If that were all 230 did, why did Congress spell out things didn't 230 affect completely unrelated to defamation and the like?
@ma_franks .@MA_Franks relies entirely on the "Good Samaritan" heading for 230(c) to argue that (c)(1) must require good faith efforts to block content. If Congress had intended to make (c)(1) immunity contingent on good faith, it would have said so, as it did in (c)(2)(A)
And no, Congress can't just declare platforms to be public accommodations to stop them from being mean to MAGA nutters because, yup, again, the First Amendment
@AriCohn Remember, there was a vacancy at the FCC for @SimingtonFCC only because Trump refused to renominate @MPORielly after he dared to suggest to restate longstanding Republican opposition to "fairness doctrine" regulation of media (which Republicans now want for "Big Tech")
@AriCohn@SimingtonFCC@MPORielly@binarybits SCOTUS is increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations of statutes that claim power to decide major questions, eg online speech: "[We] expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance."
Lots of talk about transparency for content moderation at #SOTN2023#SOTN
The 11th Circuit upheld Florida's transparency mandate. As @TechFreedom's amicus brief explained, that mandate unconstitutionally entangles the state in content moderation
@TechFreedom Travis LeBlanc on the EU Court of Justice striking down repeated US/EU data flow agreements: Data protectionism may be masquerading as data protection
1. I've disagreed with @gigibsohn about the biggest telecom issues for 15 years—but those issues aren't why her nomination floundered. Multiple Dem Senators feared supporting someone who had called out Fox for what it was in the Trump years: "state-sponsored propaganda"
2. In 2020, Senate Republicans summoned Twitter, Facebook & Google CEOs for a hearing on their alleged "bias" against conservatives. The Dem chair asked why broadcasters weren't there. Gigi tweeted this:
3. 🐘s claim Gigi wants to "censor" Fox News. Nonsense. She merely objected to🐘s weaponizing the hearing against new media companies they hate for nakedly political reasons, while saying nothing about old media that spew MAGA propaganda
The court refused to strike down the TX law as facially unconstitutional because of overbreadth, suggesting that it would have to be challenged as to specific applications
Just like Florida's 1903 must-carry mandate was unconstitutional as applied to all newspapers all the time?
lol no
The Packingham Court referred to tech companies as "town squares" in a purely colloquial sense. The case involved a state law compelling tech companies not to host sex offenders, so the Court didn't say anything about whether they were public fora absent such compulsion
1/ Today, the #FTC will vote to issue a staff report about last year's workshop on Dark Patterns—at which Prof. @harrybr, who helped coined the term, warned that it was "vague." Let's hope the report gets a lot more specific about what kind of cases the FTC will bring
2/ The concept of “darkness” implies that consumers are necessarily unaware of what is happening. This kind of opacity may be problematic, but by itself, insufficient under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act.
3/ An unfair practice must involve harm that is not “reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves.” In other words, it is the harm, not the practice that must be obscure to consumers.
.@SenateJudiciary is marking up #EARNITAct, which claims to crack down on child sexual abuse material but will really jeopardize prosecutions. Forcing tech firms not to use strong encryption & to monitor users makes them state actors who need a warrant 🧵
#EARNITAct's sponsors say they've fixed the bill. They haven't. Making the "best practices" "voluntary" doesn't help. The 4th Amd./privacy problem has always been come from exposing tech companies to such vast liability that they *must* monitor what users say & abandon encryption
#EARNITAct was changed in 2020 to "fix" the liability it enables under federal law (by tying it to "actual knowledge", but it then does exactly the same thing through the back door: enabling states to enforce criminal & civil laws that turn on mere recklessness or negligence
1/ Democrats want to stop websites from spreading hate speech, misinformation, etc
But this bill would do the opposite; it would do exactly what the Trump administration wanted—because @EnergyCommerce Dems still don't understand how #Section230 works
2/ The bill would expose many websites to liability, both civil and criminal, for making recommendations. States will enforce existing laws & write new ones, and we'll spend years litigating them under the First Amendment
But that's not all the bill does...
3/ The bill turns off (c)(1) protections "with respect to information" subject to a "personalized recommendation"
Thus, a website could be sued both for recommending content and also for trying to stop its spread once it's been "recommended" by automated, algorithmic processes