Thread by @evan_greer

Okay, this House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on #Section230 is kicking off now. Watch along here: energycommerce.house.gov/committee-acti…

https://twitter.com/evan_greer/status/1466057078963904517

.@USRepMikeDoyle just claimed that Congress has consulted with "the people most affected" by Section 230.

How can he say that? There are zero witnesses at today's hearing who are experts on SESTA/FOSTA or the impact that the last Section 230 changes had on sex workers. Absurd

He also falsely claims that there is bipartisan agreement on how to change Section 230. That's laughable. Democrats and Republicans could not be further apart on this issue. They hate 230 for completely opposite reasons. None of the bills discussed today have a chance in hell

As if to underline this point @boblatta is up now repeating evidenceless claims that Section 230 allows Big Tech companies to disproportionately silence conservatives (this is not something that is actually happening, and if anything changing 230 would lead to more censorship)

Pallone is up now. He basically just acknowledged that a lot of the problems being discussed here are because courts have over-interpreted Section 230, not because the law needs to change.

And there it is, Pallone admits that none of the bills being discussed today are going to get any bipartisan support. That means they're not going anywhere.

So why are we wasting time on this while real measures to address Big Tech harm, like privacy, remain on the back burner?

lol @cathymcmorris just absurdly claimed that Big Tech companies "censor any viewpoint that does not fit their liberal ideology."

there is ... zero evidence to support this claim.

in fact, data consistently shows conservative posts among the top performing content on FB

i hate to admit it, but @cathymcmorris is absolutely right that Section 230 carveouts will lead to more censorship. but she's absolutely wrong about who will be most impacted. it's not conservatives, it's marginalized communities who are already disproportionately silenced

Facebook whistleblower @FrancesHaugen testifying now. Watch along here: energycommerce.house.gov/committee-acti…

"Facebook will not change until the incentives change," @FrancesHaugen says.

I completely agree. That's why one of the best harm reduction measures would be a privacy law strong enough to kill Facebook's surveillance-driven business model. HowToStopFacebook.org

.@FrancesHaugen once again helpfully trying to focus lawmakers on surveillance-driven algorithmic manipulation as the root of Facebook's harms, and noting that there are measures the company can take to address this that don't undermine free expression. This is so crucial

HUGELY IMPORTANT: @FrancesHaugen just urged lawmakers to be cautious when considering changes to Section 230 and to consult with human rights experts about the impact of SESTA/FOSTA, the last major change to Section 230. Jotted down what she said:

.@rashadrobinson correctly noting that we need to draw a distinction between "fake solutions" and "real solutions" to the harms of Big Tech.

Once again, tho, that's why we should be very skeptical of pushes to change Section 230, since that's exactly what Facebook is calling for

Hearing now discussing the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms bill. This is a well-intentioned effort, but it's a total mess that would undermine human rights while failing to accomplish its stated goals fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-10-1…

I completely agree with @rashadrobinson that we cannot allow Big Tech to self-regulate.

But I don't think he's acknowledging the types of lawsuits we need to be worried about. Not ones that are about accountability, but ones that are about silencing dissent.

For example, if the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms act was in effect when the deplorable Texas Abortion Ban passed, everyone in Texas could sue any social media platform that ever recommended someone join a group where people discuss reproductive justice / abortion access

Facebook and Google can probably weather that flood of lawsuits and duke it out in court until they have some clarity on what they can and can't do with algorithmic recommendation.

But in the meantime nearly every smaller platform could be wiped off the map. Hello monopolies

Rep Guthrie from Kentucky spent his entire 5 minutes talking about ... the Wuhan lab?

Once again reminder that none of the proposed Section 230 bills being discussed today are going to go anywhere. Lawmakers are wasting precious time posturing instead of pushing for real reform

.@RepYvetteClarke's comments on algorithmic amplification are well taken. Surveillance driven discriminatory algorithms are at root of Big Tech harms. But the best way to address that harm is by regulating the SURVEILLANCE, rather than trying to regulate speech.

apropos of nothing, just a reminder that the "Fire in a crowded theater" trope refers to a case where the US government arrested anti-war activists who were distributing flyers against the draft in World War 1

and it isn't the legal precedent you think it is

i'm so tired

.@RepKinzinger putting on a very good "disappointed dad" act while complaining about the lack of bipartisanship in the hearing.

