Thread by @KateDAdamo

Good morning everyone following #EARNIT ! A long thread on what's happening today & updates on the bill. And S/O to the @hackinghustling team - it's been a long 36 hrs trying to stay up to speed. There'll be a longer recap later, b/c what happens today will change next steps (1/

Today #EARNIT (S.3398) is going to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Cmte. A committee isn't the full Senate, it's where a bill is 1st assigned for debate/editing - here is their website if you want to see members/what they do: judiciary.senate.gov (2/

That's why the call-in day was focused only on Senators who were going to hear it - only they get to debate/vote/edit. We're talking about like minute 1:30 in this video youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQ… (3/

Today members of the Cmte are allowed to propose Amendments - which can change, or completely re-write the bill. Today is going to change things because the proposed amendments are making big changes to #EARNIT's last form. Also going to change all our damn graphics. (4/

Remember how SESTA was all about civil liability and then all of a sudden - BLOOP! - there was a surprise change to be criminal liability for everyone in the sex trade instead? That's bc a member of a cmte submitted and amendment completely re-writing the bill during a markup (5/

The Hearing opened at 10am, but they have to go through 5 judicial nominations first, so there's no clear answer on when you can watch the EARNIT hearing, but you'll be able to watch it, and read the possible amendments on this page: judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/07/02… (6/

The major amendment that somewhat re-writes the bill can be read here, and it's the first one submitted by Sen Graham (7/ judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…

The main changes are that it:
(1) Changes the commission forming best practices w the weight of law, they become "best practices" for websites
(2) Creates a SESTA-like carve out for 230 protections for child pornography/trafficking but uses *STATE* laws, too
(8/

(3) Removes the certification process that websites would have gone through under the original provisions
(4) Some other stuff that I won't go into

Here's why we're still saying #FUCKEARNIT : (9/

(1) Best Practices: Just because the best practices aren't becoming law, having the DOJ say "this is best practice" creates a nod at liability - which means you have the same bullshit commission with the same mandate telling the DOJ what they expect. So same problems. (10/

(2) re: 230 carve outs Congress needs to prove there's a problem to solve- there actually isn't clarity that 230 is stopping these suits. Litigation is difficult & costly & jurisprudence is patchy. "This is tough, we haven't tried" isn't reason for expanding liability (11/

(2) Maybe if civil litigation - which is incredibly inaccessible to most people - is the only thing we have to offer victims of harm, lets re-think our approach & not use this flawed system which won't actually be accessible even after this carve out, to most people. But no. (12/

(2) The carve out also uses *state* laws as well. This means that every single state aggressive about prosecution can pass an incredible sweeping law or have an overly aggressive prosecutor, and since the internet doesn't stop at a state border, impact the whole country (13/

(2) If you don't believe me on that one, look at why C i t y x g u i d e was prosecuted in North Texas. (14/

There are four other amendments which do a variety of other things (@SenCoonsOffice, thanks for literally being the only one talking about money into victim services), but the Manager's Amendment is the most sweeping and will have the most impact. (15/

But there are two things which we need to focus on for why this is bad, and they don't actually show up in a single amendment and NO ONE BUT S E X W O R K E R S are saying them, so please don't think that the tech companies give a shit about anything but their bottom line (16/

First - The structure of the commission has not changed. It is still AG Barr, DHS, FTC, 2 cops, 2 prosecutors, 4 people from tech, 2 lawyers, 2 computer programmers, & 4 survivors of CSAM OR service providers to young ppl sitting at the DOJ determining best practices (17/

That means that NO ONE from the sex trade will have a voice, no one will be considering harm reduction, no one will be thinking about how "age gating" of communications impact queen youth trying to learn basic LGBTQ sex ed, no one is accountable to those most impacted (18/

It also means that despite s e x workers being the *only* ones who predicted the ramifications of FOSTA/SESTA, the *only* ones doing mutual aid in its aftermath, the *only* ones documenting its impact - there are structural barriers which mean the experts cannot participate (19/

Centering the commission at the DOJ and making it law enforcement heavy mean policed platforms will have too much liability - and certainly aren't going to be nominated to be on it in the first place. BC on top of liability for whatever comes out, the expansion of FOSTA (20/

2nd & I cannot stress this enough: PREVENTION PROGRAMS ARE NOT FULLY FUNDED AND AUTHORIZATIONS ARE EXPIRING. Centering this while we could literally scale up prevention should be considered Congressional complicity in violence happening and we should be ashamed and outraged (21/

TLDR: Today's theres changes in #EARNIT but it's SESTA2.0 - The same ppl who brought you #SESTA & couldnt be bothered to care about it's impact are using the same logic (private liability) & talking points to pass #EARNIT thinking that this time it's going to work. (22/22)