March, 25 2021, 12:00am EDT
![Fight for the Future](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012623/origin.jpg)
WASHINGTON
Today, Fight for the Future held a livestream event with Dr Joan Donovan of Shorenstein as well as experts from the ACLU, Wikimedia, Access Now, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and Reframe Health and Justice, who explained why gutting Section 230 won't stop the spread of harmful content and disinformation online.
The event came just ahead of a hearing in the House Energy & Commerce Committee where lawmakers questioned the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Too often, reporting around these hearings focuses only on the statements of Big Tech CEOs and lawmakers, ignoring voices from civil society groups and smaller web platforms who have a crucial perspective to share. Earlier this year we also issued a letter signed by 70+ racial justice, civil liberties, LGBTQ+, and human rights groups opposing repeal or gutting of Section 230 and urging lawmakers to pass the SAFE SEX Worker Study act to examine the public health impact of SESTA/FOSTA before making further changes to Section 230.
During the hearing, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed support for changing Section 230. That's because such changes will help Facebook and harm human rights, without addressing harms like disinformation. Here are some quotes from participants in our event:
Evan Greer (she/her), Director of Fight for the Future, said: "Of course Facebook wants to see changes to Section 230. Because they know it will simply serve to solidify their monopoly power and crush competition from smaller and more decentralized platforms. Facebook can afford the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that will be needed to navigate a world where Section 230 is gutted or weakened. And they've shown repeatedly that they don't care about the impact that Section 230 changes could have on the human rights or freedom of expression of marginalized people - they are happy to sanitize your newsfeed and suppress content en masse in order to avoid liability or respond to public criticism. Zuckerberg's support for changes to Section 230 is about maintaining Facebook's dominance and monopoly control, nothing more. Instead of helping Facebook by gutting Section 230, lawmakers should take actual steps to address the harms of Big Tech, like passing strong Federal data privacy legislation, enforcing antitrust laws, and targeting harmful business practices like microtargeting and nontransparent algorithmic manipulation."
Dr. Joan Donovan (she/they) of the Shorenstein Center: "The internet still exists: Platforms are built on top of it, Facebook is a product, Facebook is not the internet. Speech is like the cassette tape that goes in the boombox of the internet. The problem is messy and the solution is going to come in many different ways, there is no Section 230 magic bullet. One thing we can do that is not 230-related: We can pump up the volume on timely, local, relevant content. We can create within timelines and newsfeeds, room for local journalism, room for things that are not trying to trigger emotional responses, information that is not often shared because it is not sexy but people do want and don't always get in their feeds. What this looks like is asking for public interest obligations for social media and this doesn't require us to go in 230 necessarily and do anything significant. It's really important that we all come together - universities, civil societies, the law community - and come at this with an orientation that we don't want to destroy the benefits that the internet has brought to us, but at the same time we want to put community safety at the center of design."
Kate Ruane (she/her) of the ACLU: "When it comes to disinformation specifically, amending Section 230 is unlikely to truly address the problem. One of the issues we face is that disinformation has no clear definition, and to the extent that it simply means 'speech that is false,' it will often be protected by the constitution, for better or for worse ... It's unclear to me what Section 230 changes to address disinformation will actually do to address the problems other than encouraging problems to continue to deploy ever stricter censorship regimes, which we know disproportionately silence people of color, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, other marginalized groups, and people who express dissenting views. But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands when it comes to disinformation. There is a lot we can do ... meaningful privacy restrictions can also be tremendously helpful. If we limit the data these companies can collect and then empower users to limit the ways that companies can use that data, it will be harder and harder for disinformation campaigns to target people in the first place ... I think we need to be talking about those things, rather than changing Section 230."
Sherwin Siy (he/him) of the Wikimedia Foundation: "The Wikimedia Foundation hosts projects like Wikipedia-we provide the servers, and work on the software and interfaces for it-but Wikipedia is written by tens of thousands of users, who change what's on the site several times each second. Section 230 means that, should one of those edits defame someone or cause trouble, neither the Foundation nor any other editor gets blamed for that one person's action. It also means that the communities on these projects have the ability to create and enforce their own standards for how content gets moderated-and for the most part, that content moderation deals with how encyclopedic something is, not whether or not it's illegal or abusive. Section 230 isn't just about what is and isn't decent-it's about making sure a website, and the community on it, can set standards around things like not accepting original research, or self-promotion, or even creating standards around biographical information that respect article subjects' rights that go beyond what's required in the law. Having standards like these helps communities strive together to make Wikipedia as accurate and reliable as it can be, and Section 230 is a necessary part of making that happen."
