Section 230 Was Hijacked by Big Tech to Silence You
But thanks to a judicial sleight of hand, Section 230 became the sledgehammer Big Tech used to bludgeon the First Amendment into submission. And now—at long last—the Supreme Court may have a chance to fix it.
The case to watch is Fyk v. Facebook, and it might be the most important free speech lawsuit you've never heard of. So, here's The Lie That Broke the Internet:
Section 230(c)(1) reads:
'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.'
Sounds simple, right? Don't sue the platform for what someone else posts.
But that's not how the courts interpreted it.
They swapped out 'the publisher' for 'a publisher'—a tiny grammatical switch with massive consequences. That misquote gave platforms immunity not just for hosting content—but for what they choose to manipulate, suppress, or delete.
This misinterpretation has allowed Big Tech giants to: Throttle political speech they don't like; Deplatform rival voices and competitors; Shadow-ban stories that challenge official narratives, And partner with the government to suppress dissenting opinions—all while claiming immunity.
Don't take my word for it—look at the receipts. The 'Twitter Files' revealed that federal agencies actively worked with platforms to suppress content. A federal judge even issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden to stop this unconstitutional collusion.
That's not moderation. That's state-sanctioned censorship in a corporate mask.
Congress intended Section 230 to protect platforms acting in good faith—hence the name of Section 230(c):
'Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material.'
Platforms were supposed to remove truly harmful content—pornography, violence, abuse—not opinions that made their investors uncomfortable or their partners in D.C. nervous.
But under the courts' bastardized reading of the law, the 'good faith' clause in Section 230(c)(2) became meaningless. If 230(c)(1) shields all moderation, then what's the point of requiring platforms to act in good faith at all?
That's a textbook violation of the surplusage canon—a legal rule that says no part of a statute should be rendered pointless.
In short, the courts rewrote the law. And they handed Big Tech the keys to our digital public square.
Jason Fyk built a multi-million-dollar business on Facebook. With over 25 million followers, his pages drove massive traffic—until Facebook targeted and deleted his content, allegedly redirecting it to competitors and killing his revenue.
When he sued, Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the case under Section 230—claiming Facebook was immune.
But here's the kicker: Fyk wasn't suing over what other people said. He was suing over what Facebook did. They didn't just host his content—they manipulated it, redirected it, and destroyed his business. That's not speech. That's sabotage.
Fyk's verified complaint included sworn factual allegations. Under standard civil procedure (Rule 12(b)(6)), the court was required to treat those facts as true. Instead, the judge parroted Facebook's false claims—even branding Fyk the 'pee page guy' over a page he didn't even own.
This kind of judicial deference to Big Tech is exactly why Fyk's case is headed to the Supreme Court.
Let's clear something up: Section 230 is an affirmative defense, not 'sovereign immunity.' That means platforms must prove their actions were lawful—not automatically escape trial.
In Barnes v. Yahoo! (2009), the Ninth Circuit confirmed that Section 230 is not a blanket shield. But courts have ignored that precedent and instead created a fantasy world where Big Tech can't be touched—no matter what they do.
As Jason Fyk explains in his eye-opening analysis, Section 230 for Dummies, the judiciary has created 'super-immunity' out of thin air. That's not just unconstitutional—it's dangerous.
The Supreme Court has a golden opportunity here. If they take Fyk's case, they can:
Restore due process by ending early dismissals based on false immunity;
Reinstate the 'good faith' requirement for content moderation;
Clarify the difference between a neutral host and an active publisher;
And return free speech to the people, not the platforms.
No new laws are needed. Just correct interpretation of the law we already have.
Section 230 was designed to protect speech—not suppress it. It was written to encourage good faith moderation—not corporate censorship on behalf of the federal government.
The law isn't broken. The courts broke it. Now it's time they fix it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
TikTok can shape America's next generation and Beijing knows it
If Washington doesn't act urgently, content pushed by TikTok and consumed by young Americans will result in future U.S. leaders unwittingly parroting China's talking points, advocating warped views and, most dangerously, acting in ways that are in Beijing's interests but undermine U.S. national security. There is admittedly no 'smoking gun,' but TikTok represents a highly plausible vector of intelligence collection. ByteDance, TikTok's parent firm, claims it is committed to U.S. national security, but is legally bound to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party. The People's Republic of China almost certainly uses TikTok, at a minimum, as a collection platform to monitor public opinion. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. and TikTok agreed in January 2023 to maintain all U.S. data within the U.S., but there are concerning reports of leaks. With 170 million U.S. users, TikTok provides Beijing with real-time, granular insight into American public opinion. That real-time data collection would prove enormously useful, for instance, in assessing U.S. willingness to fight in a hypothetical conflict over Taiwan. But the challenge from TikTok with America's youth is not just collection, but influence. Early evidence suggests this is already underway. A Rutgers study found TikTok suppressed unfavorable accounts of sensitive topics, including Tibet, Tiananmen Square, Uyghur rights and Xinjiang. 