Blondell F. Mitchell v. Amazon Corporation, et al.

(Never Asked or Answered by this Court)

1. Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is obsolete for today’s society, when it is being used as a way to sabotage a person’s life.

2. Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has failed to address False Social Media Comments being used for employment Social Media Background Checks.

3. Whether a Social Media Platform has violated Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by sharing/selling/using false comments (A Faulty Instrument of Misinformation) for Social Media Background Checks.

4. Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency shields AWS (Amazon Web Services) and other Social Media Background Check Companies from selling and using Defamatory False Comments from Social Media Platforms to perform Social Media Background Checks for Employment/Housing/Medical/Insurance/etc. purposes.

5. Whether Amazon, AWS and Mitchell’s other cases violated her 4th Amendment Right to Privacy along with Intrusion into Seclusion by confusing Mitchell with her exhusband 2nd wife.

6. Whether Amazon using AWS has the right to use False, Defamatory, Social Media Comments (Faulty Instrument of Misinformation) for internal employment Promotions.

7. Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act negates Federal ADA Perceived Disability Laws.

8. Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act fails to address when a Social Media Platform turns into A Faulty Instrument of Misinformation (when the person has emailed the owner of the Social Media Platform to remove her name from their site).

9. Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act fails to address individuals and the previous Defendants company using Social Media as a way to Sabotage a person’s life, when that person has never had a Social Media Account.

10. Whether a Social Media Platform can be held liable for its News Feed, algorithms, etc., both before and after the News Feed was outsourced.

11. Whether Al (Artificial Intelligence) Companies can be held accountable for Defamation by confusing Mitchell with her ex-husband’s second wife.

12. Whether a job posting Board Violated Employment Laws by partnering with a thirdparty software that automatically performs Social Media Background Checks using false and defamatory comments from a Faulty Instrument of Misinformation (Social Media Company).

13. Whether Heightened Pleading Standard in Employment Discrimination Cases Conflict with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

14. The Rules For Employment ADA Claims Follow A Different Standard