Brian Fung | @[email protected]

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Not sure what followed this exchange but if that was all, Cook and King missed an opportunity to educate viewers on who the First Amendment protects **and from whom** — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@steverousseau I’m very interested in the results of this! — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Anyone happen to see which of those two sets of remarks (or perhaps both?) were posted to Trump's channel yesterday? — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Been trying to figure out which video it was that triggered the enforcement. YouTube tells me that it was comments he made to press yesterday morning. From my notes, though, he spoke to reporters twice -- from the south lawn of the White House and again at Joint Base Andrews. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

RT @zeynep: Telegram is NOT an "encrypted messenger." It supports end-to-end encryption ONLY if it is turned on (not by default) and ONLY f… — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

This is really important. Because the internet replicates the same power structures and incentives as in meatspace, a blanket real-name policy reinforces privilege for those who have it and disproportionately harms those already at risk from over-policing and discrimination. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

RT @claresduffy: Visa and Plaid have scrapped their $5.3 billion merger deal. @jazminkgoodwin has the story: https://t.co/GX6hnFvVLF — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@RichLightShed Tension between the pressure of exigent circumstances and the desire for scalable process, I'd imagine. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@tvisgreat No, Trump's channel received a strike. The White House channel is a different channel. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@cFidd This needs to be a beat in Lower Decks. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

YouTube tells me that although content was removed from it, the official White House channel has not been suspended or been given a strike -- just a warning. If further violative content gets uploaded there, it would be eligible for a strike under YouTube policies, I'm told. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

RT @ReedReports: Just walked into the Capitol to find literally hundreds of troops napping and lining up in the Congressional Visitor Cente… — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Good morning! How is everybody's democratic crisis going today? — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

More: YouTube tells me the company also removed content from the White House’s official channel for violating policy. Doesn’t sound like it earned a strike but I’m asking. Content that’s similar to the violative posts and lack context will also be removed, the company said. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@bradheath @AOC @IlhanMN What the…? https://t.co/tiC1e2Mk1p — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

No way this gets past §230. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@MikeElgan @CaseyNewton Iiiiinteresting. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@JHWeissmann @bendreyfuss Man, if Cisco expanded into tuna, maybe I could finally pitch a reporting trip to the middle of the ocean — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Our story, which is developing: https://t.co/qdbg4vKyoU — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Of the top social media platforms, YouTube was the only one until today that had not yet moved to restrict Trump’s accounts in some fashion. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

YouTube also says it’s taking the extra step of indefinitely disabling comments underneath Trump’s videos. https://t.co/jNa9rZ3rhi — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

I asked YouTube to say which video it found problematic. YouTube declined, but said that the one-week suspension is a minimum, not a maximum, and that it would revisit the decision at the end of the one-week period. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

YouTube statement: https://t.co/sHhpZrrLk6 — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

YouTube tells me that Trump’s channel earned a first strike for the video, and under YouTube’s policies, a first strike violation involves a one-week timeout where uploads and streaming are restricted. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

NEW: YouTube has suspended President Trump’s channel for a week, and potentially longer, after it removed a video that the company says incited violence. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Here's the Section 230 argument. Amazon says it is immune from liability because it was engaged in its own platform moderation. https://t.co/kiE30qEZav — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

For antitrust nerds, Amazon argues Parler's antitrust allegations don't meet the threshold for a Sherman Act claim, because the complaint doesn't define a relevant market nor how competition was harmed. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

The examples Amazon cites includes calls for a civil war and the deaths of Democratic lawmakers as well as that of tech CEOs including Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey; members of professional sports leagues; DOT Sec Elaine Chao; and US Capitol Police, among others. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

NEW: Amazon has filed its reply to Parler's lawsuit, listing more than a dozen examples of what it said was violent content on Parler that violated AWS's terms. Amazon also invokes #Section230, making this a high-profile test of the law Trump despises. https://t.co/xszsLfWblr — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Cawthorn makes it sound like tech companies need First Amendment protections. They do not; they already enjoy them. What he likely meant was the government should force tech to provide 1A protections, which would violate their 1A rights. Either way, this is misinformed. — PolitiTweet.org