Corbin K. Barthold
@corbinkbarthold
Followers
1,642
Following
551
Media
906
Statuses
4,929
Husband and father. Internet Policy Counsel @TechFreedom . Host @TechPolicyPdcst . Just 'cause you're hungry doesn't mean that you're lean.
Joined August 2020
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
Al Smith
• 348242 Tweets
Monsalve
• 228528 Tweets
Catholic
• 153004 Tweets
Boric
• 95004 Tweets
#الهلال_الفيحاء
• 92570 Tweets
سالم
• 73324 Tweets
Andrew Garfield
• 61346 Tweets
#TUDUMNaLata
• 54663 Tweets
North Korean
• 53596 Tweets
Ginés
• 51000 Tweets
Jesus is Lord
• 46847 Tweets
#النصر_الشباب
• 46361 Tweets
Elmo
• 45406 Tweets
simon cowell
• 39352 Tweets
AFFAIR HAPPY ENDING
• 38337 Tweets
Ebony
• 30881 Tweets
Furkan
• 23897 Tweets
Amelia
• 23715 Tweets
Tyrus
• 19658 Tweets
Konya
• 13008 Tweets
Pinned Tweet
What's wrong with the Third Circuit's Section 230 decision in Anderson v. TikTok?
How much time ya got?
Ok, ok, let's just see what we can get through in 1,500 words . . .
2
19
34
In which Trump's lawyers game the system in search of a Trump-appointed judge, get a Clinton-appointed judge anyway, try to disqualify that judge, get called out on their sneaky plan, and just generally fail miserably.
My latest
@BulwarkOnline
7
65
263
They wanna impeach Ken Paxton?
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Had some thoughts on him awhile back
@BulwarkOnline
.
6
40
256
Very bad day for Florida's demented "iT's nOT spEeCH, It'S cOndUCt" crusade.
"Stop Woke" Act unanimously struck down by the Eleventh Circuit.
8
67
255
Amusing things I saw in Josh Hawley's latest WSJ piece, a thread . . .
12
88
238
The more you look at it, the more Florida's social-media speech bill looks like it was designed in a lab that specializes in creating weapons-grade unconstitutionality.
The bill violates the 1st A not only in dull, obvious ways, but also in surprising, creative ways.
Consider:
3
58
210
The one group I desperately wish would stay out of debates about social media: TV anchors.
They're like 19th century dukes complaining about the expansion of the franchise. The affronted nobility longing for a world where the peasants can't talk back.
8
27
189
Well, knock me down with a feather. The FEC dismissed the GOP's complaint that Gmail's spam filter filters GOP spam.
4
40
177
weapons grade whataboutism from the party that once lost its mind over a stain on a blue dress
4
25
147
Red states: Social media is digital fentanyl. We're gonna ban kids from social media.
Also red states: The Biden admin can't even *ask* a social media platform to take down Tide-pod challenge videos.
Way to think it through, guys.
11
37
143
Heyo --
@TechFreedom
has just made a late-night filing at the Supreme Court.
We're supporting the effort to keep HB20, Texas's bonkers social media law, from taking immediate effect.
5
28
138
6/ Holy cow, did Josh freakin Hawley just say we need to "protect our democracy"?
5
18
131
Great section heading in Cato's FDRLST v. NLRB brief. Itself very funny! Well done
@ishapiro
.
7
19
132
4/ I mean, yeah, if you're saying insane racist or paranoid stuff here, you might get the boot.
But here's Hawley himself, *on this site*, promoting *this op-ed*, as well as his new book.
2
13
119
1/ IT IS TIME. The Internet speech law Super Bowl.
Moody v. NetChoice. NetChoice v. Paxon.
There will be many live tweets, but this one is mine, and it will be epic.
6
35
123
1/ Have I gotten enough sleep to coherently live-tweet the Gonzalez v. Google
#Section230
argument at SCOTUS?
Let's find out!
4
39
119
2/ The first thing you must do, as a good populist, is define your narrow faction as "us," or "we," or "Americans."
Then you need a "they" who is screwing all of "us," preferably for some totally made up ad hominem reason like "because they're *bored*!"
