David Schwartz

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 1 天前赛道影响

"I think it's strange to say u hide behind the nebulous cloud of 230 to say well, we're not choosing what speech to platform..very clearly it seems to be there's some kind of preference given for some speech over another..so how do u have no liability for the type of speech that's being hosted" Suppose I hand you a book and say, "Read this book. It explains how I feel about modern politics." There is no question that I am speaking. I am recommending that book and I am giving that book to you. This is speech and is protected by the First Amendment. But my speech consists only in recommending that book. I do not speak the contents of the book and no reasonable person could understand me to be personally agreeing with, or vouching for, every statement in that book. A Christian bookstore owner can refuse to sell porn and remove books from his store that he personally finds offensive, he can put selected books on a "best reads" shelf and even recommend specific books to customers. No reasonable person could possibly argue this means he personally vouches for the truthfulness of every statement in every book. No reasonable person could even think that he had read every statement in every book. This is just complete nonsense. It's even more absurd in the case of Twitch. We know that nobody at Twitch reviews everything on the platform. We know that there is no sense in which Twitch vouches for the truth of statements on the platform. This is just total nonsense.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 1 天前赛道影响

The racial slur is speech, not conduct. If the only thing that changes is the content of what was said, it's hard to see how that can transform otherwise lawful conduct into disorderly conduct. Following or targeting someone can certainly amount to harassment or stalking, but that's because of the persistent course of conduct aimed at the person and not because the words happen to be a racial slur. Unless the speech falls into a narrow First Amendment exception such as a true threat or fighting words, the fact that it's offensive or racist isn't, by itself, enough to remove constitutional protection. I wouldn't quite go so far as to argue that fighting words is dead, but looking at Supreme Court Cases since 1971 like Cohen v. California, RAV v. St. Paul and Matal v. Tam, I don't think a fighting words argument is going to work. The Supreme Court has not upheld a fighting words conviction in more than 80 years.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 1 天前赛道影响

"Not convinced AI is a free speech issue even though it can be used to express free speech." Well, sure, AI is a broad set of technologies and of course not everything that has anything to do with AI is necessarily a free speech issue. But there are lots of free speech issues around AI. It's no different from saying that the Internet is a free speech issue. That's not literally true. The Internet is a whole lot of things and some of those things don't have much to do with free speech. But among those things are a lot of things that are unarguably free speech issues and some of the most important free speech issue that there are such as social media content and presentation. The same is true of AI which is rapidly becoming one of the most powerful ways to spread social and political ideas at scale.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 1 天前政策影响

Your understanding is incorrect. The entire point of Section 230 is to ensure that sites could moderate however they wanted to and wouldn't have to convince a court that their moderation met any particular standards. (Other than things like not violating any contracts they had agreed to.) If you were correct, Section 230 wouldn't do very much since the First Amendment already requires a showing of fault amounting to at least negligence to find a publisher liable for defamation. See, for example, Gertz V. Robert Welch.

AI：偏政策推进，强调合规落地与规则明晰，对监管主线更敏感。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 1 天前观点输出

@KhaledElawadi @torodioro If all you needed to punish speech was people to agree it was dangerous, you'd have no freedom of speech at all. Speech nobody thinks is dangerous doesn't need any protection.

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 1 天前赛道影响

@KhaledElawadi @torodioro Again, this is a policy argument for amending the Constitution. The First Amendment reflects the policy judgment that the risks associated with the speech it protects are not as great as the risks with empowering government to restrict or punish that speech.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 2 天前观点输出

@grok @Illyriannft @fuzzy_stranger That is WAY cuter. Well done, @grok.

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 2 天前观点输出

@XRPcryptowolf Or, as I call it, the DAM Clarity Act. Pass the DAM Clarity Act.

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 2 天前赛道影响

@Pug_life AI models distill everything they suck in. Training is a distillation process. Either that's fine or it's not fine.

AI：偏主题投资表达，释放对基础设施与新叙事的偏多信号。

David Schwartz@JoelKatz · 2 天前观点输出

@KhaledElawadi @torodioro You really want it to be this way. Those in power are always ready to argue that opposing their "official truths" is a serious and imminent threat to the country and often the courts are sympathetic.

AI：延续个人公开立场，强调长期主义、执行效率与行业方向判断。