We imagine that platforms can bring the whole sprawling chaos of human behavior into compliance with the law. Make our lives policeable, and policed, to a degree no govt in history could have imagined. Not only do we seem to think it's possible– we think it's a good idea.

RT @Ashkhen: Ninth Circuit: recommending user content = protected by 230.Third Circuit in Anderson: maybe not.California’s SB 771: Let’s pr….

Just documenting what shows up in my notifications these days. I cannot imagine anything in my history as a user that indicates an interest. This is just X trying to pick winners in the culture wars.

RT @lawfare: On Lawfare Daily, @noUpside spoke to @daphnehk, Dean Jackson, and @JoanBarata about what the EU’s Disinformation Code of Pract….

I am *not* saying I like this ruling. I'm not sure what I think yet TBH. It seems like one more thing where civilization turns out to depend on norms—here, the norms of professional librarians who at least try to be fair or objective—which political bad actors can smash. 10/10.

The 5th also focuses on a more subtle but IMO key problem with must-carry laws like Texas's: administrability, and the inevitable imposition of state speech preferences when interpreting the law. This comes up for anything but a true "must carry every single thing" law. 9/

Here are Oldham (writing) and Jones (joining) in the NetChoice v. Paxton ruling. Southwick was the third panel judge, and did not join this or most of the opinion. 8/

And oh, look! When it comes to kicking books out of libraries, the 5th Circuit is worried about Holocaust denial books. These are the SAME NETCHOICE JUDGES who mocked platforms for their "obsession" with the "hypothetical" or "imaginary" risk of having to carry Nazi content. 7/

In the library context, the 5th also suddenly finds it very easy to understand that the curator does *not* adopt the message from curated works as its own message. It has some lovely and colorful examples. Someone should maybe tell the TikTok v. Anderson court that. 6/

"What the library is saying[,]" the 5th Circuit explains "is: 'We think these books are worth reading.'" This will be very familiar to anyone who's heard S Ct Justices, lower courts, & parties try to define what *platforms* are saying through ranking /recommendation systems. 5/.

Here's the new ruling, explaining why library curation is government speech:. "Many precedents teach that someone engages in expressive activity by curating and presenting a collection of third-party speech." 4/

In fairness, those judges' analysis was (resoundingly, rebukingly) rejected by the Supreme Court. The new opinion politely cites Moody as if there's nothing awkward there. Though they do cite Alito's "concurrence" weirdly often. 3/.

In NetChoice, two 5th Cir judges found it absurd that platforms might exercise protected editorial rights when choosing what user speech to exclude. But when govt actors pull books off of library shelves, a panel including those same judges says that's *definitely* speech. 2/.

Anyone who followed NetChoice v. Paxton (the challenge to TX's must-carry law that the S Ct ruled on in Moody) will be disoriented by the 5th Circuit's new en banc ruling, in Little v Llano, that it's OK for the govt to remove book from libraries. 1/.

RT @OrinKerr: Several notable 4th Amendment rulings in this 5th Circuit opinion today. Most importantly: People have a reasonable expectat….

Whether you agree with this take on Section 230 or not, this piece is an excellent and timely rundown of WTF is going on over at the FCC. Bottom line: The Commission is overtly, flagrantly abusing its authority to punish speech the President doesn't like.

Here’s the guy who’s going to find ways to weaponize the Take It Down Act first.

The UK has a huge advantage as a global tech regulation influencer bc its laws are in English. But that's more than offset by the fact that its regulatory materials are thousands of pages long. (One result - other countries claim to emulate UK and are just making shit up.).

RT @AriCohn: SB 086 would force platforms to permanently ban users without any due process, if the platforms found they did certain things….

Thank you @CoryBooker . I’ll take rage and grandstanding over the appeasement most Dems have been demonstrating any day of the week.

Are you a Democrat who wants to give Trump appointees more leverage over Wikipedia?.Then by all means, go ahead and support the Take It Down Act.