Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants

from the look-at-that-briar-patch dept

Facebook policy dude/failed UK politician Nick Clegg has written an op-ed for USA Today confirming what has been obvious to everyone who understands Section 230, but (for reasons I don't quite understand) seems obscured from basically every politician out there: >Facebook wants to destroy Section 230. And it's practically giddy that politicians are so eager to grant it its wish, while pretending that doing so will somehow hurt Facebook.

It remains absolutely bizarre to me that many people still believe that getting rid of Section 230 (or even reforming it) is a way to "stop" or "hurt" Facebook. Section 230 is a protection for the users of the internet more than it is for the companies. By making it clear that companies are not liable for user speech, it makes more websites willing to host user speech, especially smaller ones which could easily be sued out of existence. Indeed, over the last couple of years, it's become clear that Facebook desperately wants to kill Section 230 because it knows that it alone has enough money to handle the liability, and removing Section 230 will really only burden the startups that threaten to take users away from Facebook.

A year and a half ago, Mark Zuckerberg made it clear that he was cool with getting rid of Section 230. Earlier this year, he suggested a "reform proposal" that was effectively gutting 230 in extremely anti-competitive ways. And for months now, Facebook has blanketed DC (and elsewhere, but mostly DC) with commercials and ads that don't say Section 230, but refer obliquely to "comprehensive internet regulations" passed in "1996." That's Section 230 that they're talking about.

This is why it's so ridiculous that the takeaway of some people to the Facebook whistleblower last week was that Section 230 needs to change. That's exactly what Facebook wants, because it will cement Facebook's dominant position and make it that much more difficult for competitors to emerge or succeed.

Here's what Clegg had to say:

Much has been said about Facebook recently, but there’s one thing we agree on: Congress should pass new internet regulations.

We’ve been advocating for new rules for several years. For too long, many important issues have been left to private companies to decide.

Please regulate us! Facebook has stocked up on former politicians (like Clegg) and political operatives (like Joel Klein). It's not at all worried about a new regulatory regime. It knows that it will run any new regulatory regime. Facebook is not scared of the government. What Facebook is so obviously afraid of is new competitors drawing away its user base. When looked through this lens, Facebook would love regulations. It knows it can control the process, while it would burden all the up and coming startups that are stripping away Facebook's userbase.

We’ve argued for creating a new digital regulatory agency to navigate competing trade-offs in the digital space – much like the Federal Communications Commission oversees telecoms and media.

This is the key quote that proves that Facebook wants to do away with Section 230, though it may only be obvious to those who really know the history of Section 230. When Ron Wyden and Chris Cox wrote Section 230, it was explicitly done to prevent other politicians from creating a Federal Computer Commission to oversee internet companies. Here is what Chris Cox said during the floor debate over Section 230 as compared to alternative approaches, like that of Senator Exon (whose "Communications Decency Act" was later merged with Section 230, only to be thrown out as completely unconstitutional soon after):

Some have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we take the Federal Communications Commission and turn it into the Federal Computer Commission, that we hire even more bureaucrats and more regulators who will attempt, either civilly or criminally, to punish people by catching them in the act of putting something into cyberspace.

Frankly, there is just too much going on on the Internet for that to be effective. No matter how big the army of bureaucrats, it is not going to protect my kids because I do not think the Federal Government will get there in time. Certainly, criminal enforcement of our obscenity laws as an adjunct is a useful way of punishing the truly guilty.

Note that there was "just too much going on on the Internet" in 1995 when this was said. Section 230 was the alternative proposal so that the FCC or any new agency would not regulate the internet. And here's Facebook saying that we need exactly that kind of agency? It's asking for the effective repeal of Section 230.

The rest of Clegg's article is just "please, sir, regulate us so we know what to do," behind a smirk that is obviously knowing how that will lock in Facebook not just as the power behind the regulator, but as the only company who can still survive in the space.

It’s long past time for Congress to set clear and fair rules. That’s how we’ll make the internet safer, while also ensuring that creativity and competition continue to thrive online.

Translation: it's long past time for Congress to make it so that Facebook is firmly established controlling the mechanisms of internet regulations, such that the competitors who are already eating away at our base of users cannot continue to compete.

Filed Under: fcc, internet regulations, nick clegg, section 230
Companies: facebook

Facebook's Weird Pointless Auditless Audit Of Political Bias On Its Platform

from the but-why? dept

Facebook has continued to do the most Facebooky of Facebook things. Faced with almost entirely baseless claims of "anti-conservative bias" in how it moderates content, Facebook claimed to be doing something useful: bringing in a big outside law firm with big name partners (lead by former Republican Senator Jon Kyl) to analyze those claims. In response, they published... a whole lot of nothing. Kyl released an 8 page report that nearly anyone could have written (at much lower hourly rates, I'm sure). In it, it details areas that 133 different conservative users expressed concerns about how Facebook's platform operates.

