For the last fucking time Section 230 is not a "special legal protection afforded to technology companies"
It applies to literally every website. Including the comments section of The Hill, for example. It also protects you from getting sued for retweeting or forwarding an email
If Section 230 were repealed entirely, it would throw the Internet into chaos. It would also ironically solidify the monopoly power of the companies everyone is mad at: Facebook and Google. They have the armies of lawyers to figure out how to navigate a world without 230
Repealing Section 230 would lead to MORE censorship on the Internet, not less. If you don't like the way Twitter and Facebook do content moderation now, wait til they're making those decisions based on whether they think your post might catch them an expensive lawsuit
It would also make it almost impossible for sites to engage in good faith moderation efforts. I'm not even talking about hate speech or disinfo or political stuff, just like ... imagine your entire feed is constantly filled with bot spam and cringe porn
The last time Congress amended Section 230 was with SESTA/FOSTA, a law that literally got people killed and is widely seen by experts as having harmed the very communities it claimed to protect. Ask sex workers about 230. whyy.org/segments/fosta…
Big Tech is a problem. Their surveillance based biz model is fundamentally incompatible with democracy & basic rights. And their content moderation practices are shoddy and lack transparency. But blowing up Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes it worse, not better.
It's unsurprising but disgusting that Trump & McConnell are playing this game with Section 230 to hold up stimulus (survival) checks that people desperately need to feed their children and not get evicted in the middle of a fucking pandemic that was exacerbated by their inaction
It seems very unlikely that they will succeed in gutting or changing 230, McConnell seems to be using it as an intentional "poison pill" to blow up the deal for $2,000 checks so that he can then blame it on the Democrats. Everyone should be outraged by this. It's inane and cruel
But even though it's unlikely the Senate will actually do anything to 230 before Trump leaves, everyone should be speaking out right now. Lawmakers in both parties are getting worse on this issue every day. If we don't mobilize and educate, we'll see another SESTA/FOSTA soon
You can use this site to write to your lawmakers. Tell them that blowing up Section 230 will do more harm than good. We need lawmakers to respond to Trump's absurd demands by CLEARLY STATING that they will defend Section 230, free speech, and human rights saveonlinefreespeech.org
UPDATE: since this thread started circulating Mitch McConnell has filed actual legislation that ties A FULL REPEAL of Section 230 to the $2,000 stimulus checks that people desperately need to feed their kids and not get evicted in the middle of a pandemic. Horrifying and cruel.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
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