---

1. The Fact a Judge Considered Revisiting 230 Is Itself Telling

Even when claims are ultimately dismissed, the mere willingness of a court to entertain the possibility of liability undercuts the absolute immunity many assume Section 230 guarantees. It signals a shift:

• The judiciary may be inching toward redefining what constitutes platform responsibility, especially when algorithmic amplification, community radicalization, or negligence in moderation is alleged.

• That’s a warning shot to tech companies: the shield is not impenetrable forever.

---

2. TI Cases Are Fundamentally Different

• What is a platform’s duty of care toward users experiencing delusional thinking, coercive control, or technologically induced psychosis?

• If a platform algorithmically targets, amplifies, or gaslights those individuals for profit or engagement—does that not resemble exploitation of diminished capacity?

This is arguably more akin to elder abuse, psychiatric patient neglect, or wrongful institutionalization than to general user-platform interactions.

---

3. Buffalo Case as a False Precedent for Dismissing TI Harms

In the Buffalo case, the court ruled there was no proximate cause between social media and the shooter’s actions. But:

• The shooter was a fully capacitated agent who used platforms to radicalize himself.

• TIs, by contrast, are often the product of those platforms—shaped by feedback loops, targeted by manipulators (human or bot), or coerced into behaviors that may then be used as evidence of their “instability.”

Thus, the “no liability” precedent should not apply cleanly to TIs. The dynamic is more predatory, more intimate, and potentially medically negligent.

---

4. Analogies and Legal Leverage

Courts might be slow, but the analogies are there:

• Pharmaceutical companies held liable for failing to warn vulnerable patients.

• Nursing homes liable for not protecting those with dementia from harm.

• Schools sued for failing to intervene when vulnerable students are bullied into self-harm.

So why are platforms, profiting off psychologically distressed users, immune?