Yesterday's threads: The WELL State of the World; Food and Climate Change Without the Hot Air; Mass court: "I agree" means something; Congress bans "little green men"; and more!
My latest novel is Attack Surface, a sequel to my bestselling Little Brother books. @washingtonpost called it "a political cyberthriller, vigorous, bold and savvy about the limits of revolution and resistance."
I have a (free) new book out! "How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism" is an anti-monopolist critique of Big Tech that connects the rise of conspiratorial thinking to the rise of tech monopolies and proposes a way to deal with both:
My ebooks and audiobooks (from @torbooks, @HoZ_Books, @mcsweeneys, and others) are for sale all over the net, but I sell 'em too, and when you buy 'em from me, I earn twice as much and you get books with no DRM and no license "agreements."
My first picture book is out! It's called Poesy the Monster Slayer and it's an epic tale of bedtime-refusal, toy-hacking and monster-hunting, illustrated by Matt Rockefeller. It's the monster book I dreamt of reading to my own daughter.
If you prefer a newsletter, subscribe to the plura-list, which is also ad- and tracker-free, and is utterly unadorned save a single daily emoji. Today's is "👃🏻". Suggestions solicited for future emojis!
As Parler disappears from the Android and Ios app stores and faces being kicked off of Amazon's (and other) clouds, people who worry about monopolized corporate control over speech are divided over What It Means.
1/
There's an obvious, trivial point to be made here: Twitter, Apple and Google are private companies. When they remove speech on the basis of its content, it's censorship, but it's not GOVERNMENT censorship. It doesn't violate the First Amendment.
2/
And yes, of course it's censorship. They have made a decision about the type and quality of speech they'll permit, and they enforce that decision using the economic, legal and technical tools at their disposal.
3/
In 1963, SCOTUS ruled in Brady v Maryland. They held that when prosecutors called on police officers to testify against a defendant, the prosecutors had a legal duty to inform defendants about the officers' records of misconduct and false testimony.
1/
Since then, prosecutors have created "Brady lists" of cops who can't be trusted to take the stand. They avoid cases that rely on these officers' testimony, or seek out alternate witnesses to call. Brady lists have done much to advance the right to a fair trial in America.
2/
Brady lists are secret, and they shouldn't be. An officer on their local prosecutors' Brady list is an officer whom those prosecutors believe to be a corrupt liar. Yes, that officer is unlikely to be called upon to testify against you, but they still wield enormous power.
3/