| For a column supposedly about a greater theory of how we (should) use the Internet, it sure devotes a lot of space to attempting to vindicate the Hunter Biden laptop story... I would argue that originalism doesn't really exist in practice in the context of the Supreme Court. Interpreting the constitution is always an active process where the interpreter injects some of themself into the the interpretation. The difference is that those who interpret the Constitution as a "living document" are up-front about this process, while originalists deny that it is happening. And then I'd argue that this half-baked notion of Internet Originalism isn't really a sensible metaphor. The author argues that the way we use and build the internet should be in line within the framework that the web is a democratizing tool, and I agree with that (simply because I share those values, though I'd debate how much they're truly enshrined in the concept of the internet itself). But the author seems to care more about not Internet Originalism but...Twitter Originalism. That a private company has to abide by a set of values that it (purportedly) supported at its inception. > That is why a “living internet” interpretation is so dangerous. These companies are driven by profits and politics, not principle. [...]
> The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism [...] Yes—companies are driven my profits (and, to the extent that they're at risk of regulation, politics)! That's, like, their whole thing. Regardless of the potential greater good of these companies returning to their supposed "original roles," they're supposed to be forced to do so even when it means losing money and failing to self-regulate? It seems perfectly reasonable that a company which seeks to provide a mass communication platform might realize that the rules which worked at first need to be adjusted at scale. I don't see that as some massive betrayal. No doubt there will be (and has been) some over-correction as Twitter navigates how to quell the use of its platform for spreading misinformation and hate speech. They've historically not been great at it, and they'll probably get to an ~ok~ solution eventually. And if they don't? A new private venture can show up to offer something better (as has happened several times). |