No, Senator Blackburn, online speech is NOT the same as other industries; but hey, glad to see a Republican with such a stirring defense of government imposed health and occupation safety regulations! #SenateCommerce #Section230
Bergman is right to tell Sen. Blackburn that big tech companies put profits over safety; but please remember everyone that when Blackburn touts KOSA, she wants it to combat the trans agenda whatever that is.
#Section230 #SenateCommerce
www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-...
Another nice turn by @daphnek.bsky.social, in response to @markey.senate.gov questions on COPPA 2.0 and kids’ online privacy laws: “can adults please have it too?” 🎯😂 #Section230 #SenateCommerce
I am not sure of all of the ways to regulate syncophantic and harmful chatbots, but in answer to @markey.senate.gov questions witnesses again make clear that creators of generative AI outputs should not be immunized by #Section230. #SenateCommerce
I don’t agree with all of the conclusions lawmakers or advocates draw from size differences between tech giants and all other apps and sites; but @nadinefj.bsky.social confirms to @rosen.senate.gov that #Section230 protects *all* platforms that host user generated content. #SenateCommerce
Former Rep. Carson says #Section230 is a get out jail free card; which is a real funny way to characterize a law that enables the free exchange of ideas online. Social media is a public square, with many harmful corners & companies profiting from it. But it’s not all bad, obviously. #SenateCommerce
Senator Capito is asking some decent questions about AI again, but it is just wrong to think of “AI” as any one thing or one use that falls inside of or outside of #Section230 or other laws. #SenateCommerce
As @daphnek.bsky.social confirms to @lujan.senate.gov, platforms indeed have a #FirstAmendment right to moderate and curate. And as @nadinefj.bsky.social notes, the decision to amplify (even algorithmically) is *closely* related to protected publishing and editing rights. #Section230 #SenateCommerce
A good convo between @lujan.senate.gov and Carson on how the generator of nonconsensual imagery via AI should not be immunized by #Section230, even if a platform on which that content is eventually posted should be. But when it’s Musk on both sides, the legal question could be tough. #SenateCommerce
Good 🧵 on yet another repetitive #Section230 #SenateCommerce hearing
Great entry by @baldwin.senate.gov as she notes Trump and Carr’s threats to media and dissent, and how an open internet with #Section230 in place allows people to find truthful alternatives on climate change, abortion, or war, even when government spouts and touts propaganda. #SenateCommerce
Beautiful too as @daphnek.bsky.social zings Schmitt for losing his quixotic case against Biden. As always, fragile and super defensive Schmitt says “it was only standing!!” as if that’s not a loss or not a lawyer’s job. #Section230 #SenateCommerce
Schmitt’s phony defense of #FirstAmendment says if a private actor or academic happens to agree with a government view, that is censorship. @daphnek.bsky.social stands strong for the FACT that academics have free speech rights too, even if a Republican senator disagrees. #Section230 #SenateCommerce
I also have to disagree with Cruz and Schatz both, about the terror that “all parents” feel about their kids being on the internet. There are threats online and off. Cutting off kids’ access to information in the world is a terrible idea that stunts and harms them. #Section230 #SenateCommerce
What people like @klobuchar.senate.gov so often ignore is that YES: we do benefit from online platforms being publishers yet having this immunity to host user speech. Unless you want social media to be like a newspaper and only publish SELECT viewpoints, not all of them. #Section230 #SenateCommerce
As @daphnek.bsky.social also explains, some kind of carveout that says algorithmic amplification doesn’t get #Section230 protection would all but ensure that the most valuable real estate on big platforms would be anodyne and homogenized. #SenateCommerce
Earlier on though: have to shout out @daphnek.bsky.social for taking Cruz’s question about Biden jawboning to call out Trump and Carr’s threats to broadcast and all media — plus Trump admitting that his threats to jail Zuckerberg worked to change Facebook content so well! #Section230 #SenateCommerce
In my 2021 #Section230 testimony @freepress.bsky.social opposed carveouts that target algorithms for liability. But we said platforms can and should be liable when they distribute content and they actually know it causes harm and profit from it. #SenateCommerce
www.freepress.net/sites/defaul...
Even Bergman, the most anti #Section230 witness, agrees that the law should still immunize platforms for 3rd party content and curation choices. He takes aim at what he calls design choices platforms make to addict kids and feed them harmful content because it preys on their fears. #SenateCommerce
Here was the amicus brief that @freepress.bsky.social joined in the Vargas case against Facebook’s discriminatory actions. #Section230 #SenateCommerce
www.freepress.net/sites/defaul...
Responding to Cruz, @daphnek.bsky.social and @nadinefj.bsky.social refer to Vargas and Lemmon decisions that rightly declined to apply #Section230 to platform’s own actions snd content. #SenateCommerce
What do many people miss in opposing #Section230 is that you want to sue platforms for bad acts, but there still has to be a law they are violating or a tort case you can make in court. It can’t just be “tragedies are bad.” #SenateCommerce
Agreed with Carson though that AI should not be immunized under #Section230 where we are talking about the LLM or other engine he wearing that content. #SenateCommerce
I disagree with a lot of what Rep. Carson says in his testimony about #Section230 being wrong and bad; but it’s something to watch Cruz studiously ignore him as he attacks the notion of preemption of state AI laws that Cruz has pushed. #SenateCommerce
It is always such a mind-warp to see GOP lawmakers come out to praise the value of lawsuits and the plaintiff’s bar though! #Section230 #SenateCommerce
What many of the anti #Section230 folks miss is that yes, this law is different. Letting people speak out in platforms without making those platforms liable for everything that they host is indeed a huge benefit to open dialogue and exchange of ideas. #SenateCommerce
At @freepress.bsky.social we fully agree with @nadinefj.bsky.social and @knightcolumbia.org that Congress should pass comprehensive privacy laws and make the Internet more open too. But I don’t agree that #Section230 protections should (somehow?) be conditioned on privacy. #SenateCommerce
As @nadinefj.bsky.social begins, she says loud and clear that #Section230 promotes content moderation and is crucial for protecting open expression online. Even if protected by the #FirstAmendment, platforms would be incentivized to take down far too much controversial speech. #SenateCommerce
And as @daphnek.bsky.social explains, much of the harmful speech and content people complain about is fully protected from suit or at least government action by the #FirstAmendment. #Section230 #SenateCommerce
As @daphnek.bsky.social starts, she neatly agrees with @schatz.bsky.social that #Section230 isn’t perfect or even well written; but it did and still does strike the right balance: protecting users’ expression by allowing platforms to moderate without getting sued because they do. #SenateCommerce
