iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

#outlier day 149: definitely was on a morpheme run more so than usual today, heh OUTLIER · Day 149 · 942 · ELITE OUTLIER 8 words nobody else has found yet · 2 found by under 1% of players playoutlier.com/s/XZSNHH

playoutlier.com

OUTLIER · Day 149

rahaeli scored 942 on Day 149. Can you beat them?

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

I am making no value judgments about any of the accounts on the list! It is purely to reduce some of the friction around unwanted bot contact!

090

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

I may not yet have worked out the totality of edge cases. I am generally erring on the side of listing when in doubt, as opposed to my usual practice of erring on the side of not listing. I am using subjective judgement in determining whether unlabeled accounts are generated or agentic.

2681

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

I guess it's as good a time as any to announce the new moderation list I have: "Silence, robot", for bots, LLMs, and agents that speak to you without all parties who will receive the notification having solicited the speech: bsky.app/profile/raha...

1118173

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

-- is when the overwhelming majority of the hosted material is obscene as to minors but protected as to adults, contra the 11th's assertion either here or in Carr, I can't remember, that "🤷‍♀️ well SOME of it might be unprotected as to minors so intermediate scrutiny is ok".

110

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

I wildly disagree with Paxton's holding that age verification mandate is only an incidental burden on adults, for many reasons I've already explained, but even so, it is very clear that the *only* time you can apply intermediate scrutiny to age verification mandates--

120

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

--which the 11th badly misinterprets here to permit intermediate scrutiny of age verification mandates for material that is not obscene as to minors, when it states the only reason strict scrutiny did not apply is that the speech being regulated is obscene as to minors but not as to adults.

111

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

L.W. v. Snap Inc., 675 F.Supp.3d 1087 (S.D. Cal. 2023) V.V. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:23-CV-284 (SVN) (D. Conn. May 24, 2023) Roland v. Letgo, Inc., 2024 WL 372218 (10th Cir. Feb. 1, 2024) And, of course, Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461 (2025)--

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 575 (1983) Herrick v. Grindr, LLC, 306 F.Supp.3d 579 (S.D. N.Y. 2018) American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950) Lama v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2024 WL 2021896 (N.D.N.Y. May 6, 2024)

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 200 F.Supp.3d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2016) Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021) Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) Sable Communications of California v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989)

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

Chamber of Commerce of the United States et al. v. Lierman (4th Cir. No. 24-1727) Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019)

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018) PSINet, Inc. v. Chapman, 317 F.3d 413 (2002) 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

American Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985) Virginia v. American Booksellers Association, Inc, 484 US 383 (1988) Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022)

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo,[a] 418 U.S. 241 (1974) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000)

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union I, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) and II, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), and the ultimately dispositive proceedings, ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2008)

100

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

We can reconvene once you've read them all and gotten up to speed for the 501-level discussion I'm trying to have and not the 101-level discussion you keep trying to redirect to. Holding it purely to cases I have not been a part of and am not cited in, that list is:

120

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

The "asserting you did not say what you did, in fact, say" is also a little irritating! So at this point I am dropping you the mother of all string cites to show that my arguments are, in fact, grounded thoroughly in both 50 years of 1A and Internet jurisprudence *and* the most recent developments.

110

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 2h

I will confess to frustration at this point, because I have repeatedly cited authorities for my arguments that you have not read, but feel confident dismissing without providing alternative authorities to justify why you think they're inapposite.

110

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 7h

Have you read the proceedings in Netchoice v Bonta (2025) yet?

130

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 7h

And degree of scrutiny is irrelevant in the discussion we are actually having, because as I have repeatedly shown you, this is a content-based and speaker-based restriction, not a TPM or commercial speech restriction. Any court that finds anything other than strict scrutiny applies is simply wrong.

140

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 7h

Maybe I got the idea that you think timeline sorting and content selection algorithms aren't speech when you said you don't think timeline sorting and content selection algorithms are speech and asked me for citations? Because that's what "not going to get into" means.

250

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 8h

People, I do not need advice

10921

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 8h

I do not need advice

110

rahaeli @rahaeli.bsky.social · 11h

Psst, I was not asking for advice! Please assume I have tried all the obvious solutions and probably most of the weird ones