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
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.
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?
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.
🤔
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."
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."
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.
"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."
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.