CLIPS: 14 April, 2022
Welcome to the Progressive Tech Policy Project! We curate and send weekly summaries of news on the left, along with occasional deep dives to reflect on timely issues. We always welcome your feedback and suggestions, and you can reach us anytime at techpolicy@geer.com. - Szelena Gray, Editor
Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe to receive our weekly newsletter in your inbox directly.
Elon Musk Wants To Buy Twitter And Make It “The Platform For Free Speech Around The Globe”
On Thursday, news broke that Musk had offered to buy 100 percent of Twitter in an updated 13D filed with the SEC, offering $54.20 a share in a valuation of $43 billion. This follows reports we detailed last week that Elon Musk had acquired a 9.2 percent stake of Twitter, and an announcement made Monday by Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal that Musk would not be joining the company’s board of directors.
Musk, a self-described “free speech absolutist,” has made repeated attacks on the platform’s “free speech principles,” calling into question Twitter’s content moderation strategy. In a letter to Twitter Board Chair Bret Taylor, Musk said he “invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe.”
COVERAGE
New York Times, Elon Musk Offers to Buy Twitter: Live Updates
The Verge, Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter in takeover attempt
Mashable, Elon Musk Offers to Buy Twitter. Yep, the whole damn thing.
Bloomberg, Elon Musk Makes $43 Billion Unsolicited Bid to Take Twitter Private
Deadline, Elon Musk Offers $41.4 Billion To Buy Twitter And “Unlock Potential”
The Information, Four Takeaways from Musk Bid for Twitter
RESPONSES
Accountable Tech tweeted a quote from Co-founder of Jesse Lehrich: “When you’re throwing around billions of dollars to take the largest stake in one of the most powerful global platform media platforms in the world, and you are a self-proclaimed ‘free speech absolutist,’ it’s legitimately concerning.”
Lehrich went on to tweet, “spoke to @benjaminopowers at @gridnews about what Elon's Twitter power grab means. in short, maybe nothing... but if he succeeds in pushing Twitter to embrace his "free speech absolutism," the harms to the entire information ecosystem could be stark.”
Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project, tweeted, “What Elon Musk's takeover attempt of twitter shows is that we need common carriage rules on public speech platforms of a certain size. The inability to port traditional libel laws to the internet because of Section 230 has induced this weird oligarchs for free speech frame.”
Director of Cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Eva Galperin, tweeted, “An Elon Musk hostile takeover of Twitter would be a nightmare world and also exactly what Twitter deserves.”
In an interview with Bloomberg, Platform Regulation Director at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, Daphne Keller, spoke on the significance of Musk’s Twitter share acquisition, saying it could shape content moderation strategies across many social media platforms.
Co-founder of Inequality Media, Robert Reich, tweeted, “When I criticized Musk for worker violations at Tesla, he blocked me. When a college student started a Twitter account to track Musk’s private plane, Musk tried to buy him off, before blocking him. Does that sound like a ‘free speech absolutist’ to you?”
Venture capitalist Fred Wilson tweeted, “Twitter is too important to be owned and controlled by a single person. The opposite should be happening. Twitter should be decentralized as a protocol that powers an ecosystem of communication products and services.”
Sleeping Giants tweeted, “Elon Musk is like every other troll on this site. He needs more and more attention, so his actions get more and more extreme over time. His big to takeover Twitter is likely just another troll, ensuring everyone is talking about him for another week.”
Director of Fight for the Future, Evan Greer, tweeted, “The fact we even have to worry about someone like Elon Musk just buying a social media platform that millions of people, especially journalists, artists, and activists, depend on to do their work shows that we have a fundamental problem: too few companies with too much power.”
Amidst Ongoing Concerns About Russian Propaganda, Pressure To Reform Content Moderation Practices Comes From Groups And Regulators
Digital rights organizations in Europe sounded the alarm this week about the European Commission considering a last-minute addition to the Digital Services Act. The “Crisis Response Mechanism” would give the European Commission additional power to ensure large platforms react promptly to a crisis, theoretically addressing the rise of Russian disinformation that has been the subject of much debate in the press.
In a letter, groups explained that the proposal would be “an overly broad empowerment of the European Commission to unilaterally declare an EU-wide state of emergency,” and that “decisions that affect freedom of expression and access to information, in particular in times of crisis, cannot be legitimately taken through executive power alone.”
Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, there have been hundreds of articles in the press about Russian disinformation and the role of platforms in stopping its spread. In fact, this week a coalition including some of the same organizations opposing the Crisis Response Mechanism sent a letter to Twitter, Meta, TikTok, Telegram and Google urging a “long term investment in human rights, accountability, and a transparent, equal and consistent application of policies to uphold the rights of users worldwide.” Human rights and free speech advocates do not want a “one size fits all” response to human rights crises, but they hope that coverage of the crisis in Ukraine moves platforms to make a proactive investment in improving content moderation operations.
COVERAGE
TechCrunch, Study finds TikTok’s ban on uploads in Russia failed, leaving it dominated by pro-war content
The Hill, Civil society groups call for social media consistency in crisis zones
Protocol, Silicon Valley enabled Russian state propaganda. Now it’s too late.
Politico, European Commission agrees to cut back on powers over Big Tech during crises
Washington Post, In Ukraine, Facebook fact-checkers fight a war on two fronts
Reuters, How Meta fumbled propaganda moderation during Russia's invasion of Ukraine
New York Times, China’s Echoes of Russia’s Alternate Reality Intensify Around the World
RESPONSES
Accountable Tech tweeted, “It should not have taken an onslaught of war crimes and overwhelming public pressure for Big Tech to take steps to curtail Russia’s disinformation machine. They could've stood up to Putin long ago.”
Later, they also tweeted, “It shouldn't take a political crisis for Facebook to start protecting democracy. They should be doing that every single day.”
Co-founder Jesse Lehrich tweeted, “have been making this point for weeks, but @lizzadwoskin really hammers it home with this piece: even as Big Tech touts new curbs on Kremlin media, they're mass-distributing CCP propaganda for profit pushing the same TPs.”
EFF tweeted, “Do better Twitter, Tik Tok, Meta, Google, and Telegram! Platforms must be better prepared to deal with crisis zones like Ukraine, and prioritize swift, meaningful human rights due diligence in countries where people’s lives are at risk.”
They also tweeted, “There are real content moderation issues on online platforms. But a chilling government investigation is not the right way to resolve them.”
Eliska Pirkova, human rights activist and content governance for Access Now, tweeted, “Alongside @EDRi and others, we put forward recommendations to ensure fundamental rights safeguards and system of checks & balances in the latest addition to the #DSA: the crisis response mechanism. Hastily adopted emergency measures ultimately lead to lasting human rights abuse.”
The European Digital Rights group tweeted, “Times of crisis must NOT be an excuse for undermining human rights! In the closed-door #DigitalServicesAct negotiations, the @EU_Commission proposed a “crisis response mechanism” that would give itself the powers to unilaterally declare an EU-wide state of emergency.”
Access Now tweeted, “The @EU_Commission’s last-minute scramble to include a “crisis response mechanism (CRM)” in the DSA would enable far-reaching restrictions on freedom of expression. With @edri @EFF + more, we’re calling on the Commission to immediately revise the CRM”
The Real Facebook Oversight Board tweeted, “Facebook did it in the 2020 US election and they can do it now. Prioritize or "uprank" credible news sources to "drown out hateful and untrue content." Facebook is choosing not to do this, putting profits over safety.”
Will Oremus, tech writer for the Washington Post, tweeted, “Facebook and YouTube were widely praised for cracking down on Russian state media. Now, @lizzadwoskin reports the same Russian propaganda is being laundered through Chinese state media accounts that have no such restrictions — and over 10x the audience.”
Evan Greer tweeted, “"whataboutism" is a problem but if you think all statements supporting Russia's (horrific) invasion should be auto-censored from social media, but don't feel the same about statements supporting the US military's endeavors in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc you have no credibility”
Sleeping Giants tweeted, “... @twitter is still platforming and amplifying Russian propaganda outlet RT on here six weeks into Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.”
Groups Divided On New Antitrust Bills Over Privacy and Security Concerns
In recent weeks, lawmakers have suggested that the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and Open App Markets Act will pass both chambers of Congress before the midterms. (Last week’s clips noted Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) making this promise at a conference the week before). These predictions have fueled an uptick in debate about the consequences of these bills.