2
18
107
10/ Josh 👏 Hawley 👏 does 👏 not 👏 know 👏 what 👏 "monopoly" 👏 means 👏.
4
8
98
5/ It's pretty late in the damn day for the GOP to be talking about the limits of colonial corporate charters. Ahem, Citizens United?
And actually, all the Founders opposed was literal, born-to-rule, fifth duke of wherever aristocracy. By modern standards, they were "an elite."
2
10
92
Yikes. HB 20 -- Texas's social media law -- to take effect.
20
39
92
The GOP uses spam emails to scam its own supporters.
It uses attempts to filter that spam to claim that it's a victim.
Now it wants to use the law and the courts to force its spam into people's inboxes.
My latest
@BulwarkOnline
.
6
45
92
/14 Hawley closes by exhorting Republicans to take a principled stand against corporations.
Sure. The day before his op-ed went up, the Fla. GOP inserted a carve-out for woke-ass Disney in their social-media bill.
A Trumpist party will *always* be an unfocused, craven mess.
5
21
90
Every word of this from
@Timodc
.
"The best we can ask for is people at the helm who try in good faith to navigate this [content moderation] paradox in a manner that engenders trust—even if every decision is ultimately unsatisfying."
3
23
90
3/ Trump has not been "silenced." He's got a website and everything.
Nor has the book in question been "banned." Google the title, and you'll immediately see like five outlets where you can buy it. For goodness sake.
As for the "threat" to be the nation's "censor" . . . huh?
2
13
87
12/ Now's a good time to note that breaking up big tech wouldn't produce firms Hawley likes. The problem is not size. It's Hawley and his ilk. You'd just get smaller tech firms, all of whom still don't like bigotry, backwardness, or insurrection.
Also, WF delivery is great.
1
14
84
Whoa. What'd happen if you applied Texas's HB 20 -- with its must-carry requirement for all viewpoints -- to Wikipedia? 🤯
h/t
@ericgoldman
+
@daphnehk
10
36
81
9/ Yes, corporations have free speech rights. (See, e.g., the GOP-celebrated Citizens United.) Hawley is just hopping mad that they're using that right to say things *he* doesn't like.
Also, internet speech is so much more than FB and Twitter.
Also, how can Nike "cancel" me?
4
10
81
7/ FWIW, *local* concentration has been *dropping*.
The prime culprit, when it comes to bank and airline consolidation, is the government. (And the riskiness of banking.)
Google and FB innovated their way to success.
More broadly, Hawley does not know what "monopoly" means.
2
6
80
FedSoc event today about whether social media can be treated as common carriage.
Spoiler alert: it can't.
I have thoughts . . . 🧵
[CALL BEGINS in 10 MINS] Limiting the Right to Exclude: Common Carrier and Market Dominance - Part Three of our Freedom of Thought Series
#teleforum
1
1
0
2
29
76
Under Florida's enjoined social media law, SB 7072, a platform “may not willfully deplatform a candidate for office," with "deplatform" defined as any ban lasting more than 14 days.
Great example, here, of what Twitter would NOT be allowed to do if DeSantis & co. had their way.
Twitter suspends Florida Republican state house candidate Luis Miguel after he advocates shooting federal agents
#BecauseFlorida
:
2K
4K
15K
3
33
77
Today, the GOP's
@Weaponization
Subcommittee holds their first hearing.
They claim they're going to scour "ongoing criminal investigations" for political bias.
Conservative icon Antonin Scalia stands squarely against them.
My latest
@BulwarkOnline
.
4
36
76
Judge Edith Jones remains undefeated.
It's not editorial control, guys. It's algorithmic magic.
7
16
72
11/ Hawley can "propose" anything he wants. Dems won't work with him, bc of his conduct before and on January 6.
BTW, does he think citizens have no agency whatsoever? If they can't read, think, and speak for themselves, we've got bigger problems than big tech.
2
6
67
This fight over the bill to ban TikTok is nuts, esp. on the right. E.g., 197 House GOP voted in favor, while Donald Trump & Elon Musk oppose.
I put down the popcorn to write for
@BulwarkOnline
. Here is my guide to knowing your TikTok political factions.
3
19
66
Me: *tears in my eyes* "Please, I'm begging you, read Nineteen Eighty-Four. Learn what 'Orwellian' means. Like, is there a camera in the room watching you right now?"
Them: "These emails flagging dick picks and horse dewormer for Twitter are Orwellian!"
Me: *sobs harder*
3
12
61
In which
@AriCohn
and I take the piss out of the House GOP's new “weaponization” subcommittee, and mercilessly ridicule the notion that it will fight for free speech on the Internet.
0
31
62
Law professors who blindly sign on to shoddy amicus briefs should get called out for it.
4
8
65
I'm in
@thedailybeast
with my slant on the SCOTUS social media laws oral argument.
Hate Brett Kavanaugh all you want, but he was the hero yesterday.
(
@mjs_DC
got this same take out first. But there you have it -- it's true!)
6
14
63
8/ What Hawley fails to get here is that bigger firms aren't *screwing* small businesses. They're just *outperforming* them.
Bigger firms are more productive, they pay more, they donate more, they're more diverse, etc. That's a good thing. Hurray for big business.
2
8
62
Seeing people who love X claim that TikTok is a vector for election interference.
But our only hard evidence is that this occurs through foreign influence accounts.
And the US platform most vulnerable to foreign influence accounts right now is . . . X.
The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued its annual threat assessment on Feb. 5, 2024. It includes a line that has been widely quoted to suggest that the ODNI has found Chinese government weaponization of TikTok for propaganda purposes: 1/
3
1
4
2
16
64
TechFreedom's recent brief in Texas is, if I may say so, our clearest explanation yet of why social media is not like common carriage.
Anyone interested in these issues should check it out.
0
15
60
47/ Kagan: We're a court, we shouldn't be figuring this stuff out. We're not internet experts. Lines are difficult to draw in this area. "Isn't this something for Congress to do?"
Schnap: Begs the question. "Apply the statute the way it was written."
1
0
20
If you're arguing a First Amendment case before the Supreme Court, it behooves you to know what the actual scope of the First Amendment carveouts (true threats, imminent lawless action, etc.) are.
cc: Solicitors General of Texas and Louisiana.
5
6
59
Ted Cruz has a very contingent understanding of the word "frivolous."
2
13
52
This . . . I just . . . I'm sorry, much of the
#Google
lawsuit seems premised on the notion that people's fingers are broken.
6
12
58
Musk really does seem to think that when he shows up, there'll be, like, a knob for him to turn.
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.”
176
100
542
4
12
56
13/ Hawley is deliberately obfuscating here. He knows perfectly well that the consumer-welfare standard is about more than price.
3
4
54
Time for a THREAD on state social media law transparency rules.
We now have appellate rulings saying that the transparency rules in both Fla's SB7072 and Tex's HB20 likely pass muster under the First Amendment.
Is that right? A lot depends on a SCOTUS case called Zauderer.
1
25
58
@brianlfrye
"It's not about the First Amendment, it's about the content of this speech I don't like." 🤔
6
10
53
That asterisk leads to a fn that says: "The panel is not unanimous."
It does not take clairvoyant powers to know that this is Judges Oldham's and Jones's doing, and that Judge Southwick dissents.
1
2
48
In the antitrust world, this is called "collusion" and "raising rivals' costs."
It's, like, bad.
3
23
51
When it takes you six years to turn your law review article into a lawsuit, you shouldn't be surprised to find that you've fallen behind the times.
1
16
50
4/ Massive shoutout to
@nsaadbembridge
,
@jess_miers
,
@Will_Duffield
, and
@ChrisMarchese9
-- who are the VERY FIRST PEOPLE IN LINE for the argument today. 😂
1
4
48
2/ The bill isn't *just* a bold attempt to curtail platforms' 1st A autonomy over what speech they allow (though it is that!).
It is *also* a set of targeted rules that aim to punish a few companies for the perceived political bent of their speech.
1
7
46
60/ Kagan: You can't present content without making choices. In every case with content, there's a choice about organization and prioritization. And those choices amplify certain messages.
Your theory would create "a world of lawsuits."
🔥🔥🔥
1
5
46
Hey, look at that. Trump FEC appointee sees bigger picture, offers sound free-speech analysis in rejecting GOP election-law complaint re: Hunter Biden-NY Post-laptop story contretemps.
