U.S. Supreme Court dismisses challenges to Section 230 protecting websites

Personally, I think blanket immunity may be too extreme. "Algorithms" and other manipulations designed solely to benefit the promoter/publisher need to be excluded.

This is the motivational basis for privacy invasion and is a fairly clear distortion and manipulation of "free speech".

If your content is being promoted over mine, my speech is arguably *less* free than yours. Effectively, my speech is being diminished and penalized by the promoter/publisher's "algorithm" --- most likely for their own gain somehow.

User feedback (as implemented on HN) is not an "algorithm" under the publisher's control. Neither is reasonable editorial review unless it is motivated and directed to solely benefit the publisher. For example, removing content that violates a uniform code of conduct (profanity for example) would not be considered a benefit only the publisher.

Like most things in life, this is not a simplistic black/white issue but one with varying shades of gray that needs to be judged on a case by case basis.

> “The justices passed on their chance to clarify that Section 230 is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for online platforms when they cause harm,” Durbin said.

The court basically ruled that the platforms didn't cause harm in these cases. How do you rule what happens when platforms cause harm when in the case you are ruling on doesn't include the platforms causing harm?

Amazingly the ruling is unanimous. Big win for free speech on the internet.