Why did SCOTUS dismiss the Twitter ISIS case?

Supreme Court Rules Twitter Not Liable for ISIS Content

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that Twitter is not liable for ISIS content that was posted on its platform. The decision was a major victory for Twitter and other social media companies, which have been facing increasing legal pressure over the content that is posted on their sites.

The case, Al-Islah Media Foundation v. Twitter, was brought by a group of plaintiffs who were injured in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, in 2015. The plaintiffs alleged that Twitter was liable for the attack because it had allowed ISIS to post propaganda videos on its platform.

Twitter argued that it was protected from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity for internet platforms for content that is posted by third parties. The Supreme Court agreed with Twitter, ruling that Section 230 protects internet platforms from liability for content that is posted on their sites, even if that content is harmful.

The decision is a major victory for Twitter and other social media companies. It provides them with a significant amount of legal protection for the content that is posted on their platforms. The decision is also a setback for plaintiffs who are trying to hold social media companies liable for the content that is posted on their sites.

The decision is likely to have a significant impact on the future of social media. It will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold social media companies liable for the content that is posted on their sites. This could lead to a decrease in the amount of moderation that social media companies do, which could in turn lead to an increase in the amount of harmful content that is posted on their platforms.

Why was Meta fined $1.3 Billion for GDPR Privacy Breaches in the EU?

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, was fined $1.3 billion by the European Union's data protection regulator, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), for violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The fine is the largest ever imposed under the GDPR. The DPC found that Meta had violated the GDPR by transferring the personal data of European users of WhatsApp to the United States without adequate safeguards in place to protect their privacy. The DPC found that Meta had failed to obtain the necessary legal basis for transferring the data, and that it had not provided users with sufficient information about how their data was being processed.

Meta has said that it will appeal the fine. The company has said that it believes that the fine is "disproportionate" and that it has "invested heavily" in protecting the privacy of its users.

The GDPR is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). The GDPR aims primarily to give control back to citizens and residents over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU. It does this by replacing the data protection directive (Directive 95/46/EC) of 1995. The regulation has been in effect since May 25, 2018.

The GDPR is one of the strictest data privacy laws in the world. It gives individuals the right to access their personal data, to have it erased, and to object to its processing. It also requires companies to be transparent about how they collect and use personal data.

The GDPR has been praised by privacy advocates for its strong protections for individuals. However, it has also been criticized by businesses for its complexity and for the high cost of compliance.

The $1.3 billion fine against Meta is a significant development in the enforcement of the GDPR. It sends a clear message to businesses that they will be held accountable for their data protection practices. It is also likely to lead to increased scrutiny of other businesses by data protection authorities.

The GDPR is a complex regulation, and it is important for businesses to understand their obligations under the law. If you are a business that collects or uses personal data, you should seek advice from a data protection lawyer to ensure that you are in compliance with the GDPR.The European Union's (EU) data protection watchdog, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), fined Meta €13 billion (US$13.6 billion) for violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The fine is the largest ever imposed under the GDPR.

What is Section 230 and how come Internet Platforms aren’t liable?

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users.

The law was created to protect internet platforms from being held responsible for the content that users post on their sites. This is important because it allows platforms to moderate content without fear of legal repercussions. Without Section 230, platforms would be forced to either allow all content, even harmful or illegal content, or moderate content at their own risk.

Section 230 has been credited with helping to allow rapid proliferation and innovation with the modern Internet and social media platforms. It has allowed platforms to grow and thrive by giving them the freedom to moderate content without fear of legal repercussions. However, Section 230 has also been criticized for allowing platforms to spread harmful or illegal content.

In recent years, there have been calls to reform or repeal Section 230. However, it is unclear whether these calls will be successful. Section 230 is a complex law with a long history, and it is unlikely to be changed without a significant amount of debate.

There is a significant case currently with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) - Gonzales v. Google. The case centers on whether or not Google can be held liable for the content of videos that are recommended to users on YouTube.

