Option 4 seems the most plausible. Right-wing complaints about Internet regulation are entirely geared to creating a sense of grievance. They're not based on principles, even the principles that one might expect an "economic conservative" or "small-government advocate" to espouse. They're grandstanding, meant to help the Fox/Breitbart/OANN audience claim the role of persecuted minority. In this mindset, "Section 230" isn't a law to be understood and debated --- it's a totem. Expecting the debate over tech regulation to involve serious, self-consistent policy wonkery is roughly as feasible as hoping that a young-earth creationist actually cares about DNA mutation rates.
People from across the spectrum can end up operating in this way; it's just psychology. But it's the psychology at work in the right-wing ecosystem now.
The New York Post story burned up Twitter, regardless of any URL-blocking, and it's been viewed umpty-ump million times on Facebook despite any timid deprioritization they tried on the first day. Conservative social media treats reasonable moderation efforts as damage and routs around them.
One of my senators is on the Commerce Committee, so I sent his office an e-mail:
In advance of Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow, I urge Sen. Markey to remember that Facebook would really like laws that only Facebook is rich enough to comply with.
While, as Zuckerberg's published statement says, "people of all political persuasions are unhappy with the status quo," the deeper truth is that the bipartisan clamor is neither unified nor consistent. On the left, there are serious concerns about corporate monopolies, about hate speech and the stoking of it for profit, about privacy and about how our infrastructure fails those most in need. On the right, the world's most corrupt human is throwing a fit that his lies were timidly challenged.
It requires no flight of fancy to see that Facebook is eager to pull up the ladder that it climbed so that no competitors may follow. By creating a regulatory regime that only the largest players can afford to operate within, we risk entrenching Facebook and every deleterious effect it has had upon our lives.
I submitted my comment. Nothing too grand, just calling it an unconstitutional request made in transparently bad faith, followed by a lengthy quotation from Commissioner O'Rielly.
I had hoped to see more drives for comment submissions, but nobody seemed to have organized one that I heard of. Maybe there's still an opportunity to submit them in the "replies" round. We could even write them in MST3k style.
As a scientist and teacher, I will not write or peer-review for any journal from these publishers, nor will I use their books in my classroom, because their emotionally immature stunt risks the collective memory of the Internet.
Whether or not the "National Emergency Library" is ultimately a reasonable idea, there are good ways and bad ways to approach the issue, and Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley and Penguin Random House have chosen a bad one. For two decades, scholars have been asking, "What value do publishers actually add?" Answers vary, but a bitter "not bloody much" is prominent among them. Undermining our social and technical infrastructure in a time of global crisis only gives that view more weight.
In which the EU goes after the librarians, for some reason
I'm sure the Internet Archive's statement that they've been served over 500 spurious takedown notices will be getting a post soon. I just want to zoom in on one of the links they report as having been flagged: the front page for their mirror of arXiv.org content.
Europol tried to declare all of math and physics "terrorist content".
I'm trying to imagine what could have led to that, but my mind just stops at the boggling stage.
On the post: Good News: Academics Can Make Their Articles Published In Top Journal Nature Freely Available As Open Access. Bad News: They Must Pay $11,000 For Each One
I've been published in Nature.
This makes me unhappy about that.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Option 4 seems the most plausible. Right-wing complaints about Internet regulation are entirely geared to creating a sense of grievance. They're not based on principles, even the principles that one might expect an "economic conservative" or "small-government advocate" to espouse. They're grandstanding, meant to help the Fox/Breitbart/OANN audience claim the role of persecuted minority. In this mindset, "Section 230" isn't a law to be understood and debated --- it's a totem. Expecting the debate over tech regulation to involve serious, self-consistent policy wonkery is roughly as feasible as hoping that a young-earth creationist actually cares about DNA mutation rates.
People from across the spectrum can end up operating in this way; it's just psychology. But it's the psychology at work in the right-wing ecosystem now.
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
The New York Post story burned up Twitter, regardless of any URL-blocking, and it's been viewed umpty-ump million times on Facebook despite any timid deprioritization they tried on the first day. Conservative social media treats reasonable moderation efforts as damage and routs around them.
On the post: Zuckerberg And Facebook Throw The Open Internet Under The Bus; Support Section 230 Reform
One of my senators is on the Commerce Committee, so I sent his office an e-mail:
On the post: Federal Officers Are Still Struggling To Find Evidence Of A Massive Antifa Conspiracy
Surely that should be "Molotov mocktail", no?
On the post: Jim Jordan Releases Yet ANOTHER Anti-230 Bill (Yes Another One)
I'm starting to think these bills are being written by GPT-3.
On the post: My Comment To The FCC Regarding The Ridiculous NTIA Petition To Reinterpret Section 230
I submitted my comment. Nothing too grand, just calling it an unconstitutional request made in transparently bad faith, followed by a lengthy quotation from Commissioner O'Rielly.
I had hoped to see more drives for comment submissions, but nobody seemed to have organized one that I heard of. Maybe there's still an opportunity to submit them in the "replies" round. We could even write them in MST3k style.
On the post: Major Publishers Sue The Internet Archive's Digital Library Program In The Midst Of A Pandemic
(ahem)
As a scientist and teacher, I will not write or peer-review for any journal from these publishers, nor will I use their books in my classroom, because their emotionally immature stunt risks the collective memory of the Internet.
Whether or not the "National Emergency Library" is ultimately a reasonable idea, there are good ways and bad ways to approach the issue, and Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley and Penguin Random House have chosen a bad one. For two decades, scholars have been asking, "What value do publishers actually add?" Answers vary, but a bitter "not bloody much" is prominent among them. Undermining our social and technical infrastructure in a time of global crisis only gives that view more weight.
On the post: European Parliament Moves Forward With 'Terrorist Content' Regulation That Will Lead To Massive Internet Censorship
In which the EU goes after the librarians, for some reason
I'm sure the Internet Archive's statement that they've been served over 500 spurious takedown notices will be getting a post soon. I just want to zoom in on one of the links they report as having been flagged: the front page for their mirror of arXiv.org content.
Europol tried to declare all of math and physics "terrorist content".
I'm trying to imagine what could have led to that, but my mind just stops at the boggling stage.
Next >>