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.

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.

reason.com/2022/11/04/sec…

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.

🤔

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."

"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."

FedSoc event today about whether social media can be treated as common carriage.

Spoiler alert: it can't.

I have thoughts . . . 🧵

https://twitter.com/FedSoc/status/1408467545334632460

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 . . .

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.

lawfareblog.com/no-florida-can…

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*!"

1/ Discussing the House #antitrust report, @randypicker notes a striking omission -- where is IBM?!

No, not IBM the dominant modern firm . . .

promarket.org/2020/10/08/str… 2/ . . . IBM the history lesson!

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.