I largely agree with the specific legal analysis in this guide. And it's nice to see a lawyer encouraging people who are not lawyers to read a law for themselves. But freely mixing legal analysis and political opinion, in a snarky format with debunker tone, isn't responsible. Law degrees don't turn our policy views into anointed fact.
The section on "big tech" isn't legal analysis. The fact that a law doesn't call out a specific group doesn't mean that such a group won't specifically benefit, or suffer, in practice. The fact that Section 230 doesn't have any language about company size or market share doesn't mean the law doesn't benefit them, benefit them more than smaller players, or benefit them in ways competitors in other industries don't enjoy. There are arguments both ways there. It's not all the lawyers on one side, and everybody who hasn't read the law on the other.
We know which side Mike's on. Reducing Section 230 claims to "a narrow set of frivolous lawsuits" was really cringey. Have a look at some of the cases that had folks reconsidering Section 230, back before Trump was even a candidate for president. The whole section where that jab appears is a straw man. I've not met anybody who thinks companies are totally immune from all laws.
I largely agree with the specific legal analysis in this guide. And it's nice to see a lawyer encouraging people who are not lawyers to read a law for themselves. But freely mixing legal analysis and political opinion, in a snarky format with debunker tone, isn't responsible. Law degrees don't turn our policy views into anointed fact.
The section on "big tech" isn't legal analysis. The fact that a law doesn't call out a specific group doesn't mean that such a group won't specifically benefit, or suffer, in practice. The fact that Section 230 doesn't have any language about company size or market share doesn't mean the law doesn't benefit them, benefit them more than smaller players, or benefit them in ways competitors in other industries don't enjoy. There are arguments both ways there. It's not all the lawyers on one side, and everybody who hasn't read the law on the other.
We know which side Mike's on. Reducing Section 230 claims to "a narrow set of frivolous lawsuits" was really cringey. Have a look at some of the cases that had folks reconsidering Section 230, back before Trump was even a candidate for president. The whole section where that jab appears is a straw man. I've not met anybody who thinks companies are totally immune from all laws.