Santa Ana (CA) Council Looking To Ban City Cops From Playing Copyrighted Music While Being Recorded

Copyright

from the fixing-problems-that-shouldn't-exist dept

A couple of weeks ago, a police transparency activist caught something on video: a cop trying not to get caught on video. That isn’t the interesting part. Lots of cops hate being recorded, even by their own cameras.

This Santa Ana police officer was rolling through a neighborhood — supposedly to investigate a stolen car — and blasting music from Disney movies from his cruiser’s loudspeaker. This is how cops have been rolling lately: firing up big hits from big IP holders with deep pockets in hopes of thwarting uploads or, at the very least, burying them under stacks of DMCA notices.

This move not only attracted the attention of people minding their own businesses in their houses (some emerged to complain about the volume of the music), but it also attracted the attention of city councilmember Jonathan Hernandez, who confronted the cop about his attempt to thwart a citizen’s recording.

Seconds after the music appears to abruptly turn off, a Santa Ana city councilman, Johnathan Hernandez, also asked: “What’s going on with the music here?”

The officer replied it had to do with “copyright infringement” as he pointed toward the man filming the video. Hernandez took that to mean the officer was trying to keep the video off social media.

This led to one of the very few worthwhile uses of the phrase, “Do you know who I am?”

“Do you know who I am?” Hernandez asks. The officer pauses, then says that he does recognize the city official — and his demeanor shifts.

“You’re not gonna conduct yourself like that in front of my neighbors,” Councilmember Hernandez continues. The officer apologizes to Hernandez, but Hernandez isn’t satisfied: “Apologize to him,” he says, motioning to the camera-holding YouTuber. 

I guarantee the officer knows now. The Santa Ana PD has opened an investigation into the blasting of a global media conglomerate’s copyrighted-to-fuck-and-back music to shut down an activist’s recording — something openly admitted to by the officer, who somehow has still managed to keep his name out of the (digital) papers.

Maybe they’ll name a law after this (not yet named) officer. The latest Santa Ana council meeting went into overtime. And nothing good was said about the officer who chose to turn beloved Disney tunes into a weapon against accountability.

Hernandez led off.

“This is a practice that no officer should engage in. There’s no reason to ever behave this way with members of the public, especially if you’re an officer with a badge and a gun,” said Councilman Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, who brought up the matter before his colleagues.

“The practice of utilizing music to deter members of the public from recording (police) isn’t something we’re going to allow to continue,” he added.

But he wasn’t the only one, despite being the councilmember on the scene of the stolen car “investigation” that somehow involved blasting Disney tunes at high volume for the sole (admitted) purpose of preventing activists from recording the officer’s actions and words.

There was a bit of hedging from another councilmember, but it ultimately ended in a full rebuke:

Councilman David Penaloza said that public auditors sometimes cross the line and antagonize police while recording video.  But, he added, the public has a right to film city employees while they are working for the public.

“That was one of the most embarrassing things I’ve ever seen,” Penaloza said Wednesday.

Councilmembers may be a dime a dozen (and, to the officer’s credit, it’s probably difficult to pick out councilmembers from a lineup, much less a confrontation on some random street), but there’s only one mayor. And he wasn’t happy either.

Mayor Vicente Sarmiento agreed that the more important issue is that police were actively trying to prevent the dissemination of a video capturing their work. He pointed to well-known cases of police misconduct – Rodney King and George Floyd – that became public issues only after they were captured on videos that were then widely seen by the public.

The officer has become a conduit for action, presumably not in the way he intended.

The city of Santa Ana is considering whether to ban the controversial practice of police blasting copyrighted music to prevent videos of them from being posted to social media.

Sounds great but it really isn’t. It’s pure bullshit. This should not be happening.

First, cops should be in the business of enforcing laws. Their actions should not be so far off the rails they generate new laws. That is sincerely screwed up. No city should have to implement a law to prohibit behavior cops already know is wrong and (in this case) have admitted to on camera while engaged in public disservice.

Second, this is already forbidden by Santa Ana Police Department policy.

