Cooperateo proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument so let me focus on whats dferent about texas. One thing thats different abxas is its definition of social media platforms excludes website. Wean put the gmail issue to one side when lkbout texas. It also excludes websitesor and. In the First Amendmentusess we call that contentbased discrimination. Thatsnef the reasons this statute is unconstitutional. The other thg thats different is that iso respects this statute operates more simply because it f clines from engaging iviewpoint discrimination. Were edo thinking that viewpointiscrimination is a bad thing and the government shouldnt do it. Do it it is a bad thing. When editors of speakers enga in viewpoint discrimination that is their first amendntight. It is also absolutely vital to the operation of these websites because if you have to be viewpot neutral that means suicideyou have materials that prevention you also haveo ve materials that advocate suicide promotion. Or if yo
This runs about 2 1 2 hours. Cooperate to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argume so let me focus on whats different about texas. One thing thats different abtexas is its definition of social med platforms excludes website. We can put the gmail issue to one side when talk about texas. It also cles websites primarily focused on news, sports and entertainment. In the fstmendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the reasons this statute i unconstitutional. Thother thing thats different is that in some respects this stut operates more simply because it forebids my clines from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Were used to thinking that viewpoint discrimination is a bad thi a the government shouldnt dot. And of course when govnmts do it it is a bad thing. When editors ofpeers engage in viewpoint discrimination that is their First Amendment right. It is also absolutely vital to the operation of these websites because if you have to be viewpoint neut
Acknowledging a very different trails. They are the most powerful forces fighting for our attention. The approach of work without Political Violence its technology that say is Fueling Misinformation and polarizing content for clicks and profit. A safer, free speech sprekting more enjoyable social media is possible. This morning, were going look at how the Technology Companies built platforms connecting the world that are now challenging the very foundations of democracy. Conditioning congress is concerned about what big content we see. You used this power to run amok. You have used it to silence conservatives. We do have National Security concerns from the fbis end about tiktok. Democratic senator of minnesota and republican congressman Mike Gallagher of wisconsin will discuss what congress can do to regulate social media. Joining me for insight and analysis are New York Times Technology Reporter cecilia kang, carlos carbello, former Homeland Security jay johnson and Elizabeth Knoll la
i know what you thinking. kat, that has numbers in it. ew, gross. if i cared about triple digit numbers, i look at ratings for cnn. [laughter] but if this law goes away, it could destroy the internet as we know it. but don t worry, joey. porn will still be available, so you won t lose her second job. get it? you thought i was saying he likes porn, but i m saying he is in porn. thank you for your service. [laughter] so, this week the supreme court heard two cases from families who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks, and those families are suing social media companies, alleging they should be held liable for helping isis. when case involved the 2015 paris attacks. it argued that youtube s algorithms recommended isis propaganda to users. the other case claimed twitter gave isis assistance and didn t do enough to police them from sharing content. and that is where section 230 comes in. it is a short law written in 1996 that is said to have created the internet. it goes like t
acknowledging a very different trails. they are the most powerful forces fighting for our attention. the approach of work without political violence it s technology that say is fueling misinformation and polarizing content for clicks and profit. a safer, free speech sprekting more enjoyable social media is possible. this morning, we re going look at how the technology companies built platforms connecting the world that are now challenging the very foundations of democracy. conditioning congress is concerned about what big content we see. you used this power to run amok. you have used it to silence conservatives. we do have national security concerns from the fbi s end about tiktok. democratic senator of minnesota and republican congressman mike gallagher of wisconsin will discuss what congress can do to regulate social media. joining me for insight and analysis are new york times technology reporter cecilia kang, carlos carbello, former homeland securi