Twitter has a First Amendment right to publish this, not that, etc.
Well done, Commissioner.
1
14
47
54/ Barrett: On your theory, could I be liable for aiding and abetting when I retweet?
Schnap: LOUD NOISES.
Barrett: I don't understand, logically, why I'm not creating "new" content when I retweet. (🔥)
1
3
46
Whoa whoa whoa.
So Texas's social media law (HB 20) basically bans email spam filtering ...
... but the recent lawsuit against the law isn't challenging that provision?
The law takes effect Dec. 2.
Could be a wild morning for Texan email accounts.
6
24
43
Some people are saying, oh, hey, the platforms should cordon off Texas.
Maybe.
But under the highlighted language, it seems like Texas might try to punish them for that too.
9
12
42
36/ Schnapp: Uh, we'll talk about that tomorrow in Taamneh.
Roberts cuts in -- is YouTube akin to a bookstore recommending books?
Schnapp: flailing -- literally says he's worried where the question is heading ...
Roberts (roughly): Well, yeah, you should be!
1
2
43
uh, like two days ago desantis's press secretary was insisting that "governors don't control foreign policy" and saying that he shouldn't be expected to comment on the war.
@amandacarpenter
's coverege:
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) poses a very helpful hypothetical showing tremendous brainpower:
“Can you imagine if [Putin] went into France? Would they do anything to put up a fight? Probably not.”
4K
822
3K
8
6
41
4/ Not to be misunderstood, the legislators have written their grudge against the platforms' choices about speech directly into their bill.
They've also defined "social media" to include only a few large platforms (and to exclude theme-park owners, 'natch).
1
5
44
The Fourth Amendment focuses on protecting your physical stuff from government search. But the state is increasingly able to render you hyper-legible through data acquisition and manipulation.
Will your rights erode?
I consider, today
@BulwarkOnline
.
4
25
40
But then I heard the *eighth* best reason to repeal Section 230 ...
5
11
42
Takes real bravado to push against Florida Gov. DeSantis's social-media regulation from the right.
"Nice start, bro. But NOT. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ENOUGH!"
2
7
41
'We must protect the children from ideas' isn't just the dumbest of the TikTok-ban folks's arguments. It's itself an anti-American argument.
Via
@TaylorLorenz
1
14
43
40/ Alito: I'm "completely confused" about "the argument you're making at the present time."
Ouch.
1
1
40
There are many defenses of Section 230 out there—but this one is mine!
Ahead of the law's make-or-break debut before SCOTUS, I dig into Section 230's history, its implementation, its benefits (and costs), some fallacies about it, and why it's so freaking important.
2
12
38
109/ And ... the case is submitted!
That's all, folks. Hoo boy! I'm tired.
10
0
41
"People tend to forget that my presence runs counter to their best interests. And it always does. This is one last thing to remember: *writers are always selling somebody out*."
3
11
41
@TechFreedom
116/ Kavanaugh: Can we straighten out what "censorship" means? It's a term that refers to stuff the government does. 🔥
2
3
40
Previously on the DeSantis Doesn't Get the First Amendment Show, Florida pulled the "not speech but conduct" stunt to defend SB 7072, its social media speech code aimed at the "leftwing ideology" of "Big Tech oligarchs."
Eleventh Circuit unanimously smacked that one down too.
1
7
42
@SenatorCardin
I know you *think* this makes you the hero, but ... I've got bad news for you.
0
0
37
3/ Who is the bill aimed at?
Gov DeSantis: The "oligarchs in Silicon Valley."
Why is it aimed at them?
DeSantis: B/c we don't like their choices about *speech*, e.g., we think their moderation of 2016 vs. 2020 election conspiracy theories was unfair.
1
6
38
The Heritage Foundation.
REGULATING our way to FREEDOM since 1973.
0
3
40
5/ As
@daphnehk
explains -- I really love this analogy -- HB20 is like a DDOS attack.
It's not designed to make things better. It's designed to break things.
That’s part of the insanity of the Texas law. It’s like a litigation DDOS attack. Platforms can be forced to litigate the same question repeatedly in different courts, even if they win in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd… nth cases. New ones can just keep coming.
