this intense @RMac18@CraigSilverman@PranavDixit piece highlights at least three points. the first is well known, namely: bad actors worldwide exploit *what the platform offers them* to manipulate the public
the second is a recurring problem of failure to address major manipulation in what some might consider the 'periphery'. given that the platform's user base is mainly outside the US, this is unconscionable.
& third, connected to 2, the oft-noted sense that facebook operates in response to public pressure & bad pr. indeed, why did sophie zhang feel like she was acting alone, without support, to address these issues?
reinforces that what @RMac18 reported here is a global phenomenon, it's just one that facebook employees don't walk out for
Twitter has had a good run. Lots of people around the world have enjoyed the ability to call out corruption & abuse while tagging the abusers; previously unheard voices developed huge followings (for better or worse).
But the new owner's lack of seriousness & forethought, and an almost exclusive focus on the US context, makes me doubt that it will survive to do all that, at least globally. It may not die, but ppl will find others ways to engage.
i would be especially concerned if i were a user in a repressive environment. musk has done nothing to encourage people to believe they remain safe & that twitter will have their backs. worst, though, is that he hasn't seemed to consider the risks users face.
strong words from @POTUS at #UNGA today on human rights. much to admire, & yet...how much does the United States really use the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to "measure ourselves"? whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
this is as much about us as it is about the rest of the world & I'm glad @POTUS concluded the way he did
and to its credit, the United States actively participates in the [very few] treaty bodies to which it is a party, rejoined the @UN_HRC, leads on some key issues.
this UK ruling, enabling a #Pegasus case to move forward against #SaudiArabia, is a *very big deal* as a matter of law, a blow against states seeking judicial protection against victims of their transnational repression. a preliminary-thoughts 🧵 theguardian.com/world/2022/aug…
the legal question was, in part, whether the UK courts should follow U.S. court holdings that, for an exception to sovereign immunity to be applicable (i.e., to allow a suit against a state), the 'whole tort' had to take place in the UK.
the 'whole tort' principle, in an age of transnational digital repression, makes little sense and effectively denies victims of surveillance a remedy when the perp is a state, as here (#SaudiArabia using #Pegasus against a human rights defender).
for a longer study of the industry and tools to address it, see my report to the UN in 2019, dealing with export reg, legal change, the vulnerabilities market, more. undocs.org/A/HRC/41/35