... so then maybe lawmakers should focus on the areas where they could actually get something done? like privacy legislation and antitrust

.@RepMcEachin arguing that immunity means "we don't trust juries." Unfortunately, that's a serious misunderstanding of how Section 230 works. Most cases 230 prevents would never go before a jury anyway. 230 basically just makes the 1st amendment function at Internet scale

Currently discussing the SAFE TECH Act, which is one of the most poorly drafted proposals being discussed today––it's so broadly written it would basically repeal 230 entirely even for tiny platforms like Bandcamp techcrunch.com/2021/02/05/saf…

.@rashadrobinson is absolutely right that we NEED mechanism to hold Big Tech companies accountable. Those mechanisms also need to actually reduce harm, accomplish their stated goals, and not create new harms to marginalized communities. It's so important that we get this right

.@RepVeasey asking good questions of @FrancesHaugen, focusing in on transparency and discriminatory outcomes of algorithmic ranking.

Senator @EdMarkey has an interesting bill that would tackle this without touching Section 230 fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-05-2…

It's so funny how Republicans in this hearing keep harping on the First Amendment when it is literally the First Amendment that legally allows platforms to decide what content they want to host and what content they don't want to host.

Or, it would be funny if it weren't so 🤡

lol @RepBillJohnson complaining about Democrats wanting the Federal government to interfere with private businesses content moderation decisions as he wraps up his speech about how he wants to pass legislation enabling the Federal government to do the exact same thing

.@RepDarrenSoto push for Facebook to hire more Spanish-language moderators makes ... A TON OF SENSE. Facebook's underinvestment in human moderation on every language that's not English is a huge driver of its disproportionate harms and silencing of marginalized voices outside US

We are now entering the "How do we stop Tik Tok from spreading Communist propaganda??!!!" portion of the hearing.

A lot of discussion in the hearing today has focused on algorithmic amplification. I once again urge everyone to consider this as part of a broader problem: surveillance-driven algorithmic manipulation. Big Tech is doing harm by picking what content to amplify, but also suppress

I'm paying attention to the FCC / NTIA nomination hearing for a few now... back to Energy and Commerce momentarily

.@DorisMatsui making excellent points about the ways discriminatory algorithms violate civil rights and disproportionately harm communities of color.

She's a cosponsor of the Algorithmic Justice & Transparency Act, which is much better than the 230 "reform" bills being discussed

We're back to baseless accusations of anti-conservative bias so here's a post about the only part of this hearing that actually mattered: fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-12-0…

solid question from @janschakowsky about the need for greater whistleblower protections. @FrancesHaugen rightly notes that that should be bipartisan.

.@FrancesHaugen clearly says she does not support removing Section 230 protections for individual pieces of content.

@DrNealDunnFL2 was asking about a deeply silly proposed change to 230 around "monetized content" (which is ... basically all content online on every site)

Rep @USRepKCastor correctly notes the need for privacy legislation, but then goes on to tout the SAFE TECH Act which is a total disaster that would undermine human rights.

Here's a great piece from @CathyReisenwitz on that dumpster fire of a bill onezero.medium.com/the-safe-tech-…

.@rashadrobinson correctly notes that there is no evidence of anti-conservative bias, and in fact social media platforms disproportionately remove posts of Black and brown users.

But ... that's exactly why carving up Section 230 protections is a terrible idea 😭

Actual research shows the group of social media users who are MOST CENSORED are Arab and Muslim folks living outside the US whose speech is systematically and erroneously flagged by Big Tech platforms automated "anti-terrorism" moderation mechanisms. More liability = more of that

Some ... discussion now of Facebook's third-party fact checking program. Here's a little personal experience I had with it fightfortheftr.medium.com/facebook-told-…

I haven't looked closely at @RepLoriTrahan's bill expanding FTC authority to issue guidance on transparency and more access for researchers, but it seems like a much smarter direction than any of the Section 230 bills that have been discussed so far at this hearing.

illegal things ... are illegal. Section 230 doesn't magically make them legal.

Deeply appreciate @mattfwood's nuanced testimony here. He opens with noting that Section 230 is a foundational and still necessary law. He also notes that undermining 230 could make it harder for platforms to remove harmful content, and easier for bad actors to silence activism

.@mattfwood also notes that changing Section 230 won't magically create grounds to sue over content that is not illegal and is protected by the First Amendment.

And notes that the courts should not interpret 230 overly broadly as covering platform conduct unrelated to content

.@mattfwood shares several specific @freepressaction concerns about PADA and JAMA, then goes on to say that the SAFE TECH act is even broader and more concerning.

