Section 230 Was Hijacked by Big Tech to Silence You

Yahoo

28-05-2025

In 1996, Congress passed a well-meaning law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to help internet platforms grow. It was supposed to protect online forums from liability for what their users said—not give billion-dollar corporations the right to shadow-ban dissidents, rig elections, and coordinate censorship with the federal government.
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.