Nylah (left) and Tawainna (right) Anderson
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported:
Well, too fucking bad!
I see Ms. Anderson is about as good at parenting as she is at winning lawsuits. The "Blackout Challenge," by the way, is a "challenge" where TikTokers hold their breath until they pass out. That tells you a lot about the kind of people who frequent that app.
Judge Diamond
In this case, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protected TikTok's algorithm. He also poured cold water on a theory recently embraced by many ambulance-chasing lawyers—that online platforms can be held liable for user speech because algorithms which promote "dangerous speech" are defective products. Such a theory, Judge Diamond noted, is merely "creative labeling." He concluded: "The wisdom of conferring [Section 230] immunity is something properly taken up with Congress, not the courts."
You can read his based ruling here:
Although frequently criticized by malicious actors on the left and ignoramuses on the right, Section 230 is an amazingly based piece of legislation. Shielding online platforms, large or small, from civil liability for user content means that these platforms are less inclined to censor speech—especially speech that is viewed as controversial or disagreeable, including incel speech.
That's why so many soycucks and feminists are demanding Section 230 reform, but in this current Congress? Not a chance.
Last edited:
