Ari Cohn Profile picture
8 Apr, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Taking a page out of Trump's playbook, MuslimAdvocates filed a lawsuit alleging that Facebook and its execs violated DC consumer protection laws because they *say* they remove "hate speech" but MuslimAdvocates doesn't think they do a good enough job.…
This performative lawsuit will be dismissed, and I can't help but feel that we may well see people who want no content moderation praising #Section230 and people who oppose those people arguing for compelled content moderation. Because, ya know...
Content moderation is extremely difficult to do well at scale, and impossible to do perfectly. We're all better off if everyone, regardless of whether they want more or less content moderation, are blocked from bringing lawsuits because they saw online expression they didn't like
To be clear, we should absolutely be having conversations about the issues of content moderation and how it could or should be done better. But we should have those conversations as stakeholders, consumers, and as a society. Not as a matter of law.

• • •

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!


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

11 Mar
1/ These absolute clowns really submitted a brief saying that profanity by minors isn't protected by the First Amendment because of the fighting words doctrine and rules about what broadcasters can air.

Absolute garbage that is not only bad lawyering, but anti-free speech.
2/ First of all, Chaplinski is barely even good law. But more to the point, arguing "some things aren't protected" is not a valid argument. See Trope #3:…
3/ And citing to FCC rules is just pure nonsense. As I've explained dozens (hundreds?) of times, broadcasters licensed to utilize public airwaves are subject to increased regulation on their expression.

Those regulations are not applicable to LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE.
Read 6 tweets
10 Mar
1/ Well look at what we have here. Phillip Hamburger rears his head again, butchering/lying about laws and precedents that he clearly doesn't understand (@berinszoka and I have put him under the broiler before:…)…
2/ This Wyoming bill looks like a clone of the ND bill that I previously discussed here: .

Anyway, since I already analyzed one of these stupid bills, you can go read that to learn why this one's also preempted and unconstitutional.
3/ N.B., in that thread I noted that Hamburger's org, @NCLAlegal, was behind the bill. They emailed me to say "not true." I replied with the video of the ND legislator explicitly naming them as working with them on the bill.

I got no reply.
Read 15 tweets
9 Mar
1/ As sure as I'm a cranky bastard, state reps will keep introducing asinine bills that violate the First Amendment, are preempted by #Section230, & reveal their authors' cluelessness. This one courtesy of @ARStateRep43 & @VoteRickyHill of @ARGOP:…\...\You
2/ can tell that we're off to a stupid start right from the subtitle. I usually don't go into the legislative findings because state legislators have a hard time finding their way out of their own asses, but I can't help myself on this one.
3/ Can someone tell me what on God's green earth this even *means*? I don't even think the people who use "cancel culture" unironically would look at this sentence and say "mhm, yep, makes sense to me."
Read 15 tweets
18 Feb
1/ I regret to inform you that this North Dakota bill has got *even dumber* and even *more unconstitutional* by way of amendment (stay tuned for a fun fact about who is behind this later in the thread).

Here are the proposed amendments:…
2/ The bill is a complete mess. For starters, it tries to define "interactive computer services" and "social media platforms" differently, for what reason is literally anyone's guess but if it is to try to get around #Section230, it's...not going to work.
3/ The bill says that both ICSs and social media platforms may not "censor" expression or users based on viewpoint. Not only that, but also that they can't ban a user for viewpoints expressed *anywhere*.
Read 28 tweets
14 Feb
Roses are red
Hydrangeas are white
You can't sue over speech
Removed by a website

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

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
14 Feb
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.
Read 7 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!