DISINFORMED: Understanding Section 230 with Evan Greer

Published Mar 23, 2021, 9:51 PM

Musician and digital rights activist Evan Greer breaks down Section 230 and why she and other digital rights activists are fighting to preserve it.


Follow Evan: https://twitter.com/evan_greer

Listen to Evan’s rad new album Spotify is Surveillance: https://evangreer.bandcamp.com/album/spotify-is-surveillance

Learn more about Fight for the Future: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/

Listen to Carrie Goldberg’s episode of TANGOTI: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/there-are-no-girls-on-the-internet/id1520715907?i=1000489091000


VOTE FOR US FOR TO WIN A SHORTY AWARD: TANGOTI.COM/VOTE

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

There Are No Girls on the Internet has been nominated for a Shorty Award for Disinformed, our mini series on disinformation, and it would mean so much to me if you would take a moment and vote for us. It only takes a moment and you can vote every day. Go to tangoti dot com slash vote. That's t a n G O t i dot com slash vote to vote, or check the link in our show description. You're listening to Disinformed, a mini series from There Are No Girls on the Internet. I'm Bridget Todd. Okay, So a secret shame of mine is that I make a tech podcast, but I haven't really taken on public personal stance on one of the biggest tech policies of our time. Section to thirty, a piece of legislation passed in which basically says that Internet platforms can be sued or held liable for content that people post on those platforms. One reason is that it's a complex issue that requires a bit of nuance and complexity to even discuss. You know who isn't exactly the poster child for under in a nuance and complexity, Donald Trump. Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they're a neutral platform. My executive order calls for new regulations under section two thirty of the Communications Decency Act. When he repeatedly called for ending Section to thirty, it kind of through a polarizing ranch into the existing debate, turning the whole thing into a partisan talking point rather than a real conversation. There's a diversity of thought about Section to thirty. Last season, we spoke to Attorney Carried Goldberg who advocated for changes to section to thirty. Here's a clip, but they're saying that basically, the Internet as we know it when it exists without section two three and we're going to lose you know, all the this wonderful free exchange of ideas if we if we lose section to three. And I helped total bs on that, because number one, you're assuming that the Internet as we know it is a great place and as we know it like should be preserved. You know, it's kind of like any constitutional argument or or make America great again. You're assuming that it is the things are great and that everyone has the same level of free speech. But I mean speech on the Internet really belongs to those who are the loudest, and basically for companies Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple. I mean they control the Internet and we've got all our issues with anti trust and also the quantity. So the most hostile people on the Internet are the ones who have the greatest protections. But digital rights groups like Fight for the Future say overbroad changes to Section two thirty will further harm marginalized communities online. Evan Greer has been fighting for digital rights online for almost a decade. The name is Evan Greer, and I'm a director of Fight for the Future, which is a nonprofit that works to protect people's basic rights in the digital age. Evan is also a musician and a lot of her music criticises big tech. Here's a taste. Once consent was manufactured, Now it's prsted for clerks, algorithms make decisions. I took a bit of a roundabout path to this work. Actually, I dropped out of college and became a full time touring musician for about a decade um and traveled around making a living playing poppy, queer, political punk and folk music for a living. I started touring, playing about two hundred to three hundred shows a year and offering workshops and trainings on a wide range of social justice, environmental justice, and economic justice issues, primarily for college students, but I'll so for labor unions and nonprofits and high school students and youth detention centers and you know kind of all different types of spaces UM. And you know it really through the course of that work, it was kind of it was the early two thousands, the Internet was exploding. UM. You know, I I had more fans on my Space then than I have like Twitter followers now, which is kind of hilarious. UM. But it was also you know, this was like pre napster um, you know, and there was a lot of musicians kind of coming out of the underground, UM folks who were queer folks who were UM playing you know, music that was way outside the mainstream or who you know, you know, we're kind of marginalized identities, marginalized musicians, and we were seeing the Internet is this like incredible um engine and platform for giving us a voice UM and kind of you know, taking on some of these gate key birds that had always UM sort of controlled what was cool or what music got to be heard. And so you know, there were so many of us that were like putting our music up for free on archive dot org and then having people send us donations, like again before Napster, before