Brian Fung | @[email protected]

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

More Musk: "If there are tweets that are wrong and bad, those should be either deleted or made invisible, and a suspension, a temporary suspension is appropriate but not a permanent ban.” — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Just in: Elon Musk confirms he would reverse Trump's Twitter ban, in his first explicit acknowledgement of the plan https://t.co/E9ULkNtBn8 — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Maybe this will finally force EA to come up with some original IP that isn't mediocre https://t.co/F7gkWalOPt — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

RT @snlyngaas: First on CNN: White House bolsters cyber office with hires from Microsoft (@KembaWalden) and CIA, w/ @ZcohenCNN https://t.co… — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

This doesn't seem to be that *all* meaningful, in that Musk has already said that Twitter should do the bare minimum of heeding local laws but go no further in terms of content moderation. This doesn't really commit him to anything he hasn't already said. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Musk again appears to express support for Europe's Digital Services Act, which would apply heightened content moderation requirements to tech platforms like Twitter. https://t.co/ciOrjDQbL4 — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Musk: "Anything my companies can do that can be beneficial to Europe, we want to do that” — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@senatorshoshana Sorryyyyy — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Grilling season has not yet technically begun, so the Senate might have a chance at proving my earlier prediction wrong! https://t.co/aC5QgKLnne — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

RT @DSenFloor: .@SenSchumer just FILED CLOTURE on the nomination of Alvaro Bedoya to be a Federal Trade Commissioner — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @bskorup @haroldfeld Ah, right! Of course. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @haroldfeld Ahh, I see what you're saying. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@haroldfeld @NickDegani Nick raises an interesting point about state imposition of common carriage, though. What does it take for a state to classify an operator as a common carrier, and do some states regulate as common carriers operators that are *not* considered common carriers at the federal level? — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @haroldfeld I still have an outstanding question about how to think about this! https://t.co/zYgIQdjMFT — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @haroldfeld I think you may have a point in terms of Texas making an attempt to impose common carriage, but whether HB20 constitutes actual common carriage regulation might be up for debate. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @haroldfeld Wouldn't common carriage for social media platforms mean "just be a dumb pipe for all content" and not what HB20 says, which is "don't discriminate in these specific categories"? (Leaving aside the plaintiffs' chilled-speech allegations.) — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @haroldfeld To the extent society agrees websites should face the same or similar statutory requirements as phone companies, Congress can pass legislation to that effect, or regulators could interpret their legislative mandates differently, but that may not change the underlying 1A reality. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @haroldfeld I don't believe plaintiffs are suggesting websites have different 1A rights from phone companies, and their argument needn't go that far. They can simply argue that phone companies share the same 1A rights as websites, AND that telcos face additional statutory requirements. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @haroldfeld I guess what I don't understand is: If Verizon were unburdened by common carriage and thus *could* block calls as you say — but it would not be the 1A giving it the right to block calls — what right would Verizon cite instead to justify blocking the calls? — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani @haroldfeld Totally agree the question about whether 1A gives Verizon a right to block calls (separate from common carriage) is a different question. So if you think VZ could block calls absent common carriage but the 1A would not be the source of that right, what could VZ cite instead? — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@haroldfeld @NickDegani The fact he doesn't see that or care to engage with it, and yet drives ahead with the analogy anyway, leaves me wondering whether the opinion will be similarly devoid of nuance. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@haroldfeld @NickDegani Oldham implies it would be ridiculous if Verizon could cite 1A to block calls. And it would be! But the difference between Twitter and Verizon here is Title II regulation. Oldham says he isn't asking about common carriage, but IMO that is the entire ballgame in this analogy. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani All that would need to change is for regulators to reclassify telephony services. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani Why *isn't* it because of common carriage, though? But for common carrier obligations, couldn't Verizon theoretically block calls, just like how under current rules, Verizon's broadband business could legally block certain traffic? — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani Sorry, meant to say "Title II" there. https://t.co/LGLR9NXTNW — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani By that logic, Oldham's hypothetical is off-base because Verizon's Title I obligations prevent it from blocking calls. Could it block other content it doesn't like within its broadband business? I think the answer is yes, right? That's the entire NN fight in a nutshell. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani And in this context the FCC decided telephony is Title II and broadband is Title I. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@NickDegani Can you expand on that — I'm not sure I ever implied it was an inherent thing. The whole takeaway from the DC Circuit was that the FCC has authority to decide whether an operator is to be treated as a common carrier or not. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Just as an aside, this seems to me a direct consequence of the appification of the web and the siloing of information into private warehouses. People really forget that services operate on top of websites! https://t.co/dm3dV52SgY — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

I just… GAHHH — PolitiTweet.org