Supporters of the bills, including Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, American Economic Liberties Project, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, contend that antitrust reform is long overdue, and that the enforcement agencies need additional power to effectively police self-preferencing and discrimination in applications of terms of service. The Chamber of Progress has led opposition to the bills, claiming that reformers are ignoring evidence that self-preferencing actually benefits consumers, and polling that demonstrates a lack of public support for the measures. Meanwhile, the Center for Democracy and Technology and Free Press have expressed concerns that the AICOA would break content moderation at a time when each and every civil society and rights group is pushing companies to augment existing efforts. Likewise, Apple CEO Tim Cook received attention for his keynote address at the International Association of Privacy Professionals Conference, where he warned that antitrust bills would make it difficult for Apple to protect user privacy by "potentially giving bad actors a way around the comprehensive security protections we put in place." (Casey Newton took up this claim, adding that phishing scams and spyware raise enormously important national security concerns.)
This week, the debate took a new turn when Politico reported about the strange bedfellows coalition supporting the bills. With some Democrats withholding support for the legislation, reformers are building a bipartisan coalition that includes conservatives who see antitrust reform as a way to advance claims of anti-conservative bias.
COVERAGE
Washington Post, Apple CEO escalates fight over App Store regulation in rare D.C. speech
Politico, Cook Moves to Pit Privacy Industry Against Antitrust Push
Protocol, Tim Cook slams looming competition measures as a threat to privacy
S&P Global, Tim Cook calls out antitrust legislation as threat to Apple app store
Yahoo, Ex-national security officials warn against antitrust bills in new ad campaign
Politico, Behind closed doors, progressives fighting ‘Big Tech’ work with anti-trans group
RESPONSES
FFTF tweeted, “Tech regulation is complicated, and should be approached with extreme care. But that doesn't mean inaction. The #antitrust bills #OAMA and #AICOA are good bills with broad bipartisan support. Congress needs to get this done.”
Evan Greer tweeted, “I spend a lot of time warning about unintended consequences of careless / poorly crafted tech regulation. I firmly believe the #OAMA and #AICOA antitrust bills are a significant improvement over the status quo, and the only good tech related bills that could pass this Congress.”
FFTF also this week launched FreeTheiPhone.com, an “educational resource for the public and to make the case for Congress to pass the OAMA, a bill that aims to fix major human rights and antitrust issues with the Apple App Store and similar digital marketplaces.”
Accountable Tech tweeted, “It's possible to promote small businesses, protect competition, and spur innovation, all while curtailing Big Tech's monopoly power. Moreover, these measures have bipartisan support. Let's get it done.”
Co-founder Jesse Lehrich tweeted a quote by policy analyst Aditi Ramesh: "Every time the US has pursued bold antitrust action, it has been met by industry fear mongering that American businesses will no longer be able to compete. But in reality, the opposite has almost always proven true."
In a Twitter thread, Matt Stoller criticized incursions of user privacy by large tech firms, calling out Apple CEO Tim Cook’s statements on the AICOA / OAMA (in which Cook said the bills were “bad for privacy and bad for national security”) as categorically false.
Retweeting the Wired article, Demand Progress added: “A great run-down from @GiladEdelman of AICO -- the American Innovation and Choice Online Act -- a bill that would help level the playing field between massive tech companies & smaller businesses.”
Co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Stacy Mitchell, retweeted the Wired article, adding: “As I note in the piece, this bill stop short of break-ups, which is what we need. ‘You cannot have the entity that sets the rules for how the marketplace works, and has a god-like view of everything that's going on, to also be participating in that marketplace.’”
A coalition of 15 small business associations sent a letter to Congress urging passage of the AICOA and OAMA, saying they “[sought] to debunk arguments from big tech lobbyists who have frequently claimed to have the support of the small business community.”
Signatories included the American Independent Business Alliance, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and Main Street Alliance.
Evan Greer also tweeted, in reference to the Politico report on APP: “Solid reporting. This group and their views are vile. That said, Big Tech lobbyists trying to seize on this are cynical and opportunistic. If the antitrust bills in question fail, that will harm the queer and trans community. We can call out bigotry & monopolies at the same time.”
Lina Khan Speaks About the Future Of Privacy Enforcement at the FTC
Speaking at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) annual meeting, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan gave her first major address on consumer privacy. Khan’s remarks outlined the agency’s priorities for enforcing consumer privacy protections, and called for a change in how the FTC approaches enforcement. Absent Congressional action, Khan said that the FTC is reassessing the frameworks it currently uses to assess unlawful content, noting that the “notice and consent” paradigm – in which companies must state their privacy practices and obtain user consent – is “outdated and insufficient.” Along these lines, the FTC could potentially develop a different approach under its existing authorities that would place higher requirements on companies collecting user data.