Spotify, before any of this stuff, um. And so for me that was like the wake up where I was like, Wow, this technology is really powerful and it you know, has this you know. I I distinctly remember like one specific moment of my first tour of Europe showing up at like a record store in Prague in the Czech Republic and there was like a hundred nineteen year old punk kids that knew all the words to all of my songs and like I had never toured there. I didn't have a record label, I didn't have a publicist, and it just it struck me. I was like, this is all because of the Internet. Like these kids have all downloaded this music, they've shared it, they've created a community of like wanting to hear this type of stuff. Um. And that was like, you know, just a really powerful moment for me. And so when you know, I wish I had some really cool end to that story, like or whatever, but really the end of it is then I had a kid, and I maxed out a couple of credit cards trying to make a living, you know, supporting a family as a transgender, anti capitalist folk singer, and then I realized I might need a quote unquote real job. This would turn out to be an opportune time for Evan to be further pulled into the world of digital rights activism. Today, Google's main page shows a black rectangle and the words tell Congress, please don't censor the web. Wikipedia has shut down the English language version of its online encyclopedia for the day. A chorus of opposition was growing against legislation called the Stop Online Privacy Act or SOPA. Legislation ostensibly meant to crack down on the piracy of copyrighted content online, but was widely criticized for the chilling impact it would have on free expression online. Huge Internet companies like Reddit, Wikipedia, and Mozilla protested the legislation by taking their websites offline for twenty four hours about a year after the organization had formed. A year after the SOPA strike, um you know, the Internet blackout as it was often called at the time, which was the largest online protest and human history where um you know, I wasn't even at the organization then, but fight for the future and many other groups basically mobilized hundreds of thousands of organizations and websites to black out their online presences, and we drove more than eight million phone calls to Congress in a single day to defeat UM copyright legislation that could have led to widespread Internet censorship. So I kind of came into the organization in the aftermath of that. For Evan, it was always music that illustrated the power of the Internet and its ability to connect people, and that's what drives her fight to protect it. Just quickly started, um, you know, kind of seeing the parallels between the work that I had done as an artist, where I was trying to use a song or um, you know, little you know, introduction to a song to connect with people and move them on an emotional level, to try to move them toward action of some type or another. Maybe that was just throwing some money in the hat for the benefit, or maybe it was you know, signing a petition or writing a letter to a political prisoner or whatever it was. But now with quite for the future, seeing well, I'm doing kind of the same thing. I'm not necessarily throwing out a song, although I still do write and record music, and I've got a new album coming out. The next single comes out next week. But um, you know, we're also sort of painting and coloring with with websites and with action tools and with videos and with infographics. Um. But instead of reaching you know, dozens or hundreds or you know, for me, on a very very good night, maybe a couple of thousand people, Um, we're able to reach hundreds of thousands, millions, sometimes even tens of millions of people and move them to take action. And again it's that same feeling that I had at that show in Prague of just recognizing the Internet has changed the rules for what isn't isn't possible within our political system, you know, in some ways that are really terrible, and I think we're starting to grapple with the reality of that, but also in ways that are really profoundly transformative and democratizing. And the way that you know, Fight for the Future's goal is to ensure that technology and the Internet specifically are largely a force for empowerment and liberation rather than a force for exploitation and oppression. Um. So that's kind of my roundabout story of like how I came to this work and also why it matters to me. I have to tell you that feeling that you've described of the Internet being the source of uniting people and connecting people across continents, across the globe, that was exactly the same thing that got me so excited about the Internet when I first got my clunky dial up computer and was definitely putting hell of viruses on it by trying to download the music off of Napster. Uh. That was Yeah, that was such a transport. Like you know, I grew up in a small town, so that was such a transformative thing for me, and is why I'm so interested in the Internet now. And I love how you've described this overlap. And I noticed in your music there is quite an overlap between your stances, but as it pertains to tech and big tech and the music that you make. I was listening to your song before we got on the call, Emma Goldman would have beat your ass. And on the on the vand camp site you tell you describe the story behind that name. