But if judiciary grills her on rational basis, it's silly bc they usually DEMAND this view from judges. Which is fine, but if they grill her and turn towards a @RandyEBarnett view for reals I'm here for it
Also most of my links will be @reason bc they sum up my larger thoughts in a readable way!
Also worth noting she seems like Kavanaugh-level of judge in certain ways. Very focussed on maintaining judicial stability but also moving gently in the future direction of jurisprudence
I've seen more judges open their hearts to 4A, 9A/14A, and just questioning govt more seriously in more cases, but slowly. She seems one of those judges. Nothing wrong with it but I prefer @JusticeWillett -style no-nonsense. But she IS a very normal judge.
From what I've seen of her work, I tend to agree with @kewhittington here -
This alone is encouraging and noteworthy: "It is clear from Barrett's record that she does not reflexively side with the government in criminal cases." reason.com/2020/09/21/sco…
None of this means you HAVE to agree with confirming her, but I think it's vital to understand who she is and who she isn't. She's a very normal judge with some encouraging signs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Online Safety Act is huge, but I explore just a few relevant provisions.
Social media and search engines are required to prevent minors from accessing content deemed “harmful”—which has an extremely broad definition. It includes not only pornography, but also violent and hateful content.
Finally reading the Arkansas social media law opinion
Act 689 "burdens social media access for all Arkansans—both adults and minors whose parents would allow them to use social media. Requiring adult users to produce state-approved documentation to prove their age and/or submit to biometric age-verification testing imposes significant burdens on adult access to constitutionally protected speech and “discourage[s] users from accessing [the regulated] sites.” Reno, 521 U.S. at 856. Age-verification schemes like those contemplated by Act 689 “are not only an additional hassle,” but “they also require that website visitors forgo the anonymity otherwise available on the internet.” Am. Booksellers Found. v. Dean, 342 F.3d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 2003); see also ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181, 197 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding age-verification requirements force users to “relinquish their anonymity to access protected speech”)"
"The Court would note that “harmful to minors” is not a category of unprotected speech"
MY LATEST in my series on why age verification legislation can't work:
Age-verification laws don’t exempt VPN traffic. But that traffic can’t always be detected.
It's an *impossible* task once you consider VPNs.
Wrote this one with @RSI @CanyonBrimhall!rstreet.org/commentary/age…
One issue that has not been examined closely yet is how these laws would impact virtual private networks (VPNs). We interviewed various stakeholders around VPNs including VPN blockers, a cybersecurity scholar and a partner at a digital media firm
Obviously, age-verification laws would force platforms to identify the age of their users in each specific area—Utah’s laws apply to residents in Utah, Arkansas’ laws apply to residents in Arkansas, U.S. law would apply to U.S. residents, and so on.
I'm genuinely furious. Open AI is at the top now. I love their tech. Now they're lobbying for licensing which will effectively halt new innovation except from... them. Or other top firms. This is atrocious, blatant rent seeking. I study licensing and I work on tech policy /1
And this is a horrible marriage of the worst of both. Licensing is a massive barrier to entry that stops new entrants. Sam knows this. He knows EXACTLY what he's saying.
AI is already being used to treat and detect cancer more effectively. It has endless incredible applications, most of which haven't even been thought of yet. This is blatant anticompetitiveness and atrocious behavior from people who could have pushed for more innovation
This is fucking asinine and all this will do will limit ... tech development to the wealthy. This is a terrible idea, it's protectionist, and it's worth condemnation
This is a REALLY good article on a subject I'm really interested in: Trying to find the line between agreeing to govt demands/censorship and allowing people of a country more freedom through tech. There IS a line and some give is worth it, but where and how much is hard to say /1
Like this statement from the Midjourney CEO nails that he's thinking about it (even if he gets it wrong)
“Political satire in china is pretty not-okay... the ability for people in China to use this tech is more important than your ability to generate satire.”
"Tech companies’ desire to remain accessible to the Chinese market will surprise no one, but Midjourney goes further than most of its peers. Instead of restricting political expression for the program’s users in China, it restricts such expression for all of its global users."