The case was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. The family alleges that YouTube (owned by Alphabet/Google) aided and abetted the attacks by recommending videos from ISIS to users on YouTube.

Google argues that it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes websites from liability for content that is posted by third parties. Google also argues that it has a First Amendment right to recommend content to users, even if that content is controversial or harmful.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case in the coming months. The ruling could have a significant impact on the future of the internet, as it will clarify the scope of Section 230 and the liability of websites for the content that is posted on their sites.

Intellectual Property (IP) Law and Media

Intellectual property law for media is a body of law that protects the creative works and ideas that are used in the media industry. This includes copyright, trademark, and patent law.

• Copyright law protects original works of authorship, such as books, movies, music, and software.

• Trademark law protects words, phrases, and symbols that are used to identify the source of goods or services.

• Patent law protects inventions, such as new products or processes.

Intellectual property law is important for the media industry because it helps to protect the investments that are made in creating creative works. Without intellectual property law, it would be much easier for others to copy and profit from these works, which would discourage people from creating new works in the first place.

Intellectual property law is also important for consumers, because it helps to ensure that they have access to high-quality, original content. Without intellectual property law, it would be much easier for others to copy and distribute low-quality, pirated content, which would harm consumers and the media industry alike.

Here are some examples of how intellectual property law is used in the media industry:

• Film studio might register a copyright for its movie script.

• Record label might register a trademark for its band's name.

• Tech company might patent its new software.

By registering their intellectual property, these businesses can take legal action against anyone who infringes on their rights. This helps to protect their investments and ensure that they can continue to create new and innovative works.

Intellectual property law is a complex and ever-evolving field. If you are involved in the media industry, it is important to consult with an attorney to understand your rights and obligations under the law.

Why companies need reputation lawyers and crisis management.

We’re asked a lot, why does our company need a reputation lawyer or crisis management partner? The first part of the answer is you don’t know — until you need to know — and then it’s probably late in the game. In today's digital age, a company's reputation is more important than ever before. A single negative news story or social media post can have a devastating impact on a company's bottom line. That's why it's so important for companies to have a plan in place before negative press occurs.

A reputation lawyer is a lawyer who focuses on protecting and rebuilding a company's reputation. They can help companies respond to crises, manage negative publicity, and develop strategies to improve their reputation.

There are many reasons why companies need a reputation lawyer. Here are just a few:

• Protect their reputation from negative publicity. In today's world, it's easy for a company's reputation to be damaged by negative publicity. A reputation lawyer can help companies respond to negative publicity quickly and effectively, minimizing the damage to their reputation.

• Manage crises. No company is immune to crises. When a crisis does happen, a reputation lawyer can help companies manage the crisis and protect their reputation.

• Develop strategies to improve their reputation. A reputation lawyer can help companies develop strategies to improve their reputation. This could include things like launching a public relations campaign, creating a social media presence, or giving back to the community.

• Research shows that 63% of company value is driven by reputation.

If you're a company that cares about its reputation, then you may want to engage with a reputation lawyer. A reputation lawyer can help you protect your reputation from negative publicity, manage crises, and develop strategies to improve your reputation.

Here are some additional benefits of engaging with a reputation lawyer:

• Reputation lawyers have a deep understanding of the law and how it applies to reputation management. They can help you navigate the legal landscape and protect your company from potential lawsuits.

• Reputation lawyers have a network of contacts in the media, government, and other key industries. They can use these contacts to get your story out there and build positive relationships with key stakeholders.

• Reputation lawyers have experience working with companies in a variety of industries. They can bring this experience to bear to help you develop a customized reputation management plan that meets your specific needs.

A reputation lawyer can help you navigate the complex world of reputation management and protect your company from further harm. On a good day, you’re ahead of the crisis and work with a reputation attorney to enhance your brand, plus protect it from damage in the future.

What’s the Difference Between First Party Data and Second Party Data?

