Goldman has been cataloging Section 230 cases for a long time now. Here's his post: blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/10/there-is-no-bottom-when-it-comes-to-section-230-reform-proposals-comments-on-the-justice-against-malicious-algorithms-act.htm.
Section 230 reform goes in two directions:
The fact that these two goals are somewhat contradictory is frequently ignored.
Facebook is an advocate of §230 reform. The theory has long been that Facebook feels sufficiently involved in the political process that they could manipulate such reform to favor their situation. How does Facebook's current reputational downturn affect those hopes?
AMP is a website format for, according to Google, faster loading (partly because the content was hosted on Google's CDN) and improved readability on mobile devices. Google introduced it about five years ago, partly out of frustration with poor website appearance on mobile (which made Android look bad).
Google also promised that AMP-enabled sites would be ranked higher in Google search.
Wait a minute.... Isn't that Google threatening sites that didn't jump on the AMP bandwagon with lower rankings? The newer theory is that AMP was a ruse for allowing Google to take over the Internet. They even have a name for it: Project NERA, to create an Internet that was "not owned but operated".
Another part of Project NERA was "forcing" everyone using Chrome to log in to their Google accounts. You could manually log out, but then you'd lose access to Gmail.
Also, AMP sites do not in fact load faster.
And, there's more! AMP is incompatible with header bidding! An amazing coincidence!
See more at www.theregister.com/2021/11/01/google_opinion_column, which also alleges that Google gets 42% of ad revenue, basically skimmed from the pockets of publishers.
That's the name given to the EU policy to allow (and eventually require) all communications providers to have access to all messages generated by their customers. In other words, it is a ban on end-to-end message encryption. The EU has already approved the voluntary version; the mandatory version will be voted on in December 2021.
See www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/?lang=en (the site chatcontrol.eu redirects to that).
Paper 2
Debates
Who does §230 benefit? Does it benefit you?
Fosta-Sesta
Some supporters of Fosta-Sesta don't believe sex work should be allowed at all (or believe all sex work is intrinsically coercive). For a contrary position, see www.economist.com/united-states/2021/10/30/how-to-bring-sex-work-out-of-the-shadows.
The SAFE TECH act would eliminate §230 protections for "paid speech". That was supposed to cover just advertising, but may cover much more. It might cover all posts by users on a social-media site with paid memberships, for example. For a relatively neutral discussion of the SAFE TECH act, see www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/three-ways-the-safe-tech-act-would-5764508. For a more negative view, also of FOSTA/SESTA, see www.vice.com/en/article/qj8d9q/sex-workers-explain-why-the-safe-tech-act-will-break-the-internet.
First-person libel
Threat speech
Hate speech
LICRA v Yahoo
Employee speech
Source code as speech