daphnek.bsky.social
Director of Program on Platform Regulation, Stanford CPC. Former Google (2004-2015) Legal Director for Web Search, Speech and Intermediary Liability Issues.
I've done this stuff for a long time and am getting kind of cranky about it.
2,654 posts
10,835 followers
126 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
That would hardly be any fun
comment in response to
post
Not that much, though I've had Brazilian experts verbally explain all of the above to me more than once. The only piece of legislation I've spent a lot of time with is the Marco Civil (Rossini translation). I've probably read half a dozen rulings in translation and another dozen academic articles.
comment in response to
post
I actually do think “things are so bad that we need to try something” is one of the strongest arguments for trying a thing that might backfire terribly. But maybe not five such things at once?
comment in response to
post
Those things can all be true, and these can still be mandates that lead them to do something very different — and more harmful to Brazilian Internet users — than the court seems to imagine.
comment in response to
post
My impression is they didn’t say that. They said “here are interim rules until the legislature decides” (based on a summary I read).
comment in response to
post
I say that with zero judgment, as someone who accidentally posts typos nonstop.
comment in response to
post
They certainly exited in ours!
comment in response to
post
Whenever I ask Brazilians “can the Court really do that??” (or “can Justice de Moraes do that?”) I get complicated answers…
comment in response to
post
@yeswescan.org has both done technical work and litigated extensively to help fix that (or the copyright version of that problem) here!
comment in response to
post
This is a U.S. perspective, of course. But I think each of these would have benefited greatly from full, fact-based, careful adjudication in lower courts (preferably in multiple cases). That could have fleshed truly major issues with reference to concrete disputes about real world application.
comment in response to
post
It is likely (or maybe certain, given the numbers so far?) that Justice Clarence Thomas initially had the pen for this ruling. But if he lost the majority, the majority ruling could be by someone else, or the case could be a hodgepodge of concurrences and dissents.
comment in response to
post
Seconded
comment in response to
post
Same!! It’s disempowering and makes it feel like details of the law are not for the likes of you.
comment in response to
post
I personally would probably save hours every year. All this clicking around in circles really adds up.
comment in response to
post
It’s speech the administration likes, apparently.
comment in response to
post
It takes that perfect mix of fascist and asshole
comment in response to
post
Once government decides to force private companies and individuals to subsidize distribution of Nazi content on social media, the possibilities are really endless.
comment in response to
post
I did remarks on this at MLRC this year. Torn between writing that up and continuing with this GDPR/scraping paper. The former would likely have no impact, the latter would at least shore up any future EU asylum-seeking I may do.
comment in response to
post
Yes I posted four separate comments on this. New consequences of a changed rule on immunity for syndicated content kept occurring to me.
comment in response to
post
Also the reason I am reviewing the Opinion is because it cites my 2018 article on the Right to Be Forgotten. Which you'd think would *also* not be the same topic as hosting immunity, copyright, and researcher access to data.
But every issue is the same issue.
curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...
comment in response to
post
This is so cool!
comment in response to
post
Wow.
comment in response to
post
Thank you!!
comment in response to
post
I’m interested! I can’t read this well on my phone, do you mean there’s a factual finding or just that this explains why Anderson was wrong?