Yes. Ask any congressional staffer and they’ll tell you that calls matter the most, especially when you can generate a lot in a short period of time and they feel like the phone is ringing off the hook about a particular issue. Elevates it to “the boss” aka your rep
Emails are good too but they tend to get a ton of them so they are more easily drowned out, and often there is a lag time between when they receive them and when they report back to “the boss” on how many emails they’ve gotten on a particular issue over the course of a week or so
Tweeting at your rep can be pretty effective because it’s a relatively new medium and they tend to have people monitoring it all the time, plus some reps run their own account and will sometimes reply directly to you in the moment, a great way to get them on the record
It’s always good to identify yourself as a constituent and be super clear about which bill / policy / thing you are calling about and what you want them to do. Ie in this case something like “publicly state your support for a #DontKillCrypto fix like the Wyden amendment.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few reporters asked me what I think about the latest Facebook scandals and today's hearing on Instagram and harm to kids.
First of all, I think Facebook shouldn't exist and most of its surveillance capitalist business practices should be banned, but beyond that... THREAD:
Conversations about how to best protect kids on social media need to start with the understanding that, for at least some kids and teens, access to online community can be a lifeline.
For LGBTQ+ youth with unsupportive parents, for example, the ability to seek out peers with similar experiences online could be the difference between depressing isolation and thriving within a supportive community.
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
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