Your point is valid and important -- though I disagree somewhat!

The issue I'm addressing is that careless regulations of AI will turn into careless regulation of things outside of AI (like speech) and will be used by the government to harm us in ways we aren't considering in these debates.

Stick around for 10:30 to hear from @paultaske.bsky.social and @aricohn.com say even more brilliant things about current efforts to regulate the Internet! :)

You can see it in what the companies are not doing these days. You used to see the major tech companies fighting publicly for 230. Today, they are noticeably absent from those fights. Why? Because these companies aren't that sad about losing it. In fact, losing it serves their competitive interests.

Apple, for example, is pushing for app store verification legislation. That completely goes against 230...but apple also knows they can easily compete with their proprietary age verification methods in ways their competitors can't.

The companies constantly use 230 as a bargaining chip behind the scenes because they know they can survive without it unlike their smaller competitors. This happens in closed door hill meetings all the time.

Start by paying closer attention to what these companies have lobbied for, especially for laws that are the direct antithesis to 230.

For example Facebook is pro duty of care standard (think kosa). That would serve as a soft repeal of 230.

share.google/Qy5KO05wD4Ar...

Happy to chat with you about this extensively. I worked for Google's public policy team and then I represented most of the major tech companies when I was in house counsel at a tech trade. There's plenty to discuss.

This is also why talking to industry experts is part of your homework.

I can’t wait to see how this community of future lawyers, scholars, and advocates will carry forward the work of protecting free expression. We need this now, in this moment, more than ever.

A huge congratulations to @elizabethsipod.bsky.social and Jaelynn Young for founding the First Amendment Law Society here at the University of Akron School of Law.

At a time when higher education faces increasing scrutiny and open discourse feels more fragile than ever, my students recognized the need for spaces that invite rigorous, good-faith conversation about the hardest constitutional questions, and they built one themselves.