CLIPS: 21 October, 2021
Our small community has grown enough that we've moved to Substack, and we're giving our newsletter a name. Welcome to the Progressive Tech Policy Project! Not much has changed. We'll continue to share free weekly summaries of news on the left, and we'll add some primers and deep dives on timely issues. We always welcome your feedback and suggestions, and you can reach us anytime at techpolicy@geer.com. - Szelena Gray, Editor
Under fire, Facebook announces rebranding, and a new twist in whistleblower case emerges
Amidst another difficult week of public scrutiny, fines, and calls for greater transparency, Facebook announced Tuesday that they planned to rename the platform to “reflect its focus on the metaverse.” The announcement comes in the wake of revelations concerning Facebook’s monopolistic market behaviors, data privacy, and the negative effect their platforms sustain on teen mental health. On Wednesday, additionally, it was announced that CEO Zuckerburg would be added to an ongoing Facebook privacy lawsuit related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and that founder of eBay Pierre Omidyar was financially supporting Frances Haugen’s case against the company.
COVERAGE
New York Times, Mark Zuckerberg will be added to a Facebook privacy lawsuit.
Wall Street Journal, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Named in Suit by Washington, D.C., Attorney General
TechCrunch, Mark Zuckerberg named as defendant in Facebook privacy suit
Washington Post, Facebook to pay more than $14 million in Justice Dept. settlement over discrimination against American workers
Politico, The tech billionaire aiding the Facebook whistleblower
The Verge, eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar is backing the Facebook whistleblower
RESPONSES
A campaign, “Here’s How we Stop Facebook,” was started by Fight for the Future, with signatories including the Center for Digital Democracy, Decode Democracy, and Public Knowledge.
In a blog post, the Open Technology Institute said, “this transparency effort is limited because the platform still does not provide adequate insight into how its News Feed curation algorithms work, and if and how its efforts to demote harmful content have impacted the distribution of such content on the service. Facebook must provide these additional disclosures in order to provide more meaningful transparency and accountability around its News Feed ranking mechanisms.”
OTI also tweeted, “As #Facebook whistleblower @FrancesHaugen told Congress, FB products ‘harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy.’ To urge Congress to pass #dataprivacy laws that will make FB limit data collection, join @OTI in backing this petition.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation tweeted, “If Congress wants to stand up to Facebook and its privacy-invasive practices, we need real consumer data privacy legislation.”
The Athena Coalition tweeted, “Facebook is transitioning to the metaverse because it has even less taxes.”
The Tor Project tweeted, “We joined a group of nearly 50 organizations calling for lawmakers to investigate Facebook and pass a real data privacy law that ends their harmful business model forever. Sign the petition help shut down Facebook's surveillance machine.”
Accountable Tech tweeted, “Congress and the FTC can pass policy to protect our data and severely weaken Facebook’s algorithm, the root of its harms. Take action now.”
Daphne Keller commented on a WSJ article about Facebook’s use of AI for content moderation: “Govts & media: If you don’t do magic content moderation, you’re bad and will be punished. Platforms: We’re doing it! Govts & media: You lied about doing magic content moderation, you’re bad and will be punished. I’m not even sure who’s the bad guy in this story. But it’s bad.”
Evan Greer tweeted, “With all the breathless coverage about the Facebook whistleblower hearing it's a little weird that most mainstream press outlets completely ignored the launch of HowToStopFacebook.org today, which now has more than 50 leading human rights orgs calling for Congress to act.”
Jason Kent, CEO of Digital Content Next, tweeted, “Thank you. It gets old but it’s also important to continue correcting the record if the data wasn’t handed over to Cambridge Analytica. It was sold. SEC stated this, too, in their complaint and Mark Zuckerberg himself said it was sold. Facebook’s data was sold - and they knew it.”
Amazon accused of lying to Congress about self-preferencing
House members gave Amazon one last chance to explain whether or not it uses seller data to copy popular third-party products and manipulate marketplace search results. This comes after lawmakers called out Jeff Bezos’ claims that the tech giant “prohibits the use of anonymized data, if related to a single seller, when making decisions to launch private brand products” -- claims which were contradicted by a series of reports from Reuters and The Markup, which found that Amazon used data from independent sellers to copy popular products and manipulate search results to favor their own, house-brand items.
