1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`ANDREW J. PINCUS (pro hac vice)
`apincus@mayerbrown.com
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`DOUGLAS A. SMITH (SBN 290598)
`dougsmith@mayerbrown.com
`350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-1503
`Telephone: (213) 229-9500
`Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
`
`Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Internet Association
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as
`Attorney General of Texas
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-01644-MMC
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S AMICUS
`CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION
`FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... iii 
`INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ......................................................................................... 1 
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 1 
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2 
`I.  Content Moderation Is Essential To The Functioning Of Social Media Platforms—And
`
`Those Moderation Decisions Are Protected By The First Amendment. ............................. 2 
`A.  Social Media Companies Utilize Content Moderation To Provide Attractive And
`
`Responsible User Experiences By Eliminating Inappropriate And Objectionable
` Material From Their Platforms. ..................................................................................... 2 
`B.  Content Moderation Standards And Decisions Are Protected By The First
` Amendment. ................................................................................................................... 8 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 9 
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n,
`564 U.S. 786 (2011) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick,
`847 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1988) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Goldblum v. Nat’l Broad. Corp.,
`584 F.2d 904 (9th Cir. 1978) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos.,
`515 U.S. 557 (1995) ................................................................................................................2, 8
`
`Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson,
`343 U.S. 495 (1952) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump,
`928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................................8
`
`Med. Lab’y Mgmt. Consultants v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc.,
`306 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo,
`418 U.S. 241 (1974) ................................................................................................................2, 8
`
`Nieves v. Bartlett,
`139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) ................................................................................................................9
`
`Reno v. ACLU,
`521 U.S. 844 (1997) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,
`512 U.S. 622 (1994) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Account and Community Restrictions - Do Not Post Sexual of Suggestive Content
`Involving Minors, REDDIT, INC., https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/
`360043075352 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`Alison Grace Johansen, Deepfakes: What they are and why they’re threatening,
`NORTONLIFELOCK, https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-
`what-are-deepfakes.html .............................................................................................................7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`Community Guidelines - Developing Policies, YOUTUBE, https://www.youtube.
`com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-guidelines/#developing-policies ..........................4
`
`Community Guidelines, SNAP, INC., https://www.snap.com/en-
`US/communityguidelines ............................................................................................................3
`
`Community Standards – Account Integrity & Authentic Identity, FACEBOOK,
`https://www.facebook. com/communitystandards/misrepresentation ........................................4
`
`Community Standards – Bullying & Harassment, FACEBOOK, https://www.
`facebook.com/communitystandards/bullying .........................................................................3, 5
`
`Community Standards - Authenticity, AIRBNB, INC., https://www.airbnb.com/trust/
`standards ......................................................................................................................................5
`
`Community Standards, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/trust/standards .......................................4
`
`Daisy Soderberg-Rivkin, Five myths about online content moderation, from a
`former content moderator, R STREET INSTITUTE (Oct. 30, 2019),
`https://www.rstreet.org/2019/10/30/five-myths-about-online-content-
`moderation-from-a-former-content-moderator ...........................................................................3
`
`Daly Kos: Rules of the Road, KOS MEDIA, LLC, https://www.dailykos.com/rules-
`of-the-road ...................................................................................................................................5
`
`Facebook by the Numbers, OMNICORE,
`https://www.omnicoreagency.com/facebook-statistics ...............................................................6
`
`General Guidelines and Policies - Abusive Behavior, TWITTER, INC.,
`https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ abusive-behavior ...............................................3
`
`Guidelines for Traveler Reviews, TRIPADVISOR, LLC,
`https://www.tripadvisorsupport.com/hc/en-us/articles/200614797-Our-
`guidelines-for-traveler-reviews ...................................................................................................5
`
`Jason A. Gallo & Clare Y. Cho, CONG. RSCH. SERV. R46662, SOCIAL MEDIA:
`MISINFORMATION AND CONTENT MODERATION ISSUES FOR CONGRESS 1
`(2021), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46662 ..................................................7
`
`Laura Hanu, James Thewlis & Sasha Haco, How AI Is Learning To Identify Toxic
`Online Content, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (2021) ...........................................................................6
`
`LinkedIn Professional Community Policies, LINKEDIN, https://www.linkedin.