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Yeah, so it's funny. I um, it's interesting. For this album, I've ended up doing a few kind of historical deep Dives. The song I have coming out next week is is sort of a transliberation anthem, and I made a music video for it that features like archival footage of Sylvia Rivera and Marcia P. Johnson and the work that they did in the aftermath of Stonewall, but also going back even further to like the Competence Cafeteria riot, and like, I think of myself as someone who like, you know, kind of knows my radical history or whatever, and every time I like really sink my teeth into this stuff, I'm just so struck by, like how much of our history is kind of stolen or hidden from us. Um and And so this was an example that I wrote this whole song based on like an anecdote about Emma Goldman that I, you know, I don't know, like had heard or maybe read somewhere. And then when I find and like I I wrote up the whole song, and I, like, you know, it was writing the introduction for it was like I gotta go find a source for that, and then I found out that it like wasn't entirely true basically, but the story that I had heard was that like she had like literally bull whipped her like ex boyfriend because he was like trash talking um Alexander Berkman after he had attempted to assassinate Henry Frick, who was like, you know, one of these Robert Baron hyper capitalists, you know types, UM, and you know, it was sort of this like moment of division within the left in the United States during that era. It turns out that it was it was and quite her ex boyfriend. It was like a mentor type guy. And yeah, he had condemned Alexander Frick and she like basically like hit him with like a toy whip of some sort, which like to which I was like, how is there a toy whip? That's just this seems weird. I don't know if that's really a toy. This is all very problematic. But yeah, and then apparently she like expressed regret about it later in her life or whatever. But but I don't know, I just felt like there was something powerful for me about that kind of like um expression of um, a woman's rage um, and and specifically toward kind of a UM, you know, someone who was seen as like a mentor, like a respected um man in the community and just kind of like not taking any bullshit and like literally getting up there and like whacking him in front of a crowd. UM. And so you know, I just feel like I aspire to to be that direct um in my uh you know, activism, et cetera. And you know Emma Goldman, um, you know, like every figure throughout history, UM, you know had had many nuances and and um you know, but I she's definitely someone who has been UM an inspiration to me and many others. It's pretty punk rock, I have to say, right, I mean, come on, it's punk punk af the different kinds of campaigns that Fight for the Future takes up. One of them really surprised me, this campaign to ban facial recognition at festivals like music festivals, and I had no idea what was going on. I used to work for a music festival called Afropunk, and I thought, God, there are spirst of all a. There's so much overlap between digital rights and music and arts communities. And then also there are so many ways that like surveillance is playing out in these ways that we might not even know, we might not even be aware that we were being surveilled in these ways. Yeah. Absolutely, And I mean the good news that I can say is that that campaign that you just mentioned, UM, that we ran with Tom Morello, the guitar Surrey against the Machine and a bunch of other prominent musicians was hugely successful, and we actually got more than forty of the world's largest music festivals to say that they won't use facial recognition surveillance at their events. UM. And you know, for folks who maybe you know, I'm sure folks are increasingly aware of facial recognition and the problems with it. But you know, for me, that's hugely significant because a lot of the conversation about facial recognition has centered on government and law enforcement use of this technology, which makes a lot of sense because it's being used right now by police and law enforcement agencies predominantly targeting communities of color, predominantly targeting black folks. UM. And the technology itself is racist. It has racial bias baked into the current algorithms, and it's automating, automating, and exacerbating these existing systems that are also already racist. So when you take, uh, you know, a system of policing that you know, um measurably has disproportionately harmed black and brown communities for centuries, and then you layer on top of that a technology that essentially just speeds up and automates those same discriminatory processes that were already happening. You just get supercharged discrimination and supercharge state violence toward a community that's already uh, disproportionately affected by it. And so it makes again makes perfect sense that the conversation has kind of started there with government use, but all of those same things are true with corporate and private use as well. They're enormously discriminatory things that private companies can do with a technology like facial recognition. Um. And so music festivals, I think we're a really good example because it's so public and visible, um and all kinds of people like to go to music festivals, right, and so I think it does. It was one really good way not just to kind of, um, get