4 ms·

What do you think the most convincing part of that techdirt piece is? To me it mostly reads like an exasperated emotional rant. He calls the ruling “stupid” and

What do you think the most convincing part of that techdirt piece is? To me it mostly reads like an exasperated emotional rant. He calls the ruling “stupid” and “batshit crazy” and likens the judges to “ignorant trolls.” And uses italics everywhere. It’s not exactly an appeal to reason. To me the one interesting bit was this: “ The websites do engage in editorial control. The difference from newspapers is that it’s ex post control. If there are complaints, they will review the content afterwards to see if it matches with their editorial policies (i.e., terms of use).” I mean, I disagree — terms of use of a tech platform are miles away from an actual editorial opinion, they are bloodless legal documents and virtually impossible to read for pleasure, unlike actual editorial - but at least this engages with the decision on the merits. I’d encourage anyone to read the actual decision, it (and the dissent) are more interesting reading than this. (And unlike at TechDirt the citations don’t approvingly quote someone named “Wonton Killing Hat”). https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-51178-CV1.pd...

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
That article quotes the opinion at length, and I think does a good job of pointing out how bad the opinion is on its face. For example, just look at the section where the opinion argues that the platform is bringing up "hypotheticals" it talking about curbing pro-Nazi or terrorist posts. I kept re-reading the quoted opinion again and again thinking "Is this judge a complete idiot?" To be clear, I'm not basing this on the commentary from the article's author (though I agree with him). But trying to argue that pro-Nazi and terrorist speech on tech platforms are "hypotheticals" makes me wonder if this judge has ever seen the Internet.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  “Hypothetical”, in this legal context, is used to describe an assumption of facts to be used to test a logical proposition or legal consequences under those assumed facts. The judge’s use of the term “hypothetical” was correct, and does not represent an assertion, one way or the other, about whether “pro-Nazi and terrorist speech” does or does not exist on these platforms.
- eduction 4y ago
  I appreciate the answer. Interesting. My read on that section was that it was all around specifically the request for immediate preliminary relief (to stay the state law basically?) — this was from section IV right? - and in that section the “hypothetical enforcement” was, in my reading, pretty clearly referring to what the tech companies were arguing the state would do to enforce the law, and the court seemed to be saying, you haven’t established that the enforcement mechanism will be onerous because it’s yet to be seen how this will be enforced - your concerns about enforcement are hypothetical. But IANAL and had to read through it pretty fast.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

That article quotes the opinion at length, and I think does a good job of pointing out how bad the opinion is on its face. For example, just look at the section where the opinion argues that the platform is bringing up "hypotheticals" it talking about curbing pro-Nazi or terrorist posts. I kept re-reading the quoted opinion again and again thinking "Is this judge a complete idiot?" To be clear, I'm not basing this on the commentary from the article's author (though I agree with him). But trying to argue that pro-Nazi and terrorist speech on tech platforms are "hypotheticals" makes me wonder if this judge has ever seen the Internet.

catiopatio 4y ago
“Hypothetical”, in this legal context, is used to describe an assumption of facts to be used to test a logical proposition or legal consequences under those assumed facts. The judge’s use of the term “hypothetical” was correct, and does not represent an assertion, one way or the other, about whether “pro-Nazi and terrorist speech” does or does not exist on these platforms.
eduction 4y ago
I appreciate the answer. Interesting. My read on that section was that it was all around specifically the request for immediate preliminary relief (to stay the state law basically?) — this was from section IV right? - and in that section the “hypothetical enforcement” was, in my reading, pretty clearly referring to what the tech companies were arguing the state would do to enforce the law, and the court seemed to be saying, you haven’t established that the enforcement mechanism will be onerous because it’s yet to be seen how this will be enforced - your concerns about enforcement are hypothetical. But IANAL and had to read through it pretty fast.