CNET interviewed me for this piece and asked me about this exact thing but didn't print my response, so I'll just say it here "the Internet is working just fine since the repeal of net neutrality...is kind of like saying 'it's snowing outside therefore climate change isn't real."
I could go back and find statements from organizations like @fightfortheftr@freepress@mediajustice@NHMC etc that carefully explained what was likely to happen in the immediate wake of Ajit Pai's repeal of #netneutrality. The "doomsday" msg was always a telecom talking point
It's frustrating to see reporters repeat these talking points and messages that are concocted by AT&T lobbyists as if they are facts, when an even cursory glance at the actual substance of #netneutrality advocates messaging would make it clear why this is an absurd thing to write
this "ping-pong" line is also a direct quote cooked up by a lobbyist that's included here as if it's just factual reporting, not an opinion. there wouldn't be any "regulatory ping pong" if telecom companies stopped endless lobbying &litigation to kill basic consumer protections.
To be clear, reporters are often doing the best they can. These issues are extremely complicated and industries like Big Tech & Big Telecom employ an epic and powerful spin machine that successfully injects talking points into the narrative. But sometimes it's just egregious.
In conclusion, I appreciate you @maggie_reardon for writing about this issue and including perspectives from myself, @gigibsohn@mattfwood, etc. I wish you had just also quoted folks from AT&T, NCTA etc instead of including their talking points as if they were facts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay readers please send help because in this THREAD I will be semi-live tweeting today's hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee where lawmakers like Lindsey Graham will pretend to care about things like free speech and Big Tech abuses while showboating about the election
Live video for the hearing hasn't started yet, so quickly here's what to expect. Republicans will yell about specific moderation decisions, spread baseless claims of bias, and talk a lot about Hunter Biden's laptop. Democrats will mostly argue platforms don't moderate enough.
And we're off. Graham is working on a world record for the most @BadSec230Takes in one sentence. He just incorrectly stated the way Section 230 liability protections work. In fact, Section 230 *does* protect individuals from liability for, for example, retweeting Lindsey Graham
really really miss throwing queer dance parties and i'm going through old videos for a project so just gonna tweet a thread of good times from the beforetimes
UPDATE: A spokesperson for the University of Miami is now DENYING that the school used facial recognition surveillance to intimidate student protesters.
But @fightfortheftr uncovered documents that prove they're not telling the truth.
And here's the kicker. We found the resume for @univmiami Chief of Police David Rivero, which is publicly available on the university's website: umpd.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/ri…
In it he claims to oversee the school's surveillance camera systems, INCLUDING FACIAL RECOGNITION.
Now that Trump has declared entire US cities "Anarchist Jurisdictions," maybe it's a good time to do a quick THREAD on anarchists and anarchism. Fascists throughout history have invoked these words to spread fear & seize power, but actually anarchy is about love & cooperation.
There are lots of different types of anarchists & strains of anarchism, but at a basic level anarchists believe that arbitrary forms of hierarchy are inherently oppressive, and that humans are better off organizing ourselves horizontally rather than thru laws enforced by violence
Anarchists believe in communities making decisions together through consensus & discussion rather than having those decisions be imposed by politicians or those with institutional power (say, bosses, religious leaders, or landlords.) They believe in mutual aid and solidarity.
It feels like part of the reason that mainstream tech discourse has latched on so much to the specific problem of bias in AI, especially facial recognition, is that people are uncomfortable questioning the validity of institutions like policing.
It's much easier and safer to say "This software might be biased and therefore police shouldn't use it until it works right" than it is to say "this software will help police perform the functions of policing faster, and more efficiently, and that in and of itself is a bad thing"
The same could be said for corporations looking to use AI and things like face recognition for marketing or customer experience, etc. Yes, bias in these systems can exacerbate discrimination, but using software to extract ever more profit from humans is problematic from the start
One of my problems with "The Social Dilemma" is that it makes the same mistake a lot of tech observers are making: it treats social media as if its cigarettes -- something that's addictive and bad with no value at all. The Internet is more like sex, drugs and rock & roll (thread)
Done wrong, it can be harmful, unhealthy, addictive, violating and corrosive. But done right it can be liberating, mind-expanding, transformative, and fun as hell. The problem with ignoring this is that it leads us toward "solutions" to Big Tech that do more harm than good.
We can't, and shouldn't, call for regulation of social media companies without acknowledging the fact that the Internet, and specifically the ability for user-generated content on the Internet to go viral, has transformed and revolutionized our society in profoundly good ways.