Parler, Desperate For Attention, Pretends It Doesn't Need Section 230

from the playing-with-fire dept

One of the more bizarre parts of the Parler debate is the weird insistence among many in the Trumpist set that somehow taking away Section 230 will magically lead to less moderation, rather than more. This is almost certainly untrue, because assuming a shift to more traditional distributor liability rules as were considered in place prior to Section 230, websites would potentially face liability for content that violated the law if they were shown to have knowledge of the law-violating material.

We don't have to look far to see such a system in practice: it's how the DMCA's Section 512 notice-and-takedown regime effectively works today. Under that regime, anyone who wants anything taken offline just files a notice, and if a website wishes to avoid liability, they then need to remove the content. That removal protects them from liability. Prior to the notice, it's unlikely that they would be seen as liable, since they wouldn't have notice of the content in question possibly violating a law. Of course, as we've seen, the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provision is widely abused. Recent studies have shown that the notice-and-takedown provisions are regularly used to target non-infringing works and many sites pull down that content to avoid liability.

It's quite likely that we'd see the same sort of result without 230, leading to significantly more removals of perfectly legal speech -- which seems to be the exact opposite of what Trumpist fans of revoking 230 expect. Last month, we were happy to see that the Trumpist social media site, Parler, seemed to recognize this, and its CEO John Matze correctly pointed out that removing Section 230 would help the big companies and harm smaller competitors (though, hilariously, he tried to lump himself in as a big guy):

Section 230 is actually a really nice thing, because what it does is protect small businesses from liability, who are trying to compete with Big Tech. So I respectfully disagree, to some extent.... I don't think the outright removal of 230 is a good idea, because it promotes competition and it actually helps the small guys more. 230, if it was removed, wouldn't have a big impact on the companies with a large financial balance sheet, like Facebook, Twitter, and even Parler. We'd be okay. But any other competitors would get hurt the most.

He's right (except the bit about him being a big guy -- just because you're co-founded by an ultra-wealthy Trumpist wacko, it doesn't mean you're a big player). Parler would face tremendous liability without 230, and at some point, the Mercers wouldn't enjoy continuing to pay the company's neverending legal bills.

Yet, on Monday, it seems that political pressure won out among Parler senior exec staff, and they put out a truly ridiculous press release, headlined that Parler now "welcomes" a full repeal of Section 230. If you read the actual press release, and not just the headline, you realize that the company's complaint is not so much about 230, but what might happen if any 230 reform is driven by Facebook. And that is the proper concern. If Facebook gets to dictate the terms of 230 reform, it will be massively damaging to companies like Parler. And thus, one can read Parler's press release as saying that if there were only two choices and those two choices were (1) Facebook-led reform or (2) a full repeal of 230, it would prefer a full repeal:

Today Parler executives declared that Parler and other free speech platforms would be better off if Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act were repealed than they would be under a politically feasible re-write of Section 230. Such a re-write would, they believe, further encourage speech-restrictive, content moderation policies of established tech giants Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. As it stands, the current interpretation of Section 230 already encourages these practices, by providing immunity from liability for removal of any content a platform's leadership finds "objectionable." If Mark Zuckerberg and his cronies in Congress have their way, these practices would be not only protected from liability, they would be mandated. Online platforms would, under a revised Section 230, become de facto censors, restricting speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. Not only is this morally wrong, it would simultaneously increase barriers to entry while limiting the ability of social media companies to compete by offering different policies.

Much of that paragraph is actually accurate! Many of the reform proposals would push companies to be more proactive in taking down protected content, though if they were actually mandated, it would make any such law infringe upon the 1st Amendment itself, and it would eventually get tossed as such (though that process would take a while).

That said, the framing here by Parler is immensely stupid. Most people took this to mean it wants a full repeal, rather than just preferring one when compared to a Facebook-led reform. And that's how people are going to remember it. I'm also confused about how Parler thinks that Zuckerberg has "cronies" in Congress. Have they not watched the various hearings where both Republicans and Democrats seem hellbent on beating up on Zuck every chance they get? I honestly cannot name a single member of Congress who I think is supportive of Facebook at all.

Even more stupid, Parler CEO John Matze doubled down on this line of thinking on a post on his own feed (I'd link, but Parler makes it impossible to link directly to posts).

That says:

Reflecting on 2020 and revisiting the inauthentic testimonies from Zuckerberg, Sundar and Dorsey, and observing the role social media plays, today I am changing my stance on section 230. This was not an easy change, but thanks to the people on Parler, trusted advisors and our legal team, I am more confident.

Over the past year, Americans have watched and experienced viewpoint discrimination from Twitter, FB and Google. We have seen medical advice blocked and erased from the internet. We have seen climate politics pushed down our throats. We have seen election integrity concerns forcefully invalidated and we have seen tech tyrants attempting to control our democratic republic in the name of "preserving" it.