these policies in place to protect individual music listeners that want to go to a festival without having their biometric information collected by a private corporation, but it's also sort of a way of educating people, right, Like getting prominent musicians talking about this helped put facial recognition on the map as a dangerous, toxic technology that no one likes, and that's building momentum for what we really need in the end, which from our perspective at Fight for the Future is something closer to abolition than reform. We think that this is a technology that um is fundamentally unjust and that poses such a profound threat to the future of human civilization and liberty um that it can't be effectively regulated. It really does need to be banned outright for both government and the vast majority of private uses as well. Let's take a quick break that are back like for the Future advocates for big stances like the outright banning of facial recognition technology because that's what their members want. They don't want incremental, bit by bit changes to harmful tech policies. Rather they get behind big swing for the fences, bold actions. I'm always struck by that. You know, there's that notion in Washington, d C. That like, oh, what people really want is like compromise and like, you know, watered down things, and that's just so bogus, and like we see it again and again in politics that you know, know what people want is like real fundamental change UM. And you know what we've seen is that you know, people are actually much more um resonate, much more with the idea of this technology is harmful, let's ban it than they do with you know what we what we really need as an opt in, consent based regulatory framework that like allows corporations to continue selling the stuff and profiting UM, but put some rules to the road in place. Note like that is not you know, A, that's an incorrect UM policy that won't actually protect the most vulnerable people from the harms of this technology, but B it's just not a good rallying cry either, right, And so for us it's always you know, it's both about leading with what we think is right and always fighting for the biggest possible, you know, are we kind of frame it as like just this side have been possible, right, Like we always try to aim our sites as high as we can go, and we're a very small organization, so we have to like ruthlessly prioritize like is this really one of the things to go all in on and fight for or is this one of the ones we have to just let go and hope somebody else, you know, picks it up and fights for it. Um. But when we decide to go in on something that's at the top of our minds is basically a is this a huge you know, is this a win that if we win, will fundamentally change things and and concretely benefit large numbers of people. I first met Evan when she was leading a coalition call of of dozens of progressive activists and digital rights groups about Section to thirty in response to the Safe Tech Act, legislation sponsored by Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Herrono, and Amy kolbachar to make changes to Section to thirty. The last time Section to thirty was changed was back in to Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act or SESTA, got bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, and was signed by Trump. SESTA becoming law meant that platforms would be held responsible for knowingly facilitating or supporting sex trafficking. Now this might sound like a good thing, but it actually ended up causing a lot of harm to people involved in sex work consensually who were not being trafficked well. Meeting celebrities endorsed the legislation in a p s A, call your congress person or senator and say what the asked them to amend Section to thirty and then call them again until they do something. Please call yours? Will you call yours? But this is why people like Evans say it's so important to have a thoughtful debate and conversation about Internet regulation. Most people agree that something needs to be done, but if you do something just to say you're taking action, you could end up inadvertently causing more harm. And we know the people most likely to be harmed are those who are already marginalized. Full disclosure. As someone who makes a podcast about the Internet, people often ask me about my position on Section to thirty, and I am kind of ashamed to admit that. I said, like, oh, I don't really know. You know, I'm glad, I'm glad that smart people are having the conversation. You know, we last season we spoke to Attorney Carried Goldberg, who was very much in favor of changing Section to thirty. And you and I were on a call, the coalition call about Section thirty, which was fascinating and I feel like I learned so much. But the thing that really struck me was even though we were on this coalition call with like um civil rights groups and justice groups and social change groups, it was clear to me that there was not consensus on the call of where folks stand. So I guess I want, I wanna, I wanna ground our converse station in that um. But then my question is sort of where do you and fight for the Future stand on Section to thirty? And you know what, like what is your position on this legislation? I think the way that you framed it there is really important because I think one thing that's happened is Trump just to put it bluntly, right, like Trump started tweeting things