`com/help/linkedin/answer/34593/linkedin-professional-community-policies ............................4
`
`Mind-Blowing LinkedIn Statistics and Facts, KINSTA, INC.: KINSTA BLOG (Mar 18,
`2021), https://kinsta.com/blog/linkedin-statistics .......................................................................6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`Pew Research Center, Social Media Fact Sheet,
`https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/#social-media-
`use-over-time (last visited Mar. 24, 2021) ..................................................................................1
`
`Platform Manipulation and Spam Policy, General Guidelines and Policies,
`TWITTER, INC., https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-
`manipulation ................................................................................................................................5
`
`Professional Community Policies, LINKEDIN,
`https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies ........................................3, 5
`
`PWC, The quest for truth: content moderation in action,
`https://www.pwc.com/us/en/-industries/tmt/library/content-moderation-quest-
`for-truth-and-trust.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2021) ...................................................................7
`
`Reddit Content Policy, REDDIT,
`https://www.redditinc.com/policies/contentpolicy-1 ..................................................................4
`
`Trust & Safety - Community Standards, AIRBNB, INC.,
`https://www.airbnb.com/trust/ standards ....................................................................................3
`
`YouTube For Press, YOUTUBE: OFFICIAL BLOG, https://blog.youtube.com/press/ ..........................6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 6 of 14
`
`
`
`INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE1
`Internet Association (“IA”) represents the interests of the Nation’s leading internet
`
`companies and their customers. Its members include companies whose products and services
`enable people throughout the country and the world to express themselves, both privately and
`publicly.2
`
`IA seeks to protect internet freedom and free speech, promote innovation and economic
`growth, and empower customers and users. Amicus’s members serve as platforms for
`communications and services for billions of users, and the success of these online businesses—and
`the vitality of online media generally—depends on their ability to adopt and enforce robust
`community standards governing the content of their websites, which are tailored to the purposes of
`the website and the needs of its users. Amicus and its members have a substantial interest in whether
`the First Amendment permits government officials to use their authority to investigate, second
`guess, or penalize decisions by online services regarding the removal of specific content on their
`platforms or suspension of specific users from their websites, particularly if that government action
`is in retaliation for such decisions made by an online services provider.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Seventy-two percent of American adults use some type of social media.3 “For many users,
`
`social media is part of their daily routine,” with more that 40% of the users of leading platforms
`visiting the sites daily and more than seventy percent visiting weekly.4 With such ubiquitous use,
`many Americans turn to social media to receive their news; engage in commentary; maintain
`relationships with family, friends, coworkers, and members of their communities—whether
`
`
`1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part. No party, no party’s counsel, and
`no person other than Amicus or its counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the
`preparation or submission of this brief. Plaintiff consents to the filing of this brief and Defendant
`does not oppose the filing of this brief.
`2 A complete list of Internet Association members is available at http://internetassociation.org/our-
`members/.
`3 Pew Research Center, Social Media Fact Sheet, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-
`sheet/social-media/#social-media-use-over-time (last visited Mar. 24, 2021).
`4 Id.
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`neighbors, fellow members of a sports league, or other members of their church; and inform their
`everyday decisions. From determining what products or services to purchase or which local events
`to attend on a weekend, social media is integrated into every facet of life.
`To ensure a quality user experience, internet companies exercise editorial discretion in the
`form of content moderation. This includes setting and enforcing rules against inappropriate,
`objectionable, and inaccurate material on their platforms, and—sometimes—temporarily or
`permanently suspending users who persist in violating the platforms’ community standards. The
`rules adopted by internet companies vary from company to company and represent a judgment
`about what types of content are appropriate for the nature of a specific service, its target audience,
`and concerns about the impact of online content on offline conduct.
`As with any decision that requires the exercise of judgment, there is room for healthy debate
`over those decisions. But where there is no room for debate is that such decisions are protected by
`the First Amendment—as the Supreme Court has held in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., Hurley v.
`Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557, 570 (1995) (“[t]he selection of
`contingents to make a parade”); Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 251 (1974)
`(newspaper). The Texas AG’s investigation violates this fundamental Constitutional safeguard.