As it stands, Parler benefits from Section 230 today. We are afforded the same protections. But, overarchingly, 230 is bad for free speech and bad for our country. Parler does not need it, and rest assured we will come out just fine either way. The tyrants not so much.

This... makes no sense at all. If this is truly from Matze's "trusted advisors" and the company's "legal team" he should fire them and get new advisors and lawyers -- and maybe stopping getting his information from idiots. All of the stuff he complains about would be significantly worse without 230. And, no, Parler would not come out fine either way. He may think so, with Rebekah Mercer's big wallet backing him up, but legal fees add up quickly, and Parler would likely discover that faster than most. No one has an endless supply of cash, and the Mercer family, while rich, is not that rich.

Honestly, this stinks of a stupid publicity stunt by Parler, thinking that it's hitting Facebook when it's down. It's pretty clear that Matze and Parler's senior leadership team have little to no experience with how this stuff plays in DC. He's just handed Facebook exactly the ammunition it wants to pressure Congress to reform 230 in the way it wants, because everyone is going to take these statements, ignore the weak and slightly misleading nuance, and remember "Parler thinks 230 reform is fine."

It's a stupid move, but no one said that the company was smart. Remember, these are the same guys who bizarrely claimed they'd only moderate based on "the 1st Amendment and the FCC" (whatever the fuck that means) and then quickly started banning people who made fun of Parler. And Matze is the guy who, while pretending to support free speech, also recently bragged to a reporter that he was sitting around banning leftist trolls who had shown up on his site.

It's honestly not surprising, just disappointing, for Parler to take this self-defeating stance. It had a chance to be a useful participant in these discussions, and has instead decided to simply pull a prank to get itself some attention instead.

Filed Under: intermediary liability, john matze, rebekah mercer, section 230
Companies: facebook, parler

What If Cambridge Analytica Owned Its Own Social Network? CA Backer Rebekah Mercer Admits She's A Co-Founder Of Parler

from the oh-look-at-that dept

Since the election, Parler has found renewed life among Trump supporters who feel that... [checks notes] being fact-checked, or limited for sharing debunked and dangerous conspiracy theories, is somehow an attack on... something (reality: it's an attack on their delusions). And as Parler has gotten a new round of attention, some questions were raised about the funding behind it. After all, there was no big VC or known investor behind the company, so it wasn't entirely clear how it was surviving. There was a crazy and incorrect conspiracy theory making the rounds that it was owned by Trumpists' favorite bogeyman, George Soros. That's not true, though it would have been completely hilarious if it had been.

Late last week, a Twitter thread made the rounds trying to tie Parler's founding to Russia, though it involves a lot of conjecture and guilt by association, rather than facts.

But then, on Friday, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Parler was being funded by the Mercer family, the same family who funded a bunch of pro-Trump projects, including Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart, and, well, Trump's own presidential campaign. Over the weekend, Rebekah Mercer took it up a further notch by claiming that she was the co-founder of the company along with CEO John Matze.

That's a post from Rebekah Mercer saying:

John and I started Parler to provide a neutral platform for free speech, as our founders intended, and also to create a social media environment that would protect data privacy. Benjamin Franklin warned us: "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." The ever increasing tyranny and hubris of our tech overlords demands that someone lead the fight against data mining, and for the protection of free speech online. That someone is Parler, a beacon to all who value their liberty, free speech, and personal privacy.

That's... information that is brand new. Prior to this weekend, it was always claimed that the company was founded by Matze and a friend, Jared Thomson. In the past they had claimed that they founded it together, and had some support from a "small group of close friends and employees." But they never mentioned the Mercers. That's some "friends."

Also, Rebekah Mercer's claims are pretty ridiculous when you pick them apart. Despite claiming that they're setting up "a neutral platform for free speech" we know perfectly well that's utter garbage. As we've seen, they've got no problem banning people they dislike for ideological reasons. In fact, despite claiming on the website that they would only take down content if it violated the 1st Amendment, the company quickly realized that it would have to ban a lot more than that.

My favorite example of this was in a Forbes interview, where Matze admits that he's sitting around banning trolls as quickly as he can:

“I hope you don’t mind that I’m eating: I haven’t eaten all day,” says Parler founder John Matze, devouring a late lunch. His social media app—a new favorite of President Trump’s and other GOP leaders—has been under siege for the past few hours. “I’m sitting here like, banning trolls.”

By trolls he means teenage leftists who’ve flooded onto Parler....

As we said, they've sort of speed-run the content moderation learning curve that every website goes through when they claim to support free speech. They insist they'll allow anything. Then they start banning spammers. Then trolls. And, that's the same damn thing Twitter does, and even here they're admitting that they're banning "leftist trolls." In fact, over the past week or so we keep having people showing up on our article from the summer about Parler banning users it doesn't like and screaming at us about how it's okay because they're just banning trolls. But, that's the point. That's what Twitter is doing too. Except that Twitter isn't complaining about ideological trolls.