The Santa Ana Police Department recognizes the right of persons to lawfully record members of this department who are performing their official duties. Members of this department will not prohibit or intentionally interfere with such lawful recordings.

Probably not an offense that leads to instant termination. But why not make an example of this officer? Lord knows, cops and prosecutors love to make “examples” of arrestees by seeking “life +cancer” for tiny-ass drug busts. Why not show the department you don’t condone this action by canning the officer? Maybe he gets his job back once his union gets involved, but at least you can show pissed off citizens and city reps you aren’t screwing around.

Unfortunately, this will end with this cop being the impetus for wasted tax dollars. The law doubles down on existing policy, making the law redundant. And the officer may be sued for First Amendment violations, which means the city is going to spend money defending him, even though it has already declared his actions indefensible.

The most infuriating aspect of this whole debacle is the cop will get away with it. Even if he’s fired, he’ll get his job back. Even if he can’t get his job back in Santa Ana, he’ll have no trouble finding a law enforcement job elsewhere. The public will have its tax dollars wasted pursuing a bill that does nothing more than codify existing PD policy. As much heat as this has brought down on the Santa Ana PD, it remains the only game in town. And since it’s the only game, it can still set the rules, even if it means retaining an employee who openly admitted he was trying to thwart accountability. That’s the real con here. This is not a minor offense. The cop knew what he was doing. But I guarantee he walks away from this unscathed, free to violate rights and otherwise be shitty for years and years to come.

Filed Under: california, copyright, police, santa ana
Companies: disney

Daily Deal: The 2022 CompTIA Certification Paths Bundle

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

CramWise has compiled CompTIA certification exam simulators into one comprehensive bundle for your convenience. This bundle includes only exam simulators with Performance-Based Questions (PBQs) and CompTIA labs following the Official CompTIA exam objectives. The bundle includes exam prep for, CompTIA A+ Core 1 (220-1001), CompTIA A+ Core 2 (220-1002), CompTIA Network+ (N10-008), CompTIA Security+ (SY0-601), CompTIA Linux+ (XK0-004), CompTIA CySA+ (CS0-002), CompTIA PenTest+ (PT0-002), and CompTIA Data+ (DA0-001). It’s on sale for $29.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Hackers Gained Access To T-Mobile VPNs, Customer Service, And Source Code

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the you'r-e-not-very-good-at-this dept

U.S. wireless company T-Mobile hasn’t had what you’d call a stellar track record on privacy or security. Last year, the company was forced to acknowledge that hackers had obtained the personal details (including social security numbers) of more than 53 million T-Mobile customers, the sixth time the company had been meaningfully compromised in as many years.

Last week, the company was forced to acknowledge that the Lapsus$ hacking group stole T-Mobile’s source code in a series of breaches that took place in March. While no consumer data was obtained (that we know of; these breaches always wind up being much worse than originally acknowledged), hackers obtained source code on numerous company projects thanks (in part) to human engineering:

The logs indicate LAPSUS$ had exactly zero problems buying, stealing or sweet-talking their way into employee accounts at companies they wanted to hack.

Several teen members of the group were arrested in London last month. The group was one of several hacking organizations that had easily targeted T-Mobile to engage in SIM swapping or SIM hijacking, the act of bribing employees to help them port a user’s cell number right out from beneath them, opening the door to all kinds of surveillance and identity or cryptocurrency theft.

SIM hijacking has become a big enough problem in recent years to gain the attention of prominent lawmakers like Senator Ron Wyden. Though this only occurred after years of consumer complaints and several major lawsuits against T-Mobile by major cryptocurrency investors who say they lost millions to the scams.

Public Telegram chat logs (a major reason for the group’s unraveling) document how it obtained T-Mobile VPN credentials, had access to numerous T-Mobile employee accounts and Atlas, a powerful internal T-Mobile tool used for managing customer accounts. The group also (unsuccessfully) tried to use their access to compromise T-Mobile accounts associated with the FBI and Department of Defense.

While again, this didn’t include the group gaining access to consumer accounts (that we know of), it’s still an ugly look for T-Mobile, and likely could have set the stage for other, successive intrusions. Granted this is all before mentioning that T-Mobile has also repeatedly made headlines over the last few years thanks to its over-collection of consumer location data it similarly failed to adequately secure.

