Critics warn of privacy risks and the chilling of free speech.
How amusingly hypocritical.
EDIT: Oh man the statement from Meta is absurd.
Meta argued the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by “prob[ing] and penaliz[ing]” its ability to perform editorial control over content posted on its platforms, while also violating its users’ First Amendment rights on the basis that it would dissuade them from participating in future discussions on controversial topics.
Agreed, but doesn't the Communications Decency Act render the government's lawsuit moot anyway?
Regardless of any promise Facebook may have given to "crack down on vaccine misinformation" (which is a statement so broad and vague that it can't possibly be construed to be a promise or contract that would be subject to consumer protection laws), they are given pretty much complete immunity from liability for the content on their site.
That's bright letter law, that I don't necessarily agree with, but it's been tested in court numerous times. They have no obligation to censor even illegal content, and can't be held responsible in any way for the things their users post. How did this joke of a lawsuit survive a preliminary motion to dismiss?
How amusingly hypocritical.
EDIT: Oh man the statement from Meta is absurd.
Agreed, but doesn't the Communications Decency Act render the government's lawsuit moot anyway?
Regardless of any promise Facebook may have given to "crack down on vaccine misinformation" (which is a statement so broad and vague that it can't possibly be construed to be a promise or contract that would be subject to consumer protection laws), they are given pretty much complete immunity from liability for the content on their site.
That's bright letter law, that I don't necessarily agree with, but it's been tested in court numerous times. They have no obligation to censor even illegal content, and can't be held responsible in any way for the things their users post. How did this joke of a lawsuit survive a preliminary motion to dismiss?