COVERAGE
Wall Street Journal, Members of Congressional Committee Question Whether Amazon Executives Misled Congress
New York Times, Lawmakers question whether Amazon executives, including Jeff Bezos, misled Congress.
Protocol, Lawmakers say Bezos and others at Amazon may have lied to Congress
The Markup, Amazon Puts Its Own “Brands” First, Above Better-Rated Products
RESPONSES
Accountable Tech tweeted, “According to the House Antitrust Subcommittee, Amazon potentially lied to Congress over their self-preferencing practices. Last week, @Reuters detailed how Amazon India rigged search results to promote their own products.”
The American Economic Liberties Project said in a Twitter thread, “Predatory pricing is one of @amazon’s most well-known tactics & it’s how they put diapers.com out of biz. This is when a dominant firm sets prices lower than competitors so consumers buy from them. Once the low prices push rivals out, they jack prices back up.”
Matt Stoller tweeted, “House Antitrust Committee members sent a letter to Amazon noting Jeff Bezos may have committed perjury over the firm's copycatting of products and rigging of its search engine. Guess who is not on the letter? Supposed anti-big tech hero Jim Jordan.”
Senior researcher for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Ron Knox, said in a Twitter thread, “Let’s say you believe that, if a company abuses its power or merges with a rival, we should ask, ‘are consumers better off?’ Fine. Under the consumer welfare standard or any other, Amazon’s actions are abusive and illegal. But this is more evidence the CWS is a lie.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted the Reuters reports, adding, “These documents show what we feared about Amazon’s monopoly power—that the company is willing and able to rig its platform to benefit its bottom line while stiffing small businesses and entrepreneurs. This is one of the many reasons we need to break it up.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal tweeted, “A Counsel for Amazon told me that the company does NOT, ‘use any specific seller data when creating its own private brand product.’ Reports have revealed that was a lie: they DO access and use data on third-party sellers. Amazon must be held accountable.”
More responses to the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, announced last week by Senators Klobuchar and Grassley, and expected to be introduced in the Senate shortly.
PPI released a podcast that dives into the potential impact on consumers of the new antitrust legislation.
Public Knowledge tweeted, “New Senate Bill Prohibits Digital Platforms From Anticompetitive Discrimination… Thank you @SenAmyKlobuchar and @ChuckGrassley for this important step forward in the fight to protect consumers and competition online.”
NetChoice tweeted, “The American Innovation and Choice Online Act will REDUCE affordability, opportunity, and connection for consumers and small businesses.”
In a thread, NetChoice went on to tweet, “We agree that competition makes American companies great. That is why we oppose the American Innovation and Choice Online Act.”
Accountable Tech tweeted, “It's clear we need to prevent dominant platforms like Amazon from rigging their marketplaces.”
Open Markets tweeted, “Yesterday's introduction of “The American Innovation and Choice Online Act” by @amyklobuchar and @ChuckGrassley is another step in the right direction! We need sweeping congressional action to #StopBigTech— we can't trust monopolies to play fair.”
The Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act Divides the Left
Last Thursday House Democrats unveiled the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act, targeting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and personalization algorithms. Its introduction follows Frances Haugen’s whistleblower testimony about Facebook.
COVERAGE
Protocol, House Democrats' Sec. 230 bill takes aim at algorithms
National Journal, Progressive groups fracture on Section 230 reform
Broadband Breakfast, Democrats Use Whistleblower Testimony to Launch New Effort at Changing Section 230
RESPONSES
In a statement, Fight for the Future wrote, “In real life, this bill would function more like a 230 repeal than reform, because it opens the floodgates for frivolous lawsuits claiming algorithmically amplified user content caused harm… Facebook itself has been calling for 230 changes because they know that they will be well positioned to weather them (they can afford lots of lawyers) whereas smaller platforms won't.”