Lawrence (Larry) Walters (he/him), General Counsel for the Woodhull Freedom Foundation and attorney with Walters Law Group: "Requiring tech companies to moderate more user content through proposed Section 230 reform will not stop disinformation online, but will lead to greater censorship of constitutionally protected speech. Big Tech wants content regulation so they can claim they are simply following the law when shutting down disfavored speakers. This approach helps no one but a few large online platforms. The first attempt to tinker with Section 230, through FOSTA, was an unmitigated disaster resulting in censorship of protected expression and increased danger to sex workers. Congress should learn the hard lesson taught by FOSTA by fostering a free Internet by rejecting any further weakening of Section 230 immunity."
"Repealing Section 230 will not solve the disinformation crisis," said Jennifer Brody (she/her), U.S. Advocacy Manager at Access Now. "Disinformation wouldn't be effective without coercive micro-targeting, and micro-targeting wouldn't exist without invasive data harvesting practices. If we are serious about stopping the dangerous fire hose of lies online, we cannot overlook the importance of passing a rights-respecting federal data protection law in the United States."
"As a community who has experienced being the target of legislative reforms and the unintended consequences, sex workers, and people associated with the sex trade have born the brunt of what happens when reforms to 230 do not consider marginalized communities, or create quickly drafted, budget-neutral bills," said Kate D'Adamo, Partner at Reframe Health and Justice and long-time sex workers' rights advocate. "While this conversation is centered on disinformation, it is using the same flawed starting point - to assume that 230 is the problem and that additional liability is the solution.What we need is not simply additional avenues for civil suits. What we need is transparency with how platforms are making decisions, accountability and redress for those who are constantly kicked off for exercising basic survival, and a serious investment in anti-violence efforts."
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Kamala Harris Wins March for Our Lives' First-Ever Endorsement
"Kamala Harris has proven herself to be a thoughtful and forceful leader on gun violence, who has time and again listened to young people and fought for our lives."
Jul 24, 2024
March for Our Lives, which was launched six years ago after yet another U.S. mass shooting, announced its first-ever political endorsement on Wednesday, backing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris' bid for the White House.
"The stakes couldn't be higher," said the group, which was founded in the wake of the February 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. "As one of the largest youth-led movements in the nation, we are clear-eyed about the challenge ahead and we believe that Kamala Harris is uniquely suited to meet this moment."
Warning of the threat posed by Republican former President Donald Trump—who just survived an assassination attempt—and his running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), March for Our Lives said that "the country that young people will soon inherit stands at the precipice—on one side, authoritarianism that threatens our fundamental rights, including our right to live freely without fear of gun violence; on the other, a world where we can keep fighting to build the future that young people know we deserve."
"We need an ardent defender of democracy, a gun violence prevention champion, and a leader who will listen to young people, give us a seat at the table, and fight for our future. We believe that Kamala Harris is that candidate, and the right person to stand up for us and fight for the country we deserve," the organization continued, detailing how she has been "a forceful champion for gun safety and for young people" as vice president and a U.S. senator representing California.
"Young people are inheriting an increasingly precarious world," the group added, highlighting youth deaths from gun violence, Israel's war on the Gaza Strip, the escalating climate emergency, and far-right politicians pushing extremist policies. "We have been struggling to feel excited about voting in this election, and are increasingly pessimistic that change is possible. But we know that another Trump presidency is simply not an option that young people can afford—our lives are literally at stake."
Harris began seeking the Democratic nomination for November after President Joe Biden dropped out and endorsed her on Sunday. March for Our Lives said that "we call on her to run a campaign that fights for the policy solutions that young people want, like an assault weapons ban, action on climate change, a vigorous defense of abortion, court reform, and an immediate and lasting cease-fire in Gaza. Young people are savvy voters, who will see through empty promises and cynical horsetrading. We believe that Kamala will step above that and fight for a bold, progressive future—and we will hold her accountable for that."
