The Common Carrier Theory of Facebook - Revision history

Eric Rasmusen: /* Miscellaneous */

2025-01-27T23:37:22Z

‎Miscellaneous

Eric Rasmusen: /* Miscellaneous */

2023-07-29T19:21:31Z

‎Miscellaneous

Eric Rasmusen: /* Moody v. Netchoice (Florida vs. TechLords) */

2023-07-29T19:19:45Z

‎Moody v. Netchoice (Florida vs. TechLords)

Eric Rasmusen: /* Introduction */

2023-07-29T19:19:30Z

‎Introduction

Eric Rasmusen: /* Paxton v. Netchoice (Texas vs. BigTech) */

2023-07-29T19:17:38Z

‎Paxton v. Netchoice (Texas vs. BigTech)

Erasmuse: /* Ohio case */

2022-05-26T13:29:07Z

‎Ohio case

Erasmuse: /* NetChoice v. Paxton */

2022-05-26T13:28:38Z

‎NetChoice v. Paxton

Erasmuse: /* Political Bias */

2022-04-26T03:19:42Z

‎Political Bias

Erasmuse: /* Examples of Tech Lord Censorship */

2022-04-26T03:19:15Z

‎Examples of Tech Lord Censorship

Erasmuse: /* Miscellaneous */

2022-04-15T14:28:02Z

‎Miscellaneous

@@ Line 243: / Line 243: @@
 *It would be quite possible to issue new versions of Windows or the Apple operating system that do not allow you to read articles criticizing the Biden Administration. In fact, they could be written to disallow writing such criticism on them. Do we want to allow that?  Think of secondary boycotts in labor law, or the prohibition on cartels in antitrust.
+*[https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/deepseek-bonanza Cochrane on DeepSeek] (2024):
 ----

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 29 July 2023
Line 243:		Line 243:
	*It would be quite possible to issue new versions of Windows or the Apple operating system that do not allow you to read articles criticizing the Biden Administration. In fact, they could be written to disallow writing such criticism on them. Do we want to allow that? Think of secondary boycotts in labor law, or the prohibition on cartels in antitrust.		*It would be quite possible to issue new versions of Windows or the Apple operating system that do not allow you to read articles criticizing the Biden Administration. In fact, they could be written to disallow writing such criticism on them. Do we want to allow that? Think of secondary boycotts in labor law, or the prohibition on cartels in antitrust.

−	From [https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NetChoice-v.-Moody-PI-decision.pdf NetChoice v. Moody:] {{Quotation\|In Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710, at 3–4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), an anonymous user posted allegedly defamatory content on an electronic bulletin board—an earlier version of what today might be called social media. The court said that if the provider of such a bulletin board did not undertake to review posted content—much as a librarian does not undertake to review all the books in a library—the provider would not be deemed the publisher of a defamatory post, absent sufficient actual knowledge of the defamatory nature of the content at issue. On the facts of that case, though, the provider undertook to screen the posted content—to maintain a “family oriented” site. The court held this subjected the provider to liability as a publisher of the content. At least partly in response to that decision, which was deemed a threat to development of the internet, Congress enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230.}}
−
−	NetChoice v. Moody says that a platform can remove any* material it considers objectionable, for any reason, including, in particular, that the content provider is someone running for office, under Section 230. If read this way, it would rule out federal and state civil rights laws.
−
−	*NetChoice v. Moody: 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.
−
−	*NetChoice v. Moody: {{Quotation\|In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), the Court rejected just such an argument, striking down a Florida statute requiring a newspaper to print a candidate’s reply to the newspaper’s unfavorable assertions. }}
−
−	*NetChoice v. Moody: {{Quotation\|Whatever might be said of the largest providers’ monopolistic conduct, the internet provides a greater opportunity for individuals to publish their views—and for candidates to communicate directly with voters—than existed before the internet arrived.}} But can you get viewers? You get crowded out. It is like anyone being able to say anything they want, but being blocked from newspapers and prohibited from public spaces.
−
−	*NetChoice v. Moody: {{Quotation\|The third case on the plaintiffs’ side is Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, 475 U.S. 1 (1986). There a public utility included in its billing envelopes its own viewpoint-laden newsletters. The state directed the utility to include in its billing envelopes four times per year a private watchdog organization’s newsletters setting out a viewpoint with which the utility disagreed. The Supreme Court held this unconstitutional. }}
−
−	*NetChoice v. Moody: {{Quotation\|Similarly, in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), a shopping center refused to allow individuals to solicit petition signatures from members of the public at the shopping center. The California Supreme Court held the individuals had the right, under state law, to engage in the proposed activity. The ruling did not compel the shopping center to say anything at all, and the ruling did not prohibit the center from saying anything it wished, when and how it wished. The United States Supreme Court said it was unlikely anyone would attribute the solicitation activities to the shopping center and, with no state action compelling the center to speak or restricting it from doing so, there was no violation of the First Amendment.}}
−
−	*NetChoice v. Moody: {{Quotation\|Moreover, these statements are consistent with the statutory definition of “social media platform,” which extends only to, and thus makes the legislation applicable only to, large entities—those with $100 million in revenues or 100 million monthly participants. As the Supreme Court has recognized, discrimination between speakers is often a tell for content discrimination....The state has suggested no other basis for imposing these restrictions only on the largest providers. }} Antitrust enters here, and natural monopoly.

