstanding circuit precedent; expressly conflicting with at least 7 other circuits; and ruling without doing oral arguments post-Moody .
VR Score
59
Informative language
56
Neutral language
42
Article tone
semi-formal
Language
English
Language complexity
50
Offensive language
possibly offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
detected
Known propaganda techniques
detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
7
Source diversity
6
Affiliate links
no affiliate links