GOOOOOOD morning everyone!!! Ready for my thread about why EARN IT Act is a really bad bill?
Let me start by saying my article with @DaisySRivkin doesn't even begin to touch all the issues. We take the bill as is. @TechFreedom explains what this bill is REALLY about:
So first, let me say the process itself is WEIRD. This bill creates a commission whose best practices to reduce child exploitation will then have to be approved by DHS head, FTC head and AG. Then it goes through Congress. So this is like a bill to create a bill. Weird. 
Then you might be saying "oh best practices, that sounds like a good idea!" Nope. Here's why. NOPE. Here's why.
First, you have to follow these best practices to gain Section 230 immunity. 230 is known as "the law that created the internet." It says you're not liable for ...
First, you have to follow these best practices to gain Section 230 immunity. 230 is known as "the law that created the internet." It says you're not liable for ...
...things other people post or comment on your website. Facebook and Twitter literally have BILLIONS of posts. It's a lot for AI and direct moderation to keep up, 1. And 2 people shouldn't be liable for things other people post!!!!
Also, this legislation DOES NOT LIMIT APPLICATION TO WEBSITE SIZE. So someone posted on your mom's blog an illegal comment? Your mom would be liable.
This legislation would create an insane proliferation of frivolous lawsuits.
This legislation would create an insane proliferation of frivolous lawsuits.
SO HOW, exactly, do you regain 230 protections - that all websites currently have - do you ask?
Compliance with the commission's best practices (that aren't created yet bc the comm. doesn't exist yet. So they could be ANYTHING YOLO). OR by a platform implementing “reasonable...
Compliance with the commission's best practices (that aren't created yet bc the comm. doesn't exist yet. So they could be ANYTHING YOLO). OR by a platform implementing “reasonable...
... measures relating to” objectives listed in the bill. "Reasonable" is not defined.
In both cases, you need the Attorney General's approval. In the first case you need to submit evidence and the AG can say you get 230 approval or not. In the 2nd, you just have to hope...
In both cases, you need the Attorney General's approval. In the first case you need to submit evidence and the AG can say you get 230 approval or not. In the 2nd, you just have to hope...
...that if it goes to court that the AG has your back I guess???
BUT HERE'S THE THING.
In case 1, AG gets to decide if you get 230 immunity. There's no requirement he actually review evidence. So there's chance that if the AG likes you, you're good! And if he doesn't? ...
BUT HERE'S THE THING.
In case 1, AG gets to decide if you get 230 immunity. There's no requirement he actually review evidence. So there's chance that if the AG likes you, you're good! And if he doesn't? ...
Well you may be screwed.
And in case 2 you have to wait until you're sued basically to find out if you've done well enough in the eyes of the DOJ to get 230 immunity. No WaY tHat BaCkFiReS aNd ClOgS uP oUr CoUrTs
And in case 2 you have to wait until you're sued basically to find out if you've done well enough in the eyes of the DOJ to get 230 immunity. No WaY tHat BaCkFiReS aNd ClOgS uP oUr CoUrTs
So the fallout. In most cases, when u get rid of 230, you're going to encourage moderating everything or nothing - the "moderator's dilemma." Because anything you moderate with flaw, you're LEGALLY LIABLE for. Don't touch evil, you're good. Don't allow user comments, good. BUT!!!
BECAUSE this bill also changes some other liability stuff, it incentivizes more moderating, more restriction of user content.
Larger platforms like Facebook would have to divert resources from other goals, such as fighting abusive speech or even terrorism, to EARN IT compliance
Larger platforms like Facebook would have to divert resources from other goals, such as fighting abusive speech or even terrorism, to EARN IT compliance
Medium-sized platforms with less staff would likely have to limit the amount of people who may post to fewer, trusted users so that the burden of moderating would not be impossible. Small platforms with little or no staff will likely ban user posts altogether.
And a cherry on top??
The law says that no part of the act “shall be construed to require [platforms] to search, screen, or scan for instances of online child sexual exploitation.”
WTF. IF THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT THEN THEY CAN'T ADDRESS THE ABUSIVE CONTENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
The law says that no part of the act “shall be construed to require [platforms] to search, screen, or scan for instances of online child sexual exploitation.”
WTF. IF THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT THEN THEY CAN'T ADDRESS THE ABUSIVE CONTENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
My colleague/co-author @DaisySRivkin used to work finding this content at Google, tracking it, working to get rid of it but also working with authorities on it. You NEED TO FIND TO HANDLE IT
So if the law says this, WHAT is the point even!!!!!!
So if the law says this, WHAT is the point even!!!!!!
As we write, "If platforms aren’t required to search for and address the abusive content, then the bill is essentially useless."
AND we end where we began. Encryption. The real goal of the bill. Not the window-dressing.
As @neil_chilson has said, we need to address the real issue: Child exploitation. But EARN IT is a mess, would have a crushing effect on free speech, and is a huge grant of power to the AG.
Read my full piece with @DaisySRivkin -- washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/lindse…
Read my full piece with @DaisySRivkin -- washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/lindse…