like repeal Section to thirty and and then you know, and frankly, you know, Joe Biden has also called to revoke section too, and so part of what has happened is something that's actually a very complex um policy debate and conversation has now been sort of thrust into the like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News like level of debate. It is a tiny law that's had a huge impact on the internet, as we know, it's section and anytime that happens, just like the the thoughtfulness of the conversation, you know, there's like a you could draw a graph right of like how much how much attention is this getting on cabled TV to like how intelligent of a conversation are we having about it? And it's like a you know, I'm not good at math, but they're like no, right, UM. And so I think but that said, you know, I think within UM social justice and civil rights and human rights spaces UM, there is a more thoughtful conversation happening in the sense that I think there is. You know, there's maybe broad disagreement around exactly what should be done, but there's increasing agreement about the harms. Right, Like all of us on you know, the call that you reference agree like big tech is a problem. Their business model is fundamentally incompatible with basic human rights and democracy. They're exacerbating existing disparities in our society. They are amplifying harmful ideologies like white supremacy UM that have long to stronghold UM in the United States and around the world UM, and within our political institutions and economic institutions. UM. You know. So like everyone sort of agrees on the problems, and and I think we're now trying to figure out, well, what are the solutions. And I think it's healthy that there's disagreement or ongoing discussion about trying to figure out what the solutions are. Right. And so like, there's tons of groups that I work with every day on issues like surveillance or issues like privacy. And maybe we don't totally agree on Section two thirty, UM, but like we all know, we're like trying to get to the same place, right, And like, I think it's healthy that we can have these these conversations. And UM. That said, I think it's also really important that, UM we push for a more thoughtful conversation. UM. And for myself, UM, you know, one of the things I've been really specifically trying to do is er nonprofits and progressive groups to listen to sex workers. UM. This has been kind of my mantra UM in this section to thirty conversation because really, when we talk about what would it look like to change Section to thirty, we only have one concrete example, which is Sesta Fosta, the last major piece of legislation that created a carve out in section to thirty that lawmakers claimed was intended to address sex trafficking. UM. And what we know is that in fact it didn't actually do anything to address actual sex trafficking. But it was devastating for UM sex workers, UM and for their safety. UM. And it ended up leading Internet platforms to shut down entire subsections of websites, shut down places where, um, sex workers were able to kind of set their own rules, set their own terms, and have more autonomy. Um. And that there's actual studies that show that that led to actual loss of life. Right. And so sex workers safety and advocacy organizations have been sounding the alarm about this since before Sesta Fasta, and for where I'm sitting, it does frustrate me, um that I feel like, Um, you know, there are progressive groups who are just kind of you know, looking to beat up on the tech companies, which I'm all for, Like, let's beat up with the tech companies. I am with you. I am in the front row with a pitchfork. Um. But um, in doing so trampling or ignoring the voices of, you know, a community that has already been disproportionately harmed by uncareful UM policy change. Right. Um, So that's kind of a broader framing. But I didn't actually answer your question, which is what is our position? So, you know, Fight for the Future sees Section to thirty not primarily as a protection for companies, but actually as an essential law that is sent really enables all user generated content on the Internet. So the speech of ordinary people, right, UM, the people who wouldn't be on cable TV or the radio, but who are now able to create memes and jokes and write blog posts and UM share videos on TikTok or wherever um or um you know share photos or um be an adult creator or be uh you know, storybook creator or whatever it is. Section two thirties the law that essentially allows for all of that to take place, UM by making it so that corporations who care only about making money, right, and we should always remember that are not disincentivized from UM hosting our speech and our creativity and our ideas and our opinions. UM. And I think it's particularly important for myself as a transperson, and I think for anyone who's a creator of a marginalized identity of any kind to recognize that our creations are thoughts, are ideas are often unpopular among the general public. Right. And so what Section to thirty does is it basically allows platforms to host things that might be unpopular and thus might get them sued. UM. And what happens if you radically change or remove or gut section to thirty is you put these content moderation decisions, which we know the platforms are already doing a terrible job at and it hands them to not away from the trust and safety team or