Germany is requiring platforms to report users to the police if they are suspected of saying something illegal. The DOJ Section 230 Report says we should have the same dystopian rule here in the US. 1/

Germany’s version: https://twitter.com/janagooth/status/1273740119514787845 2/

DOJ version: make 230 immunity contingent on platforms reporting users to the police if the platform receives an allegation that the user violated federal criminal law. 3/

For a sense of how this might play out, here are stats on how often platforms receive false allegations, often maliciously targeting speakers for removal -- and how often platforms assume the allegations are true -- in the areas where we have data. 4/ http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2015/10/empirical-evidence-over-removal-internet-companies-under-intermediary-liability-laws

There is a very long list of problems with requiring or incentivizing platforms to report to the police every time a user’s online speech might violate the law. 5/

But it’s Juneteenth, so let’s talk about the racial justice implications. 6/

Rules like this are most damaging for the speakers who have the most to fear from police or government attention. In the U.S. that’s often Black people. 7/

Also other vulnerable groups, especially people worried about their own or loved ones’ immigration status. 8/

In the "extremist content" area, I’ve written about how Muslims, people speaking Arabic or talking about Islam, or people discussing topics like immigration or US military engagement in Syria risk disproportionate harm from over-zealous removal. 9/ https://www.hoover.org/research/internet-platforms-observations-speech-danger-and-money

Adding "and the platform will report you to the cops" to all that is a huge additional threat. 10/

There is reason to believe that platforms already over-enforce rules against speakers of Afr. Am. English, for example. So under a dystopian rule like this, we should worry about disparate impact in terms of which people platforms report to the police. 11/ https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~msap/pdfs/sap2019risk.pdf

And there is strong reason to believe once the reporting happens, state sanction and punishment will hit Black people and other vulnerable groups harder. I’m not even going to footnote that one, just read the news. 12/

But perhaps the biggest disparate impact comes from the chilling effect of people -- specific people, from specific groups -- deciding just not to speak their minds online in the first place. 13/

A “platforms must report suspected illegal speech to the authorities” rule means if you have something controversial to say, you’re not just risking sanction from the platform. The police might come knocking. 14/

Think how a “report all law-breakers to the authorities” rule affects online organizing, especially civil disobedience. Peacefully but deliberately breaking the law is a tool of social change embraced by thinkers from Thoreau to Dr. King. 15/

A slim silver lining for academics and activists: Making platforms turn users over to the authorities would merge the too-siloed worlds of people who work on surveillance and people who work on speech and censorship issues. 16/

In surveillance, there is robust work already on disparate impact and racial injustice. (I’m over in the other silo, so I don’t track it closely, but @FaizaPatelBCJ and @alvarombedoya come to mind. I’m sure people can list many more.) 17/

This is a good moment to build bridges between the people laboring away in those nominally separate areas. 18/