iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by SergioVengeance

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney.bsky.social · 04/03/2026

JUST IN: A federal judge has barred Gov DeSantis from designating CAIR as a terrorist organization and punish those who associate with the group. “Once again, Florida chooses political posturing over the First Amendment,” Judge Walker writes. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

13688222640

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 10/03/2025

I also got Grok to absolutely roast Jason Fyk with @ericgoldman.bsky.social work. Hilarious stuff

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 09/03/2025

Shout out to @mmasnick.bsky.social. I asked Grok some questions about Section 230 and Grok thinks Tech Dirt is a great reference to debunk lies from Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley about Section 230.

1281

Reposted by SergioVengeance

Mark Cuban @mcuban.bsky.social · 07/03/2025

This ⬇️ Few people know 230 as well as Mike

848265286025

Reposted by SergioVengeance

Mike Masnick @masnick.com · 06/03/2025

Democracy is burning, and we need sites like Bluesky more than ever. And Senator Durbin wants to repeal 230, which would massively stifle the ability of sites like Bluesky to exist, while massively empowering X and Meta. Why? It seems that someone in his office doesn't understand 230.

418114173040

Reposted by SergioVengeance

Mike Masnick @masnick.com · 21/02/2025

I wrote about how particularly ridiculous it is that Senate Democrats, led by Dick Durbin, think the priority should be repealing Section 230 and undermining the very open internet we need more than ever right now. www.techdirt.com/2025/02/21/w...

techdirt.com

While Democracy Burns, Democrats Prioritize… Demolishing Section 230?

While an unelected tech billionaire is effectively orchestrating a coup of the US government, violating federal law with apparent impunity, and disclaiming all responsibility for the chaos he&#8217…

1022478713

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 04/02/2025

"The MAGA response playbook has become pathetically predictable: celebrate policies not for their outcomes, but for how many (and which) people they hurt. It’s governance by spite, where “owning the libs” has replaced any pretense of actual policymaking."

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 02/02/2025

The first amendment protects algos and it doesn't change Section 230

000

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 27/01/2025

The First Amendment does not shield web owners when the web owner is being sued by someone with a lot of money claiming legitimate speech about them is defamatory. It's literally the reason Congress crafted section 230. Because Prodigy lost to the Wolf of Wall Street

021

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 27/01/2025

A section 230 repeal would kill the internet. Even basic functions like forwarding emails and sending links to people can carry liability. People could even be sued for reposting on Bluesky and X reason.com/volokh/2022/...

reason.com

Retweeters Immune from Defamation Liability Under 47 U.S.C. § 230

From the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision today in Banaian v. Bascom, in an opinion by Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi: the plaintiff was a

021

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 26/01/2025

This is a bad idea. Repealing section 230 will hurt millions of small websites and users on the internet before Musk takes damage.

000

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 26/01/2025

Section 230 shields you also and not just the tech billionaires. It also shields millions of other small forums who host speech. Changing it would hurt the small guy before the big guy.

100

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 26/01/2025

The first amendment protects bias, not section 230. A repeal of 230 is just not a smart and logical idea for the internet. Even if a few jerks run some social sites.

100

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 25/01/2025

It appears Mr. Fyk doesn't like free speech when people shine a big spotlight on his dumb Section 230 lawsuits. @ericgoldman.bsky.social @mmasnick.bsky.social I appreciate you folks shining a big spotlight on guys like Fyk to explain the law. Keep publishing about his "golden" failures

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 09/01/2025

The FCC has no power over Section 230 so he's saying nonsense

040

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 09/01/2025

Click bait doesn't violate Section 230 (c)(2)(a) lol.

020

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 28/12/2024

I have no problem with porn but another reason X sucks is because I get insta likes the second I reply to someone with bots. I know bots are everywhere but Musk also gets losers to pay him a lot of money to clean this shit up, and they are everywhere.

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 27/12/2024

Mike pointed out this hypocrisy www.techdirt.com/2024/11/21/s...

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 24/12/2024

More proof to show that the core arguments Republicans presented in Biden v. Murthy was pure partisan bullshit from Republicans to go after and damage Biden. Especially with a Trump appointed lower court judge deciding that Biden violated the 1A on the 4th of July when the courts aren't even open.