`ARGUMENT
`I. Content Moderation Is Essential To The Functioning Of Social Media Platforms—
`And Those Moderation Decisions Are Protected By The First Amendment.
`
`
`A. Social Media Companies Utilize Content Moderation To Provide Attractive And
`Responsible User Experiences By Eliminating Inappropriate And Objectionable
`Material From Their Platforms.
`
`
`
`Amicus’s members provide online platforms through which users can share news and
`
`opinions, advertise goods, rate and review service businesses and vendors, search for housing, and
`
`interact with individuals around the globe. To offer these and myriad other services, these providers
`
`depend heavily on their right to regulate the content on their platforms, including by filtering,
`
`screening or otherwise preventing third-party users from posting material that violates the
`
`provider’s content rules, which are sometimes referred to as “community standards.”
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`Content moderation “provides a healthy and safe environment where users can upload their
`
`own products, posts or comments and comfortably engage with others. It’s a tool to improve user
`
`experience, ensure that platforms adhere to local and global laws, and helps users trust that they
`
`can interact through a platform or use a service without fear of being deceived.”5
`
`These community standards can vary enormously depending on a website’s functions and
`
`goals, and may include, for example, prohibiting hate speech, requiring sellers to provide accurate
`
`information about their products, or penalizing users for artificially amplifying the significance of
`
`their posts (e.g., by using fake accounts to increase the number of times a post is “liked”). Without
`
`the ability to prevent unwanted or offensive content, the services that Amicus’s members provide
`
`could become unsafe, unreliable, and therefore unattractive to users.
`
`Thus, online providers have issued community standards prohibiting various categories of
`
`objectionable material from their websites, including:
`
` “Hate speech,” such as content attacking someone based on race, ethnicity, national origin,
`religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious
`disease or disability.6
`
` “Bullying,” “harassment,” or “threats,” such as conveying an intent to release “personally
`identifiable information” about another.7
`
` “Violent,” “graphic,” or “sexual” content.8
`
`
`5 Daisy Soderberg-Rivkin, Five myths about online content moderation, from a former content
`moderator, R STREET INSTITUTE (Oct. 30, 2019), https://www.rstreet.org/2019/10/30/five-myths-
`about-online-content-moderation-from-a-former-content-moderator/.
`6 Community Guidelines, SNAP, INC., https://www.snap.com/en-US/communityguidelines.
`7 Community Standards – Bullying & Harassment, FACEBOOK, https://www.
`facebook.com/communitystandards/bullying; General Guidelines and Policies - Abusive
`Behavior, TWITTER, INC., https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ abusive-behavior; Trust
`& Safety - Community Standards, AIRBNB, INC., https://www.airbnb.com/trust/standards.
`8 Professional Community Policies, LINKEDIN, https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-
`community-policies.
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Impersonating others, such as by creating a misleading profile assuming “to be or speak for
`another person or entity.”9
`
`In addition to these and other broad categories, providers have also adopted community
`
`standards prohibiting more targeted types of content, including material that sexually exploits or
`
`endangers children, 10 supports terrorism, 11 misrepresents commercial listings, 12 or artificially
`
`amplifies the apparent significance of content (e.g., by manipulating the number of “votes,” “likes,”
`
`or “follows” a post receives). 13 These community standards are easily accessible through
`
`providers’ websites and, in general, users must accept them as a pre-condition to posting content
`
`or otherwise accessing the platform.
`
`Typically, platform operators are also clear about why they have adopted their respective
`
`community standards, which are often tailored to achieve the specific goals of their platforms and
`
`“developed in partnership with a wide range of external industry and policy experts” as well as
`
`based on direct feedback from users.14 For example, LinkedIn does not “allow content that attacks,
`
`denigrates, intimidates, dehumanizes, incites or threatens hatred, violence, prejudicial or
`
`discriminatory action against individuals or groups because of their actual or perceived race,
`
`ethnicity, national origin, caste, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or
`
`
`9 Community Standards – Account Integrity & Authentic Identity, Facebook,
`https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/misrepresentation.
`10 Account and Community Restrictions - Do Not Post Sexual of Suggestive Content Involving
`Minors, REDDIT, INC., https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/ 360043075352.
`11 LinkedIn Professional Community Policies, LINKEDIN, https://www.linkedin.
