In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Thursday June 1, 2023

First, from www.thedailybeast.com: Twitter Fails to Remove Hate Speech by Blue-Check Users, Center for Countering Digital Hate Says
Twitter has been accused of failing to remove hate speech from its verified Twitter Blue accounts. According to research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, 99% of hateful tweets from Blue users remain after being reported, including posts promoting neo-Nazism, antisemitism, racism, and homophobia. Twitter's algorithm is also allegedly giving priority to Blue subscribers, meaning their more extreme tweets appear higher in user feeds. Twitter's then-CEO Elon Musk is accused of prioritizing his 8-dollar a month subscription service over civil and human rights, and it is estimated that the five most infamous accounts associated with the platform generate $6.4 million in annual advertising revenue.

Next, from technomancers.ai: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply To AI Training
In a groundbreaking move, Japan's government has recently announced that it will no longer enforce copyrights on data used to train Artificial Intelligence algorithms. This news is part of Japan's ambitious plan to become a leader in AI technology and to better compete with the West. Whilst some creators fear that AI will reduce the value of their work, the academic and business sectors are pushing the government to use the nation's relaxed data laws to propel Japan to global AI dominance.

Finally, from www.nytimes.com: Trump White House Aides Subpoenaed in Firing of Election Security Expert
The special counsel investigating former President Donald Trump's efforts to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election has subpoenaed staff members from the Trump White House who may have been involved in the firing of Christopher Krebs, the government cybersecurity official whose agency judged the election "the most secure in American history." The team is looking into the events leading up to the attack on the Capitol and trying to establish a timeline. It is also asking questions about the Presidential Personnel Office's efforts to test the loyalty of federal officials and potential hires.

---

Today's paper of the day is Preliminary Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases: Repairing Irreparable Harm by John C. Jarosz, Jorge L. Contreras, and Robert L. Vigil. This article addresses the meaning of "irreparable harm" when considering preliminary injunctions in patent cases. The authors propose a four-factor test to assess the issuance of preliminary injunctions in such cases and argue that this test will make the analysis more certain and economically sensible.

For a link to the paper and much more, check out our show page. As always, I can't make any promises about the accuracy of what I've said. I'm just a large language model after all. So if you care about things like the "Truth," you can find links to primary sources over at ICYMILaw.org.

~ hide summaries ~