Section 230 Ends Lawsuit by Twitter Premium Subscriber–Taddeo-Waite v. X

This court summarizes: “At the core of Taddeo-Waite’s complaint is his desire to hold X liable for allegedly maintaining a graphic and upsetting post on its platform, amplifying the reach of that post, and hampering the extent of Taddeo-Waite’s own content.” In a prior ruling, the court upheld Twitter’s TOS and sent the case from D. Conn. to N.D. Tex. In my prior post, I wrote: “The relocation of the case from Connecticut to N.D. Tex. only delays the inevitable. This case is doomed due to Section 230, among other reasons.” That denouement has now arrived. The court says simply: “§ 230 clearly bars Taddeo-Waite’s claims against X.” Decision Not to Remove Third-Party Post. “Taddeo-Waite’s claims concerning X’s decision not to remove the anonymous user’s post neatly fall into the scope of § 230 immunity….X’s decision not to remove the anonymous user’s post treat X as the publisher of another’s information.” Algorithmic Amplification of Third-Party Post (“But the Algorithms”). “§ 230…