`com/help/linkedin/answer/34593/linkedin-professional-community-policies? lang=en.
`12 Community Standards, AIRBNB, https://www.airbnb.com/trust/standards.
`13 Reddit Content Policy, REDDIT, https://www.redditinc.com/policies/contentpolicy-1.
`14 Community Guidelines - Developing Policies, YOUTUBE, https://www.youtube.
`com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-guidelines/#developing-policies.
`- 4 -
`
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`disability status.”15 This and other rules in its “Professional community policies” are designed to
`
`make the LinkedIn “community a place where everyone is respectful, compassionate, and
`
`honest.”16
`
`The community standards adopted by online providers reflect the diversity of the internet
`
`itself, with each online provider adopting standards specifically tailored to the diverse needs of its
`
`particular community of users. Social network platforms may implement protections to prevent
`
`harassment of younger users given that such content can “have more of an emotional impact on
`
`minors.” 17 Retail and rental platforms may prohibit users from posting inaccurate product
`
`information given the importance of buyers knowing what they are purchasing.18 Platforms that
`
`compile user reviews may prohibit users from posting anonymous or irrelevant reviews, or may
`
`prevent users from reviewing their own, friends’ or relatives’ businesses. 19 And platforms
`
`frequented by influential figures may prohibit users from misleadingly impersonating such figures,
`
`which could deceive other users or disrupt financial markets.20 Indeed, a platform could have as
`
`its purpose only the dissemination of particular views on public policy or political questions.21
`
`
`15 Professional Community Policies, LINKEDIN, https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-
`community-policies.
`16 Id.
`17 Community Standards - Bullying and Harassment, FACEBOOK, https://www.
`facebook.com/communitystandards/bullying.
`18 Community Standards - Authenticity, AIRBNB, INC., https://www.airbnb.com/trust/ standards.
`19 Guidelines for Traveler Reviews, TRIPADVISOR, LLC,
`https://www.tripadvisorsupport.com/hc/en-us/articles/200614797-Our-guidelines-for-traveler-
`reviews.
`20 Platform Manipulation and Spam Policy, General Guidelines and Policies, TWITTER, INC.,
`https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation.
`21 See, e.g., Daly Kos: Rules of the Road, KOS MEDIA, LLC, https://www.dailykos.com/rules-of-
`the-road (“This is a site for Democrats. That’s the fundamental premise underlying all
`expectations about posting, commenting, and interacting with other site users”).
`- 5 -
`
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`Further, Amicus’s members employ a multitude of general-purpose technologies to support
`
`their content moderation efforts, such as providing users with “report abuse” buttons and other
`
`mechanisms to flag problematic content or contact the companies with complaints. Members also
`
`devote significant staff and resources to monitoring, analyzing and enforcing compliance with their
`
`respective community guidelines. In addition, providers have invested significant resources in
`
`developing sophisticated software and algorithms to detect and remove harmful content. In many
`
`instances, they have shared these technologies to help others eradicate that harmful content as well.
`
`Social media platforms rely on “thousands of human reviewers” 22—to enhance their ability to
`
`provide quick responses to evolving problems.
`
`Flexibility has played a critical role in enabling platforms to experiment and thereby refine
`
`their approaches to content moderation over time. Moderating content is not easy given the almost
`
`unfathomable volumes of content online and the need to make sometimes-nuanced distinctions.
`
`For example:
`
` YouTube has over 2 billion users and over a billion hours of video viewed on its platform
`every day.
`
` Facebook has more than 2.6 billion users, who send 3 million messages every 20 seconds.
`
` LinkedIn has nearly 740 million members worldwide, with users who frequently engage
`with the platform, which has more than 1 billion interactions every month.23
`
`
`Given the sheer number of decisions that need to be made, there are necessarily divergent views
`
`among the public and outside interested parties about content moderation decisions.
`
`
`22 Laura Hanu, James Thewlis & Sasha Haco, How AI Is Learning To Identify Toxic Online
`Content, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (2021), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-ai-
`identify-toxic-online-content/.
