Thread by @jess_miers

You can tune in for the "Platform Accountability: Gonzalez and Reform" #Section230 hearing here at 2pm ET / 11am PT. I'll be live-tweeting (for as long as I can stand it...).

judiciary.senate.gov/committee-acti…

Hearing just started. Here we go....

Sen. Blumenthal out the gate: "reform is coming to Section 230."

Blumenthal: Section 230 is outdated as we move into an era of algorithms.

There was never a "pre-algorithm" era of the Internet. 230 was enacted to anticipate and embrace tech innovation. Asserting that 230 is outdated assumes we've reached the end of that innovative potential.

It is shocking to hear Sen. Blumenthal align so closely with insurrectionist, Sen. Hawley.

Hawley begging SCOTUS to do something about Section 230.

Weird, SCOTUS asked the same of Congress.

Hawley advocating for a "fundamentally American" approach to the Internet and #Section230 reform.

Ironic take coming from (again) an insurrectionist.

.@ma_franks suggests that 230 was only meant to apply to defamation claims, pointing to the "publisher" language under (c)(1).

This ignores both the "speaker" language in (c)(1) and also the entire subsection of exceptions for non-defamation type claims under 230(e).

Look, if you're going to take a textualist approach to the law, you can't ignore the rest of the statute in doing so.

Farid touting the myth that there's a legal / technological distinction between Google serving search results and YouTube serving recommendations.

Google uses algorithms to serve curated search results in the exact same way that YouTube serves curated recommendations.

Farid notes that YouTube is responsible for serving ISIS propaganda.

The Gonzalez complaint never described the videos at issue, nor whether they were created by ISIS.

Farid: 230 was never meant to apply to a platform's "design features" for UGC.

How else does a website facilitate user created content if not via the website's "design features." Are we assuming that 90's websites didn't use "design features" to cater to content creation?

Bennett: Henderson says that if you materially contribute to unlawful content, you are not eligible for 230.

That's not at all what Henderson held. Henderson held that when a website goes beyond "traditional editorial functions" it could be a material contributor.

That's a hell of a different (and broad) standard than Roommates.

@internetsociety
suggests that Congress address the actual underlying issues that plague society online and offline. That's the right call.

Pass federal privacy legislation.

Schnapper off to a great start arguing for "Section 260" reform.

Schnapper: the terrorist attacks were so rooted in what was going on with the Internet.

Gonz failed to describe the videos at issue. They never actually connected ISIS to the videos, nor was it confirmed the terrorists involved in Paris had anything to do w/ISIS or said videos.

We've so far heard from two law professors who have been publicly hellbent on reforming / repealing 230, a lawyer involved in the Henderson case that rejected Section 230, the lawyer for the petitioners in Gonzalez...

And the @internetsociety, the only pro-230 panelist.

Blumenthal invites @ma_franks to re-imagine the material contribution test. Franks suggests changing "information" to "speech" in the statute because recommendations are not speech.

Recommendations = curation = publisher activity = speech.

I'm actually okay with Franks' "speech" suggestion because it does effectively nothing to change Section 230 or basic First Amendment principles.

Lol.

Hawley falling for the hosting vs. curating trap. Schnapper articulates the imaginary distinction about as well as he did for SCOTUS.

To quote Justice Thomas, "I'm confused."

Schnapper trying the thumbnail argument again (i.e. YouTube's algorithms create the thumbnail that's why algorithms should be treated differently).

Where exactly do you think the thumbnails come from?

Schnapper suggests that it would be great for the cmte to clarify the difference between algorithmic and manual curation.

Probably because he can't clarify it himself.

(because it's technological fiction).

Padilla at least appreciates the technological / legal complexities surrounding 230 and the online ecosystem. "Is it possible to amend 230 in a way that avoids over removal of speech"

.@ma_franks responds with the unsophisticated "solution" that the Internet should be regulated like all other offline industries.

And here I am again to remind everyone that oil & gas and pharma are not in the business of speech and expression.

I have to leave this exciting conversation (/s) for another meeting.

Check out @jrhuddles @CathyGellis @BerinSzoka @AriCohn for more thoughts.