	----		----

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 ==Ohio case==
 *[https://rasmusen.org/special/common_carriers/ohio_case.pdf Here] it is.
 ==Evidence==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Introduction==
-*I should reorganize to have pages on [[Section 230: The Platform Law]] and [[NetChoice v. Moody: Florida]] and [[Biden v. Knight: Thomas Dissent]].
+*See also [[Texas v. Tech Lords]].
 *[https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/12/the-u-s-department-of-justice-defends-section-230s-constitutionality.htm Technology and Marketing Law Blog]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 29 July 2023
Line 79:		Line 79:

	==Moody v. Netchoice (Florida vs. TechLords)==		==Moody v. Netchoice (Florida vs. TechLords)==
−
−	~~== Paxton v. Netchoice (Texas vs. BigTech)==~~
−	*NetChoice LLC et al v. Paxton, Judge Robert Pitman, Western District of Texas (Austin), CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:21-cv-00840. In the 5th Circuit it is case 21-51178.
−
−	*Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara Law has a [https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/12/court-enjoins-texas-attempt-to-censor-social-media-and-the-opinion-is-a-major-development-in-internet-law-netchoice-v-paxton.htm nice summary and links to key documents]. See also the [https://netchoice.org/netchoice-and-ccia-v-paxton-resource-page/ netchoice.org] page.
−
−	*[https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3591&context=historical Netchoice opinion in District Court]
−
−
−	*[https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/11/catching-up-on-netchoice-v-paxton-the-challenge-to-texas-social-media-censorship-law.htm Goldman on Netchoice v. Paxton] nov. 2021.
−
−	*[https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/09/texas-enacts-social-media-censorship-law-to-benefit-anti-vaxxers-spammers.htm Goldman on Texas statute,] September 2021.
−
−	*[https://netchoice.org/netchoice-and-ccia-v-paxton-resource-page/ Netchoice v. Paxton link page.]
−
−	~~----~~
−	~~=== The Texas Statute===~~
−	~~The statute is [https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/pdf/HB00020F.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2T8jh6OcicifErYrbUzI5spLt4cDGzMH_RQ1pMdubg8luoM2VI8uIQzAU#navpanes=0 here]:~~
−	~~<pre>~~
−	Sec. 143A.002. CENSORSHIP PROHIBITED. (a) A social media platform or interactive computer service may not censor a user, a user's expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on:
−	~~(1) the viewpoint of the user or another person;~~
−	~~(2) the viewpoint represented in the user's expression~~
−	~~or another person's expression; or~~
−	~~(3) a user's geographic location in this state or any part of this state.~~
−	~~(b) This section applies regardless of whether the~~
−	~~viewpoint is expressed on a social media platform or interactive~~
−	~~computer service or through any other medium.~~
−	~~</pre>~~
−
−	~~----~~

	==Evidence==		==Evidence==

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 ==Ohio case==
-*[https://rasmusen.org/common_carriers/ohio_case.pdf Here] it is.
+*[https://rasmusen.org/special/common_carriers/ohio_case.pdf Here] it is.
 ==Moody v. Netchoice (Florida vs. TechLords)==

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 ----
-==NetChoice v. Paxton==
+==Ohio case==
 *NetChoice LLC et al v. Paxton,    Judge Robert Pitman, Western District of Texas (Austin), CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:21-cv-00840.  In the 5th Circuit it is case 21-51178.

@@ Line 255: / Line 255: @@
 ==Political Bias==
-*[https://twitter.com/HillelNeuer/status/1518736198361100290 Massive imbalance in campaign contributions]
+*[https://twitter.com/HillelNeuer/status/1518736198361100290 Massive imbalance in campaign contributions].  Source: Data from Open Secrets, a nonprofit political spending database by the Center for Responsive Politics, published in Vox, October 31, 2018.
 ==Parler's Destruction==

@@ Line 253: / Line 253: @@
 == Examples of Tech Lord Censorship==
 *[https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1510055681545719810 Google and Ukraine] (2022)
 ==Parler's Destruction==