FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Again Misrepresents The Debate Over Section 230
from the why-does-this-keep-happening dept
Late on Tuesday evening, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr suddenly issued a weird and misleading anti-230 Twitter thread, claiming (falsely) that supporters of Section 230 (who he incorrectly calls "Big Tech's lobbyists") "routinely conflate statutory protections with First Amendment rights." Here's the thread in plain text, with my responses and corrections interjected.
The debate over Section 230 often produces more heat than light.
One reason: Big Tech’s lobbyists routinely conflate statutory protections with First Amendment rights.
I mean, what?!? This is like claiming day is night, up is down, or yellow is purple. There is one side of this debate that has regularly conflated Section 230 with the 1st Amendment: and that's the people arguing against Section 230. Almost every complaint about Section 230 is actually a complaint about the 1st Amendment. I mean, the NY Times has had to run a correction saying "oops, we blamed 230 for this, but really it was the 1st Amendment" multiple times.
For instance, they argue that action on the Section 230 Petition would force websites to carry speech in violation of their First Amendment rights.
Not at all. NTIA’s Petition expressly says that websites would retain their 1st Amendment right to remove content “for any reason.”
This may be the weirdest of all the tweets in the bunch . . Except that... moderation (biased or not) is protection by... the 1st Amendment.
So, Brendan Carr seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. To Trumpists he goes on Fox News and says that we need to reform Section 230 to change their moderation practices and force them to keep content they don't want online. But then, he goes on Twitter and insists it's the other guys (the people who actually know the law) who want to conflate 230 with the 1st Amendment, and that changes to 230 won't stop companies from moderating speech. The very speech that Brendan Carr said we need to change 230 to force companies to host.
So... which Brendan Carr is lying?
Filed Under: 1st amendment, brendan carr, content moderation, fcc, free speech, section 230
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers Question Why FCC Is Throwing Taxpayer Money At Incompetent Telcos With History Of Fraud
from the repeat-the-same-mistakes dept
In West Virginia, incumbent telco Frontier has repeatedly been busted in a series of scandals involving substandard service and the misuse of taxpayer money. State leaders have buried reports detailing the depth of the grift and dysfunction, and, until a few years back, a Frontier executive did double duty as a state representative without anybody in the state thinking that was a conflict of interest . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRE-CRIMING SCHOOLKIDS
Schools Are Using Phone-Cracking Tech To Access The Contents Of Students' Devices
from the brave-new-hellscape dept
To the detriment of our nation's future, the future of our nation is increasingly being subjected to law enforcement's presents (and presence). On the plus side, it will help students grow up with a healthy distrust of their government.
We've put cops in schools so kids can be subjected to the same brutality adults receive. Disciplinary problems long-handled by schools and parents are now handled with handcuffs and criminal charges. The same questionable science that leads cops to believe future criminal acts can be predicted by algorithms and checklists is being wielded against children, turning their bad grades and We're talking about minors here, not dangerous criminals. This case is not a great argument for the acquisition and use of phone-cracking tools by educators. There were many ways to approach this problem, but this one was the easiest. And it shows those selling phone-cracking tech don't really care who buys it or what they use it for.
Cracking a phone to scrape it for evidence gives investigators easy access to communications and other private info even a consenting minor wouldn't agree to share with others. But the tools can't make that distinction. And investigators assume consent for a search means looking at everything the tools give them access to spotty attendance records into criminal predicates. . .
This isn't some sort of anomaly. As Gizmodo reports, multiple school districts are buying phone-cracking tech to access the content of students' devices.
In March 2020, the North East Independent School District, a largely Hispanic district north of San Antonio, wrote a check to Cellebrite for $6,695 for “General Supplies.”
Now, there's this: the use of high-tech hacking tools to forensically scrape kids' phones for evidence of alleged criminal acts. . .
Deploying this tech to search students' phones isn't just irresponsible, it's dangerous
. . .Dig deep enough into someone's phone and you'll find something incriminating. And that's if the cops are simply looking for evidence. Some cops like to look at stuff just because they have the access and the power to demand compliance. Access to this tech guarantees abuse. But in these cases, the victim will be a minor -- people who are assumed to be more vulnerable and whose lives can be ruined before they can even be started.
Filed Under: education, encryption, law enforcement, phone cracking, schools, surveillance
Companies: cellebrite, susteen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
from the free-speech-and-all-that dept
Let's be clear: that fact that there are people all over America that for any reason would want to display the Confederate battle flag is monumentally stupid. For starters, the flag is the symbol of a rebellion launched over southern states' desire to own other people. Don't give me the "states rights" argument; it's entirely invalid, unless the states right you're talking about is slavery. On top of that, the Confederacy, you know... lost. Proudly displaying the symbol of loserdom is both hilarious and befuddling.
Now that that's out of the way, entirely too often the folks who abhor the Confederate flag participate in a massive over-reaction to it. We saw this after Dylann Roof proved just how evil humanity can be in shooting up a historical African American church, with far too many people and companies focusing on displays of the flag, as though that were the real issue. . .
And, to reiterate, Cuomo absolutely knows this law is going to get struck down one way or another. This is all pure theater for the cameras, the kind of performative woke-ism that is the exact opposite of small-L liberalism.
So why bother doing this at all?
Filed Under: 1st amendment, andrew cuomo, confederate flag, constitution, new York
No comments:
Post a Comment