Coming from someone who hate social media (and has kids) this might seems like a good thing on the surface, but I worry it will be another case used to allow the government to limit speech on the internet for adults.

▲

an hour ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

turtlesdown11 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a civil trial between a regular person and corporations about product liability. It has nothing to do with the government.

▲

jimmyjazz14 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

True, but people in the government are already pointing to it as reason to pass the "Kids Online Safety Act" and overturn section 230.

▲

bigyabai an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Liability and free speech are conjoined at the hip in the United States, courtesy of Section 230.

	▲	turtlesdown11 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Liability Product liability is a subdivision of tort law that allows for recovery for damages caused by the makers or distributors of a product. This case has nothing to do with Section 230, the plaintiff successfully argued that the product was defectively designed and caused harm to the plaintiff. Section 230 immunity is not a shield against all liability, it's only a shield against hosting problematic user content.