They will 100% accept a couple genocides in the name of "engagement."Ĭlick to expand.The argument that most sites make is not that they are necessarily promoting particular content so much as they are categorizing it. Because these companies have proven they have zero desire to tackle it themselves. I don't think this is an issue that will be well tackled via the courts, and it sounds like the Court agrees with me.īut it's an issue that I think does need to be tackled. In the context of terrorist groups and other illegal activities, I'd say they absolutely steer some users toward those things via the algorithm, which arguably does provide material support.but I'd also say that 230 as it stand almost certainly covers them. I've seen first-hand what Twitter and YouTube will fill your feed with as both a new user and if you click on just one "wrong" video/tweet. When platforms are choosing what to highlight for particular users, what to hide from other users, and promoting or shadowbanning content across the entirely platform (which is a step beyond mere "moderation") eventually I become less amenable to the argument that they're just passive distributors of user-generated content. The issue to me is the underlying question of whether the "algorithm" any platform employs reaches the level of editorial tomated though it may be. The network has more than 20 active podcasts that cover industry trends and events, important legal news and developments, including access to justice, law school, legal technology, and the future of law.Click to expand.Yeah, it's a tough issue to tackle without actually modifying the legislation, because doing away with 230 entirely clearly doesn't would end most social media full stop. It features hosts from well-known organizations and brands in legal, including the American Bar Association, Thomson Reuters, The Florida Bar, Robert Half Legal, Above the Law, and Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Legal Talk Network is a podcast network that specializes in creating content centered around the law. Ken White, its lead author, is a former federal prosecutor, a criminal defense attorney, and a First Amendment litigator at Brown White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles. Though it addresses many topics, its primary focus has become First Amendment questions, issues related to free speech litigation and the culture of free speech debates, and criminal justice issues. Popehat is a group blog launched in April 2004. You can also subscribe in Apple Podcasts, Google Play Music, other podcast apps, or download the Legal Talk Network app. To listen to the inaugural two episodes and find links to related cases and documents, go to or. “I think his fans are really going to enjoy the opportunity to engage in a new way with this show.” He has built a large following and has a keen sense of what topics are important,” said Adam Camras, CEO of Lawgical, the company behind Legal Talk Network. “We’re really excited to be working with Ken. Ken and the Popehat blog already have a significant audience, including 98,000 Twitter followers. “My goal is a podcast that’s interesting, informative, and accessible to non-lawyers and lawyers alike,” said Ken White about the podcast. Listeners will get to hear for themselves actual audio snippets of Supreme Court Justices working through our country’s most pivotal First Amendment cases. In this monthly podcast, host Ken White will bring history to life by weaving together real cases, voice acting, real accounts from real people, and all with a pinch of theatrics in this story telling narrative about our freedom of speech. Denver, CO – On January 31, the popular blog Popehat, along with Legal Talk Network, launch their new First Amendment podcast entitled Make No Law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |