Husband and father. Internet Policy Counsel @TechFreedom. Host @TechPolicyPdcst. Just 'cause you're hungry doesn't mean that you're lean.
Jan 10 • 127 tweets • 16 min read
1/ TikTok SCOTUS argument time!
Can't promise I'm going to do a full blow-by-blow live-tweet -- maybe? how many of us are even still here on X? -- but I'll put any thoughts I have here.
supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…2/ Speaking of the fact that many of my friends aren't on X anymore: It would seem that who owns a platform matters! Different owners make different editorial choices, and people care who they associate with.
Funny thing, for this argument, that.
Feb 21, 2023 • 109 tweets • 18 min read
1/ Have I gotten enough sleep to coherently live-tweet the Gonzalez v. Google #Section230 argument at SCOTUS?
Let's find out!
supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…2/ If you need a refresher on, or intro to, the case -- what Sec. 230 is, how it came to be, what's at stake in this case -- there are a thousand pieces floating around.
But this here's my nifty thread (😏) so here's my essay for Reason doing all that.
1/ A few scattered thoughts as I re-read the DoJ's brief in Gonzalez v. Google . . .
To start with, they know that even a chronological newsfeed is delivered to a user via a "design choice" and an "algorithm." They *know* this . . . don't . . . they? 2/ Discussing what an "info content provider" is, they see that 230(f)(4) helps shape the meaning of "interactive computer service."
Discussing when an ICS acts as a "publisher," though, they suddenly forget that 230(f)(4) *defines* an ICS as a "reorganize[r]" of content.
🤔
Mar 3, 2022 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
9th Cir. dropped its opinion in Twitter v. Paxton yesterday.
Charges out the gate referring to the Jan. 6 riot as "the events at the U.S. Capitol."
It's all downhill from there.
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
Court to Twitter: "DON'T TALK ABOUT HOW YOU MODERATE CONTENT. If you want your precious little First Amendment right to editorial decision making, you gotta stick it in a black box."
Jun 30, 2021 • 33 tweets • 5 min read
"The State of Florida has adopted legislation that imposes sweeping requirements on some but not all social-media providers."
To put it mildly . . .
"The plaintiffs say—correctly—that they use editorial judgment in making these decisions, much as more traditional media providers use editorial judgment when choosing what to put in or leave out of a publication or broadcast."
Jun 25, 2021 • 39 tweets • 6 min read
FedSoc event today about whether social media can be treated as common carriage.
An website’s decisions about how to curate, edit, and present others’ speech is itself a core form of speech protected by the First Amendment.
In this regard, a website -- even a large one -- is like a newspaper or a parade . . .
May 12, 2021 • 10 tweets • 4 min read
The more you look at it, the more Florida's social-media speech bill looks like it was designed in a lab that specializes in creating weapons-grade unconstitutionality.
The bill violates the 1st A not only in dull, obvious ways, but also in surprising, creative ways.
Consider:
2/ The bill isn't *just* a bold attempt to curtail platforms' 1st A autonomy over what speech they allow (though it is that!).
It is *also* a set of targeted rules that aim to punish a few companies for the perceived political bent of their speech.
Amusing things I saw in Josh Hawley's latest WSJ piece, a thread . . . 2/ The first thing you must do, as a good populist, is define your narrow faction as "us," or "we," or "Americans."
Then you need a "they" who is screwing all of "us," preferably for some totally made up ad hominem reason like "because they're *bored*!"
Oct 9, 2020 • 15 tweets • 4 min read
1/ Discussing the House #antitrust report, @randypicker notes a striking omission -- where is IBM?!
The report wants rules on structural separation and self-preferencing. Had such rules been in place in the 1980s, Prof. Picker notes, they likely would have blocked IBM's entry into the personal computer market.