Share this page!

Enter Twitter Thread URL to Unroll

Needs to be the full URL like: https://twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on Twitter App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Joel Thayer Profile picture
@joellthayer
Apr 26 • 4 tweets • 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
When a D.C. Circuit judge causally cites your and ⁦@rachelbovard⁩’s articles on a ⁦@FedSoc⁩ panel to share skepticism that gov’t jawboning is the reason #BigTech censors certain political views. 🙌
Here’s my article Judge Katsas refers to: thehill.com/opinion/civil-…
Here’s Rachel’s: thefederalist.com/2022/11/02/big…
TL/DR: Congress should not engage in Big Tech’s self-created crisis regarding government compulsion. Instead, it should put forward real reforms that can address their herculean grip on our digital markets and public squares.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Joel Thayer

Joel Thayer 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 @joellthayer

Joel Thayer Profile picture
Feb 21
In light of the Gonzalez v. Google oral argument, I thought I'd re-up some of my views on the ways the Court could go. Put simply, the Court is evaluating what does the text of Section 230(c)(1) actually say and do? Pretty loaded question, indeed.

newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-goo…
Let's start with the basics. Section 230 (c)(1) says that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Notice that there is no mention of the word "immunity" in the text. All the statute says is that we cannot treat an "interactive computer service" provider, in this case Google's YouTube, as the publisher or speaker of a third-party post, such as a YouTube video. That's it.
Read 14 tweets
Joel Thayer Profile picture
Jan 27
In Gonzalez v. Google, SCOTUS has a chance to clarify #Section230's meaning. Courts interpret Section 230 as shielding #BigTech from practically all civil liability when 3rd party content is at issue. I argue that nothing in the text supports that reading. newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-goo…
One option to rectify this is that tech companies should only be protected from causes of action that target a speaker or publisher, such as defamation suits—as opposed to protecting them from enforcement actions via federal civil statutes.
Another option would be to shield companies from liability for hosting and displaying content, but hold them responsible when they take actions beyond those of a traditional publisher, such as when they algorithmically push certain content to users.
Read 6 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(