whoever is already doing kind of a bad job at it, and gives it to the most risk averse corporate lawyers in the world who are going to do an even worse job at it. These are lawyers that do not have a power analysis. They do not care about the speech of marginalized people. They just care about protecting their platform from getting sued. And so if that means that they remove wholesale entire categories of speech or engage in widespread censorship of marginalized people's viewpoints and posts and opinions, they will happily do that in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. And that's what we saw with Sesta Fausta. It didn't actually end up coming down on the companies. They just kind of figured out, all right, fine, we'll just shut down. This is not about defending the companies. I don't particularly care very much about, um, you know, the company's profits or uh, you know how much money they have to spend on lawsuits. What I care about is the impact that that then has on marginalized people's speech in particularly social movement and for me, Section two thirty is such a crucial law for protecting speech like, for example, a video of police violence, which in a world without sex and to thirty would almost certainly invite lawsuits from law enforcement who would claim that it's defamatory or that its incitement right um, like the me too movement UM, where you know, people are able to speak out about abusive behavior UM, and platforms are willing to host that speech because they know UM that they're not going to get sued for giving people a platform to speak um and speak their truth UM. And so I always think about the impact on those movements. Fight for the Future sees Section to thirty as one of the most important laws protecting free speech and human rights in the digital age. And that doesn't mean that we don't think it can ever be changed. Right, No law is sacrosanct. Laws are just laws, UM. But we are very concerned that um, you know, rushed or uncareful changes to Section two thirty will do far more harm than good. And we also think it's largely a distraction from the policies that we really need to be fighting for, like strong federal data privacy legislation that cuts off the huge stream of data that these companies are collecting and using to manipulate people, like practices like a like banning practices like non transparent algorithmic amplification, where Facebook isn't just letting white supremacists spout off, they are actively saying, Hey, you seem like you might be a white supremacist. Do you want to meet these other white supremacists in this white supremacy group, um, for the purpose of gaining more money through advertising, right, um. And so our feeling is that there are real policies that are sitting right there in front of us, like passing strong federal data privacy legislation, like enforcing existing antitrust and civil rights laws, like pushing for FTC investigations into specifically harmful business practices again like algorithmic manipulation like micro targeting, um, etcetera. UM. And we could be getting to work getting those done if we weren't constantly going around in circles in this kind of partisan gridlock debate around Section two thirty and UM, we could do it in a way that would actually address the problem at its root. Um. And then finally I'll just say, you know, I think one thing that people often miss when thinking about Section two thirty, or one thing that's happening a lot is I think lawmakers have almost got it into their minds that Section two thirty are taking away. Section two thirty is like the only lever that they have to hold big tech companies accountable. And I hear this a lot um from lawmakers from groups that I work with, where they're like, yeah, I don't think this is really a good solution, but I just don't know what else to do, Like someone has to do something about these companies, right, And I resonate with that, like these harms are real and they're happening right now, and they're traumatic, and we do have that sense of like we have to do something. Um. But again, I think if there's one thing that we've learned over the last number of years around Internet policy, and if there's one thing that we should take away from Sesta Fausta, it's that we have to do the right thing, not just something, because if we just do something, it will almost always end up coming back to hurt the people who are already being hurt. Um. And it won't actually hold the companies that we want to hold accountable accountable because they have exponentially more resources, they have deep pockets, they can afford the lawyers, right, And so what we end up with if we make changes to Section to thirty that are not thoughtful, is we could actually end up solidifying the monopoly power of the largest, most abusive players like Facebook and Google. They're the ones that can afford the armies of lawyers to deal with lawsuits. And we might end up inadvertently crushing any alternative that could come along and provide a better service or a better model or a better community online, and leave the big tech companies as the only ones left standing because they're the only ones that can afford to survive in a world without Section to thirty. And so for me, you know, this isn't sort of like, well, are you for the companies or you for uh, you know, holding them accountable? For me, this is I'm for the people. I'm for human rights, and