Does the AICOA undermine content moderation?
Senators Say AICOA Could Threaten Content Moderation
A group of moderate Senators are raising concerns that the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (S. 2992) could prevent tech platforms from moderating and deplatforming hate speech. In a letter Wednesday, Sens. Brian Schatz (HI), Ron Wyden (OR), Ben Ray Luján (NM) and Tammy Baldwin (WI) wrote that although they support preventing technology companies from preferencing their own products, they fear that the measure could “imperil current content moderation practices by putting competition policy in direct conflict with the ability of companies to take down hate speech, disinformation and misinformation, and other objectionable content under existing law.“ The letter goes on: “Although important, competition policy goals should not override the ability of platforms to moderate content in good faith.” During the bill’s markup, Free Press raised similar concerns that the AICOA would undermine platform efforts against online hate and disinformation (more coverage of that here).
A spokesperson for Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), the bill’s chief sponsor, argued that the bill “will not harm platforms’ ability to moderate content,” but indicated that the Senator is open to modifying the legislation to address critics’ concerns. Earlier in the week, during a press conference organized by Accountable Tech, Public Knowledge, Consumer Rights, the Digital Progress Institute, and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Klobuchar blamed technology companies for spreading misinformation about her bill. “This bill is about competition, it’s not focused on content,” Klobuchar insisted. Klobuchar’s argument was buoyed by John Oliver, whose HBO show Last Week Tonight featured a segment on the legislation that several groups amplified in subsequent days.
RESPONSES
Professor at Stanford Law School, Mark Lemley, tweeted, “Glad to see @RonWyden @brianschatz and others pushing to amend the antitrust bill to avoid inadvertently promoting hate speech and content moderation. Let's hope @SenAmyKlobuchar will get on board.”
Writing in Techdirt, Mike Masnick voiced disappointment with Oliver’s segment, saying it missed some crucial context. From the article: “[T]he problem with Oliver’s segment is that while it spends most of the episode laying out legitimate concerns about tech power concentration, it then simply accepts that the two popular bills making their way through Congress will actually help and won’t cause problems. Oliver embraces and supports the AICOA and the OAMA bill. However, as we’ve explained, while both bills have some good parts, the only reason Republicans are supporting them is that they know that the bills will be massively abused to litigate content moderation decisions.”
Free Press tweeted, “.@freepressaction has warned that a MAJOR loophole in a fast-moving antitrust bill could make it harder for online platforms to combat hate & disinformation. Four senators are now calling on lead sponsor @amyklobuchar to fix this loophole.”
They also gave a statement, saying, ”We’re encouraged that Senators Baldwin, Luján, Schatz and Wyden are taking a stand against a major loophole in the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. Right now there’s a rush to bring the bill to the floor before that problem is fixed. But the details matter here, and fixing this provision would ensure that a bill designed to counteract big tech platforms’ self-preferencing doesn’t hand people like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton a new tool to keep vile hate and violent disinformation online.”
President and Co-CEO Craig Aaron also tweeted, “Even in a sweltering antitrust summer, the details matter. Appreciate the work of these senators trying to get them right and ensure that the effort to rein in Big Tech doesn't embolden hate speech and disinformation”
Fight for the Future tweeted, “John Oliver’s latest @LastWeekTonight perfectly describes how Big Tech uses monopoly power to shut down competitors, obliterate consumer choice, and suppress innovation… We're fighting tooth-and-nail for bipartisan Good Antitrust Bills that have a good shot at passing. But as John says, ‘if they don't pass in the next month or so, they're not likely to pass at all.’”
The American Economic Liberties Project tweeted, “‘The problem with letting a few companies control whole sections of the economy is that it limits what is possible for startups.’ John Oliver is spot on, if we want to give start ups a chance, we need to break Big Tech's stranglehold on innovation.”
On their podcast, Pivot, Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway commended Sen. Klobuchar and said some legislation was bound to come of this push, although warned against lobbyist interference in the bill that could result in “something like the GDPR” that disadvantages small- and medium-sized businesses.
President of Color of Change, Rashad Robinson, tweeted, “#BigTech is going to all lengths to prevent regulation. Why? Because without federal input, tech corporations can abuse our data and spread misinformation, all while turning a massive profit. Dems must get antitrust reform done before the midterms.”
Alex Harman, antimonopoly policy consultant at the Economic Security Project, wrote in a Twitter thread: “The bills… would bring about real change in how the dominant platforms treat small business users and would result in more choice and innovation for users like us… [They] will unleash startups and innovators who are often unable to get funding to develop ideas that could be seen as a threat to Big Tech. With these bills, the sky is the limit.”
