Andrew Keane Woods

Law prof @loyolalawschool, ex-cybersecurity postdoc @Stanford, ex-GC @ Aviato

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

@samuelmoyn Nice try, but essays aren't articles...

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

@ProfRobAnderson You mean we should stockpile a bunch of maritime law jokes?

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

another day, another report about how we accept way too much human-caused risk (to err is human, after all) but we accept no risk from machines: https://t.co/echPbPOWSG

[Matt Perault @MattPerault]

Today we published “The State of State Technology Policy,” our 2nd annual overview of tech policy developments in the states. Few tech policy bills passed in Congress last year (zero?), but states passed 65 in areas like AI, privacy, and child safety. /1 https://t.co/Hq1RARCpJH

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

Here, courts ought to presume that when Congress immunized Facebook from certain claims, it has to have meant only those claims arising from activity in the U.S., not abroad. But courts have found exactly the opposite! Which is... bad.

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

For more on this, please see this great post by David Sloss and Swathi Rajan:
https://t.co/L9nzlwZulV

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

Without any guidance from Congress, courts presume that a statute applies only within the U.S. If the statute says "no rollerblading while TikTok-ing" then we can just presume it applies in NYC but not in Paris. But what about statutes like 230 that *immunize*?

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

Every statute raises the question: does this thing apply extraterritorially? Sometimes there's an easy answer b/c Congress tells us. Most of the time, tho, courts have to guess.

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

I wrote a thing. To my astonishment, for all the talk about the scope of 230, there is comparatively little talk about the reach of 230...and its seems to have inter-galactic reach!

[Lawfare @lawfare]

.@andrewkwoods explains why the recent court decisions interpreting Sec. 230 as a global immunity shield are inconsistent with the intent behind Sec. 230 and with the courts' usual foreign affairs jurisprudence. https://t.co/moeSoXDF1x

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

@lawfare For the record, the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on this question precisely -- it's lower court opinions that are so troubling, and SCOTUS dodged the question in Gonzalez/Taamneh.

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

For more on this, please see this great post by David Sloss and Swathi Rajan: https://t.co/L9nzlwZulV

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

@OrinKerr I disagree, which BTW means you're wrong.

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

If anyone has an explanation for this, please let me / us know. It's not like the internet is conflict free! So why would the wealthiest and most lawyered up tech firms like FB and X and TikTok not have arbitration in their TOS?

[soviet soldiers dancing @communistbops]

smooth criminal - michael jackson

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

Superb amicus

[Andrew Keane Woods @andrewkwoods]

Honest to god, I cannot tell if this is trolling or earnest.

[Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 @pmarca]

The Big Question is, has any arm of the US government been illegally and unconstitutionally outsourcing violations of citizens’ guaranteed rights under the 1st 4th and 5th Amendments to private entities.