I believe that defending Section two thirty and fighting instead for real, meaningful policy changes that will actually address the root causes of the harms that we see from these surveillance capitalist monopolies. Um, that's what I'm fighting for, and that's what Fight for the Future wants to see. More. After a quick break, let's get right back into it. I'm so happy that you started this conversation being grounded in talk about sex work. It's kind of well to me how often people who are involved in sex work are the ones who are really innovating online because they have to. Yet they're so marginalized in sideline in those same conversations about online policy. They're just not really given a voice on conversations that impact them so directly. Your average sex worker is more of an expert on section to thirty than like anyone any pH d or or academic who like studies this you know, content moderation or thinks that they do because they have to be right and like people's I think this is also about reframing how we think about expertise, right I you know, I've just been banging my head against the wall over the last few months because I just constantly here, you know, a panel and NPR and they have like you know, random law professor, a random law professor B and like a representative from YouTube or whatever, or like you know, some former c. I a guy who like studies disinformation when they're not busy spreading it about Latin American governments or whatever, and like that's the panel, and you know, and they're framed as experts and the reality is, you know, they're the people who are experts in online harms and and online and tech policy. Are people who have lived experience with what these policies actually do when they go into effect. And I think, you know, if there is one thing, you know, like if I could just snap my fingers and make anything happen, it would be to force like every progressive nonprofit based in d C and every lawmaker to like sit in a captive audience and just listen UM for a couple of hours. Two groups like the Sex Workers Outreach Project UM or Swap behind Bars or Reframe Health and Justice UM or the wood Whole Freedom Foundation who are UM leading the lawsuit against SESTA fasta UM and actually listen and listen to UM how these policies play out. Because it feels like, you know, often a lot of the conversations around Section two thirty are sort of framed as like, here's a bunch of terrible things that have happened and and and everyone's like, yeah, those things are all terrible. And then it's like and that's why we need to change section to thirty. And that's where the disconnect is, because again, no one disagrees that there are real harms that are springing from these platforms behavior, from their business models, UM, from the status quot um. You know, I am so far from someone who thinks the Internet is fine, just leave it alone. UM. You know, we need real policy, and we need to act quickly, and we need um to fight for meaningful change. UM. But again, I think that that mentality of like, UM, well let's just do something so we can say we did, I think it is actually profoundly immoral because UM, at that point, again, you're not recognizing that just doing something quote unquote can actually end up doing really profound harm. And if you're not listening to folks who are truly marginalized, who are actually have lived experience with being on the wrong side of content moderation, with being on the wrong side of platform power, UM, then you're you're not actually fighting for UM policies that protect the most vulnerable, and we're kind of just recreating a lot of the same mistakes that we've made in the past. Again, I think, you know, for myself, I think often about the mainstream gay rights movement UM that you know, systematically for decades de prioritized its most vulnerable members UM, including sex workers and transfolks UM and basically anyone who was not assists, white man looking to get married or joined the military. UM. And I think now our mainstream organizations are recognizing those mistakes and starting to reckon with them and really genuinely are, at least on a policy level, starting to fight more for policies that benefit UM, you know, trans folks, or at least fight against UM this surge in discriminatory legislation, etcetera. UM. But then I see other movements where we're making same mistake UM. And so for me, I always try to base my activism not in what some academics says, not in what's popular in Washington, d C. Or what's hot button on TV, but in the lived experience of people who have UM real experience with with how these policies actually play out on the ground. As someone who lives in d C and has worked for many an organization where I wonder, you know, who are we actually centering here, I think in my personal activism, I always try to think about the folks who are actually the most marginalized or the most oppressed, because if we're able to center them and lift them up, we will all benefit. We will all benefit. When the people who are directly impacted and most marginalized are amplified, supported and lifted up, we will all impact. It fundamentally changes how you think about these things. And I guess for me again, I just wish that more folks were thinking about this through the lens of like what actually fixes this problem versus like, you know, how can we score some points against the companies? Right? Like