"The plaintiffs failed to make out a plausible claim that the Pulse massacre was an act of 'international terrorism' as that term is defined in the ATA."
Upstart competitors can’t hope to match the resources required to compile a list of banned individuals and organizations.
Tech giants expressing openness to amending Section 230 are doing so out of naked self-interest, not the goodness of their hearts.
Patiently waiting for senators and whistleblowers to freak out over this
Plus: California can't limit private prisons, Yellen dismisses bank privacy concerns, and more...
"Maybe one billionaire with a penchant for destroying democracies shouldn’t be allowed to own so much of the internet," says the representative from New York.
The site is clearly in trouble and the government doesn't need to step in.
"We don't actually do finsta," Antigone Davis, Facebook's head of security, explained.
This is where government demands to moderate what users say will ultimately lead.
Political polarization drives social media use, rather than the other way around.
Still, Facebook should not have allowed its VIPs to flout the rules it claimed applied to everyone.
Here’s why Section 230 is so important.
Friday A/V Club: Some people are against concentrated media power. Some just want to bend it to their will.
Big tech platforms should encourage debate, not forbid it.
Plus: Biden won't budge on Afghanistan, the link between cruise ship vaccine passports and free speech, and more...
Online censorship by proxy undermines the ordinary process for checking claims and counterclaims.
Libertarian History/Philosophy
The comedian and podcaster talks about running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination and his beef with Reason.
The administration’s public pressure campaign against COVID-19 "misinformation" cannot be reconciled with its avowed respect for freedom of expression.
Federal health bureaucrats should stop scapegoating social media.
Also, regulation is (still) not the answer to online misinformation.
The existence of politically biased websites is not a crisis.
Speech is protected by the First Amendment even when it discourages vaccination.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki wants the social media site to ban 12 specific anti-vaccine accounts.
The rationales for doing so are weak, and would create a dangerous slippery slope, if accepted.
It will fail, and fail badly.
Corporations can afford robots. Their competitors often cannot.
Efforts against violence are turning into restrictions on ideas.
Plus: Retaliatory action in Syria, developments with the delta variant, Clarence Thomas on marijuana, and more...
Taken together, these six measures would have a major impact on the way we shop, chat, and otherwise go about our business online.
People fret about online echo chambers, but offline echo chambers can be just as strong—or stronger.
How reactionary politicians are using monopoly concerns as cover to pursue pre-existing political agendas
Plus: Prosecutors are big lobbyists for new crime bills, Biden floats compromise on corporate taxes, and more...
“The Act is so rife with fundamental infirmities that it appears to have been enacted without any regard for the Constitution,” the lawsuit reads.
We expect British royals to favor muzzling commoners, but too many lawmakers feel the same way.
It's a working model for non-state governance in cyberspace that is vastly preferable to government control of social media.
A member of the board (and a Cato Institute vice president) defends the controversial decision to kick the former president off the social media platform.
Facebook can't kill, jail, or tax you. It can only stop you from posting on Facebook.
"It's very obvious that nobody involved in [the bill] consulted a First Amendment lawyer," says TechFreedom's Berin Szóka.
"At the time of Mr. Trump's posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of harm."
If you're going to attack Mark Zuckerberg for cozying up to Xi Jinping, maybe you should try harder not to sound like a Chinese dictator.
Hawley’s legislation would give officials more room to unilaterally punish business behaviors they personally don’t like.
A moot case about Trump blocking tweets leads to concerns that tech companies have too much control over speech.
What about the federal government's own health experts?
Even minor tweaks to the law could shore up Mark Zuckerberg's dominance.
Politicians on the right and the left are coming for your free speech.