In addition, Khan explained that the FTC is simultaneously considering the creation of a new Trade Regulation Rule that would empower the FTC to expand its ability to regulate company practices. According to media reports, the FTC has not yet commenced the lengthy process needed to create new trade rules “because the commission is still split with two Democrats and two Republicans.” However, the Senate is expected to vote on the nomination of Alvaro Bedoya after the Easter break.
COVERAGE
CNET, FTC Chair Pushes Privacy Rules, Calls for Limits on Data Collection
Washington Post, FTC Chair Lina Khan calls for a paradigm shift on data privacy
Tech Policy Press, FTC Chair Lina Khan Addresses “Surveillance Economy”
RESPONSES
Demand Progress tweeted, “In her highly anticipated first speech on #privacy, @linakhanFTC laid out a new paradigm for holding Big Tech accountable when it seeks to profit off intrusive surveillance.”
Director of Communications Maria Langholz tweeted, “Big Tech should not be profiting off of intrusive surveillance in our day to day lives. Thank you @linakhanFTC for laying out a vision of a society where we don't have to give up our privacy in order to access services provided by tech companies.”
Jameel Jaffer, director at Knight Columbia, tweeted, “This is excellent. So glad @linakhanFTC has the role she does right now. There's no future for the freedoms of speech and association in the digital sphere without stronger protections for privacy.
The Center for Digital Democracy tweeted, “@linakhanFTC acknowledges that her team has finally brought #FTC into 21st Cent. Both #consumerprotection & #antitrust divisions tackling #privacy related work.”
Accountable Tech tweeted, “@linakhanFTC yesterday at #GPS22 makes clear that the FTC will continue "to take swift and bold action" with its powers to curb surveillance advertising.”
Four Years After Passage Of Controversial Sex Trafficking Law, Advocacy Groups Push Congress To Study Its Impact On Sex Workers
On the fourth anniversary of the passage of SESTA/FOSTA, legislation that was designed to curb sex trafficking on online personals sites, Fight For The Future (FFTF) organized a write-in campaign with the Sex Workers Project and Reframe Health and Justice, urging Congress to investigate its potential harms. The controversial anti-trafficking law has been widely condemned by advocacy groups who believe it is forcing sex workers to adopt unsafe practices, exacerbating dangerous sex work, and disproportionately endangering LGBTQ+ people. Now, advocates are promoting the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act, which would instruct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct a federal study of the health and safety impacts of SESTA/FOSTA.
RESPONSES
In a statement, FFTF said, “The SAFE SEX Workers Study Act gives us a crucial opportunity to fully understand the impact of Section 230 changes on the lives of marginalized people, especially those who trade sex.”
Evan Greer tweeted, “Today is the anniversary of SESTA/FOSTA being signed into law. It remains the only time that Congress has amended Section 230. And it got people killed. Today, we’re organizing a call-in day to pass the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act
The Center for Democracy & Technology tweeted, “TODAY: #SafeSexWorkersStudyAct.”
Decriminalize Sex Work tweeted, “#SESTAFOSTA has helped no one and hurt so many.If passed, the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act would examine the consequences of this poorly written law. Stay vigilant. Take action. Click here to demand passage of the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act.”
The Sex Workers Project tweeted, “Monday, April 11 marks four years since Congress passed FOSTA/SESTA into law, a disastrous bill which expanded criminal and civil liability for internet platforms containing information about the sex trade.“
The Sex Workers Outreach Project LA tweeted, “Now we need to pass the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act, which directs Congress to fully study the devastating impacts of FOSTA/SESTA so we can develop better, evidence-based internet policy.”
Melissa Gira Grant, writer at New Republic, tweeted, “Four years ago, Trump signed SESTA/FOSTA into law. As a way to protect people by making it easier to prosecute traffickers, it was a miserable failure. As a way to further marginalize and stigmatize sex workers, it was a tremendous success.”
OPEN TABS
Amazon files its appeal of historic union vote at New York City warehouse (CNN)
Big Labor is failing to meet the moment, advocates say (Axios)
Momentum Is Building for More Affordable Prison Communications (Tech Policy Press)
Tell the Senate: the Solution to Kids’ Privacy Isn’t More Surveillance (EFF)
New York Considers Weapon-Detecting Technology for Subway After Brooklyn Shooting (Wall Street Journal)
Six Steps to Responsible AI in the Federal Government (Brookings)