Read on Twitter
On the face of it, this is a story about atrocious content. Everyone should want a robust approach to protect victims of revenge porn, rape + CSAM.
But it's also about the infrastructural power of the world's biggest payment routers and its largest tech companies.
Thread: https://twitter.com/verge/status/1337136643510243331
But it's also about the infrastructural power of the world's biggest payment routers and its largest tech companies.
Thread: https://twitter.com/verge/status/1337136643510243331
Firstly, this is not the first time Visa & Mastercard have cut off a service/region. See, Crimea: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-crisis-visa-crimea/visa-mastercard-stop-supporting-bank-cards-in-crimea-idUSKBN0K40TN20141226
That time followed US sanctions against Crimea, so it's unlikely this would happen widely. But cutting off the *commerce supply* of a region is BFD.
Hence recent interest in central bank digital currencies: https://twitter.com/arampell/status/1158954052648091648
Hence recent interest in central bank digital currencies: https://twitter.com/arampell/status/1158954052648091648
But a similar issue affects tech infra services, too. In Aug 2017, Cloudflare terminated service for the Daily Stormer, a far-right/neo-Nazi/white supremacist/Holocaust denying message board that claimed Cloudflare supported their views.
See @eastdakota: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
See @eastdakota: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
Then in Aug 2019, Cloudflare terminated service for 8chan, a literal cesspool.
@stratechery argued, rightly IMO, that if a user-facing service (8Chan) failed to act on clearly unlawful content, services further down the stack (Cloudflare) could step in. https://twitter.com/stratechery/status/1159085329363529729?s=20
@stratechery argued, rightly IMO, that if a user-facing service (8Chan) failed to act on clearly unlawful content, services further down the stack (Cloudflare) could step in. https://twitter.com/stratechery/status/1159085329363529729?s=20
In November 2019, a campaign pushed PayPal to cutting off Stefan Molyneux, a far-right, white supremacist, conspiracy theorist. https://www.newsweek.com/alt-right-youtuber-cut-off-paypal-donations-1469936
Then came Zoom (and YouTube and Facebook), who denied service for a seminar ft. Palestinian hijacker Leila Khaled, a member of the proscribed PFLP, hosted by SF State University
They didn't want to be criminally liable for providing support to terrorism. https://twitter.com/emtgray/status/1309217387418456064?s=20
They didn't want to be criminally liable for providing support to terrorism. https://twitter.com/emtgray/status/1309217387418456064?s=20
And increasingly there are other campaigns / challenges for other infrastructure companies, like @stripe / @PayPal / @amazon to step in against bad actors: https://twitter.com/oliviasolon/status/1321148784173342722
But there's another side to this, too.
In October, Apple forced Telegram to shut down channels used by people in Belarus to expose authoritarian oppression: https://twitter.com/maryhui/status/1314191406278356994
In October, Apple forced Telegram to shut down channels used by people in Belarus to expose authoritarian oppression: https://twitter.com/maryhui/status/1314191406278356994
Also in October, GitHub removed the repository for youtube-dl (a YouTube download tool) after a flimsy DCMA notice, only to reverse course later arguing DCMA was flawed and establishing a legal defense fund for developers: https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1328365679473426432
The lesson for policy is not that we should allow awful content to proliferate unchecked, or that those who disseminate it should not face economic sanctions.
But what if the pressure against infra companies came from the extreme right, to limit funding to progressive campaigns?
But what if the pressure against infra companies came from the extreme right, to limit funding to progressive campaigns?
Most of these examples here are of some of the worst bits of the internet. It's hard not to be glad that they're gone / demonetised.
But so long as this is about individual company decisions, the pressure won't stop and it will capture many other causes you might support.
But so long as this is about individual company decisions, the pressure won't stop and it will capture many other causes you might support.
Instead, policy needs a consistent approach to understanding and shaping the power of digital networks and infrastructures which underpin the internet (/entire) economy: https://twitter.com/arampell/status/1158957417570455557?s=20
Some starters for ten from us:
@clry2 ( https://institute.global/policy/new-deal-big-tech-next-generation-regulation-fit-internet-age):
- Govts, users & services collab on community standards
- Regulators need clear terms of reference to replace ambiguity
@Maxjb/ @BeaconRosie ( https://institute.global/policy/online-harms-bring-auditors):
- Audit internal processes & enforce sanctions
@clry2 ( https://institute.global/policy/new-deal-big-tech-next-generation-regulation-fit-internet-age):
- Govts, users & services collab on community standards
- Regulators need clear terms of reference to replace ambiguity
@Maxjb/ @BeaconRosie ( https://institute.global/policy/online-harms-bring-auditors):
- Audit internal processes & enforce sanctions
And on the economic side of this new infrastructure see my and @kmei_ piece from last year ( @packyM's recent piece, is also excellent https://notboring.substack.com/p/apis-all-the-way-down) https://institute.global/policy/economic-infrastructure-internet-era
But there's more to do! If you have thoughts, @Maxjb & I are keen to chat all things Internet Policy.
