Twitter sues Texas AG to halt 'retaliatory' demand for internal content-moderation rulebook in wake of Trump ban
- Reference: 1615334232
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/03/09/twitter_texas_lawsuit/
- Source link:
The US state issued civil investigative demands to Google, Facebook, Twitter
[1]PDF
, Amazon Web Services, and Apple on January 13.[2]
These demand that the tech giants hand over documents describing “their policies and practices regarding content moderation” as well as any information related to the far-right Twitter-a-like haven Parler. (Parler was [3]booted off AWS and accused Amazon and Twitter of colluding to extinguish the social-media upstart.)
Twitter believes Texas's request is unfair, and is seeking a court order in California to block the demand. It said the files Texas wants to see are “highly confidential,” and revealing them would undermine its ability to moderate content effectively on its platform. The biz also claimed it has tried to negotiate with Texas AG Ken Paxton on the data it could share, and the talks went nowhere.
[4]
“Twitter sought for weeks to reach an agreement with AG Paxton that would put reasonable limits on the scope of this demand, but to no avail,” the internet outfit informed
[5]PDF
a US federal court in its home city of San Francisco on Monday.In this week’s episode of Texas Attorney General: Google faces lawsuit accusing it of crushing ad-tech rivals [6]READ MORE
“Instead, AG Paxton made clear that he will use the full weight of his office, including his expansive investigatory powers, to retaliate against Twitter for having made editorial decisions with which he disagrees. Now Twitter, already targeted because of its protected activity, is left with the untenable choice to turn over highly sensitive documents or else face legal sanction.”
The corp said it was within its First Amendment rights to [7]ban Trump, who had earlier incited an insurrection attempt at the US Capitol in January.
Paxton, a staunch defender of Trump, believes Big Tech is abusing its free speech rights to deplatform people.
“First Amendment rights and transparency must be maintained for a free online community to operate and thrive,” he [8]previously said in a statement.
“However, the seemingly coordinated de-platforming of the President of the United States and several leading voices not only chills free speech, it wholly silences those whose speech and political beliefs do not align with leaders of Big Tech companies.”
[9]
A spokesperson for Paxton was not available for further comment. ®
Get our [10]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2021/Press/Twitter-Parler%20CID%20011321.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YEhSbPLQKViUAfLXSY1k2QAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/04/parler_amazon_lawsuits/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YEhSbPLQKViUAfLXSY1k2QAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/03/09/twitter.pdf
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/16/texas_google_antitrust_lawsuit/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/07/social_media_trump/
[8] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-issues-civil-investigative-demands-five-leading-tech-companies-regarding-discriminatory
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YEhSbPLQKViUAfLXSY1k2QAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: the far-right Twitter-a-like Parler
Eh?
What's been going on at El Reg? I haven't been here for a while (new user name) and the first comment I read is someone upset at Parler being allegedly "libelled". Wow. I mean just, wow!
Still it's going to be a good show this. My first amendment rights versus your first amendment rights it seems like. Although I do admit to being confused here, probably because I'm not a lawyer (phew!) but in the past certain political groups have wanted businesses to be able to refuse service on the basis of religion, sexual orientation or whatever and now the reverse seems to be true. Apparently on-line comment farms should take all comers regardless of whether or not they want to post extreme political views. I know that's not necessarily the immediate outcome here but it would seem to be the endgame.
Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service?" once championed by certain political groups.
Funny how time likes to flip context on people with big opinions.
First comment is obviously a sealion, figures
It's a far-right haven. It's fair comment to call it a far-right-friendly place. It may have non-far-right people on it, but it's known, well known, for being home to far-right internet outcasts.
Are there far-right people on Facebook and Twitter? Sure, but with billions of users total, that's not what they are famous for. Parler is famous for being a haven for the far-right.
Far-right isn't defamatory, anyway.
C.
Re: First comment is obviously a sealion, figures
Irate sealion on line one ... Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Re: First comment is obviously a sealion, figures
It's a statement of opinion based on disclosed facts using an obviously subjective rhetorical label ("far right"), and there's no evidence at all that the clearly non-defamatory statement would or could cause the business any damage.
US courts would dismiss at a motion for summary judgment phase (or earlier, depending on where any putative suit was filed), and while UK courts might actually hear a libel suit (if anyone bothered to file one), there's little chance it would survive any attempt to show damage.
The "disclosed facts" include, conveniently, Amazon's filings in Parler's attempt to sue them: numerous examples of material that contravened Amazon's TOS and which, remarkably, happened to be slanted to the right wing...
Re: the far-right Twitter-a-like Parler
Interesting . . . so being called "far-right" is "legally indefensible publication or broadcast of words or images that are degrading to a person or injurious to his or her reputation." Do tell.
Much as hate all the bigtech listed in the article, IANAL but it certainly looks like the AG is exceeding his powers. Since Trump never paid to use any of the servicrs, he has no contract, and without a contract he has no expectation of service.
After being removed from Twitter I'm surprised that Mr Trump didn't set up his own website to continue his messages to those who want to read them. I mean it's not that hard and he's not exactly short of cash we're told.
"it certainly looks like the AG is exceeding his powers"
In Texas? Whodathunkit.
Have their cake and eat it too
Their "policies and practices regarding content moderation" should not be “highly confidential”
They're the rules by which people are expected to behave on their system.
These should be public so people know how they're expected to behave.
Obviously Twitter is trying to reserve the right to ban people "just because" and "special circumstances" and the AG is calling them on it.
It's like when Apple or Google pull people's apps and the developer goes "well I know my app isn't malware and as far as I can tell doesn't break any of the rules... so what gives?" and they just get a stony silence.
Re: Have their cake and eat it too
Their "policies and practices regarding content moderation" should not be “highly confidential”
They're the rules by which people are expected to behave on their system.
No they're not, the published rules are found here [1]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
These should be public so people know how they're expected to behave."
If someone can't follow or understand the published rules what difference will the content moderation rules make?
[1] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
the far-right Twitter-a-like Parler
Does El Reg have any evidence to substantiate that libel?
Parler is technology. Technology has no political stance. The people running Parler had strict content policies, required people to provide identity to sign up and banned much of the hate speech seen on Twitter - e.g. threats to kill people.
That Parler happened to have extremist users differentiates it from Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites in absolutely no way at all. There are people across the political spectrum on all of them. Parler had many issues that would justify criticism so perhaps attack it on those grounds, rather than besmirching it because some users had political views with which you disagree.