Evan Greer tweeted a National Review article, saying, “There is no consensus about if and how to change Section 230, and significant human rights concerns with doing so. There is WAY MORE consensus about privacy legislation.”
Mike Masnick tweeted, “Get rid of Section 230 and companies will be QUICKER to take down content, because they will now face much more liability for it. How is it that so many politicians don't understand how all this works.”
President of Color of Change, Rashad Robinson, said in a statement: “While the Big Tech corporations are still debating whether or not Section 230 protects their deceptive and destructive business practices, the rest of society has moved on. We need the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act of 2021, among other measures, because there's now a clear consensus that an unregulated tech industry is an unacceptably dangerous tech industry.”
Dr. Hany Farid, Senior Advisor at the Counter Extremism Project, said in a statement: “By hiding behind a distorted interpretation of a three-decade old regulation crafted at the dawn of the modern internet, the titans of tech have escaped responsibility for their dangerous and deadly products. This modest bill takes an important and critical step to holding Silicon Valley responsible for their reckless disregard of allowing their services to be weaponized against children, individuals, societies, and democracies.”
Joan Donovan, research director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, said in a statement: “Misinformation, hate speech, and inciting content achieve massive scale because recommendation algorithms propel this content further and faster as more and more people interact with it."
First Amendment Law Professor, Dr. Mary Anne Franks tweeted, “Algorithms that are tailored for vulnerable or volatile groups (for example, teenage girls or white supremacists) seem equally or more concerning as personalized algorithms.”
Tech Policy professor Blake E. Reid tweeted, “One problem with Section 230 is that it has obviated the need to articulate a meaningful framework for understanding the expressiveness of decisions made by Internet intermediaries and whether and to what extent they are protected by the First Amendment.”
Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project, Emma Llanso, said in a Twitter thread, “When so much of our process for developing our opinions--for seeking and taking in information, for taking notes and making drafts and jotting down half-finished thoughts--is digitally mediated, then the privacy and security of that opinion-forming must be safeguarded.”
#Striketober movement results in protests at companies including Apple, Netflix, Instacart
Last Friday it was revealed that Apple had terminated Janneke Parish, a leader of the #AppleToo movement. Apple says Parish was fired for deleting files off of her work devices during an internal investigation. Employees say it’s retaliation for organizing.
COVERAGE
The Hill, Apple employee says she was fired for speaking out about workplace conditions
Washington Post, Apple fires employee who raised awareness of workplace misconduct allegations at the company
New York Times, Leader of Apple activism movement says she was fired.
RESPONSES
Parish’s co-worker Cher Scarlett tweeted her support, saying in a thread, “If you think it’s a coincidence that the one colleague who stepped forward to help me lead #AppleToo using her name was investigated, suspended, and fired is a coincidence you need to check your bias. Janneke, like me, has been firm about her boundaries.”
Apple whistleblower Ashley Gjøvik tweeted a thread in support of Parish, saying, “When a company is as big & powerful as #Apple, with a long history of crimes & unethical behavior, clearly the first three branches of government have failed. This is EXACTLY what the Fourth Estate is for. Come on y'all. Step up. This is literally what we need you for.”
Gjøvik went on to tweet, “With all this bizarre press coverage recently, I'm starting to wonder if #Apple might be wanting to change the narrative. Perhaps hoping that all this propaganda & misinformation, followed by some shiny new gadgets, might make people forget about their CRIMES.”
In a Twitter thread, journalist Timnit Jebru said, “Friends, this is what I'm talking about. @Apple just fired @JannekeParrish. So I want to tell all the journalists that it is NOT a new era. It is still an era where corporations are flaunting their strength, cause they know they get away with it.”
Gebru went on to tweet, “‘Apple...said it is committed to a positive and inclusive workplace.’ Riiight. Is that why you’re retaliating against everyone who says anything? Is that why you ensure that ppl too loud about discrimination have their offers rescinded?”
AI researcher Margaret Mitchell tweeted, “Another woman was "made an example out of" by her tech employer today. These companies appear to be openly firing women...particularly trans, Black women...for trying to stop discrimination in their workplace and products. Can no one do anything?”
