Last week, the Third Circuit ruled that algorithms aren’t protected by Section 230. Here’s why

The Third Circuit’s Section 230 Decision In Anderson v. TikTok Is Pure Poppycock.

The plaintiffs in Anderson are not the first to contend that websites lose Section 230 protection when they use fancy algorithms to make publishing decisions.

Several notable court rulings (all of them unceremoniously brushed aside by the Third Circuit ) reject the notion that algorithms are special.

The Supreme Court recently tried its luck, and it failed miserably, writes Aaron Carroll .

Carroll: The question is not how the website serves up the content; it's what makes the content problematic.

He says creating an “algorithm’ rule would be rash and wrong; it would involve butchering Section 230 itself.

Carroll says the Third Circuit used Moody v. NetChoice as a neat trick to ignore the universe of Section 230 precedent.

Many on the right think narrowing Section 230 would strike a blow against the bogeyman of online censorship.

Congress could not revoke First Amendment rights wherever Section 230 protection exists, Barthold says.

There are forces—a desire to stick it to Big Tech ; the urge to find a remedy in a tragic case—pressing judges to misapply the law.