老澳门开奖结果

SAN FRANCISCO 鈥� A California federal court judge today dismissed Elon Musk-led X鈥檚 claims that the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc. (CCDH) violated X鈥檚 terms of service when it used automated data collection 鈥� known as scraping 鈥� to inform research criticizing X for allowing what CCDH deemed disinformation to remain on the platform.

The 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 Foundation of Northern California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, arguing that private companies should not be allowed to wield breach of contract claims as a weapon to punish criticism, and to secure damages stemming solely from claimed reputational harm resulting from that criticism.

鈥淭he court鈥檚 ruling reaffirms that vital First Amendment protections apply to researchers and journalists who use digital tools like scraping to inform the public about the practices of powerful platforms,鈥� said Esha Bhandari, deputy project director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

In this case, CCDH engaged in scraping to inform the public of instances when X failed to remove posts that CCDH deemed dis- and mis-information, despite evidence the content violated X鈥檚 content guidelines. X accused CCDH of obtaining its data illegally, and claimed that its reports drove advertisers away from the site. The 老澳门开奖结果 and its legal partners argued in its brief, however, that scraping when done in the context of public interest research is part and parcel of the subsequent public interest speech it enables.

The court dismissed X鈥檚 suit, writing in its opinion that efforts to use an anti-scraping contract term to bypass the high standard for defamation claims was impermissible and noting that the lawsuit was about punishing CCDH for its speech criticizing X.

鈥淭his is an important decision that sees Elon Musk鈥檚 lawsuit for what it is鈥攁n effort to punish his critics for constitutionally protected speech and to deter researchers from studying his platform,鈥� said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淪ociety needs reliable and ethical research into social media platforms, and often that research relies on being able to study publicly available posts. Musk鈥檚 lawsuit imperiled that kind of research by threatening it with ruinous liability, but thankfully, the court shut down his case.鈥�

The speech of research organizations like CCDH. as well as academics and journalists 鈥� in many instances made possible only by scraping 鈥� has shed necessary light on a panoply of concerns that powerful social media platforms have failed to independently monitor and correct, and has provided crucial information for regulators to take enforcement action. Such public interest research serves as a key accountability mechanism to reveal the platforms鈥� content moderation choices and privacy policies and practices.

鈥淭he district court rightly saw through X's chilling attempt to twist the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and contract law to retaliate against a nonprofit that published critical reports regarding hateful content on X,鈥� said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 鈥淭he First Amendment and California's anti-SLAPP statute protect anyone who scrapes publicly available websites and publishes newsworthy information about the data.鈥�

鈥淭his lawsuit was nothing more than a vain attempt to stymie independent research into an influential social media platform. The court鈥檚 decision today is a much-needed reminder that free speech includes the right to investigate and criticize Elon Musk and X,鈥� said Jake Karr, deputy director of NYU鈥檚 Technology Law & Policy Clinic, which helped prepare the friend-of-the-court brief. 鈥淎nd it serves as a clear example for powerful corporations and individuals in the tech industry鈥攊t鈥檚 not so easy to abuse the U.S. legal system to silence criticism and evade public accountability.鈥