Since Sunday, Parkland shooting survivor and March for Our Lives co-founder David Hogg has been fiercely supporting Harris, posting on his social media frequent updates about her historic fundraising successes over the past few days.
"Kamala Harris has proven herself to be a thoughtful and forceful leader on gun violence, who has time and again listened to young people and fought for our lives," Hogg said in a statement Wednesday. "Given her strong record on gun safety and prioritizing youth voices during her time in office, I'm proud that Kamala Harris will receive March for Our Lives' first-ever endorsement, and I'm so excited for our work to mobilize young people for her campaign."
Natalie Fall, the group's executive director, toldABC News—which first reported on the endorsement—that "we see a lot of energy around Vice President Harris in this election; there's no denying that. I think everybody's seeing it right now."
"I just think young people in particular didn't really see themselves represented or reflected in the Biden ticket in the way that they wanted. It's not to say that President Biden hasn't had great accomplishments," she explained. "But I think we need someone who can meet this moment and who is up to the challenge of taking Donald Trump to task and really defeating his effort to erode all of our institutions and our democracy."
March for Our Lives members plan to participate in this year's election through creative campaigns, door-knocking, and phone banks, Fall said. In a statement, she added that the group aims to elect not only Harris but also candidates "up and down the ballot" who support its priorities.
"March for Our Lives will work to mobilize young people across the country to support Vice President Harris and other down-ballot candidates, with a particular focus on the states and races where we can make up the margin of victory—in Arizona, New York, Michigan, and Florida," she pledged. "We are ready to double down on this commitment and elect the first woman, first Black woman, and the first person of South Asian descent to become our next president."
The gun violence prevention group's endorsement adds to Harris' mounting pile. Throughout the week, she has also received support from many Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as climate, labor, and reproductive rights groups.
As young people rally behind Harris, she is also seeing support from advocates for older Americans. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, wrote in a Wednesday opinion piece for Common Dreams that "Joe Biden has been the best president for seniors in over half a century. Kamala Harris will be even better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ben-Gvir Endorses Trump, Says He's More Likely to Back War on Iran
The Israeli security minister, who leads the far-right Jewish Power party, accused the Biden administration of thwarting Israel's victory against Hamas.
Jul 24, 2024
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir endorsed former U.S. President Donald Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—for the White House in an interview published Wednesday in which he accused the Biden administration of preventing Israel from winning its war on Gaza.
"I believe that with Trump, Israel will receive the backing to act against Iran," Ben-Gvir, who heads the far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, toldBloomberg. "With Trump, it will be clearer that enemies must be defeated."
"A cabinet minister is supposed to maintain neutrality," the 48-year-old minister conceded, "but that's impossible to do after [U.S. President Joe] Biden."
"The U.S. has always stood behind Israel in terms of armaments and weapons, yet this time the sense was that we were being reckoned with—that we were trying to be prevented from winning. That happened on Biden's watch and fed Hamas with lots of energy," added Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in 2007 of incitement to racism after he advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
While Biden, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and other administration officials have decried Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and high civilian casualties—at least 140,000 Palestinians killed, injured, or missing, according to local and international agencies—the U.S. has approved billions of dollars in new military aid and more than 100 arms sales to Israel since October.
During his White House tenure, Trump—who boasted that he "fought for Israel like no president ever before"—moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and brokered the Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab nations Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates.
Trump has said that Israel should "get the job done" in Gaza, while criticizing the Israel Defense Forces for posting videos showing its obliteration of the embattled Palestinian enclave.
"I don't know why they released wartime shots like that. I guess it makes them look tough. But to me, it doesn't make them look tough," Trump said in April. "They're losing the PR war. They're losing it big. But they've got to finish what they started, and they've got to finish it fast, and we have to get on with life."
While Trump says he wants a deal with Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, as president he unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—and oversaw a "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran featuring deadly economic sanctions.
On the advice of Iran hawks in his administration including then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump also ordered the January 2020 assassination of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.