New Report: Facebook Gives Gun Sellers 10 Strikes Before Removal
Although Facebook formally prohibited gun sales on its platform in 2016, following pressure by advocacy groups in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a new report by the Washington Post revealed that company guidance allows buyers and sellers to violate this rule 10 times before their account is terminated. Sellers could also easily evade the ban by ostensibly selling gun holsters, cases, stickers, or other items and then soliciting the potential buyer via private messages about a potential gun purchase. The leaked documents also revealed a separate five strike policy for individuals who call for violence or praise a known dangerous organization.
While Facebook has said it polices gun sales appropriately (with spokesman Andy Stone claiming that most violations are inadvertent, and that the company typically removes users within two strikes) the recent mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas highlights the dangers of Facebook’s practices. From the Washington Post piece: “Facebook's gun policies have long been a source of contention among the company's senior leadership and policymaking teams, who have been torn between the platform's support of free speech and public pressure to curtail weapons sales.”
Digital rights activists criticized the lack of transparency around Facebook’s “strikes” system and its broader content moderation rules. While some posts (including images of child abuse or terrorist acts) only require one strike for termination, Facebook’s tiered strike system can create seemingly arbitrary distinctions between illegal content.
RESPONSES
Journalist Naomi Nix broke the story, going on to write in a Twitter thread: “Critics, including the Oversight Board, have often said Facebook doesn't give the public enough info about its strikes system, which gives rule-breakers a specific number of passes and a tiered system of punishments before they are banned.”
Jason Kint re-tweeted Nix, adding: “Common thread over the years but I would also focus less on the posts themselves (take down, leave up, 10 strikes) and instead the role of Facebook in providing micro-targeted velocity and reach to put those sales in front of audiences who would be interested in clicking them.”
Alex Howard, Director of the Digital Democracy Project, also re-tweeted Nix, adding: “I wonder how many strikes women who shared photos of themselves breastfeeding got from @facebook, or how many strikes someone sharing a copyrighted video or song will get from @Meta. I bet it's less than 10.”
Free Press criticized Facebook’s content removal strategy, and organized a sign-on campaign in line with the demands of their #FixTheFeed campaign (which includes the Center for American Progress and Color of Change, amongst others). From the letter: “Facebook has once again made it clear that it doesn’t enforce its own rules: Giving gun buyers and sellers 10 chances to break the rules is hardly a deterrent or enforcement measure. And in the wake of tragedies in Uvalde and Buffalo, the platform needs to show that it actually cares about the safety of its users.”
They continued, saying: “Facebook must enforce its own policies banning gun sales on the platform and commit to banning calls-to-arms on event pages, a commonsense measure that can save lives.”
Rashad Robinson tweeted, “How many millions of times are gun sale ads seen before those who run them are finally banned? The bottom line: this decision shouldn’t be up to Facebook because self-regulated companies are unregulated companies.”
Facebook Users Unite tweeted, “In the wake of mass shootings, Facebook allows people to sell 10 guns before being removed from the platform. As every day users we must begin to see how this company continues to aid in violence, disinformation and hate.”
Co-founder of Accountable Tech, Jesse Lehrich, tweeted the Washington Post report in exasperation.
Corey Ciorciari, formerly of Democracy Forward, re-tweeted Lehrich, adding: “This isn't just immoral - it's very likely illegal. If a gun seller is selling 10 guns, they are undoubtedly "in the business" of selling firearms and must conduct background checks and be licensed under federal law. @Meta is facilitating illegal guns sales. Full stop.”
Fellow at the Brennan Center, Ángel Díaz, wrote in a Twitter thread: “I think this story does a great job demonstrating the absurdity of platform rules. Facebook PR says the rule, written with input and support of the NRA, is really only broken a couple of times by ‘90%’ of people. The other 8 strikes are for...?”
Washington Post Correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin responded to Meta spokesman Andy Stone’s Twitter thread on the WaPo report, saying: “Andy, anyone who reads the story can see that all the things you say aren’t in there in fact are (See paragraphs 12,13, 16). The stat you say we ‘distorted’ is right in your quote. Please stop posting misinformation about our piece.”