`23 YouTube For Press, YOUTUBE: OFFICIAL BLOG, https://blog.youtube.com/press/; Facebook by
`the Numbers, OMNICORE, https://www.omnicoreagency.com/facebook-statistics/; Mind-Blowing
`LinkedIn Statistics
`and Facts, KINSTA,
`INC.: KINSTA BLOG
`(Mar 18, 2021),
`https://kinsta.com/blog/linkedin-statistics/.
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Providers learn from, adapt, and update their approaches over time and have remained
`
`flexible in deciding what content is objectionable and how to prevent it from being posted. For
`
`example, many technology companies have been incorporating algorithms into their content
`
`moderation, such as Google’s Jigsaw that aims to detect “toxic comments online.”24 And some
`
`social media companies have relatively recently banned “deepfake” videos, which use artificial
`
`intelligence to alter videos to mislead someone into thinking that the video’s subject said or did
`
`something that in fact they did not.25
`
`Content moderation decisions can be controversial. “[P]latform companies . . . have to
`
`make Solomon-like decisions about the veracity of this information. If they publish content that is
`
`clearly untrue, consumer backlash would likely be swift, threatening revenue and reputation.
`
`On the other hand, if platforms refuse to publish certain content, they may be accused of censorship,
`
`bias or having a political agenda.”26 A recent Congressional Research Service frames the dilemma
`
`posed by content moderation, stating that “[s]ome Members of Congress are concerned about social
`
`media dissemination of misinformation . . . and are exploring how social media platform operators
`
`can stop or slow that dissemination via content moderation,” but “[o]ther Members’ interest in
`
`content moderation relates to concerns that platform operators are moderating content that should
`
`not be restricted.”27 That highlights the dilemma that online services confront every day.
`
`
`
`
`24 See supra note 22.
`25 See Alison Grace Johansen, Deepfakes: What they are and why they’re threatening,
`NORTONLIFELOCK, https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-what-are-
`deepfakes.html.
`26 PWC, The quest for truth: content moderation in action, https://www.pwc.com/us/en/-
`industries/tmt/library/content-moderation-quest-for-truth-and-trust.html (last visited Mar. 24,
`2021).
`27 Jason A. Gallo & Clare Y. Cho, CONG. RSCH. SERV. R46662, SOCIAL MEDIA: MISINFORMATION
`AND CONTENT MODERATION ISSUES FOR CONGRESS 1 (2021),
`https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46662.
`- 7 -
`
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Page 13 of 14
`
`
`B. Content Moderation Standards And Decisions Are Protected By The First
`Amendment.
`“[W]hatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever–advancing technology, ‘the
`basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not
`vary’ when a new and different medium for communication appears.” Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n,
`564 U.S. 786, 790 (2011) (quoting Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 503 (1952)). The
`Supreme Court has held that its decisions “provide no basis for qualifying the level of First
`Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium [the Internet].” Reno v. ACLU, 521
`U.S. 844, 870 (1997). Thus, “social media is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as
`other forms of media.” Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226,
`237 (2d Cir. 2019).
`For decades, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have recognized that the First
`Amendment protects a speaker’s decisions about which speech or speakers to include when creating
`a compilation of others’ speech. See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 570 (parade); Turner Broadcasting
`System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (cable provider’s selection of channels); Med. Lab’y
`Mgmt. Consultants v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 306 F.3d 806, 825 (9th Cir. 2002) (television
`program); Goldblum v. Nat'l Broad. Corp., 584 F.2d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1978) (television program).
`Indeed, “[t]he danger inherent in [such] government . . . oversight, even in the interest of ‘balance,’
`is well established.” Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick, 847 F.2d 502, 510 (9th Cir. 1988).
`When internet companies select the content for their platforms and the providers of that
`content, they are exercising “editorial control and judgment” over the “material” on their platforms,
`including the “treatment of public issues and public officials.” Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo,
`418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974). While those editorial judgments may be perceived as “fair or unfair”
`depending on the prevailing political winds and “risk that occasionally debate on vital matters will
`not be comprehensive and that all viewpoints may not be expressed,” “governmental regulation of
`this crucial process [cannot] be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free
`press.” Id. at 258, 260 (White, J., concurring).
`An investigation into the editorial judgments of internet companies therefore triggers First
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`INTERNET ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TWITTER’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-01644-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 25-1 Filed 03/24/21 Pa