68 – Breaking News & Latest Updates 2026
Skip to main content

Adi Robertson

Adi Robertson

Senior Editor, Tech & Policy

Senior Editor, Tech & Policy

    More From Adi Robertson

    Adi Robertson
    Adi Robertson
    Flying toasters all the way down.

    For 2023 Fair Use Week, University of Virginia professor Kevin Driscoll offers a thoughtful essay about how his students engage with an iconic piece of computing history: the screen saver collection After Dark.

    The After Dark exercise is one of my favorites because it bridges the social and technical dimensions of media studies. Students journey from the manipulation of pixels and code to the cultural significance of a computer program that works only when you don’t.

    And yet, this project is only possible thanks to the robust protections of fair use.

    Adi Robertson
    Adi Robertson
    An old Twitter statement is coming back to haunt it.

    In 2014 Mother Jones wrote that Twitter was deliberately avoiding taking aim at ISIS, quoting a Twitter official saying that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Taamneh attorney Eric Schnipper brought the quote back up today — this time to argue that Twitter should in fact be found liable for supporting terrorists.

    Adi Robertson
    Adi Robertson
    You wouldn’t sell Osama Bin Laden a hospital.

    Twitter has been making the case that aiding and abetting requires helping a specific terrorist attack, but justices are referencing cases that suggest aiding the enterprise at all is indefensible — even if it’s not specifically used for an attack.

    Adi Robertson
    Adi Robertson
    Justice Kavanaugh finally introduces the First Amendment to the conversation.

    The subject of speech has been notably absent from today’s arguments. Kavanaugh asks if interviewing a terrorist leader on TV would provide the same material support as a Twitter recommendation. “I think the First Amendment would solve that problem,” says Schnapper.

    T.C. Sottek
    T.C. Sottek
    Justice Gorsuch: “are you sure you want to do that?”

    Receiving laughs from the gallery, Gorsuch presses Waxman on whether Twitter has read the law incorrectly. “I can’t help but wonder if some of the struggle you’ve had this morning … comes from your reading of the text.” Waxman has been arguing that they have to support an act, not just the person behind it — “that seems a pretty abstract way to read the statute.”

    Waxman tries to explain, but Gorsuch isn’t impressed: “Maybe we oughta just stop.”

    Adi Robertson
    Adi Robertson
    The court isn’t letting Twitter “wipe its hands” over terrorist content.

    Justice Kagan alludes to the Elon Musk school of Twitter: is Twitter liable if its policy is “let a thousand flowers bloom?” Waxman still says no. “If they said, we don’t want our platforms to be used to support terrorist groups or terrorist acts, but they don’t do anything to enforce it,” he claims, they’re not aiding and abetting.

    Kagan seems extremely unconvinced. “You’re helping by providing your service to those people with the explicit knowledge that those people are using it to advance terrorism.”

    Adi Robertson
    Adi Robertson
    Justice Kagan: everything’s an algorithm, right?

    Justice Elena Kagan does a good job of summing up the big question here after the opening question from Clarence Thomas. “This was a pre-algorithm statute, and everyone is trying their best to figure out how this statute applies,” Kagan notes. “Every time anyone looks at anything on the internet, there is an algorithm involved.”