130

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 18/12/2024

I'm so sad Jason Fyk has me blocked on the other site for trolling his Section 230 losses. But since Musk destroyed how the block function works, I can now see all of Jason's cope tweets. They are so funny. 😂

130

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 16/12/2024

The duty to care Section 230 argument was attempted in Daniel v. Armslist but the court is right. Section 230 (c)(1) doesn't have a duty to care and its job is to dismiss lawsuits.

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 16/12/2024

Section 230 (c)(1) wins this fight. Review Zeran v. AOL. AOL is immune and can't be held liable because a troll logged in and spread lies about Zeran with his phone number that caused him to be harassed by callers 24/7

000

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 16/12/2024

Section 230 doesn't shield copyright claims. There is a provision in 230 that says it can't be used to override existing copyright laws

020

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 16/12/2024

Section 230 says all ICS websites can't be sued for the nonsense that clown posts

100

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 16/12/2024

Rumble sucks and is home for all the rejects who lost their YouTube accounts for being losers.

0151

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

You are correct. The Republicans made up the lie that Section 230 is about neutrality when nothing in the law actually says that

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Websites can censor anything they want because of the First Amendment. Without section 230, websites will censor more because they would have increased liability. Trump and his supporters think websites having increased liability will force them to host more speech. Just wrong (Trump v. Twitter)

030

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Section 230 protects publishers. Websites can censor anything. There is no such thing as platform vs publisher. Hosting and not hosting are both publisher-like actions that 230 shields Zeran v. AOL

020

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Congress crafted section 230 in 1996 to ensure this can't happen to website after the Wolf of Wall Street sued and won because users on a website called him a fraud.

000

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Section 230 and the First Amendment right to editorial control still shields Bluesky despite the goons in Trump's government

000

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Carr doesn't have any power over social media or Section 230. He just likes to pretend he does. The authors who crafted Section 230 and brought it to the House floor called out Carr and goons at the FCC like him in 1996

020

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Section 230 was crafted to quickly dismiss lawsuits about websites making editorial choices to host and not host third party speech.

2100

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Censorship is legal on private property, bud. Social media websites are not a right

000

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

He also went on Tim Pool's podcast to convince all the right wingers that he'll actually win this time. Of course all the right winger grifters like Tim believed him.

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Anonymity was used by the founding generation when they wrote. The first amendment doesn't change for the Internet. All 9 justices in Reno v. ACLU said the same thing when the government thought they could force sites to get identification cards from adults to prove they aren't kids watching porn.

100

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 14/12/2024

It's not the government's job to pick what is disinformation and what is not. Anonymity is also protected by the First Amendment, and even the founding fathers used anonymity when they wrote.

100

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 14/12/2024

"Poorly vetted lies" Lies are free speech if they don't hurt anyone. The Supreme Court said the said thing in Alvarez v. The United States when the court correctly destroyed the Stolen Valor Act.

000

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 14/12/2024

I'm a progressive and I disagree. I encourage you to read Brandenburg v. Ohio and Justice Brennan's opinion. He's one of the most liberal justices to sit on the court. The racists can preach their ignorance as long as it doesn't cause imminent lawless action. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branden...

en.m.wikipedia.org

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

210

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 14/12/2024

Section 230 (c)(1) shields you the same way it shields Facebook and Twitter every single time you repost on Bluesky, Twitter, Facebook, and forward emails you never typed. Claiming it is only a shield for the rich is a blatant lie.

010

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 14/12/2024

Jason Fyk lost his Section 230 fight vs Facebook (again). A few months ago he was super OVER confident things would go his way. Hey @mmasnick.bsky.social @jmiers230.bsky.social wanna see a funny 230 joke today??

370

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 07/12/2024

Go back to Truth Social with these dumb legal takes, bud. The folks over there won't use the internet to double check if you're lying or not. Get a life.

110

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 07/12/2024

The case was remanded back to the lower courts with clear instructions on the First Amendment works. To ensure the Conservative Judges in the 5th Circuit don't get dumb unconstitutional ideas again, like you.

100

SergioVengeance @sergiovengeance.bsky.social · 06/12/2024

Do you like Reel Big Fish?? They recently did an awesome cover with a metalcore band youtu.be/w-nKsBl3m2w?...

youtu.be

ICE NINE KILLS x REEL BIG FISH - Walking On Sunshine (Official Music Video)

YouTube video by SUMERIAN

010