Ben-Gvir's interview was published as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to address a joint meeting of U.S. Congress Wednesday in Washington, D.C. A growing number of Democratic lawmakers have called for not only a cease-fire in Gaza but also a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel, whose conduct in the war is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice.
Dozens of Democratic lawmakers and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have signaled they will skip Netanyahu's speech. Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the Senate president, said she will not preside over Wednesday's session. Harris, who is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in the wake of Biden's withdrawal from the race on Sunday, said she will meet privately with Netanyahu on Thursday.
Echoing calls from groups including CodePink and the Council on American Islamic Relations, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said this week that the prime minister should be arrested for war crimes and genocide.
Karim Khan, the International Criminal Court prosecutor, has
applied for arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders for alleged war crimes including extermination committed on and after October 7.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Leads Global Surge in Oil and Gas Expansion, Analysis Finds
"The U.S. has become a petrostate and is still, even under President Biden, permitting new drilling," John Sterman of MIT said. "The developed countries don't show any significant efforts to limit drilling."
Jul 24, 2024
Five wealthy countries including the United States have led a global surge in oil and gas development in 2024, threatening international climate goals, according to an analysis published by The Guardian on Wednesday.
The U.S., United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Norway together are projected by the end of 2024 to have issued licenses for fossil fuel projects that will emit 11.9 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetimes—far more than in any of the previous five years, and roughly equal to a full year of emissions from China, the world's highest emitter—according to industry data analyzed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and shared with the newspaper.
The five states are responsible for more than two-thirds of all oil and gas licenses issued globally since 2020, with the U.S. alone accounting for half of the world total. President Joe Biden's administration increased oil and gas licensing by 20% over Trump-era levels, and issued a record 758 new extraction licenses in 2023, according to the analysis.
"The U.S. has become a petrostate and is still, even under President Biden, permitting new drilling," John Sterman, a climate policy expert and professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's business school, told The Guardian. "The developed countries don't show any significant efforts to limit drilling."
Sterman pointed to a "fundamental contradiction" between rich countries' international commitments and their ongoing fossil fuel expansion. "We can't keep going on like this," he said.
Revealed: wealthy western countries lead in global oil and gas expansion
Surge by world’s wealthiest countries – such as the US and the UK- threatens to unleash 12bn tonnes of planet-heating emissions.
By @olliemilman & @ninalakhani https://t.co/esY5IuIfi9
— jonathanwatts (@jonathanwatts) July 24, 2024
The industry's grip on U.S. politicians has made significant policy change in Washington difficult. In the past decade, fossil fuel companies have spent $1.25 billion on federal lobbying and more than $650 million on campaign contributions, according to OpenSecrets data.
The Conservative-led U.K. government issued a surge of North Sea licenses in the first half of this year, but lost power to the Labour Party following a general election earlier this month. It's not yet clear if Labour will be able or willing to rescind licenses already issued. Currently the U.K. is set to finish 2024 with 72 licenses for projects that would create 101 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetimes—a 50-year high, according to the IISD analysis. Norway and Australia are also seeing major upticks this year.
Capital expenditure at the world's largest oil companies is up 60% since 2020, with $302 billion projected to be spent on well development this year, The Guardian reported. The fossil fuel expansion continues even though the reserves in rich countries are generally hard to reach, as more accessible reserves have already been tapped.
The expansion also comes in spite of disturbing climate news—2023 was hottest year on record, June was the 13th consecutive hottest month, and Monday was the hottest day, having broken a record set the previous day—and dire warnings from leading international institutions. No new fossil fuel projects can proceed if the world is to meet the 1.5° Paris agreement target, the International Energy Agency declared in 2021.
In December, at the United Nations COP28 climate summit, the world's nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, though the agreement was viewed by climate campaigners as weakly worded and ridden with loopholes.
Delegates from wealthy Western nations often present themselves as change-seekers in international climate negotiations, but the IISD analysis adds to evidence that such nations are in fact a big part of the problem.
"Fossil fuel corporations, and the governments that support them, will never stop unless forced to," Bill McGuire, a climate scientist at University College London, said on social media in response to the analysis. "Neither has any interest in the future of the climate, our world, or their own kids."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular