i don't want to take attention away from the need to support repro justice groups in Texas, but after a quick read of SB8 I am struck that the only thing preventing this law from effectively forcing social media platforms to censor speech about abortion access is Section 230
I've spoken with a number of reproductive justice advocates in the past who are extremely concerned that weakening Sec 230 would lead to a flood of lawsuits from anti-abortion assholes who would love nothing more than to see info about abortion access scrubbed from social media
The Texas law is clearly designed to have a massive chilling effect on speech. It potentially opens up INDIVIDUALS who post information about abortion and reproductive health to lawsuits. But without Section 230, platforms would just pre-emptively take that stuff down or get sued
I hope this serves as a wake-up call for progressives and Democratic lawmakers. You may want more "bad speech" scrubbed from the Internet. But taking aim at Section 230 will ALWAYS backfire on the most marginalized. And this Texas law is a perfect example of how that could happen
This is exactly why dozens of human rights, LGBTQ+, civil liberties, harm reduction, and civil rights groups have called on lawmakers to oppose gutting 230.
Without 230, you'd have states like Texas governing what can and can't be said online. Bad idea.
A careful observer might point out that it's not just Section 230 that protects platforms who host speech about abortion access, it's the First Amendment that protects the underlying speech. But without 230, platforms would have to fend off a barrage of expensive lawsuits, and...
... if you think that Facebook cares more about reproductive justice and free speech than it cares about making money and avoiding expensive lawsuits, I ... well, i would say that you are very wrong and should think harder about this. 🤷♀️
Anyhow, go here to make a donation that will be split between 8 different Texas-based abortion funds / reproductive justice organizations: secure.actblue.com/donate/txfunds
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: there's a lot of justifiable anger at OnlyFans right now for betraying the sex workers who made them rich. That's justified. In the end tho, like most tech issues, the root of this problem is monopoly power. OF was running a business in a "store" they rent instead of own.
From what has been publicly reported, it seems that OnlyFans made it's decision to "pivot" (aka throw sex workers under the bus) based on a few factors:
1) pressure from payment processors / big banks 2) pressure from Big Tech giants like Apple 3) pressure from investors
The third problem is perhaps tough to solve without ... idk abolishing capitalism or whatever. But the first two are the direct result of rightwing evangelicals posing as anti-trafficking activists (ie Exodus Cry) exploiting vulnerabilities in centralized Internet infrastructure.
THREAD: The Biden admin has been talking a big game about being "tough on Big Tech" and Silicon Valley monopolies. But right now they're quietly defending a provision in the #InfrastructureBill that targets software developers who are trying to build alternatives to Big Tech
Here's what's going on: the administration has been pushing a "pay-for" measure in the bipartisan infrastructure package that would expand US government surveillance of #cryptocurrency projects. @EFF has a good summary of concerns with the provision here: eff.org/deeplinks/2021…
The provision has been sold as being about taxes. But it's so poorly written that it would create reporting requirements that would demand people like software developers and even volunteers within decentralized tech projects hand over data or conduct surveillance of their users.
THREAD: some quick thoughts on @amyklobuchar's new bill, which would allow the government to define speech as "health misinformation" and then revoke platforms' Section 230 protections if they algorithmically amplify that speech theverge.com/2021/7/22/2258… (spoiler: it's a bad idea)
First: I get it. Medical misinformation, especially around COVID safety measures and vaccines, is a real problem. Lives are at stake. And, there are real concerns with the ways that Big Tech companies like Facebook and YouTube artificially algorithmically amplify harmful content.
But this bill won't address any of those problems. And in fact, it could make them even worse. It also almost certainly violates the First Amendment, and would never hold up in court. Which is frustrating, because as I just said, this is a real problem, and we need real solutions
Saying that decentralized tech like cryptocurrency is “inherently right wing” is like saying socialism is “inherently authoritarian” because you can point to examples of authoritarian governments that claim to be socialist. Yes, there are a lot of crypto bro scams and BS, but…
Decentralization is our best bet for having a future internet that’s not based on surveillance capitalism and where people have basic rights. Cryptocurrencies are just sort of the tip of the iceberg, messy (and often scammy) proofs of concept for something much more important
So go ahead and retweet the Dogecoin guy with an axe to grind because his thread confirms your biases or makes you feel righteous, but know that what you’re really dunking on is the potential to have a Spotify owned by artists, uncensorable private Twitter with no Jack Dorsey etc
So @MayorJohnDennis of West Lafayette, IN says that he will veto an ordinance to ban #facialrecognition despite widespread evidence it's ineffective & discriminatory. Then gives an interview to the local paper showing he has no clue how this tech works 🤦♀️eu.jconline.com/story/news/202…
Let's break this down a bit. @MayorJohnDennis says he'd veto the ordinance, which was brought forward by concerned residents, despite widespread concern from civil rights groups and experts about the ways this technology exacerbates discrimination & harm washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/…
Here's an actual Mayor of an actual city describing to @jconline what he thinks recognition does:
Notably, nearly twenty other cities across the US have already banned this technology.
Will be on the lookout for lawmakers parroting talking points fed to them by tech industry lobbyists and law enforcement shills. #BanFacialRecognition
Only a few minutes into the hearing and we've already heard a ton of excuses for why lawmakers aren't just moving quickly to ban this technology. The language they're using around "oversight" & "regulatory frameworks" fed to them directly from tech lobbyists opposing moratorium