Privacy Advocates Say American Data Privacy And Protection Act Falls Short Of Protecting From Tech Harm
On Tuesday, the House Energy & Commerce Committee held a hearing to discuss the 64-page draft of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act released earlier in June, the largest advancement for a federal data privacy framework in years. As we reported last week, the legislation would grant more strigent protections for Americans against the discriminatory use of their data and require covered entities to minimize on the front end the data they need to collect, as well as ban platforms from delivering targeted ads to young users if the platforms have knowledge the user is under 17.
While lawmakers praised the bipartisan efforts that broke the stalemate on a federal privacy standard and welcomed the major provisions of the draft bill text, digital privacy groups insisted that the proposal does not go far enough to protect users from tech harms. In their letter to Congress, the American Civil Liberties Union raised concerns about how the bill’s provisions would be enforced and pressed lawmakers to provide “a strong private right of action, and allow the states to continue to respond to new technologies and new privacy challenges with state privacy laws.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation similarly called upon Congress to revise several sections of the current draft, urging them to remove the bill’s controversial section 404(b) on federal preemption, saying “any action that supplants stronger state laws would hurt consumers and prevent states from protecting their constituents.
In the hearing, some advocacy groups urged lawmakers to close loopholes that could allow platforms to dodge accountability and suggested the ban on targeting ads to young users should incorporate proactive due diligence by companies to ensure recipients of targeted ads are not minors.
Industry groups like the CCIA and SIIA argue the sections on federal preemption do not go far enough to curb more aggressive state data policies though they have willingness to work with Congress on bipartisan privacy legislation. Their concern revolves around how the APPA’s preemption provision would preserve the ability of state authorities to enforce their existing privacy laws. The industry groups noted that they would like to see Congress amend the proposed law so that it “stat[es] clearly that its federal privacy law will be the uniform standard and that state laws creating qualitatively equivalent rights or duties are preempted.”
RESPONSES
In a statement, the ACLU encouraged a slower, deliberative timeline for any new proposal, saying: “Our concern about the possibility of legislation being rushed towards enactment without taking the time to ensure that it provides the most protection possible for individuals is based on the experiences of several of our ACLU state affiliates who have been unable to stop harmful or effectively useless state privacy bills from being pushed quickly to enactment with the enormous lobbying and advertising support of sectors of the technology industry that resist changing a business model that depends on consumers not having protections against privacy invasions and discrimination.”
In a statement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said, “The American Data Privacy and Protection Act might be a step in the right direction on many of these issues – assuming it is amended, as discussed above, to ensure strong private enforcement in court, and to not undo other privacy laws at the federal and state levels.”
In the hearing, Caitriona Fitzgerald, Deputy Director at Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), said, “With the #ADPPA, Congress has the opportunity right now to reclaim privacy as a meaningful right and reestablish America as a global leader on privacy. … The time to act is now.”
In a statement, the Disinfo Defense League said, “DDL is calling on lawmakers to then add amendments to the legislation that include more robust measures to blunt the extractive data practices of social-media platforms and other data brokers.”
In the hearing, Bertram Lee Jr., Senior Policy Counsel at Future of Privacy Forum, said, “Between employment, the #EU AI Act, and post-employment with #ADPPA, you have broad coverage of an algorithm's lifecycle and a better understanding of how algorithms and #AI are impacting our lives.”
In the hearing, Jolina Cuaresma, Senior Counsel for Privacy and Technology Policy at Common Sense Media, said, “All consumers, but especially children & teens, deserve greater online privacy and protection from online harms.”
Facebook Empowers Anti-Abortion Advocates To Target People Seeking Abortions
As privacy advocates and lawmakers continue to express alarm about data brokers buying and selling data that could be used to put women seeking reproductive health services at risk, a new report from the Markup revealed that Facebook is gathering personal information about abortion seekers “and enabling anti-abortion organizations to use that data as a tool to target and influence people online.” The news comes as the Supreme Court is preparing to issue a ruling that may overturn Roe v. Wade.
The investigation discovered that hundreds of anti-abortion clinics are sharing ultrasensitive information with Facebook, including “whether a person was considering abortion or looking to get a pregnancy test or emergency contraceptives.” Privacy advocates fear that this personal data could be weaponized by anti-abortion advocates to deliver targeted advertising to people seeking abortions, spread misinformation campaigns, or “as evidence against abortion seekers in states where the procedure is outlawed.”
The news comes in the wake of previous reports that abortion clinic data, containing information about visitors and their locations, could be easily purchased from data brokers.
