Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Internet Censorship Crusade

<p>Joseph Gordon-Levitt is pushing a bill that would END free speech on the internet, and he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.</p><p>[FREE SPEECH FRIDAY]</p><ul><li><p><strong>Join the Patreon: </strong><a href="https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz">⁠<u>https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz</u>⁠</a>  </p></li><li><p><strong>Subscribe to my Substack:</strong>  <a href="https://www.usermag.co">⁠<u>https://www.usermag.co</u>⁠</a>  </p></li></ul><p>Section 230 is one of the most important laws in the history of the internet. It is often called “the law that created the internet” because it protects websites, forums, blogs, comment sections, Wikipedia, and every platform that hosts user-generated content.</p><p>But for some reason, actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt wants it gone. Yesterday, he released a video following backlash from his talk last week in congress, where he called on Senators to repeal Section 230.</p><p>Almost every single thing he said in his response video was factually wrong.</p><p>For this week's Free Speech Friday episode, I'm debunking Gordon-Levitt's crusade against Section 230 and unpacking how repealing Section 230 would actually mass-censor the internet, wipe out indie platforms, destroy LGBTQ and marginalized online spaces, and hand total monopoly power over to Meta, Google, and powerful billionaires. </p><p>I also break down the far-right groups like Morality in Media and The Heritage Foundation, which has made Section 230 repeal core to their Project 2025 tech policy agenda. If Section 230 is repealed, the cost of defending user speech could jump from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per lawsuit. It would wipe out small communities overnight and leave only Big Tech corporations with buildings full of lawyers.</p><p><strong>Mike Masnick’s brilliant takedown of JGL’s claims on TechDirt: </strong><a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/12/joseph-gordon-levitt-goes-to-washington-dc-gets-section-230-completely-backwards/"><u>https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/12/joseph-gordon-levitt-goes-to-washington-dc-gets-section-230-completely-backwards/</u></a> </p><p><strong>Support independent tech journalism!</strong></p><p>Big Tech interest groups and reactionary non-profits are spending millions to try to get Section 230 revoked. My work is 100% self-funded. This series is not backed by any advertisers or tech giants. If you value this reporting, please, please support the channel: </p><ul><li><p><strong>Join the Patreon: </strong><a href="https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz"><u>https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz</u></a>   </p></li><li><p><strong>Subscribe to my Substack:</strong>  <a href="https://www.usermag.co"><u>https://www.usermag.co</u></a>    </p></li></ul><p>Follow me:</p><p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz"><u>https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz</u></a>      </p><p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz3.0"><u>https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz3.0</u></a>     </p><p><a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@taylorlorenz"><u>https://www.tiktok.com/@taylorlorenz</u></a> </p><p><a href="https://bsky.app/profile/taylorlorenz.bsky.social"><u>https://bsky.app/profile/taylorlorenz.bsky.social</u></a> </p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/taylorlorenz"><u>https://twitter.com/taylorlorenz</u></a> </p><p>In this video I cover:</p><ul><li><p>What Section 230 actually says</p></li><li><p>The publisher vs platform myth</p></li><li><p>Why Section 230 was created after Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy</p></li><li><p>How FOSTA SESTA changed Section 230</p></li><li><p>Why repeal would increase censorship</p></li><li><p>How lawsuits would silence speech</p></li><li><p>Why big tech companies can survive without 230 but small platforms cannot</p></li><li><p>The real way to regulate big tech through antitrust and data privacy</p></li></ul><p><br /></p>