Our Daily E-Mail Distribution Service Has Seemingly Been Successfully Migrated

As we noted a couple of months ago, Google's FeedBurner, which we used to deliver the Volokh Daily e-mail to our ≈3,000 subscribers, is stopping its e-mail service; we've now switched over to the e-mail service that Reason uses for its other newsletters (thanks, Reason folks, for your help with that!). We expect that service to be reliable and trustworthy.

If you've been having any problems with that, please let me know. And if you want to subscribe, just enter your e-mail address in the black box on the right sidebar (the one titled, "Volokh Conspiracy Daily E-Mail"), and then click on the "Subscribe" button.

Comments

[Doug Heffernan]

"we've now switched over to the e-mail service that Reason uses for its other newsletters (thanks, Reason folks, for your help with that!)."

What would you do if reason deplatformed you? Maybe they can't deplatform you because they should be considered to be a common carrier?

[Eugene Volokh]

Doug Heffernan: Our deal with Reason recognizes that either of us can walk away from it -- which is exactly how they and we both want it. We've been happy with our relationship, but if it stops working well for either side, it shouldn't continue.

As to the common carrier question, I'm not sure you're asking seriously. But if you are, the answer is in Part II.A.2 of my Social Media as Common Carriers? article: Reason.com, like Reason magazine, creates a "coherent speech product" put together out of publications by specially invited authors, which helps readers deal with problems of information overload. As to the articles it hosts, it therefore can't be treated as a common carrier. In any case, there are more details and relevant case citations in the article.

[Doug Heffernan]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

“Our deal with Reason recognizes that either of us can walk away from it — which is exactly how they and we both want it. We’ve been happy with our relationship, but if it stops working well for either side, it shouldn’t continue."

Is the above type of agreement distinguishable from the the sorts of "agreements" (adhesion-style terms of service) between platforms that ostensibly don't create a “coherent speech product” and their users? The mutual option to bail is surely implied if it is not expressly stated.

“the answer is in Part II.A.2 of my Social Media as Common Carriers? article: Reason.com, like Reason magazine, creates a “coherent speech product” put together out of publications by specially invited authors, which helps readers deal with problems of information overload.”

Is a “coherent speech product” platform defined by declaration of the platform, the content the platform contains, or the actions the platform undertakes?

Are close calls possible? Suppose a platform ostensibly accepts all comers, and also has no rules that could result in any censorship. Because of these rules, the platform attracts only followers of QAnon and hard-core porn. The platform still can't be a “coherent speech product”? They'd have to be shooting for that, not just achieved it accidentally?

[John F. Carr]

A contract of adhesion is a concern when parties have unequal bargaining power, like Facebook or Amazon vs. a decent human being. A typical tech company user agreement, translated into English, says "we can take all your money, we have no obligation to give you anything in return, and you can't sue us if we take all your money and give you nothing in return." I assume that the Volokh-Reason contract was negotiated by parties with comparable bargaining power and adequate legal representation and therefore is not a contract of adhesion.

[Da5id]

The only surprise with any non-core Google service is when they *don't* discontinue it...

[KevinP]

Prof Volokh, can you share the name of the email service?