Head writer of the Big Technology newsletter, Alex Kantrowitz, tweeted, “Tech companies watched what happened at Google and now they're just firing their activists right away. Happened at Amazon, and now Apple and Netflix.”
Also last Friday, it broke that Netflix had terminated a black trans employee who was organizing a similar walkout. They had been encouraging trans employees and allies to protest Netflix’s handling of the Dave Chappelle special The Closer. Netflix has said the employee was fired due to leaking confidential metric information that was published in a Bloomberg story, although internally, that reasoning has been disputed.
COVERAGE
The Verge, Netflix trans employees and allies release a list of demands ahead of the walkout
Gizmodo, 1,000 Netflix Employees Are Reportedly Planning Walkout to Protest New Chappelle Special
RESPONSES
Color of Change tweeted, “This is another example of how #BigTech exploits Black labor & retaliates against Black staff who speaks out against injustice. @Netflix promised to go #BeyondTheStatement but continues to fail Black employees & members. Remember, Netflix, to be silent is to be complicit.”
CODE-CWA tweeted, “Shameful. Netflix is retaliating against against workers. On Friday they fired a Black trans employee, who is also pregnant, for encouraging workers to walk out in protest of Netflix’s handling of the D*ve Ch*pelle special. #Solidarity with the organizers & workers walking out!”
Journalist Edward Hardy tweeted his support for the employee, saying, “Instead of addressing the concerns raised by its employees, Netflix has fired the organiser of a walkout that was protesting the company's handling of the Dave Chappelle special.”
On Saturday, shoppers for Instacart joined nationwide labor movement strikes protesting work conditions during COVID-19. Protesting the company’s pay structure and unresponsiveness to shoppers, the Gig Workers Collective is calling for Instacart to pay shoppers by order instead of by batch, reintroduce item commissions, and raise default tips for shoppers from 5 percent to 10 percent.
COVERAGE
The Verge, Some Instacart shoppers plan Saturday strike over pay and work conditions
TechCrunch, Instacart shopper activists are going on strike
Gizmodo, Instacart's Embattled Gig Workers Are Going On a Nationwide Strike
RESPONSES
Protocol tweeted, “Most gig workers seem to agree with the demands of the Instacart strike movement, but they say it's hard to take an unpaid day off from the platform, and many don't want to face retaliation.”
Fight for 15 tweeted, “The strike is an escalation of a call made by the same group for customers to boycott Instacart, which workers say has repeatedly ignored their demands.”
Microsoft shuts down LinkedIn in China
Microsoft has announced that it plans to keep operating in China but will replace LinkedIn with jobs-focused listing boards without the social media elements. This comes days after Microsoft released a statement saying that it would discontinue LinkedIn in China, citing increased censorship and a “challenging operating environment.” Last month, LinkedIn blocked the profiles of US Journalists in China due to “prohibited content” in their bios.
COVERAGE
The Hill, Microsoft shutting down LinkedIn in China, to offer new app
The New York Times, LinkedIn to Shut Down Service in China, Citing ‘Challenging’ Environment
The Wall Street Journal, LinkedIn Social Network Is Leaving China, but Microsoft Remains
Tech Radar, Microsoft plays down Linkedin China closure
CNBC, Microsoft to shut down LinkedIn website in China as internet censorship increases in the country
The Washington Post, Microsoft will shut down LinkedIn service in China after facing criticisms for censoring posts
RESPONSES
Daphne Keller tweeted, “I’ve been known to criticize Microsoft for having a lot of bark and not much bite when it comes to protecting Internet users’ rights. But this LinkedIn China pullout is a serious move and they are to be congratulated.”
Graham Webster, Editor of Stanford University’s DigiChina Project tweeted, “This is a big deal. Significantly reduces Microsoft exposure to censorship compliance requirements. Also, goodbye to perhaps the most prominent non-Chinese-run social media that operates across the Great Firewall.”
Alex Howard, Director of the Digital Democracy Project, tweeted, “I don’t think it’s “naive” to expect US companies to take a stand on human rights & democracy, nor that all shareholders want to profit from corporate complicity.”
