Corbin K. Barthold Profile picture
May 1, 2021 14 tweets 5 min read Read on X
Amusing things I saw in Josh Hawley's latest WSJ piece, a thread . . .
2/ The first thing you must do, as a good populist, is define your narrow faction as "us," or "we," or "Americans."

Then you need a "they" who is screwing all of "us," preferably for some totally made up ad hominem reason like "because they're *bored*!"
3/ Trump has not been "silenced." He's got a website and everything.

Nor has the book in question been "banned." Google the title, and you'll immediately see like five outlets where you can buy it. For goodness sake.

As for the "threat" to be the nation's "censor" . . . huh?
4/ I mean, yeah, if you're saying insane racist or paranoid stuff here, you might get the boot.

But here's Hawley himself, *on this site*, promoting *this op-ed*, as well as his new book.

5/ It's pretty late in the damn day for the GOP to be talking about the limits of colonial corporate charters. Ahem, Citizens United?

And actually, all the Founders opposed was literal, born-to-rule, fifth duke of wherever aristocracy. By modern standards, they were "an elite."
6/ Holy cow, did Josh freakin Hawley just say we need to "protect our democracy"?
7/ FWIW, *local* concentration has been *dropping*.

The prime culprit, when it comes to bank and airline consolidation, is the government. (And the riskiness of banking.)

Google and FB innovated their way to success.

More broadly, Hawley does not know what "monopoly" means.
8/ What Hawley fails to get here is that bigger firms aren't *screwing* small businesses. They're just *outperforming* them.

Bigger firms are more productive, they pay more, they donate more, they're more diverse, etc. That's a good thing. Hurray for big business.
9/ Yes, corporations have free speech rights. (See, e.g., the GOP-celebrated Citizens United.) Hawley is just hopping mad that they're using that right to say things *he* doesn't like.

Also, internet speech is so much more than FB and Twitter.

Also, how can Nike "cancel" me?
10/ Josh 👏 Hawley 👏 does 👏 not 👏 know 👏 what 👏 "monopoly" 👏 means 👏.
11/ Hawley can "propose" anything he wants. Dems won't work with him, bc of his conduct before and on January 6.

BTW, does he think citizens have no agency whatsoever? If they can't read, think, and speak for themselves, we've got bigger problems than big tech.
12/ Now's a good time to note that breaking up big tech wouldn't produce firms Hawley likes. The problem is not size. It's Hawley and his ilk. You'd just get smaller tech firms, all of whom still don't like bigotry, backwardness, or insurrection.

Also, WF delivery is great.
13/ Hawley is deliberately obfuscating here. He knows perfectly well that the consumer-welfare standard is about more than price.
/14 Hawley closes by exhorting Republicans to take a principled stand against corporations.

Sure. The day before his op-ed went up, the Fla. GOP inserted a carve-out for woke-ass Disney in their social-media bill.

A Trumpist party will *always* be an unfocused, craven mess.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Corbin K. Barthold

Corbin K. Barthold 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 @corbinkbarthold

Feb 21, 2023
1/ Have I gotten enough sleep to coherently live-tweet the Gonzalez v. Google #Section230 argument at SCOTUS?

Let's find out!

supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
2/ If you need a refresher on, or intro to, the case -- what Sec. 230 is, how it came to be, what's at stake in this case -- there are a thousand pieces floating around.

But this here's my nifty thread (😏) so here's my essay for Reason doing all that.

reason.com/2022/11/04/sec…
3/ And, FYI, after the argument I'll be doing a breakdown of the argument for @ProgressChamber, alongside @jess_miers, @CathyGellis, and @ericgoldman.

us06web.zoom.us/meeting/regist…
Read 109 tweets
Feb 19, 2023
1/ A few scattered thoughts as I re-read the DoJ's brief in Gonzalez v. Google . . .

To start with, they know that even a chronological newsfeed is delivered to a user via a "design choice" and an "algorithm." They *know* this . . . don't . . . they? ImageImage
2/ Discussing what an "info content provider" is, they see that 230(f)(4) helps shape the meaning of "interactive computer service."

Discussing when an ICS acts as a "publisher," though, they suddenly forget that 230(f)(4) *defines* an ICS as a "reorganize[r]" of content.

🤔 ImageImage
3/ Re: the meaning of "publisher," in 230(c)(1), they address (a) (narrowly) a literal publishing company & (b) (broader) the technical meaning of "publication" as derived from defamation law.

They pass right by (c) (broader still, and correct) the ordinary meaning of "publish." Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 3, 2022
9th Cir. dropped its opinion in Twitter v. Paxton yesterday.

Charges out the gate referring to the Jan. 6 riot as "the events at the U.S. Capitol."

It's all downhill from there.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin… Image
Court to Twitter: "DON'T TALK ABOUT HOW YOU MODERATE CONTENT. If you want your precious little First Amendment right to editorial decision making, you gotta stick it in a black box." Image
Court says that, to resolve Twitter's claim that Tex's investigation is retaliatory, it'd have to decide whether Twitter makes false claims re: how it moderates content.

I don't get it. The claim is that Tex is retaliating bc Twitter *banned Trump*. That's a distinct issue. ImageImage
Read 9 tweets
Jun 30, 2021
"The State of Florida has adopted legislation that imposes sweeping requirements on some but not all social-media providers."

To put it mildly . . .
"The plaintiffs say—correctly—that they use editorial judgment in making these decisions, much as more traditional media providers use editorial judgment when choosing what to put in or leave out of a publication or broadcast."
"The legislative record is chock full of statements by state officials supporting the view that the providers do indeed use editorial judgment."

Ouch.
Read 33 tweets
Jun 25, 2021
FedSoc event today about whether social media can be treated as common carriage.

Spoiler alert: it can't.

I have thoughts . . . 🧵
An website’s decisions about how to curate, edit, and present others’ speech is itself a core form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

In this regard, a website -- even a large one -- is like a newspaper or a parade . . .
"The choice of material to go into a newspaper,” the Supreme Court has said, “constitute[s] the
exercise of editorial control and judgment.”

Even a publication in a highly concentrated local market has a 1st A. right to exercise such control and judgment as it sees fit.
Read 39 tweets
May 12, 2021
The more you look at it, the more Florida's social-media speech bill looks like it was designed in a lab that specializes in creating weapons-grade unconstitutionality.

The bill violates the 1st A not only in dull, obvious ways, but also in surprising, creative ways.

Consider:
2/ The bill isn't *just* a bold attempt to curtail platforms' 1st A autonomy over what speech they allow (though it is that!).

It is *also* a set of targeted rules that aim to punish a few companies for the perceived political bent of their speech.

lawfareblog.com/no-florida-can…
3/ Who is the bill aimed at?

Gov DeSantis: The "oligarchs in Silicon Valley."

Why is it aimed at them?

DeSantis: B/c we don't like their choices about *speech*, e.g., we think their moderation of 2016 vs. 2020 election conspiracy theories was unfair.

heraldtribune.com/story/news/pol…
Read 10 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(