2
16
63
1
4
42
225/ The case is submitted!
That was . . . something. I am going to go. Somewhere. That's not here.
Maybe will add some overall impressions later.
4
0
39
Now that I've finally joined this bonkers website, I guess I should put some of my work on it. Here is my review of
@MelMitchell1
's fabulous book on artificial intelligence.
0
10
38
9/ SCOTUS: Ok, so your content- and speaker-based law is probably going down. But you've at least been carefully consistent, and tried to tailor means and ends, right? That's the only way you'll have a fighting chance.
Florida: We made a theme-park exemption for Disney.
1
3
37
42/ Schnap: It's their business model.
Alito: So you're saying they shouldn't use thumbnails at all.
Schnap: gurgling noises.
2
0
37
89/ Oof, Thomas reaches for the trope that platforms are inconsistent with 230 args and 1A args.
Clement: platforms have never said they're just conduits. 230 is a *liability* protection. It's whole point is to *encourage* editorial judgment.
1
1
37
170/ WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT SECTION 230 PREEMPTS HERE.
Congress can't narrow the First Amendment by statute.
3
6
36
So now, to get my fix of MTG hot takes, I have to visit her website, follow her on Gab, Gettr, or Telegram, watch videos of her on Rumble, or tune in when she speaks on, e.g., Bannon's War Room podcast or Greg Kelly's Newsmax show?
Hellscape of tyranny.
4
3
37
Oof,
@RoKhanna
on CNN right now saying that Tucker Carlson can defame people on Twitter because there's Section 230 and the Internet is lawless.
Dude, you know better. *Tucker* can be held liable for what he says on Twitter.
4
4
35
5/ Let's see what SCOTUS would think about all this.
Targeting speakers because you dislike certain speech?
"The 1st A requires heightened scrutiny whenever the gov. creates a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys."
A bad start for Florida.
1
3
36
After getting their cert. grant, the plaintiffs in Gonzalez v. Google changed the question presented.
Maybe I'm just cantankerous, but this is the kind of thing that should get your petition dismissed as improvidently granted.
5
3
37
4/ HB20 *in fact* requires social media services to carry -- and even promote -- the worst material under the sun.
Worse, it's so vague as to be impossible to comply with.
Worse still, it's *designed* to encourage a flood of litigation.
2
6
37
@BerinSzoka
@birnbaum_e
@daphnehk
@AnupamChander
9/ Nonetheless, you get people on both the left and right who want to gerrymander the First Amendment so it comes out *just right*, by their lights, such that it works for them and rat fucks the other guy . . .
1
4
36
6/ SCOTUS: A law that "penalize[s] a selected group" of publishers -- specifically, the ones a pol condemns as "lying newspapers" -- won't fly.
Pol: Hey, it's just a "tax on lying"!
SCOTUS: That's not how any of this works.
More bad news for Florida . . .
1
3
36
For their Clinton lawsuit, Trump's lawyers filed in Ft. Pierce. Presumably they expected to draw the only judge stationed there, a recent Trump appointee.
Instead, they've drawn a (solid) Clinton appointee.
The question is: Will they now file the world's dumbest recusal motion?
5
4
35
Both red states (NetChoice v Paxton) and blue states (303 Creative v Elenis) want SCOTUS to limit the scope of Reno v ACLU -- the leading case on Internet freedom.
Bad idea! The Court should defend Reno against all comers.
My latest
@techdirt
.
2
26
37
@BerinSzoka
@birnbaum_e
@daphnehk
@AnupamChander
@BECKETlaw
26/ For my part: What're we even doing here anymore?
Musk blew up Twitter, the Internet is *breaking up*. If you think Facebook has a monopoly or something, you've been living under a rock. Speech online is *fragmenting*. These laws are obsolete even on their own terms.
1
4
35
Me, a few days ago: "Will the GOP grift ever reach rock bottom?"
Trump, today: "There is no bottom, I assure you."
1
7
33
@TechFreedom
@BerinSzoka
152/ Kavanaugh: "When I think of 'Orwellian' I think of the state."
Oh Brett, you've come to play today.
2
1
35