Read on Twitter
Fact and truth are currently under direct attack from @HawleyMO, @marcorubio, @SenatorBraun, @TomCottonAR, & William Barr
We have to make sure our elected officials reject the proposed “Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act”
Please read this thread & share widely
We have to make sure our elected officials reject the proposed “Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act”
Please read this thread & share widely
1/ You might assume this doesn’t apply to you, but it does. In this threat matrix, social media platforms will be *less likely* to curb hate speech & calls to violence. You know, like when Trump called protesters "THUGS" & said, "when the shooting starts, the looting starts."
2/ It’s important to first understand what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is.
"Section 230 protects website operators from lawsuits over user-generated content and empowers them to moderate content without losing that legal protection." https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
"Section 230 protects website operators from lawsuits over user-generated content and empowers them to moderate content without losing that legal protection." https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
3/ Under @HawleyMO’s proposed bill, users who believe a given provider "is not ‘operating in good faith’ by consistently and fairly applying its content rules could sue for $5,000 and attorneys' fees." https://www.axios.com/hawley-unveils-bill-targeting-big-techs-shield-b225c52b-35e2-4392-b11a-afda6357e35f.html
4/ That might sound reasonable at first blush. I’ll be the first to say there’s a LOT of work to be done to demand more accountability and transparency at social media companies & what’s allowed on their platforms—namely the proliferation of hate speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/whats-doj-really-seeking-accountability-content-moderation-or-censoring-speech-it
5/ But this is not the way.
The generous read is that Hawley & co are not thinking through the dangerous precedent this bill would set.
The skeptical read is that this bill is a blatant attempt to make it harder for social media companies to moderate right-wing propaganda.
The generous read is that Hawley & co are not thinking through the dangerous precedent this bill would set.
The skeptical read is that this bill is a blatant attempt to make it harder for social media companies to moderate right-wing propaganda.
6/ Given Trump’s freakout-cum-Executive Order—aimed squarely at Twitter for adding warning labels to his tweets that incite violence… https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opinion/trump-twitter-executive-order.html
7/ …AND Hawley’s followup letter asking Twitter CEO @jack if content moderation was politically motivated… https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/27/gop-sen-hawley-asks-if-twitter-targeted-trump-for-political-reasons.html
8/ …AND the announcement that the DOJ is *also* stepping in on this exact issue TODAY… https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-to-propose-limiting-internet-firms-protections-11592391602?mod=e2tw
9/ ...I'm going to defer to Occam’s razor here and say the evidence points to this being part of a coordinated bad-faith effort to immunize far-right propaganda & extremist viewpoints from content moderation, allowing divisive and violent opinions to spread with impunity.
10/ With respect to @Gizmodo, the claim that this won’t bother tech companies is incorrect.
The argument is technically sound, but it discounts how Trump-aligned users (& courts) could ensure that social media companies are mired in ongoing legal battles. https://gizmodo.com/senator-hawleys-new-section-230-bill-isnt-going-to-make-1844067513
The argument is technically sound, but it discounts how Trump-aligned users (& courts) could ensure that social media companies are mired in ongoing legal battles. https://gizmodo.com/senator-hawleys-new-section-230-bill-isnt-going-to-make-1844067513
11/ Sure, they might not end up having to pay anything other than legal fees, but more precious resources will be wasted: their time & energy. Not just in the lawsuits, but in how they're then depicted (spun) in conservative media & propagandistic outlets. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/
12/ The sticky wicket is that "good faith" metric, which is, by design, open to interpretation.
Under this bill, ANYONE could sue by claiming a company deviated from its moderation guidelines.
It doesn't actually matter if they did or didn't—the company still ends up in court.
Under this bill, ANYONE could sue by claiming a company deviated from its moderation guidelines.
It doesn't actually matter if they did or didn't—the company still ends up in court.
13/ Together, the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act & the impending DOJ actions are obvious attacks on perceived "enemies" of Trump & Barr.
Together, they can form the bedrock of a legal and financial intimidation apparatus predicated on fatiguing platforms.
Together, they can form the bedrock of a legal and financial intimidation apparatus predicated on fatiguing platforms.
14/ That the proposed bill is not *immediately* threatening (“It’s only $5k!”) is part of what makes it so insidious.
Don't forget: Trump is a master of weaponizing his opponents' exhaustion. All he needs to "win" is for social media companies to decide he's not worth crossing.
Don't forget: Trump is a master of weaponizing his opponents' exhaustion. All he needs to "win" is for social media companies to decide he's not worth crossing.
15/ TLDR: By attempting to limit the function of Section 230, Hawley, Rubio, Cotton, Braun, Trump, and Barr are attempting to use the pretense of free speech as a cudgel to not-so-subtly give hate speech & propaganda a free pass.
That is very, very dangerous. Call your Senators.
That is very, very dangerous. Call your Senators.
