NEW: Remember #netneutrality? I wrote for @motherboard about how if we don't restore these rules at the FCC it's only a matter of time before Big Tech monsters like Facebook cut deals with ISPs to solidify their monopoly power and dominate the web forever vice.com/en/article/epx…
The piece comes ahead of an expected confirmation hearing for FCC chair @JRosenworcelFCC today. @SenatorCantwell needs to schedule a confirmation hearing for Gigi Sohn immediately. It's essential that we get the FCC back up and running, before it's too late.
Both Democrats and Republicans have been talking a big game about "reining in Big Tech." Pay careful attention to how they vote on these upcoming FCC nominations. Any lawmaker who votes to kneecap the FCC should not be taken seriously when they say they want to "take on Facebook"
Also, this should go without saying, but Senators should vote for privacy champion @alvarombedoya for FTC, who is also having a confirmation hearing today!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
BREAKING: More than 200 artists and 30 leading human rights organizations have signed this open letter led by @fightfortheftr calling on @RedRocksCO@aegpresents@axs to cancel plans to use Amazon palm scanning biometric surveillance devices at concerts. AmazonDoesntRock.com
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
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.