Trump's de-platforming lawsuit turns on the idea that Twitter and others took down content under pressure from Dem politicians, thus becoming state actors who can be sued under the First Amendment. 1/
That's... not how state action works. But politicians pressuring platforms to take down lawful speech is problematic. This practice is called "jawboning," and @dbambauer wrote a useful article about it. I also discuss it in Who Do You Sue. 2/
The irony (OK, one of many) is that Trump was Jawboner in Chief. He tried his best to strongarm platforms into adopting *his* preferred speech policies. So much so that @CenDemTech sued him. (When the President does stuff, that really is state action & can violate the 1st Am) 3/
@CenDemTech Since the 2020 election, there have been a couple of these jawboning cases brought by conservatives pointing to Democratic pressure on platforms. The platforms keep winning. @ericgoldman covers these cases well on his blog. Here's one: blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/… 4/

• • •

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

Keep Current with Daphne Keller

Daphne Keller 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 @daphnehk

1 Jul
A few more musings on the ruling striking down the Florida platform law. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

1/
(1) Same lesson as the Facebook antitrust ruling earlier this week: Norms and assumptions change faster in the political sphere, but more slowly in courts. Slowing down and setting forth your factual, legal, logical justification matters.
2/
In other words, don’t get high on your own supply (of rhetoric).
3/
Read 13 tweets
30 Jun
Are there Democrats in Congress who simultaneously
(1) want platforms to act against things like electoral and Covid disinformation and
(2) support Rep. @davidcicilline's antitrust bill with Sect. 2(a)(3) intact?

I see a serious conflict there.
As I read it, that part of the Cicilline bill opens the door to Infowars, Breitbart, The Daily Stormer et al bringing must-carry claims against platforms, or demanding higher ranking.
Here's what that part of the bill prohibits. The first two are about self-dealing by platforms, which is totally appropriate for antitrust/competition law. The third one opens the floodgates to litigation about speech and content moderation -- and bad outcomes.
Read 5 tweets
22 Jun
OK here's my quick and dirty gloss on the Peterson v. Youtube case from the CJEU today. 1/
curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
I see this case as having three big questions:
(1) When can a platform be liable for (c) infringement under substantive (c) law?
(2) When is platform immunized from such infringement by eCommerce safe harbors?
(3) What injunctions can issue even if platform is not liable?

2/
Question (1) -- when can a platform be liable for (c) infringement under substantive (c) law -- turns on evolving case law about communication to the public.
Bottom line: There are a lot of ways to wind up liable here, so the safe harbor issue in Question (2) matters a ton.
3/
Read 24 tweets
21 Jun
It’s 2027. You’re a growing US platform startup, considering international growth. UK’s Online Safety bill has become law, and so has the EU’s DSA. So you know initial compliance costs are steep in both markets, and both have future regulatory risk.
Do you launch in:
If you responded, is your answer based on knowing something about:

(Wish I could cross-reference w answers to first poll...)
OK last one. The EU DSA has serious extraterritorial reach (think GDPR) and fines up to 6% of annual turnover. UK's Online Safety law has even broader territorial reach, and 10% fines.
For the region where you aren't yet in compliance, do you:
Read 4 tweets
21 May
I finally hit on the perfect term for the interoperability issues around sharing friends' data: Other People's Privacy (OPP).
So bummed I hadn't thought of that in time for this event.
You better believe I'd be telling you about OPP™ right now if a few people hadn't beaten me to it. Surprisingly few, though.
And before you ask, it's for a different class of goods and services than that other OPP.
Read 4 tweets
19 May
Oh good lord. Now they've co-opted the Post Office and turned it into a government surveillance platform.

@glakier, we must reclaim it and restore it to its former glory as and institution!
(Here's a thread on that glory, and on the pieces of a Post Office Platform article I will probably never write. And @glakier knows way more. )
Per the article, the USPS used every stupid, creepy, irresponsible surveillance tool to do pseudo-police work that should never have been their job. And they sold it to Republicans as a way to keep tabs on BLM protestors, and said something else to Democrats.
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!

:(