I want to score points against the companies as much as anybody else. These companies are UM doing harm. They're evil, they are um, you know, profiting off of a business model that again is really incompatible with UM so many of the things that we hold dear um. But like, I don't want to just dunk on them. I want to like actually do something about their power and take it away from them and put it back in the hands of of everyone, right and and reclaim the internet as the technology that we talked about at the beginning that like you and I both have felt the power of and that is giving us this opportunity to have this conversation right now and to let people listen to it UM. And I just want to make sure that we um, you know, as we're looking to address harms, we also recognize UM the ways in which this technology has profoundly liberatory potential. And I think it's also part of that is also about looking at the status quo. Right. If we think about the world before the Internet, right, there was still disinformation. It was just on cable TV. Look at crime reporting in the nineties, right, which was so blatantly overtly anti black and racist. Right, it was all about constantly hyping up crime in cities to play on people's fears, specifically white people's fears, to push racist policies. Right now we see that democratized in a way on with kind of you know, things like next door and Facebook, etcetera. And it's still a problem, but it's not a new problem, right, It's a problem that has shifted mediums and UM shifted forms. But I think there's something about the the the instinct to blame technology that has rooted in a collective unwillingness to acknowledge that these hateful, harmful, bigoted ideologies and movements have been part of this country since its inception, and I think there is sort of a you know, it's almost like a collective amnesia around that that kind of pushes us to be like, oh, this is a new problem created by the Internet, and it's like, no, this is an old problem that's being reflected back to us by the internet. UM. And instead of blaming the Internet, we need to actually hold ourselves accountable UM and work for the structural change that we need. Structural change to our social safety net could actually be one potential solution to the spread of disinformation. We already know that people turn to lies and conspiracy theories and distortions when they're scared or anxious. If more people's basic human needs were taken care of, fear could drive less of our discourse and policy. I would argue that, like, you know, policies like universal health care UM and UM, you know, ensuring that everyone has adequate housing and food and access to education and basic survival would do a lot more to address things like viral disinformation than anything you do you could do to Section to thirty or even anything else with tech policy. Because these are problems that are UM springing out of broad structural issues and then kind of being exacerbated or amplified by technology. They're not being created by it. And I think that's actually really important and something that UM is uncomfortable to grapple with because it also sort of means like there isn't some quick fixed silver bullet. It kind of just means we've got to keep doing the work UM and recognize that change takes time. And you know, I'm so inspired by those who come before us, who were you know, many of whom died before they actually saw the the results of their organizing UM and UM. You know, for me, it's it's about recognizing that every day that something there's something integral about protecting the transformative power of this technology in the hopes that UM in future generations we will look back and say, I'm glad that FOAK spot to make sure that we have this tool and that it's and that it's available to UM marginalized communities to organize and fight for our liberation UM, and that we fought back against the worst uses of technology like facial recognition or like automated license plate readers or other forms of harmful surveillance, because I do think this debate, or this fight over whether technology will largely be a force for good or continue down this path of being a force for exploitation and greed and corruption UM, is going to determine not just the future of technology, but the future of humanity. UM. And so for me, that kind of gets me out of bed every day and keeps me up every night. UM. But that's why I think it's worth fighting for. Today's episode featured music from Evan Greer's new album, Spotify a Surveillance. Check it out at the band camp link in the show description. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please help us grow by subscribing. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or just want to say hi. We'd love to hear from you at Hello at tango dot com. Disinformed is brought to you by There Are No Girls on the Internet. It's a production of iHeart Radio and Unbossed. Creative Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tory Harrison is our supervising producer, and engineer. Michael Lamato is our contributing producer. I'm your host Bridget Tod. For more great podcasts, check out the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts.

There Are No Girls on the Internet

Marginalized voices have always been at the forefront of the internet, yet our stories often go over 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 292 clip(s)