In an effort to curb such practices, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has introduced the Health and Location Data Protection Act, legislation that would end the sale of sensitive location and health data. With the provisions of the bill more comprehensive than protecting reproductive rights, the Senate bill joins other legislative efforts to implement new data privacy standards and protect Americans’ civil liberties as data practices become more extractive.
RESPONSES
UltraViolet tweeted, “The dangers are no longer hypothetical -- social media platforms should not have this power to patrol and control people seeking abortions. It's time to #ReinInBigTech.”
Allie Funk, Research Director at Freedom on the Net, tweeted, “Our surveillance ecosystem is especially dangerous in a post-Roe America. People need to be able to safely access reproductive healthcare. Strong data privacy laws can help.”
Kia Guarino, Executive Director at Pro-Choice Washington, tweeted, “Abortion rights and data privacy are interconnected. 'Facebook is collecting ultra-sensitive personal data about abortion seekers and enabling anti-abortion organizations to use that data as a tool to target and influence people online…’”
Neil Richards, fellow at the Center for Democracy & Technology tweeted, “I’m delighted to have worked with @SenWarren staff - and my colleagues @daniellecitron @hartzog @thomaskadri @elizabeth_joh - on this important bill to protect location & health privacy for everyone.”
Lorraine Kisselburgh, board member at EPIC Privacy, tweeted, “On the tail of the new US House #dataprivacy bill, comes this very specific and important bill from the US Senate protecting citizens from the collection and sale of health and location data.”
Daphne Keller, Platform Regulation Director at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, tweeted, “Anyone working in online speech and privacy issues in the U.S., it might be time to reorient your focus in next few years around abortion issues.”
In a follow-up tweet, Keller tweeted, “Baseline assumptions like ‘if the cops want this user data, there is probably a good reason," or "if this speech actually violates the law, platforms should take it down’ kind of go out the window in the face of these new abortion laws.”
Thomas Kadri, Professor and Researcher in Digital Speech at the University of Georgia School of Law, tweeted, “Data brokers fuel harmful surveillance & endanger vulnerable members of our society. This bill would rein in invasive practices, offering protection from a notoriously reckless industry. Pleased to endorse with @jshermcyber @daniellecitron @neilmrichards @elizabeth_joh @hartzog!”
Justin Sherman, Tech Advisor at Stop Spying NY, tweeted, “I am beyond thrilled to see this kind of legislation that takes aim at data brokers and the dangerous, highly unregulated sale of people's health and location data.”
Microsoft Agrees To Remain Neutral On Activision Blizzard Unionization
On Monday, Microsoft entered a neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). This agreement will apply to Activision Blizzard (the gaming company Microsoft is acquiring) beginning 60 days after Microsoft’s acquisition closes. Microsoft had previously announced that it would “recognize that employees have a legal right to choose whether to form or join a union” and its most recent commitment to the CWA creates a stark contrast to the broader gaming industry’s long-standing hostility towards organized labor.
According to the announcement, Microsoft will adopt a neutral approach if employees covered by the agreement express interest in unionization, and will not interfere in employees’ efforts to organize and communicate with union representatives. With this acquisition, Microsoft threatens the success of Amazon Games, which recently produced two very successful titles. Amazon, and Apple, another competitor in the space, have opposed unionization attempts in the past.
RESPONSES
Anna Kramer, tech reporter at Protocol, tweeted, “NEW: this is a huge freaking deal and here is my quick analysis”
Shakeel Hashim, editor at The Economist, responded in a tweet, “This is clever: Microsoft has the least to lose by workers unionising, so it’s taking a stance that puts pressure on its competitors (namely Amazon). Similar to its antitrust stance and Apple’s privacy stance.
Accountable Tech tweeted, “Microsoft's union truce represents a significant change in Big Tech's treatment of workers…”
Digital Associate at Accountable Tech Giliann Karon also about unions in tech, where she said, “As of July 2021, nearly 50% of tech workers wanted to join a union, which explains why tech companies have offered enhanced benefits to dissuade workers from organizing. But meager pay increases and free pizza (or even locally-sourced on-tap kombucha) can’t replace a people-powered bargaining unit with rights enshrined by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).”
OPEN TABS
Facebook’s Broken Promises (Tech Transparency Project)
How to Fix Twitter and Facebook (The Atlantic)
Student Defense, Accountable Tech Worry FAFSA Student Data Sent to Facebook Could be Used for Predatory, Discriminatory Advertising (Accountable Tech)
After months of deadlock, Lina Khan is unleashed (Washington Post)
In defense of crypto(currency) (Prof. Matthew Green, Johns Hopkins)