Note that proportional electoral college vote allocation would make it more likely that no party would have 270 electoral votes, in which we'd see coalitions form, as in every other democracy, with small parties to get over 270
It would also be wise to change the crazy way the House decides elections (one vote for each state Congressional delegation), but EV coalitions would likely avoid elections going to the House unless...
A party thinks it can win there (with control of a majority of state delegations) is able to spurn other parties to take the presidency without a coalition
But that won't work if the other major party can win with a coalition of EC votes from smaller parties, so it would be rare
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#Parler can't use #antitrust to sue against "political animus" because the First Amendment protects Twitter & Amazon's right to refuse to carry abhorrent content
Parler's lawsuit will be dismissed for failing to allege that AWS & Twitter conspired to suppress competition
Under clear Supreme Court precedent, Parler would have to prove that Amazon shut off service for non-political reasons
Parler & AWS don't compete. To show that AWS blocked Parler for anticompetitive reasons, Parler must show that AWS conspired with Twitter against Parler.
Instead, Parler complains that AWS was inconsistent in enforcing its Acceptable Use Policy, which reserves broad discretion to remove "harmful" or "offensive" or "otherwise objectionable" content
Anyone sane wants to see less of the kind of content that led to the storming of the Capitol
#Section230 may be unsatisfying but it plays a vital role: protecting sites’ 1A right to take down content gov't can’t ban, eg misinformation & (most) incitement protocol.com/we-need-sectio…
The storming of the Capitol should make clear once and for all why all major tech services ban hate speech, misinformation and talk of violence: Words can have serious consequences — in this case, five deaths (plus a Capitol officer’s suicide days later).
The MAGA crowd is crying "censorship," conveniently forgetting (or more likely disingenuously abandoning) all of the First Amendment and free market arguments it has wielded in the past against people who they don't agree with
I've been wondering: Why rush Simington onto the FCC (with just 5 months of telecom experience) if Pai doesn't have time to vote out a #Section230 order anyway?
I now think the FCC could, and likely will, vote out an order without further comment on January 13
Here's why...
Even most telecom lawyers assume FCC actions fall into two buckets:
1) rulemakings follow NPRMs and public comment and aren't final until published in the Federal Register
There isn't time for an NPRM/comments and the Biden FCC could block publication in the FedReg anyway
2) Declaratory orders can resolve adjudicatory disputes, but are only binding on the parties to the proceeding, which won't do what the Administration (NTIA) has asked the FCC to do here
But there's actually a third category that the FCC does have time to use here...
Can't wait to hear @LindseyGrahamSC, the guy who urged Georgia's Secretary of State to throw out Democratic votes, accuse #BigTech of trying to steal the election 🤣
Watch this thread for more debunking of GOP nonsense about free speech and #Section230
"I don't want the government to have the power to decide what content stays up"
-@LindseyGrahamSC
No, he just wants to amend #Section230 to enable, especially, for Republican hack state AGs to sue websites for removing hate speech, misinformation, voter suppression, etc
Content moderation involves difficult trade-offs that we think are better resolved through the democratic process
- Mark Zuckerberg
Um, no, the First Amendment bars the government from making decisions about online speech
1/ What might AG #BillBarr say at tomorrow's DOJ workshop on “#Section230—Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability?"
Expect him to call for banning strong #encryption, as he did last July—but this time, via amending 230 and focused on "protecting the children"
2/ The whole point of the half-day workshop appears to be for Barr to make the case for a bill DOJ has no doubt helped @LindseyGrahamSC & @SenBlumenthal draft—that would empower a commission (stacked with DOJ allies) to effectively ban encryption