Thread by @jess_miers

I'm listening to the Broadband Breakfast summit today (you can too for $9 👇). Tweeting sporadically.
broadbandbreakfast.com/big-tech-speec…

Happening now: PANEL 1: THE BIG PICTURE FOR BIG TECH

Amy Peikoff (Parler legal / policy): notes a need for "separation" between state and Internet companies.

Amy comments on the problem of jawboning. "The governments put pressure on these platforms and the platforms comply."

Suggestion here being that states need to pull themselves out of the tech discourse.

I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, I am not convinced that jawboning really persuades tech companies (look at how often the Trump admin engaged in it and most of the companies held strong).

Plus, tech companies already operate outside the U.S. w/o 230, so I'm dubious.

Not to mention, there are some benefits to multistakeholder collaboration in this industry, especially when it comes to mis/dis info streams.

But I also see Amy's point in that U.S. governments typically overreach to the extent of interfering with expression.

Dane Snowden's comment on this is important -- big tech can handle themselves, it's the market entrants that will suffer post-230.

.@SteveDelBianco flags the federal stalemate on #Section230. The real concern is the ever-emerging battles against content moderation in the states.

This is exactly right. Between state censorship bills and judicial activism, websites are inundated.

Dane / Amy urging Congress to enact a federal privacy framework.

.@BerinSzoka asks Parler if they are using the freely provided photo DNA service and if not, why not?

Parler responds that they use their oin-housewn tools.

Berin pushes back: how dare you come in here and lecture us about the evils of big tech when you're company enables the proliferation of CSAM because you refuse to use a freely provided service standard for this industry.

*their own in-house tools

Wrapping up: panelists agree that it's important to articulate / define the problems we're trying to solve before rushing to regulation.

Additionally, governments (states and federal) cease interference with online publisher activities.

*should cease interference with

I can't type today

Happening Now: John Samples Delivers The Special Address

John points out that websites are using an array of tools and methods to combat harmful content. This reminds me of the taxonomy @ericgoldman put together: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Happening Now: PANEL 2: THE FRAGILITY OF SECTION 230

Strong start with @ChrisMarchese9: Texas and Florida's anti-bias laws violate the First Amendment. Full stop. 🔥

.@CathyGellis asks whether this discussion is really about the fragility of #Section230 or (more likely) the First Amendment.

@ChrisMarchese9: any time we're speaking about how to address underlying harms online, we must grapple with the First Amendment.

Matthew Bergman (Social Media Victims Law Center) with the tired trope: no other industry has similar immunity for liability.

Not only does that response completely ignore the point of the question, it makes a false comparison between non-speech and speech industries.

What do folks like Bergman expect to happen next post-230? That companies become magically liable for their publication decisions? That Congress can pass laws that interfere with editorial discretion?

We cannot just ignore the First Amendment in these debates about #Section230

.@CathyGellis stumps Matt with a Q regarding 1A defense for encouraging suicide (to Matt's earlier point that TikTok promotes suicide).

Matt: "here is my problem with the First Amendment."

There we go.

I have to note that Matt also invoked "fire in a crowded theater" in his response.

.@ChrisMarchese9 responds: "so often the debate about Section 230 is about Google and Meta and Twitter when it's supposed to be about the users."

"If we didn't have 230 we wouldn't have #MeToo"

Spot on.

.@ellanso: I'm worried that the conversations about 230 stand in the way of identifying and solving the actual underlying problems.

Matt responds that #Section230 shuts down conversations about harm and that websites should be forced to fully litigate so that the "truth comes out."

Matt already conceded earlier that 1A broadly protects websites anyway so (imo) he's really just more interested in subjecting companies to immense litigation as a punitive measure.

Which btw, is a super privileged take.

Not every website and user can afford to go through years of litigation that will inevitably conclude with a 1A win that could have been achieved at the earlier and cheaper motion to dismiss phase.

Matt: "what's wrong with lawsuits?"

@ellanso: the unintended consequences of immense litigation means that platforms may make decisions that ultimately curb online speech and expression.

That's a trade off some are okay with, but typically not those of us here in the U.S.

Ron Yokubaitis (@Giganews) notes Giganews had to spend $7.5 million just to win a suit brought against the platform where 230 does not apply. Perfect example of having to spend millions simply to reach the inevitable.

blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/…

.@ChrisMarchese9: we need to remember that online services are *speech* products. They're not oil & gas or pharma. What if Congress tried to regulate the New York Times in the same way they're trying to regulate online publishers?

EXACTLY.

.@ChrisMarchese9: oh and you can yell fire in a crowded theater.

🔥🔥🔥🔥

Earlier Matt said he's a huge proponent of First Amendment.

In response to a question by @AriCohn , Matt argues that the First Amendment could be re-interpreted for technology companies.

.@ChrisMarchese9 "if speech couldn't lead to change, we wouldn't protect it."

I don't care how much you disagree substantively, laughing at your copanelists' points and interrupting them mid sentence is completely unacceptable conference behavior. @Tech_Oversight

.@Tech_Oversight claims that compliance in the EU automatically infers trivial compliance in the U.S.

@BerinSzoka rightfully pushes back noting the vast differences between U.S. and EU regulatory and legal systems.

He's right. Here's one insane example:

https://twitter.com/jess_miers/status/1633622589657497600?t=JPUZGtJnRJhGS03UpIU_xg&s=19

.@AriCohn absolutely shuts down @Tech_Oversight, calling out their ridiculous argument that the concerns raised by their co-panelists are invalid because "they're funded by big tech."

Absolutely lazy and signals a total lack of ability to argue substantively.