Of all the people he's attacked, I'm the only one who actually works for Google. I understand my ties to big tech may undermine my credibility. But ATOTD, like my colleagues, my #Section230 advocacy has always been rooted in my deep commitment to free speech and the Internet.
I became a legal scholar on #Section230 before Google, TechFreedom, or any other role I've had in this industry. My passion for preserving one of the greatest innovations for worldwide human communication is what gets me out of bed in the morning. Not my paycheck.
I joined Google not because I felt strongly about defending big tech but because I knew that I wanted to make serious, meaningful impact on the way we (the users) feel about the Internet.
I knew that as a junior scholar, that impact could only be made by joining the big leagues.
Comments regarding the NTIA's #Section230 petition are due. Given the conflict with my role @ Google, I am not submitting official comments. But, as someone deeply passionate about the Internet, I can't help but offer some personal opinions (thread). ntia.gov/files/ntia/pub…
I'll start with a couple reminders:
-184K dead Americans from COVID-19
-racial injustice continues to plague our nation
-Kyle Rittenhouse MURDERED two people and both our president and the GOP refuse to condemn his acts.
-the democratic process is being tampered with
I offer those reminders simply to point out that our country is suffering. WE are suffering. Our nation is at its absolute lowest point.
But rather than putting out these massive fires, our government is fanning the flames. #Section230 shouldn't be anywhere near top of mind.
Random late-night #lawtwitter thread: I'm often asked by incoming law students how they can start to figure out what field of law they're interested in so they can hit the ground running as soon as their 1L year starts. This is a fantastic Q.
You don't need to know exactly what it is you want to do day 1 of law school. That's impossible. You won't quite know what all your options are and there's just so much to learn.
But having an idea of what you might want to study/practice does have some awesome advantages.
For starters, you can tailor your informational interviews and networking experiences towards your interests and get more direction on how to pursue your "dream" career early on.
Also, people notice when you're passionate about something. You'll stand-out among your peers.
If you've ever wondered why Internet companies don't follow their own rules, this is it. The one time Twitter attempts to elevate social discourse by experimenting with moderation that goes outside the binary leave up/takedown scheme, it's met with an #executiveorder.
Before #Section230, we had the "moderator's dilemma." Services could attempt to moderate in an effort to promote a healthier/friendlier environment. But they would do so at the risk of legal liability for any content that slipped through the cracks.
On the other hand, they could choose not to moderate, avoid any legal liability, and accept their resulting anti-social, garbage-filled cesspools. #Section230 made it so that they wouldn't have to choose between legal liability and trolls.
So excited to be today's @ZoomLawSchool guest lecturer! Today we'll be discussing Internet Law's greatest (and perhaps most infamous) mystery: The case of Ken Zeran v. America Online.
The origins of this case trace back to tragedy. We solemnly remember this past April 19th as the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing. This horrible act of domestic terrorism resulted in the death of ~ 168 people, injuring 680 more.
Just six days after the bombing, in 1995, an advertisement appeared on the "Michigan Military Movement" AOL message board.
Posted by "KenZZ03," the ad boasted T-Shirts and other items with disgusting and tasteless OKC bombing slogans. Interested in purchasing? Just call Ken.
We reached a much needed breakthrough with today's session, starting w/an engineer's bold statement: "data scraping is NEVER illegal." With that, a chain reaction was set off. Sarcastic laughter from the law students followed by quick retorts by business/engineering students...
We weren't frustrated because of the lack of definite answers, we were frustrated because our lanes were crossing. We so badly wanted everyone to keep to their place. The law students should speak about the law, the engineers code, and the businesspeople make money.
Everything was operating so smoothly up until the point an engineer, god forbid, decided to speak up about the law. It bothered us and you could see it. We laughed, rolled our eyes, stopped listening...what business does the coder have telling us how to do our job?