It's only Parler that seems to be staking out an ideological claim, trying to ban "leftist" trolls after being cofounded by one of the most extreme partisans around, who laughably claims that Parler will be neutral.

The other incredibly ridiculous claim is that Parler is a response to "the ever increasing tyranny and hubris of our tech overlords" and that it is trying to "lead the fight against data mining." Or that Parler is "a beacon to all those who value their liberty, free speech, and personal privacy." We already covered how its views on free speech are not very different from other social media platforms, but the privacy claims are ridiculous as well.

Remember, Cambridge Analytica's entire claim to fame was collecting a shit ton of data on people by abusing the rules on an academic's personality quiz on Facebook, and then use it to target political messages. Remember, part of the reason Facebook got hit with a huge FTC fine was that it had let Cambridge Analytica extract a bunch of data it had promised not to.

Former Cambridge Analytica data expert Christopher Wylie noted this weekend that when he was there, the Mercers had always wanted their own social network in order to cut out the middle man and collect the data directly (and distribute propaganda directly). And now they've got that:

Oh, and they've got access to a lot more private data than Facebook, Google or Twitter do. Hell, Matze practically brags to a Forbes reporter how he has all sorts of private data on the "leftist trolls" he's trying to ban:

Matze knows the leftists’ ages of the trolls, as he calls them, because some verified their accounts, coughing up selfies and driver’s licenses or passports (a set of highly unusual requirements for proving identity and registering for an online account).

Twitter doesn't require you to upload your driver's license. Also, if you want to have a verified account on Parler, you're required to hand over your Social Security Number as well.

Basically, the Mercers are building a huge database of gullible idiots that they can now market propaganda to directly, cutting out the Facebook middleman. I'm curious how it was a huge problem when it was happening by Facebook, but somehow fine when it's all directly on the Mercer's own social network?

Filed Under: content moderation, free speech, john matze, mercer family, privacy, rebekah mercer, social media
Companies: cambridge analytica, parler

I Helped Design The Election Simulation 'Parlor Game' Rebekah Mercer Got, And It's Not What You Think

from the the-strangest-timeline dept

How was your Monday? Mine was odd. Have you ever seen a news story where you know the reports are getting things wrong? This is like that, but on steroids. In fact, this was a story in which not only were the basic points wrong, but the wrongness started to go viral.

Jane Mayer, the New Yorker's famed reporter, published a short piece talking about how Rebekah Mercer, the daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who helped fund Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica and helped get Donald Trump elected President, had "played" a new parlor game, called "Machine Learning President," in which characters could role play the election:

In March, on a ski vacation at a rented house near Vail, Colorado, she brought a batch of copies of the “Rules of Play” for an elaborate parlor game called the Machine Learning President. Essentially, it is a race to the Oval Office in three fifteen-minute rounds. It’s a role-playing game, more like Assassin than like Monopoly, although players of this game do start out with an allotment of “cash” to spend on pushing their agendas, which can include “algorithmic policing” and “mass deportation.”

“Tonight, the name of the game is power,” reads the first page of the “Rules of Play.” Each player, it goes on, “will assume a new political identity.” Instead of becoming Colonel Mustard or Mrs. Peacock, as in the board game Clue, each player takes on the role of a political candidate or a “faction,” in the game’s parlance. Among the possible roles are Mike Pence, Elizabeth Warren, Black Lives Matter, Russia, Y Combinator, Tom Steyer, Wall Street, Evangelicals, the Koch Network, and Robert Mercer himself.

There's more in the New Yorker article, and you can read how Mayer describes the game, but, well, I was a part of the team that developed "Machine Learning President." We didn't design it for the Mercers to get to relive their successful electioneering... but that's certainly the way the internet took the story.

Splinternews had a story entitled simply "What the Fuck???" and its sister publication Jezebel had one entitled "Evil Billionaires Play a Board Game Where They Pretend to Have Total Control Over the American Political System Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha". Ha ha ha ha ha. Except, um, that's not the actual story. Kate Conger at Gizmodo wrote up a much better version detailing the actual history of the game, but since I was there, I figured I might as well tell you the real story.

First off, no, this was not a game for rich evil billionaires to relive the election and the joys of playing with the populace. This was actually in response to the 2016 election, and how the role the internet played in that election took a lot of people -- especially in Silicon Valley -- by surprise. The founders of Scout.ai, Brett Horvath and Berit Anderson, thought it might be useful to do some scenario planning to game out how tech might impact future elections, as a way to think through the potential challenges and pitfalls that might eat away at democracy. The founders of Scout recently spun out Guardians.ai to deal with the problem directly and protect pro-democracy groups around the globe from information warfare and cyber attacks. The idea behind the Machine Learning President was to use the game to get people to think about these issues, and to prepare for potential abuses of the system, while also thinking through ways that technology could be used for good -- to protect democracy.