But the report does literally nothing to say (or better yet, show) whether or not those concerns are valid. It just lists them out. Yes, the "conservatives" interviewed were "concerned" that hate speech designations might disproportionately impact them. Duh. But did it? The report doesn't say. Even more importantly, did such designations lead to disparate treatment for analogous behavior? Again, the report fails to say. it just lists out what "concerns" were raised. Which is about as totally fucking useless as you can imagine. In short, it's Facebook's standard operating procedure.

And, of course, this was announced in a meaningless way by former UK politician Nick Clegg, who is now Facebook's VP of Global Affairs and Communications. Seriously, read this blog post and tell me what useful information you can glean from it. It's nothing. It's nine paragraphs of "if we're doing something biased, we'll try to fix it, but we're still studying if we are." This is the weakest sauce from a company that only seems to know how to make weak sauce.

Not surprisingly, no one's happy about it. Conservatives hate it because it doesn't say that Facebook is biased against them. Liberals are annoyed because it doesn't say that the claims of bias are nonsense. That's why the whole thing is not just useless, but literally counterproductive. By simply stating the concerns, but making no effort to say whether or not they're accurate, this is like the worst kind of "view from nowhere" reporting. He says this. She says that. Which one is right? Who can tell?

Facebook is bending so far over backwards not to upset either side of the traditional political aisle that it's pissing off everyone. Just suck it up, do a real study, and show what the results actually say. Chances are they'll show absolutely no evidence of legitimate "anti-conservative bias," because to date, no credible studies have found any such evidence. But if the study did find something that would be useful to know. Instead, it releases this garbage.

Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, audit, jon kyl, nick clegg
Companies: facebook

Finally: Senior UK Politicians Start To Call For Review Of GCHQ's Spying Activities

from the about-time dept

One of the most disappointing aspects of the NSA and GCHQ revelations is the almost total lack of outrage in the UK. The government there has simply stuck to its line that everything was done in accordance with the law, and has refused to consider a formal review of British spying in light of what we have learned. This has led Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister and head of the junior coalition party, to announce his own inquiry:

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has commissioned a review into the new intrusive capabilities of British intelligence agencies and the legal framework in which they operate, after failing to persuade David Cameron that the coalition government should act now to tighten the accountability of Britain's spies.

Specifically:

The review, to be chaired by [the intelligence and military thinktank the Royal United Services Institute]'s director general, Michael Clarke, is in part modelled on the work commissioned in January by Obama from John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, into big data and privacy. Clegg says the aim of the review, due to report after the general election, will be to bring the issue into the mainstream of public debate, noting the "quality of the debate in the US provides an unflattering contrast to the muted debate on this side of the Atlantic".

The same week, the UK's main opposition party, Labour, finally broke its silence on the Snowden leaks and the running of the UK's spy agencies, with a major speech from its spokesperson on the subject. As The Guardian reported:

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is preparing to argue that the current arrangements are unsustainable for the government, and that it is damaging to trust in the agencies if ministers continue to hide their heads in the sand.

In a speech that represents Labour's most serious intervention since the controversy about the scale of state surveillance broke last summer, she will say: "The oversight and legal frameworks are now out of date. In particular that means we need major reforms to oversight and a thorough review of the legal framework to keep up with changing technology."

One reason for Labour's reticence here is because of its past record. Under Tony Blair, it was Labour that gave police sweeping anti-terrorism powers that severely damaged civil liberties in the UK. And it was Labour that tried to bring in identity cards, and the Conservatives and Lib Dems who threw them out when they came into power in 2010. That makes Labour's sudden embrace of enhanced oversight to protect freedom and privacy somewhat unconvincing.

But at least the party feels it has to make the right noises on the issue, rather than ducking it completely. Coupled with Clegg's unofficial inquiry into how the UK's spies should operate, these are welcome signs that UK politicians are finally starting to ask some serious questions about the massive scale of surveillance revealed by Snowden's leaks, and the harm it causes. It's not much, but it's a start; now we just need David Cameron and the UK government to do the same.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: gchq, nick clegg, nsa, privacy, spying, surveillance, uk

UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg Defends Hard Drive Destruction, But Not Miranda Detention

from the i-don't-think-you're-getting-this dept

With the uproar last week over both the detention of David Miranda under anti-terrorism laws and the destruction of hard drives at The Guardian's offices, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has decided to step forward to opine on both topics in the Guardian himself. As we'd pointed out already, Clegg was very involved in the decision to force the Guardian to destroy the hard drives, and he defends that position in his writeup:

I believed at the time, and still do, that it was entirely reasonable for the government to seek to get leaked documents back from the Guardian or have them destroyed. Along with the information the newspaper had published, it had information that put national security and lives at risk. It was right for us to want that information destroyed. The Guardian had decided not to publish this information: not a single sentence was censored from the newspaper as a result of the information being destroyed.

This makes almost no sense at all. It is not a reality-based argument, but a fantasy-based one. As already discussed, there are copies of the documents in multiple places. Destroying a computer does nothing at all to protect anyone. Furthermore, there is no evidence at all that the documents in question actually "put national security and lives at risk." But, even if they did, destroying the computers / hard drives does absolutely nothing to mitigate that risk. It just looks foolish and aggressive.

