Thursday, November 14, 2019
Ninth Circuit narrows moderator privilege with Section 230; Facebook undermines 230 by saying now it is a publisher; Pakman gets "attacked" by CNN, Facebook for no reason
Aaron Mackey and Sophia Cope report for Electronic Frontier Foundation on a Ninth Circuit decision that further compromises Section 230.
The defendant was Malwarebytes, and plaintiff was Enigma, which claims content was blocked for “anti-competitive purposes”. But (according to EFF) CDA230 says nothing about competitive motives as a reason for content moderation, at least if moderation is justifiable for other reasons (like terms of service).
Breitbart, in a story by Allum Bokhari, reports that Facebook called itself a “publisher” rather than a “platform”, in defending itself in a lawsuit against Facebook by Laura Loomer, which Facebook had banned as a “dangerous person” and won’t allow on its platform even as a political candidate. FB also mentioned the idea of "compelled speech".
That situation obviously raises serious issues, which in some ways are parallel to an issue that I have, that I’ll get back into in detail again later.
Laura Loomer admittedly said some provocative things. But is Facebook’s calling her a “dangerous individual” potential libel, or is that the “opinion rule”.
I wanted to present David Pakman’s video today, about CNN’s copyright claim for Pakman’s use of it during the impeachment inquiry (House videos are public domain – and he used the House feed).
Facebook cut off his monetization with no explanation for Pakman’s supposed violation of “community standards”.