Brett and Berit brought in game designer Randy Lubin of Diegetic Games, whose name you might recognize as our partner in releasing our adaptation of the CIA's card game. Brett, Berit and Randy worked on the core of the game. Randy helped bring me in, along with science fiction writer Eliot Peper from Scout, to help think though various scenarios of how tech and politics might mix in the future. The five of us helped put together a fun game in which players take on the roles of various campaigns, special interests and factions, and run through a full election cycle. A key part of the game is how money and influence play into getting out a message and how technology and different potential alliances may factor into all of this. Again, the idea was a simulation to help people think through what might happen and how it might impact things. It was not to predict the future or to get people hyped up on destroying democracy.

Indeed, part of the goal of the game was to look for areas of agreement, or where there could be bipartisan or non-partisan approaches to things, where we might be able to uncover productive areas to fix major problems in a world where not everyone is at the throats of people on "the other side." We had kind of hoped that the game might be useful in starting useful, nuanced conversations, rather than just people screaming at each other on Twitter. Ironically, the game resulted in people going nuts on Twitter.

The game was also designed to be non-partisan, and fairly balanced between the various positions and factions. It really is designed to be educational, and to see what happens. What kinds of technology may impact an election? What unexpected coalitions may form? How might certain candidates leverage technology or groups to achieve their goals?

We ran the game in San Francisco one evening in early February with about 40 attendees. It was a lot of fun, according to every attendee we spoke to. People got quite excited about it and certainly got deeply into the roles they were assigned. It was fascinating to see what kinds of deals people were trying to make, and how different groups decided to make use of their money or influence. It was not designed, nor could it be used, as a way to happily relive past electoral conquests. For what it's worth, when we played in SF, the end result was Kamala Harris winning the 2020 election over Mike Pence, who defeated Condoleezza Rice in the GOP primary (don't ask what happened to Trump) - in part because Rice, surprisingly, ended up endorsing Harris over Pence

And here's the thing: it's unlikely that Rebekah Mercer and her friends actually played the game, despite what Mayer's reporting says (and what others are now reporting). From the reporting, it appears that she got her hands on the general rules that all the players got, as well as maybe a few of the character sheets. Each attendee played as a certain character, and each player got a sheet about that character, how much money and influence they had and what sorts of policies they supported as well as what overall goals they sought to achieve in the game. But playing the actual game requires a lot more -- including a bunch of facilitators who understand the game, and a backend engine that they most certainly did not have (nor would they have understood it if they had seen it). Only the very small team of folks who were involved in the game have access to that.

Though, if anyone actually wants to set up an event to play this election simulation -- feel free to reach out to us or to Scout and it can be set up. It actually is fun and educational.

Still, what was amazing was to watch people react online -- almost all of them horrified, believing that the Mercers themselves had made a game that appeared to be mocking the public. The New Yorker itself claimed that it was a way for the Mercers to "relive" the 2016 election:

Max Temkin, the creator of Cards Against Humanity, unfortunately believed the Mercers themselves designed the game, and was pretty upset about it:

Others reported being "slack-jawed and stunned":

Another popular one was for people to suggest that this all showed that the public was "playthings" and that this was "all a game" to them:

And my favorite may be reporter Ashley Feinberg who described it as "conservative billionaire dungeons and dragons."

And, look, from Mayer's initial reporting, I can totally see how people would jump to this conclusion. Lots of people don't like the Mercers, and they appeared to have a game -- and part of that game includes policy goals that many people find despicable, including mass deportation of undocumented individuals. And, of course, there's a long history of governments, military, intelligence agencies, campaign and more using scenario planning games to anticipate the future. I mean, why do you think the CIA started creating games (that we're now publishing...)?

But this game wasn't designed to relive the last election or to celebrate these things. It was designed as a scenario planning tool to think how tech can impact future elections. And, again, the Mercers were most likely unable to play it without facilitators or access to the backend of the game. The game is interesting. But not in the way that people seem to have immediately responded.

Even more ironic: part of the reason for the game was to get people to think through what happens when disinformation and "fake news" about hot topics related to politics spread virally on sites like Twitter. And what happens? Misinformation about the game spread virally on Twitter. Life is weird sometimes.

Still, to some extent, we're amazed that the Mercers found the rules of the game interesting enough to discuss or even attempt to play. It certainly suggests we created something that touches on important ideas. And the team of folks who created and ran that game are more than willing to host more rounds of the game in the future.

So, uh, anyone want to play?

Filed Under: elections, fake news, games, journalism, machine learning president, rebekah mercer, reporting, scenario planning, simulations