Completely agree these efforts are well intentioned but deeply misguided.

what @ma_franks just said makes absolutely no sense. Removing Section 230 protections for speech that's "monetized or solicited" is essentially removing it for all speech on essentially every major platform, from Patreon to Discord to Wikipedia. Just ... what?

and we're on recess for a bit

I'll take this opportunity to note that we are now more than 5 hours into this hearing and lawmakers have not heard from a single person who has expertise in the impact of SESTA/FOSTA or anyone who represents the sex worker harm reduction community. That's unacceptable & shameful

tuned out of the hearing for a while but am back now. sadly I think the biggest takeaway from this hearing is that the most likely bipartisan agreement to emerge would be some kind of SESTA/FOSTA style Section 230 carveout around opioids, or something like EARN IT Act, a disaster

Don't know much about this guy but he is absolutely correct that Section 230 does not prevent Federal criminal prosecutions at all, as many witnesses and lawmakers have implicitly claimed today.

Volokh is absolutely right about JAMAA to. Platforms aren't going to care what content is good or bad just what content opens them up to risk. They won't stop algorithmically amplifying content, they'll just amplify corporate, vetted, sanitized but addictive content instead

.@mattfwood hedging a bit on SAFE TECH Act and saying he doesn't think it would curtail free speech. i get the line he's trying to walk here but ... i don't see how you can argue that that specific bill wouldn't be a disaster for free expression. read this onezero.medium.com/the-safe-tech-…

More good analysis on the mess that is the SAFE TECH Act here: eff.org/deeplinks/2021…

And here: arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…

.@ma_franks says that companies should be "afraid" to host user generated content.

How does she think that will actually play out for marginalized communities who are already disproportionately silenced by Big Tech platforms?

engadget.com/2018-04-27-sui…

Carrie Goldberg says "SESTA/FOSTA is the best hope we have."

She doesn't mention that it got people killed.

whyy.org/segments/fosta…

She then goes on to admit that DOJ has only brought one single case under SESTA/FOSTA.

So, not only did this law force people offline and into the street, led to widespread censorship of sexual health and LGBTQ+ content, but also it did nothing to actually aid prosecutions...

.@RepAnnaEshoo asking about terrorist use of social media platforms.

Maybe she should ask about how automated anti-terrorism moderation mechanisms lead to widespread removal of legitimate content from Arab and Muslim folks living outside the US? Changing 230 makes that worse

I get what @mattfwood is saying here about creating liability for product design choices, algorithmic outcomes etc. But why not just pass laws that ban specific practices, ensure the FTC has the authority to investigate and enforce, etc? Opening floodgates for lawsuits won't help

.@RepCardenas is absolutely right about the harm done by platforms underinvestment in non-English moderation.

But changing Section 230 would almost certainly make that worse, because it would push platforms to rely more on deeply biased AI / automated systems for moderation.

Totally agree with @mattfwood that companies have their priorities upside down, but changing Section 230 won't incentivize them to be more thoughtful about their content moderation policies it will just make them more risk averse, those aren't the same thing, as FOSTA showed

Content moderation should be done through a human rights framework, not dictated by the most risk-averse lawyers in the world trying to keep their company from getting sued. That's just not a good way to incentivize good behavior from companies hosting billions of ppl's speech

.@USRepMikeDoyle entering a bunch of documents into the Congressional record.

Somehow none of them are this letter we sent more than a year ago signed by 70+ human rights groups warning about the dangers of uncareful changes to Section 230 theverge.com/2021/1/27/2225…

And that's a wrap. This 7.5 hour hearing largely devoid of facts did severe emotional harm to me. Can I sue YouTube where the committee hosted the livestream?

I hate to be snarky about issues that are so important, but ... i literally don't know what else to do.

There were SO MANY REAL HARMS described at today's hearing. Awful, terrible, blood boiling harms that Big Tech companies are contributing to.

That's exactly why I'm so angry.

Because none of the proposed changes to Section 230 discussed today would actually address any of those harms.

In many cases, it would make them worse or create new harms.

And that's if any of these bills passed, which they won't.

So instead we get nothing. The harm continues

The most important thing that happened in today's hearing was @FrancesHaugen urging lawmakers to be thoughtful and cautious when approaching potential changes to Section 230, and to consult with the human rights and sex work advocacy community.

I really hope they listen to her.

My biggest takeaway: