Thread by @willchamberlain

Reading the new big tech censorship bill from @HawleyMo right now

It's straight fire

First - who does it cover? Well - three metrics.

1) 30 million active users in the United States;
2) 300 million active users worldwide; OR
3) 500 million in global annual revenue.

Simple, right? This captures FB/Twitter/Insta/Google, avoids hitting startups.

I'll continue this thread in about two hours

BACK on @HawleyMO's bill and why it would likely solve the problem.

Here's the key - it makes BOTH of Section 230's liability waivers contingent on a "covered company" getting an "immunity certification" from the FTC.

See where it says "paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply"?

Paragraph 1 is the publisher/platform distinction, affirming that platforms are not the "publisher" of third-party content

In The Section 230 illusion, @RonColeman and I argued that tweaking that wasn't enough, because defamation lawsuits are near impossible to win.

But @HawleyMO's masterstroke is putting the liability waiver under paragraph 2 in play.

That's the one that protects the platforms' ability to remove "obscene" and "objectionable" content in good faith.

They need that one, folks. Otherwise moderation is a legal nightmare.

The lobbyists for FB/Twitter/Google know what's at stake.

They'll have to worry about content removal CONSTANTLY if they lose the protection of paragraph (2).

That's the crown jewel - not the "publisher/platform" distinction. Which is precisely what @RonColeman and I argued.

Now, these lobbyists are exaggerating the KKK problem - there is an exception for "business necessity" which could likely be read to allow banning literal Nazis and unlawful speech.

Here's the tricky part. The bill uses the FTC - which means regulators.

To get the "immunity certification," companies must prove to the FTC by "clear and convincing evidence" that the platform does to "moderate information...in a politically biased manner."

The bill defines "politically biased moderation" in some detail:

1) an "intent" standard - is the moderation designed to hurt a political party/candidate/viewpoint

2) a "results" standard - does the moderation disproportionately restrict access to information about the same

Specific regulations are left to the FTC - another potential place where the bill could falter. (But if you're using regulators, that's a risk you have to take)

One benefit of the regulatory approach, though: the FTC can supervise *all* forms of moderation, including algorithmic moderation

And @HawleyMO's bill makes sure that's within the FTC's purview

Overall? @HawleyMO's bill will SCARE THE DAYLIGHTS out of FB, Google, and Twitter

Their crown jewel - the liability carveout under § 230(c)(2) protecting good faith moderation decisions - is fully in play

Will it pass? Who knows

But it's one hell of a shot across the bow

FIN