Bug tacos with a side of Content Moderation
I must admit that I am fascinated by entomophagy. Eating bugs (insects, to be precise) is cool, and according to some, the future. Now don't get me wrong, you are not going to catch me staying up late trying to find the perfect cicada to eat. But as a latinxxl, I will eat nearly anything, especially in taco format.
Eating bugs is a common practice in central and southern Mexico. Chapulines (aka grasshoppers) are even raised intentionally, boiled then fried or toasted to be eaten as a snack. Maguey worms, found on agave plants, are also a pricey favorite, costing nearly $100 a pound. There are plenty more bugs to choose from!
You can try grasshopper tacos in DC. Oyamel has been serving them since the mid-2000s. Or you can try the low-carb, low-fat and gluten-free snacks coming out of the ground for free.
Facebook Oversight Board. In a new Tech Policy Podcast, Corbin and Berin spoke with two members of Facebook’s new Oversight Board, John Samples and Ronaldo Lemos, about the Board, its much-discussed Trump decision, and content moderation more generally. Both Corbin and Berin were skeptical about the Board’s ability to be “court-like” in its content moderation decisions, since content moderation is inherently a context-heavy and value-laden exercise in policymaking. For more on the Board’s Trump decision, check out Corbin’s essay in The Bulwark last week.
Content Moderation. The Wall Street Journal published Berin’s response to recent op-eds by Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN) demanding regulation of content moderation. As Berin explains, this is a new Fairness Doctrine — even worse than the one (for broadcasting) conservatives opposed for decades. And it’s grossly unconstitutional: “the First Amendment isn’t a sword; it’s a shield against government meddling.” As his Twitter thread explains, the MAGA right is now regurgitating the 1960s’ radical left’s “media access theory” — which the Supreme Court rejected in Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974).
As we wait to see whether Gov. Ron DeSantis will sign Florida’s social-media speech regulation, Corbin’s and Berin’s Lawfare essay on why the bill is unconstitutional continued to make the rounds. It was mentioned in a piece by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, as well as in a post in the Cato Institute’s Cato At Liberty. Meanwhile, Corbin tweeted some new thoughts on why the bill violates the First Amendment.
Ari tweeted a point-by-point rebuttal of a rambling and factually-challenged article by Claremont Institute Fellow Larry Greenfield. “Big Tech is Big Trouble” was published as part of Jewish Journals “Speech Project,” and smashed all of the typically bad arguments and ideas for infringing on the First Amendment rights of website owners into a single, confused piece. From the Fairness Doctrine to anti-discrimination laws—it’s all there!
Apps & Content Regulation. Multiple states are considering barring app stores from requiring developers to make their apps available on the platform exclusively, or to use the platform's digital payment system exclusively. We recently explained the general problems with such regulation, and the value created by app stores, in a letter to the Senate Judiciary committee. In comments to North Carolina lawmakers, we note that the state’s bill goes much, much further. The bill covers not only apps but also distribution of digital content, such as books, videos and music — and regulates not just business practices, but also content moderation. Banning political and religious discrimination — which would effectively force digital platforms to carry content they find objectionable — is unconstitutional, as we explain.
FCC Regulation of the Internet. Congress stuck a provision in last year’s Defense Authorization Act directing the FCC to examine the feasibility of using the Internet to distribute emergency alerts, including through “streaming services.” If Congress doesn’t legislate, the FCC could well attempt to make such rules on its own — just as many have invoked public safety communications as a basis for broader FCC authority over the Internet in, especially in litigation over California’s net neutrality bill. Jim’s comments explain why the FCC has no authority over Edge Providers such as “streaming services” — so the issue is up to Congress. And as lawmakers consider the issue, they should remember that the Internet was never designed with the reliability necessary to use it for distributing EAS messages. More on Twitter.
Mexican superhero El Chapulín Colorado/The Red Grasshopper