Zero-party data and first-party data are two types of data that businesses can collect about their customers. They are both valuable, and each have different strengths and weaknesses.

Zero-party data is data that customers intentionally and proactively share with the web platform. This can include things like purchase intentions, personal context, and how they want the product, service or brand to recognize them. Zero-party data is the most valuable type of data because it is the most accurate and reliable. It is also the most privacy-friendly because customers are giving it to you willingly.

First-party data is data that businesses collect about their customers through their own channels, such as their website, app, or email list. This can include things like purchase history, website behavior, and email engagement. First-party data is less valuable than zero-party data, but it is still valuable because it can be used to create personalized experiences for customers.

The best way to collect zero-party data is to ask for information in exchange for something of value to the customer. This could be through a survey, customized product recommendations, or a free resource such as an eBook.

The best way to collect first-party data is to use tools like website analytics, email marketing, and CRM software.

Both zero-party data and first-party data are important for businesses. Zero-party data is the most valuable, but first-party data is more abundant. By collecting both types of data, businesses can create a more complete picture of their customers and deliver more personalized experiences.

Here is a table that summarizes the key differences between zero-party data and first-party data:

CharacteristicZero-party dataFirst-party dataOriginCustomerBusinessCollection methodVoluntaryImplicitAccuracyHighMediumPrivacyFriendlyLess friendlyValueHighMediumUse casesPersonalization, targeting, segmentationPersonalization, targeting, segmentation, customer insights

Here are some examples of zero-party data:

• Customer surveys

• Product reviews

• Contact information

• Purchase intentions

• Personal preferences

• Feedback

Here are some examples of first-party data:

• Website traffic data

• Email open rates

• Click-through rates

• Purchase history

• Social media engagement

• Customer support interactions

How do people get famous (aka the economics of stardom)?

People ask me all the time, “how do I get famous?” or “how did they get so famous?” or “what have they got, that I don’t got?”

Professor Andrew Leonard from USC Annenberg explains it best when he summarizes the research of Sherwin Rosen and his theory on, “The Economics of Superstars.” Andrew unpacks the theory and research and how in the world of stardom, wealth tends to centralize with a few superstars for two main reasons:

• Imperfect substitutes: Excellent quality is not replaced by lots of good quality options. Consumers tend to make the “safe bet” and to “go with the crowd.” The top stars don’t need to be a 10 out of 10, they can be an 8 or 9 out of 10 and with all the other front runners at being a 6 or 7 - who’s going to watch or listen to them? Look at the field of music or acting and when we look at the top stars and the people struggling to make it, there’s a fairly small margin of difference in terms of skill.

• Zero marginal cost: With today’s creator economy, influencers growing their reach is done at zero marginal cost. The cost of your art being seen by one viewer is the same as one million viewers. This goes for all forms of art that are available in digital form.

Rosen’s theory on The Economics of Superstars, explains why a small number of people in certain fields, such as sports, entertainment, and business, earn a disproportionately large share of the total income in those fields. The theory was first proposed by Sherwin Rosen in his 1981 paper "The Economics of Superstars."

Rosen argued that there are two main reasons why superstars earn so much more than other people in their field. First, the demand for superstars is highly inelastic. This means that even if the price of a superstar's product or service goes up, people are still willing to pay for it. This is because superstars are unique and cannot be easily replaced. For example, there is only one Michael Jordan or one Beyoncé.

Second, the cost of producing a superstar's product or service is relatively low. This is because superstars can reach a large audience through mass media, such as television, radio, and the internet. For example, a superstar athlete can play in front of millions of people in a single game.

The combination of inelastic demand and low production costs means that superstars can earn a lot of money. In fact, Rosen argued that the income of superstars can be "supernormal" in the sense that it exceeds the amount that would be necessary to attract them into the field.

The economics of superstars has been used to explain the high salaries of athletes, entertainers, and business executives. It has also been used to explain the growing gap between the rich and the poor. See our pending article on why A.I. will not replace true art (coming in October 2023).