'Heavy' users expressed elevated positive attitudes toward China's human rights record and greater interest in traveling to China. Given that the company's black box algorithm thwarts independent verification, we likely have seen only the tip of the iceberg of Beijing's efforts to sway the U.S. public. The algorithm could convulse U.S. domestic politics by sowing discord and highlighting divisions, an outcome that serves Beijing's interest in undermining U.S. cohesion and painting D.C. as an unreliable partner. Indeed, rather than bolstering one candidate or another, TikTok may act as an anti-incumbent tool. In the 2024 election, TikTok contributed to President Biden's low approval ratings, according to one Democratic strategist. In that election, President Trump's support among 18-29-year-olds, which disproportionately comprises TikTok's user base, rose by seven points from 2020. And yet, by April, only three months into office, Trump's support among young people has declined markedly — by up to 27 points. While there are admittedly many variables at play, TikTok can amplify alienation and short-term sentiment swings. Whatever one's politics, it's dangerous for China to retain levers that can subtly shape American public opinion, especially by amplifying dissatisfaction. It's worth noting that as Beijing uses tools to manipulate the U.S. public, especially its youth, it's taking meaningful steps to protect its own young people. Douyin, the version of TikTok used in China and also owned by ByteDance, is required by authorities to enforce a 'youth mode,' limiting users under 14 to app usage for just 40 minutes a day. It also locks them out between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily. The contrast is stark: China exports attention-fracturing content while shielding its own youth from it. China's use of TikTok may allow it to influence mass and elite opinion. And in fact, TikTok may be uniquely effective at influencing elite views, by enabling microtargeting. Given TikTok's effectiveness and deniability, as well as Beijing's determination to supplant the United States, Chinese security services are likely tweaking TikTok's algorithms to micro-target key users. Chinese security services can directly shape TikTok's algorithm — rather than merely exploit one built by others — giving it a deniable, end-to-end influence over what users see. Crucially, any elite-focused information operation via TikTok would be even more difficult to detect in the unclassified domain than efforts to shape mass public opinion because of how narrow and precise the targeting would be. For far too long, U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle have failed to take action against the platform. And the reported decision by President Trump to tell U.S. companies they can ignore the law barring American companies from engaging with TikTok represents a new and immediate danger to U.S. national and economic security. At a minimum, it is imperative to ensure the U.S. is not allowing companies or individuals to engage with TikTok so long as its algorithm is controlled by a Beijing-linked company. But U.S. policymakers need to go even further and consider, for example, more ambitious measures such as national limits on short-video screen time for minors. The status quo is incomprehensible and dangerous: Young Americans are being asked to unwittingly face off against an algorithm that may be a tool of Chinese intelligence services. Allowing this dynamic to persist risks eroding the cognitive, civic and strategic foundations of American leadership. Jonathan Panikoff is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's GeoEconomics Center and the former director of the Investment Security Group, overseeing the intelligence community's CFIUS efforts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Joseph Webster is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and editor of the independent China-Russia Report.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'There's something else going on here, and it's an injustice,' NewsMax host Greg Kelly said.
A prominent MAGA TV host says convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell may be innocent. The British former socialite, 63, is currently serving 20 years behind bars for sexually exploiting teenage girls alongside disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. 'People are horrified when I say there's a possibility that this individual just might be innocent,' NewsMax host Greg Kelly said. 'But think about it. Who told us about her? The most reviled institutions in America: the media and the Biden Justice Department.'
New York Post
41 minutes ago
- New York Post
Senate makes progress in averting a gov't shutdown much earlier than usual
The Senate took a significant step towards averting an impending partial government shutdown by passing a tranche of funding bills much earlier than usual. Senators approved three of the 12 appropriations bills Friday needed to forestall a partial shutdown, including ones to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, new military facilities, and Congress itself. 'We are on the verge of an accomplishment that we have not done since 2018, and that is, pass appropriations bills across the Senate floor prior to the August recess,' Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R–Maine) cheered before the upper chamber reached the feat. 'That is exercising our constitutional responsibility for the power of the purse.' The three appropriations bills that clear the Senate are typically viewed as the less controversial ones to get across the finish line. Still, it comes amid significant hurdles toward preventing the looming autumn shutdown. 4 Sen. Susan Collins helped broker the deal to get the three appropriations bills passed through the Senate. REUTERS 4 Senate Majority Leader John Thune has eaten into the August recess to clear up the upper chamber's lengthy to-do list. Democrats widely see the shutdown fight as a rare instance in which they have leverage in Congress and have been vexed by President Trump's use of impoundment and rescissions to make spending cuts without their approval. Moreover, Congress hasn't actually passed the 12 appropriations bills to properly fund the government on time since 1997. Each fiscal year, which starts on Oct. 1, Congress is tasked with funding the government to prevent a partial shutdown. Congress has typically relied on a mechanism known as continuing resolutions, or CRs, to put government spending on autopilot for stretches of time. CRs and appropriations bills are subject to the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster in the Senate and must be bipartisan, which is why Congress typically struggles with the process. 4 Sen. Patty Murray said the deal will help prevent some of the cuts Democrats opposed. The current fiscal year is running on what turned into a yearlong CR, and there have been some murmurs in the House about doing so again for Fiscal Year 2026. Senators voted 87-9 on Friday for a two-bill minibus to fund the VA and Department of Agriculture. They then voted 81–15 on the third appropriations bill to fund Congress. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democratic appropriator, argued the small-scale deal 'rejects damaging cuts from Trump and House Republicans,' despite progressive complaints. The Senate still has nine more appropriations bills to take up: Commerce, Defense, Energy, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, State and Transportation. The Senate Appropriations Committee has already approved about half of those, inching them closer to a full chamber vote. 4 Oftentimes, government shutdown fights come down to the wire. REUTERS Those appropriations bills will need to be green-lit by the House of Representatives, which is on August recess, and signed into law by President Trump. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has eaten into the August recess while seeking to wrangle through key Trump nominations and chip away at the backlog. He is currently negotiating with Democrats on a deal to expedite that process.
