[EL] Twitter deplatforming a candidate = an in-kind corporate contribution to rivals?

[Graeme Orr]

Eugene's teaser invited Rick P's response:  at nil marginal cost to Twitter
to add a candidate, what is the 'contribution'.    We couldnt say that
about traditional news broadcasting where time is rationed.  But what if a
cable company had hundreds of spare channels and candidate produced and
directly fed the show via one?  I'm not sure the marginal cost of
production analysis is watertight.  Is the difference that such airtime is
biddable?

In my country, this would be rationalised not as a potential contribution.
But as a question of whether any media balance law applied (no, such laws
apply only to govt rationed broadcast space). Or it is a question of anti
discrimination law in those states where suppliers of services cannot
discriminate on political belief or opinion grounds, in which case a
politically neutral criterion for suspension would suffice.

It would not be a contribution to any 'rival' as it is spread across all
possible rivals.  (I daresay Eugene was imagining a ban during a two horse
race).  Indeed the Australian Electoral Commission has accepted that a
moveon.org style group is not an 'associated entity' acting for any
particular progeressive party or all progressive parties simply because it
generally opposes conservatives.

Flip the coin.  If a social media algorithm enhanced delivery of say
Trump's messages just because he is scandalising, we would hardly say the
site is making a contribution to his campaign.  Even though in an objective
sense it is.  At a minimum you'd want to show an intent to promote.

Graeme Orr
Professor, Law School
University of Queensland
Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210206/8c10548a/attachment.html>