Share this page!

Ari Cohn Profile picture
Twitter logo
14 Feb, 7 tweets, 1 min read
S.O. decided that 11:30 was a good time to start watching Titanic, and in retribution I have now assumed the role of a Titanic truther. Let's see how this goes.
No way that iceberg was big enough. It was a government job.
Jack was a crisis actor.
Really the ship just sailed off the edge of the Earth
George Clooney actually made a duplicate of the ocean so we just *thought* we saw it sink.
The Titanic was really just a mimetic copy a la "The Demon Class Planet"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Ari Cohn

Ari Cohn Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AriCohn

Ari Cohn Profile picture
14 Feb
Roses are red
Hydrangeas are white
You can't sue over speech
Removed by a website

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Hibiscus is Haitian
Even without #Section230
They'd still have a right to content moderation

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Getting banned makes you blue
But social media's not government
So First Amendment rights don't accrue

(Tangentially) #Section230valentines
Read 22 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
24 Jan
1/ Another day, another #Section230 op-ed unmoored from fact and law. This one comes to you via @WilliamLKovacs and @TheHillOpinion. It is a tangle of the usual factual and legal misunderstandings, with a strange new one thrown in for good measure.

thehill.com/opinion/techno…
2/ Let's talk about this opening paragraph. First, it certainly was *not* a "sneak attack." Twitter has been quite clear that Trump ogot away with things that would get others banned because he was president. If you didn't see this coming, you just weren't paying attention.
3/ The Parler dispute was also not a "sneak attack," and to claim it is strikes me as dishonest. It was a direct response to developing events--you know, the *actual attack* on the Capitol.
Read 22 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
22 Jan
The weirdest part about this @wyattemmerich piece isn't the total misunderstanding of #Section230 or the failure to grasp that repealing it wouldn't outlaw content moderation.

It's the part where he claims we were better off when dueling was a thing.

northsidesun.com/news-most-rece…
What a shame that we can no longer shoot people for being mean!
"Police shooting suspects is often tragic, but effective!" @wyattemmerich, probably.
Read 4 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
22 Jan
Lol he tagged one of those national media outlets, and the employer, then gloated about the result but he's mad that people are calling him out on it.

Such a pathetic ❄️❄️❄️❄️, wanting to help assemble the mob but then escape any criticism for it. Own it you fucking dweeb. ImageImageImage
Maybe pulling your money out of Accipiter Capital Management would be a good idea 🤷‍♂️
Tweet through it, sweetie

Read 5 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
21 Jan
This is nonsense logic that does not survive even cursory thought.

The government does plenty of things that make it possible for private actors to "censor.

Does freedom of association make *everyone* a state actor?
I suppose it makes a lot of sense to analogize allowing private companies to control their property with allowing others to obstruct access to not their property.

At least, it makes sense if you choose not to think about it.

Now show me where #Section230 demands content moderation as opposed to allowing providers to make their own decisions.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Read 5 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
17 Jan
This is incredibly disappointing coming from someone like Geoffrey Stone, who knows perfectly well that the Fairness Doctrine was only constitutional because broadcast spectrum is scarce, and that it could not have applied to cable/internet.

For shame.

post-gazette.com/news/insight/2… Image
At best this is oversimplification to the point of being misleading.

At worst, it is downright dishonest.
Stone also cites to dicta in Marsh v. Alabama, but doesn't tell readers that private entities are only state actors for First Amendment purposes when they perform functions traditionally & exclusively exercised by the state.

Oh, and that SCOTUS recently rejected this argument. Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AriCohn has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AriCohn!

Read all threads by @AriCohn