(Photo
by
Al
Drago/Getty
Images)
How
badly
did the
arguments in
the Murthy
v.
Missouri case
go
for
the
states
last
week?
So
badly
that
the
FBI
has
already re-established
communications
with
social
media
companies that
had
stopped
in
light
of
the
earlier
rulings
in
that
case.
The
FBI
has
resumed
some
of
its
efforts
to
share
information
with
some
American
tech
companies
about
foreign
propagandists
using
their
platforms
after
it
ceased
contact
for
more
than
half
a
year,
multiple
people
familiar
with
the
matter
told
NBC
News.
The
program,
established
during
the
Trump
administration,
briefed
tech
giants
like
Microsoft,
and
Meta
when
the
U.S.
intelligence
community
found
evidence
of
covert
influence
operations
using
their
products
to
mislead
Americans.
It
was
put
on
hold
this
summer
in
the
wake
of
a
lawsuit
that
accused
the
U.S.
government
of
improperly
pressuring
tech
companies
about
how
to
moderate
their
sitesand
an
aggressive
inquisition
from
the
House
Judiciary
Committee
and
its
chair,
Jim
Jordan,
R-Ohio.
This
is
important
for
a
few
reasons.
First,
many
people
have
widely
misunderstood
why
and
how
the
FBI
was
in
touch
with
the
social
media
companies
throughout
this
discussion.
I
tend
to
agree
with
many
people
that
contact
between
private
companies
and
the
FBI should be
minimal
and
companies
should
always
be
wary
of
what
the
FBI
wants.
But,
there
are
times
that
it
does
make
sense
for
the
FBI
to
be
in
communication,
which
the
oral
arguments
made
clear.
Justice
Amy
Coney
Barrett
highlighted
that
there
clearly
are
times
when
the
FBI
should
be
in
contact
with
the
platforms.
Even
the
lawyer
for
the
states,
Louisiana’s
Solicitor
General
Benjamin
Aguiñaga,
admitted
that
there
were
clearly
cases
where
it
would
make
sense
for
the
FBI
to
send
information
to
platforms,
such
as
when
there
is
a
danger
to
someone,
or
a
threat.
JUSTICE
BARRETT:
So
the
FBI
can’t
make
–do
you
know
how
often
the
FBI
makes
those
kinds
of
calls?
MR.
AGUINAGA:
And
that’s
why
–and
that’s
why
I
have
backup
answer,
Your
Honor,
which
is,
if
you
think
there
needs
to
be
more, the
FBI
absolutely
can
identify
certain
troubling
situations
like
that for
the
platforms
and
let
the
platforms
take
action.
But,
thanks
to
the
rulings
in
the
lower
courts, the
FBI
had
stopped
any
kind
of
contact
along
those
lines,
for
fear
of
violating
the
injunction.
This
is
from
last
November:
The
FBI
told
the
House
Judiciary
Committee
that,
since
the
court
rulings,
the
bureau
had
discovered
foreign
influence
campaigns
on
social
media
platforms
but
in
some
cases
did
not
inform
the
companies
about
them
because
they
were
hamstrung
by
the
new
legal
oversight,
according
to
a
congressional
official.
Again,
it’s
true
that
how
close
the
FBI
is
with
companies
matters.
We
don’t
want
another
scenario
like
with
AT&T
and
federal
intelligence
apparatus,
where
they
literally
had employees
embedded with
each
other.
But,
straight-up
information
sharing
on
foreign
threats
certainly
seems
reasonable.
And
this
is
why
it
would
still
be
nice
if
the
Supreme
Court
drew
the
line
in
the
proper
place,
distinguishing
general
information
sharing
about
such
things,
and
any
sort
of
coerced
pressure
or
threats
directed
at
the
social
media
companies
regarding
their
policies
or
decision-making.
More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:
Site
That
Listed
Information
About
3rd
Party
Pokémon
Fan-Games
Shuts
Down
Under
Threat
California
State
Senator
Pushes
Bill
To
Remove
Anonymity
From
Anyone
Who
Is
Influential
Online
When
It
Comes
To
TikTok
Hyperventilation,
Financial
Conflicts
Of
Interest
Abound
