All to say: the motivations for this lawsuit baffle me, and I’m sad to see the hit transparency took today.

One part of this I don’t understand: shouldn’t free speech absolutists be FOR these transparency requirements? If our fear here is that platforms will unfairly censor content by accusing it of misinformation or hate speech, shouldn’t we WANT to know their policy around what does and doesn’t count?

They agreed to drop it following a lawsuit by X, who alleged section 230 grants them liability protection and that the disclosures were unconstitutionally compelled speech.

Question: because of the approval process for amalgamated community notes, at which point does it constitute first-party speech by Meta? Are there Section 230 implications?

In a town square, we would not call someone yelling “you’re wrong” at a Neo-Nazi rally a restriction of speech. In fact, just as much as espousing falsehoods is free speech, denouncing those falsehoods, is, too.

The need for design features to keep children safe on platforms is clear and present. It’s wanted by users, too (see this app’s growth.) But apps need deeper incentives to invest in R&D for healthier protocols. KOSA is impetus for innovation. Uncertainty of process != unimportance of outcome (2/2)