THREAD: It’s tempting to view Facebook’s rebranding as nothing more than a cynical attempt by the company to distance itself from endless scandals and the real-world harm caused by its surveillance capitalist business model.
But it’s actually much more sinister than that.
With this announcement Mark Zuckerberg revealed his end game: he’s making a play to control the future of the Internet.
My org @fightfortheftr has long advocated for decentralized community-driven alternatives to Big Tech monopolies & their abusive business practices. Decentralized tech projects (ranging from Matrix to Filecoin) are often broadly referred to as“Web 3” the next iteration of the web
With his push for Facebook to build and dominate the “metaverse,” and colonizing forays into digital currencies and NFTs, Zuckerberg is co-opting the terminology of decentralization and attempting to solidify his stranglehold on the future of human attention and interaction.
We urgently need to enact policies that reduce the harm that Facebook’s surveillance-driven algorithmic manipulation product is doing right now––first and foremost by finally passing a real Federal data privacy law in the US. HowToStopFacebook.org
And we need to reject misguided proposals like gutting Section 230, which would further entrench giants like Facebook and Google while trampling on the basic human rights of marginalized communities. fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-10-1…
But most importantly, we need to stop looking backward and recognize that the Internet is changing. We are heading toward Web 3 whether we want to or not, and we need to fight tooth and nail to ensure that the policies governing this next generation of the Internet are ...
... carefully crafted to protect vulnerable communities, free expression and human rights––and that they don’t undermine the potential of truly decentralized technologies, which could help finally end the era of Big Tech surveillance capitalism.
There is no guarantee that the next iteration of the Internet is better than the last. It’s fun to dunk on Zuck and laugh about overpriced NFTs and doge coin bros, but if those who care about human rights and democracy don’t engage with the transition ...
... to the next generation of the web in a serious way, it’s almost guaranteed that Web 3 will be worse, not better for humanity.
We are at a crossroads. It’s time to decide what we want the future of the Internet to look like. And then it’s time to fight for that vision.
Before it’s too late.
• • •
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.
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
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