2026-04-07 03:23:37
Trial lawyers are poised to accomplish in courtrooms nationwide what politicians have thus far failed to write into statute. The effects of this effort — undertaken without the deliberation of the nation’s representative bodies — are likely to rival those of even the most sweeping laws.
https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/the-trial-lawyers-come-for-online-free-speech
2026-04-07 03:19:41
Mike Masnick points out that the recent New Mexico court ruling against Meta has some bad implications for end-to-end encryption, and security in general:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/04/new-mexicos-meta-ruling-and-encryption.html
2026-04-03 16:19:31
What could possibly go wrong?
2026-04-02 04:12:25
Clearly the perspective which the Australian eSafety Commissioner brings to the table is “users are untrustworthy scum and must be whipped into control” – basically like MPs, then.
Also: “false negatives” are not a thing and never occur; if an AI declares you to be likely “too young” it cannot possibly be a technological problem.
2026-03-28 15:02:58
Excellent piece:
The lesson from these examples isn’t that protecting children online is misguided or an unworthy goal. It is that the means proposed to achieve this end pose significant risks to human rights, and that the tools created for that purpose can easily become instruments of broader control over speech once governments acquire them.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/social-media-freedom-speech-meta-youtube-ruling-32aaee3b archived at: https://archive.ph/PMCjL
2026-03-28 03:23:28
Read this:
Declaring the target to be “design features” — such as infinite scroll or notifications — instead of speech doesn’t change things. The First Amendment isn’t fooled by synonyms, and what these lawsuits target is, inescapably, speech. Some allegations are aimed at content hosted by platforms that some perceive as harmful. And the ways platforms arrange, display, and choose how users consume content are editorial choices that are protected by the First Amendment. That those features might be designed to keep users’ attention is hardly a groundbreaking discovery. That is the point of all media. Imposing liability because speech is too appealing would be a breathtaking incursion on free speech.
https://www.fire.org/news/big-tech-verdicts-youre-cheering-are-actually-terrible-free-speech