The Supreme Court vacates the holding that the replies to Trump’s Twitter account are a public forum, and Justice Thomas shares his thoughts on platform regulation.
Latest in Section 230
The notice and takedown system rejected in 1997 might be a way forward.
The power that tech platforms have over individuals can be legitimized only by rejecting the fraudulent contract of Section 230 and instituting principles of consent, reciprocity, and collective responsibility.
In a new Wall Street Journal op-ed, Philip Hamburger argues that “the government, in working through private companies, is abridging the freedom of speech.” This argument doesn’t hold water.
Biden should look to the idea of a systemic duty of care, which says that the platforms are dependent on their users’ social connections and, thus, are obliged to reduce online harms to those users.
Did you ever wonder where all that tech money came from all of a sudden? Turns out, a lot of it comes from online programmatic ads, an industry that gets little attention even from the companies, such as Google, that it made wealthy.
Our interview in this episode is with Michael Daniel, formerly the top cybersecurity adviser in the Obama administration’s National Security Council and currently the CEO of the Cyber Threat Alliance (CTA). Michael lays out CTA’s mission. Along the way he also offers advice to the Biden cyber team—drawing in part on the wisdom of Henry Kissinger.
Why has it taken until now for a Supreme Court justice to pay attention to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?
On Sept. 23, the Justice Department released proposed legislation to revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields internet platforms from liability for third-party content shared on their services.
Government agencies are taking action in response to President Trump’s executive order on “Preventing Online Censorship,” though it remains unclear whether lasting changes will result.