Stand With Honk Kong tweeted, “Microsoft @LinkedIn has a long history of censoring posts critical of China, but they couldn't deal with all the red lines and just last week decided to get out of China.”
Rest of World tweeted, “LinkedIn isn’t leaving China entirely, but it will transition to a new app called InJobs, with no features for posting or sharing content. With this plan to avoid running afoul of either government, Microsoft has chosen the path of least resistance.”
Civil Liberties Press Biden Administration to Drop Charges Against Julian Assange
Global Press Freedom Groups are intensifying calls to Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop extradition and prosecution efforts of Julian Assange. Britain’s High Court will consider the Biden Administration’s appeal in the extradition case against Assange in a full appellate hearing scheduled for the end of October. The letter was sent in light of a recent Yahoo News reporting on how CIA officials plotted to kidnap and possibly assassinate the WikiLeaks founder.
COVERAGE
Yahoo News, Civil liberties groups push Biden administration to drop case against Assange
LA Progressive, After CIA Plot Revealed, Press Freedom Coalition Says DOJ Must Drop Assange Extradition
Common Dreams, Progressives to Put US War Crimes on Trial and Demand Freedom for Julian Assange
EFF, EFF Joins Press Freedom Groups in Asking U.S to Drop Assange Extradition Efforts
RESPONSES
Freedom of the Press tweeted, “Drop the charges: a coalition of 25 press freedom, civil liberties, and international human rights groups calls on the Department of Justice today to dismiss its dangerous case against Julian Assange.”
Evan Greer tweeted, “Proud that @fightfortheftr signed on to this @FreedomofPress letter calling on Biden admin to drop charges against #Assange. No matter what you think of him, his moral character, or his politics, we should ALWAYS oppose dangerous overreach that threatens freedom of the press.”
WikiLeaks tweeted, “UK National Union of Journalists demands release of journalist and publisher Julian Assange in wake of CIA kill-kidnap plot revelations.”
WikiLeaks tweeted, “The @ACLU joins coalition of organizations demanding end to proceedings against Julian Assange: ‘Julian Assange's prosecution poses a grave threat to journalists and freedom of the press. The government should drop its charges against him immediately.’”
EFF tweeted, “The 100-year-old Espionage Act is being used by @TheJusticeDepartment to prosecute Julian Assange for publishing government info. We’ve joined press freedom groups and asked the DOJ to drop this case.”
Public interest groups urge Bedoya confirmation to FTC
Nearly 40 public interest and advocacy groups on Monday sent a letter to Sens. Chuck Schumer and Maria Cantwell, urging the confirmation of Alvaro Bedoya to the FTC. Bedoya, the founder and director of Georgetown University Law Center’s Center on Privacy & Technology, was tapped by Pres. Biden to fill the seat left by Rohit Chopra, a decision immediately hailed by advocacy groups.
COVERAGE
RESPONSES
Groups including the American Economic Liberties Project, Center for Popular Democracy, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Our Revolution, Public Citizen, and Public Knowledge all signed the letter.
Accountable Tech tweeted, “We're proud to co-sign this letter to urge a swift confirmation of Alvaro Bedoya to the @FTC. We have no time to waste to #ReinInBigTech.”
The Open Tech Institute tweeted, “OTI joins @demandprogress, @popdemoc, @Public_Citizen, @publicknowledge & dozens of groups calling on @SenSchumer & @SenatorCantwell to quickly move forward with @alvarombedoya's confirmation to the @FTC. We cannot afford a deadlock.”
Demand Progress tweeted, “Along w/ 35+ groups, we’re calling on @SenSchumer & @SenatorCantwell to quickly move the confirmation of @FTC nominee Alvaro Bedoya. The FTC has a critical role to play in reining in Big Tech, and without the 5th seat filled, it will be stuck in a deadlock.”
The Revolving Door Project tweeted, “We are proud to join over 35 groups — including @demandprogress, @Public_Citizen, and @econliberties — in urging the Senate to expedite the confirmation of Alvaro Bedoya to the FTC.“