2/ First big change is it removes the language on Congress's findings so far, Section 4 in Pelosi's draft, that referred to prior testimony from folks like FBI Director Wray that acknowledged threat of extremism. New draft moves straight into functions of the Commission.
3/ Second (and most substantial) change is that it reduces the number of Commissioners to 10 from 11. The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader choose the Chairman, rather than the President.
4/ The Vice Chairperson (appointed by Republicans) gets subpoena power- this is consistent with Pelosi's concession.
5/ An addition on subject matter jurisdiction.
6/ Maintains December 31, 2021 deadline.
Removes the phrase "domestic terrorism" from the definition of targeted violence.
So, biggest differences from last draft:
1- President Biden has no role in choosing the chairman or commissioners.
2- Republicans get subpoena power.
My BIG CONCERN: THE DEADLINE. We've lost months. This Commission would only have 4-5 months to function if the deadline remains 12/31/2021.
Amending this to clarify the subpoena power. Not quite right to say Vice Chair gets power. Commission can issue subpoena by agreement of Chair and Vice Chair, or by majority. So, a path for Vice Chair to issue subpoena with agreement of Chair or majority.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Most Americans won't pay attention to this. But it feels very significant... momentous. Even after January 6th, there is no turning back for the GOP. It is an anti-democratic party far more committed to white grievances than the constitution. washingtonpost.com/politics/mccar…
US joins Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online techpolicy.press/us-joins-chris…
Despite mass shootings in the United States motivated by the New Zealand mosque massacres, the Trump administration declined dozens of other nations and American tech companies to join the Call to Action in 2019, citing concerns over free speech. techpolicy.press/us-joins-chris…
When the US did not join under Trump, "it came as a surprise to many of us who study this stuff, because it was kind of a no-brainer to sign, and was only really encouraging an industry-wide set of good practices,” said @AmarAmarasingam: techpolicy.press/us-joins-chris…
'The OAG found that millions of fake comments were submitted through a secret campaign, funded by the country's largest broadband co's, to manufacture support for repeal of net neutrality rules... millions more were submitted by a 19yo college student using made-up identities...'
Another reason this is concerning- given the research I do on computational propaganda I am fairly certain this particular campaign is a harbinger of similar and much more automated attacks to come.
I'm going to share this once more, because I don't think enough people in my life have engaged with this story, and the stunning, terrifying photography it contains.
1/ Senator @ChrisCoonsforDE refers to @_KarenHao@techreview reporting around how incentives work at Facebook with regard to growth metrics, asks platforms whether they provide such pay incentives. Bickert say they are "not simply" incentivized for engagement.
2/ Culbertson says they have no incentive to drive unhealthy engagement. Veitch says responsibility is YouTube's primary concern (?!?).
3/ @BenSasse says the statements from the platforms about incentives is irreconcilable with their business model. Bickert: "For us, the focus is always on the long term." Refers to decision on 'meaningful social interactions' that did reduce amount of time spent on Facebook.