Everyone (including yes, The Verge) is watching for a Supreme Court decision on the TikTok ban today, but there’s another big oral argument being heard at 10AM ET: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which could reset a 21-year-old precedent effectively barring strict online age verification and decide the fate of numerous state laws. Audio, as usual, will be streamed on the Supreme Court site.
Kate Knibbs of Wired recaps a hearing today for The New York Times’ very expensive lawsuit against OpenAI. The takeaway: everyone seems confused. Expect a decision on whether to dismiss the case “in due course.”
I was checking the old-school web platform’s launch date when I came across one of Google’s many Easter eggs — it’s been noted by a few people online, but it’s not one I’d seen before. Color me charmed and a little nostalgic.
Vulture has published a feature about the multiple, detailed abuse allegations against Gaiman that surfaced previously in Rolling Stone and on a Tortoise podcast. It’s very, very ugly.
[Vulture]
Legal writer Eric Goldman pens his expert take on the state of internet law going into the new year, including generative AI, online speech, and Section 230:
Section 230 is on the extinction watch list in 2025. I will be shocked if it survives to see 2026. If you don’t already have a Section 230 tattoo, now is probably not the time to get one.
The silver lining is that I have a “no monuments to the living” tattoo policy, so apparently it’s exactly the right time.
[Technology & Marketing Law Blog]
TikTok lawyer Noel Francisco comes back for a brief rebuttal, and he’s pushing the court to stay the law even without making a determination about whether TikTok could succeed. This, obviously, would push its enforcement into the domain of President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to save the app.
Prelogar says the court shouldn’t buy the argument that TikTok hasn’t been given enough time to sell, pointing to Musk’s acquisition of Twitter as a sign of how quickly deals can go through.
In response to Justice Kavanaugh, Prelogar says Congress was clearly and “sincerely” motivated by data privacy concerns, and even if you discount the questions about propaganda and manipulation, that’s enough to make the law stand up. She says TikTok is totally off-base in claiming that motivation is “tainted” if the propaganda-related arguments don’t hold up.
Justice Kagan asks about a Supreme Court ruling that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda. “It was focused only on foreign adversary control,” Prelogar says of the TikTok divest-or-ban law. Therefore, she argues, that ruling’s precedent shouldn’t apply. Kagan seems to disagree — saying the concerns about covert content manipulation clearly appear to be about content.
US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar takes on the question of how (hypothetical) TikTok “covert” data manipulation by China poses a uniquely pressing threat, but Justice Kagan seems skeptical. “Everybody now knows that China’s behind it,” notes Kagan — so is any shaping of the algorithm really covert? She points out that you could make a similar argument about manipulation for almost any social network. “You can take any of these algorithms ... none of these are apparent. You get what you get and you think, that’s puzzling!”