The contemporary equivalent of the Military Industrial Complex is the nexus of state and private platform power. We need a catchy phrase for that, and it needs sustained scrutiny. Things are getting ugly.
Thread 1/
The number of recent news stories about platform employees doing things to make governments happy, including disclosing user data and silencing (or declining to silence) online speech, is remarkable. And what gets reported is presumably just the tip of a very large iceberg. 2/
This @Wired piece about the Saudi royal family bribing Twitter employees to reveal logs data about dissidents and critics is mind-blowing. 3/ wired.com/story/mohammed…
First they got Twitter’s head of Middle East partnerships to find and hand over information about users. (Why did that guy even have access to data like that?) 4/
Then they got a Twitter engineer in SF to disclose user information to a Saudi handler, seemingly for quite a while. The engineer wound up fleeing the U.S. and now works for King Salman’s foundation. His job there, per DOJ, is to “monitor and manipulate social media.” 5/
Meanwhile over at Facebook, we have terrible stories about a senior employee with government ties helping to keep a ruling BJP party legislator’s hateful or incendiary posts *up* when they should have come down under the TOS. 6/ wsj.com/articles/will-…
And then there are the stories about US executives, who also have strong government ties and deeply influence Facebook content policy. 7/ wsj.com/articles/faceb…
To be clear, having government ties is what makes these employees valuable to the platform. That’s their job. Equivalent roles exist in every major industry, and regardless of what party is in power. 8/
But the transparency rules, ethical wall rules, revolving door rules, etc. that a particular government or company adopts matter. 9/
What’s a problem inside platforms, as my colleague @alexstamos points out, is when people in the govt-relations business influence content policy for users. Those internal teams should be rigorously separate. But that may become impossible when issues are important enough. 10/
For completeness sake, here is a Google example – this odd thing with Jordan’s crown prince working at the company’s always problematic Jigsaw division. 11/
vice.com/en_us/article/…
As a sidebar, I’ve worked with so many amazing and principled people from all of these parts of the world. It worries me greatly to think stories like this might bring suspicion upon them or make their lives harder within tech companies. 12/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Daphne Keller

Daphne Keller Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @daphnehk

18 Aug
The postal service is America’s original all-access speech platform. Long may it thrive. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/0…
It would be really fun to research and write about the postal service as a model of platform regulation. I even have some notes on point. But I’ll probably never get around to it, and have not systematically researched. So here are a few thoughts / some free association. 2/
There’s con law about when and how the govt can make the USPS exclude content. In Lamont, the S Ct struck down a law requiring it to block foreign propaganda mailings by default. Recipients could then opt IN to receive the mail, putting their name on a govt list to do so. 3/
Read 15 tweets
3 Aug
Everyone should be paying WAY more attention to GIFCT, the database platforms use to share information about terrorist content (or things that met someone’s definition of terrorist content, which is part of the issue). Here comes a thread. 1/
This is a good moment to pay attention because GIFCT is in the middle of overhauling its internal governance, and a lot of civil society groups are very vocally disappointed by the direction it’s taking. See this hrw.org/news/2020/07/3… or this blog.witness.org/2020/07/witnes… 2/
GIFCT is a big deal both because of what it specifically does (set rules for “violent extremist” speech, an important and very contested category) and because it is a model for future semi-private Internet governance. 3/
Read 29 tweets
25 Jun
A law regulating platform amplification of user content IS a law regulating speech. Smart people are wasting time having discussions that assume that problem away. 1/
You can’t escape First Amendment barriers (or international human rights law) just by shifting focus from “harmful content” to “the amplification of harmful content.” 2/
Most discussions I hear about this focus on making platforms demote / not amplify harmful content that is still, for better or worse, constitutionally protected speech. A law like that would have two First Amendment problems. 3/
Read 11 tweets
19 Jun
Germany is requiring platforms to report users to the police if they are suspected of saying something illegal. The DOJ Section 230 Report says we should have the same dystopian rule here in the US. 1/
DOJ version: make 230 immunity contingent on platforms reporting users to the police if the platform receives an allegation that the user violated federal criminal law. 3/
Read 18 tweets
14 May
It's interesting how the eCommerce Directive expects different degrees of engagement with potentially unlawful user-generated content from entities at different layers of the Internet's technical stack. (Art 12, 13, or 14)
As I read Art 12, access providers only have to "terminate or prevent an infringement" if *the provider itself* is ordered to do so by a court or administrative authority.
Art 13 caching providers can also be ordered to take action themselves. In addition, they must remove if they know *the initial source* of the info removed it, or was ordered to do so.
So effectively, they should respect court orders issued to third parties.
Read 5 tweets
6 May
Strange days indeed if my feed isn't blowing up with comments about the people named as co-chairs of Facebook's Oversight Board. Catalina Botero-Marino, Jamal Greene, Michael W. McConnell and Helle Thorning-Schmidt authored this boldly titled op ed today. nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opi…
I'm a massive fan of Botero-Marino. Her work on platform issues as OAS Free Expression rapporteur was groundbreaking.
Beyond that it's certainly a global north-heavy list, for starters...
I'm also hearing from multiple sources that FB is pitching the Board as a model for other platforms. That is disappointing, if true. The Board is a massive, bold, important experiment. I wish it the best. But let's road test this before even thinking about expansion.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!