I don't know about you, but I prefer my politicians to recognize when they do something that has no actual impact, other than to symbolically demonstrate that they don't understand the nature of the digital era. It suggests that they are governing from a position of ignorance, and that's not a good thing.

The claim that "not a single sentence was censored from the newspaper" is also ridiculous. Yes, The Guardian already wasn't going to publish anything potentially damaging, and yes, the reporting is continuing from elsewhere, but having the government come into the offices of a major media property and demand the destruction of hard drives is a form of censorship. It's intimidation and it creates massive chilling effects for others (which, of course, was part of the point). To argue that it has no effect because the Guardian wasn't going to publish the info anyway is both ridiculous and wrong.

Of course, it's interesting to see that while Clegg is defending the indefensible above, he is not so supportive of the Miranda detention:

I was not consulted on the plans to detain him before it happened, and I acknowledge the many concerns raised about the use of schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for these purposes. There is obviously a material difference between agreeing by mutual consent that files will be destroyed, and forcibly detaining someone. Terrorism powers should be used proportionately. That is why it is immensely important that the independent reviewer of terrorism powers, David Anderson QC, reports rapidly on whether this was a legitimate use of the Terrorism Act, and whether that legislation should be adjusted. Already, we are planning to limit the schedule 7 powers. We consulted last year on a wide set of improvements – such as reducing the maximum period of detention to six hours and allowing anyone detained for more than 60 minutes access to a lawyer. This autumn we will be taking a bill through parliament to implement these changes. In my view, if Anderson provides a clearly justified recommendation to restrict these powers even further, we should seek to do so in this bill.

Of course, that's a bit of a political punt there. He doesn't come out against it, but certainly suggests he doesn't support the detention. And he does support changes to the law, but only fairly moderate ones at this point. Indeed, Clegg has been -- at times -- good on civil liberties issues, such as (as he reminds us) when he effectively stopped the UK's Snooper's Charter. But, it seems like he raises a totally false dichotomy in closing out his piece:

Criminals and terrorists now have access to a dizzying array of information, with devastating implications, while the security authorities have new tools with which to track them down. Data-mining techniques have the capacity to make government much more efficient but pose a real risk to personal privacy if taken too far. Social media can create new communities that would never have been possible before, but can also be the source of tragedy, as we have seen in a series of recent young suicides.

So a balance must be struck between a libertarian "anything goes" approach, which sees new technology as a way to escape from the reach of the law, and an authoritarian view that sees technology as a new opportunity to intrude into our lives. Technology will continue to evolve and governments worldwide will try to evolve with it. As long as Liberal Democrats are in government, I will ensure that our individual rights are not cast aside in the name of collective security.

That sounds like the all-too-typical refrain about how there needs to be a "balance" between security and liberty. But that's false. There is little evidence that taking away basic liberties actually improves security (in fact, it can harm it). And the people who are upset about the destruction of hard drives and the detention of Miranda aren't arguing for "anything goes," but rather for a basic respect for civil liberties. That's quite different, and it's unfortunate, if not tragic, that Clegg doesn't seem to understand the difference.

Filed Under: david miranda, detention, hard drive destruction, journalism, nick clegg
Companies: the guardian

UK 'Snooper's Charter' Torn Up; Now What?

from the not-over-yet dept

Since the UK government published the draft version of its Communications Data Bill -- better known as the "snooper's charter" -- with plans to store data about every British citizen's emails, mobile calls and visits to Web sites, there has been almost total opposition to it from everyone else. Indeed, there has been growing resistance even within the UK government's ranks, largely from the smaller of the coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. Here's what the party's leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has been up to, as described by one of the Liberal Democrat MPs, Julian Huppert:

Nick refused to allow the Bill to go ahead, and forced the Home Office to publish the Bill as a draft, allowing us all to see what the Home Office were planning. Nick appointed Paul Strasburger and I onto a Committee to scrutinise it in detail. We went through the evidence, heard from many experts and published a cross-party report. This was damming of the Home Office proposals -- it unanimously describe some of the Home Office information as 'fanciful and misleading'.

Following Nick's intervention and our report, the Home Office was given the chance to rethink. To build a proper case and look for proposals which were proportionate to the problem.

However, instead of trying to answer the huge range of criticisms of the proposed Bill, the Home Office simply insisted that such an intrusive system of surveillance was needed. As a result:

Nick has just this morning announced that he has killed off the Data Communications Bill, dubbed the "snooper’s charter".

By withdrawing the support of the Liberal Democrats, Clegg makes it practically impossible to pass the Bill, since the UK government will lack the requisite majority to push it through. However, this is by no means the end of the story.

Clegg will be under huge pressure from the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his Conservative party colleagues, to agree to some slightly watered-down proposals. Cameron will doubtless invoke all the usual reasons -- tackling terrorism, paedophiles, organized crime etc. -- knowing that this plays well with enough of the electorate that Clegg won't be able to ignore it completely. So we can probably expect to see new plans in due course. The question then becomes to what extent they address the huge flaws in the original snooper's charter, and whether they represent an approach that is truly "proportionate to the problem", as the cross-party report puts it. If they don't, the battle will doubtless begin again.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: nick clegg, snooper's charter, uk