Filed Under: consumer privacy, department of defense, fbi, hacking, lapsus$, privacy, sim hijacking, sim swapping, telecom, vpn
Companies: t-mobile

EA Streisands Leaked ‘Skate 4’ Footage Into The News

Overhype

from the how-the-internet-works dept

It really feels like we shouldn’t have to have discussions about how companies should handle information that leaks onto the internet in 2022. Or, to be more precise, we should at least not have to remind them that attempting to re-bottle the leak-genie just isn’t going to work and will almost certainly have the opposite, AKA Streisand, effect. Every time we go through this, some company doesn’t like some information or footage that gets leaked out, tries to bury it with takedown requests or IP bullying, and ends up shooting news coverage of the leak into the stratosphere.

And yet it’s a lesson that continues to be taught, apparently. Most recently, EA has been dealing with a leak of very early footage for the forthcoming Skate 4 video game by trying to disappear the leak from the internet... which is not how the internet works.

Early—and I mean really early—footage of Skate 4 looks to continue that tradition, kind of. Rumblings about a Skate playtest circulated earlier this week. (Kotaku was not invited by EA to participate in the test.) Yesterday, one user who appears to have been in a session uploaded a 33-second clip to Odysee, the video platform. That link now leads nowhere, the footage gone…but not before GamesBeat’s Jeff Grubb cross-posted the clip to Twitter, where it’s gone on to rack up nearly 200,000 views as of this writing.

It’s also, you know, everywhere else. It seems pretty clear that EA has been going around trying to get the footage taken down, but it keeps popping back up and getting shared all over the internet. And because this is the internet we’re talking about, news of the leak staying in the headlines specifically due to EA trying to make it go away is further propelling the leaked footage, such that now there are entire Reddit threads and a zillion YouTube videos of it floating around.

Now, someone in the comments will show up and insist that this is what EA wanted all along. Look, they shall say, they even have you talking about and unwittingly promoting the game for them. Respectfully: nah. This footage is rough and, whatever excitement or buzz it might generate, is almost certainly not what EA wanted the public to see. Fans of the series are geeking out a bit on the physics and all that, but the graphical modeling is pretty barebones.

And the overall point is that there was no point to firing the first shot if you’re EA. The war was lost and lost quickly. Now EA just ends up looking dumb.

Filed Under: leaks, skate 4, streisand effect
Companies: ea

Vietnam Government Pushing Law That Would Require Social Media Companies To Remove ‘Illegal’ Content Within 24 Hours

Content Moderation

from the demanding-the-impossible-for-fun-and-profit dept

Feeling the crunch of this economy? Why not leverage government power to create a sustainable revenue stream? That’s the plan in Vietnam, a country not unfamiliar with regular deployments of censorial efforts by the government.

The Vietnamese government keeps the internet — and its citizens — on a short leash. Only so much free expression is allowed and that “free” expression had better steer clear of criticizing the government. The government literally polices the internet with a 10,000-employee strong internet task force that monitors the internet for “wrongful views.” It also leverages social media companies’ built-in tools to silence dissent.

To maintain control on citizens’ speech, the government has demanded foreign platforms maintain a local presence in the form of Vietnam-located data centers. It also is quick to complain when it feels foreign internet services aren’t as responsive to its censorship demands as it would like.

As has been noted multiple times here at Techdirt, moderation at scale is impossible. And every new demand for government makes it just that much more impossible. This matters not to the Vietnamese government, which apparently believes it can turn this truism into cashable checks, according to this Reuters exclusive.

Vietnam is preparing new rules requiring social media firms to take down content it deems illegal within 24 hours, three people with direct knowledge of the matter said.

The planned amendments to current law will cement Vietnam, a $1 billion market for Facebook, as one of the world’s most stringent regimes for social media firms and will strengthen the ruling Communist Party’s hand as it cracks down on “anti-state” activity.

To ensure foreign platforms remain solid revenue streams, there will be no grace period granted to those who can’t find and/or eliminate the offending content within 24 hours. The proposed law also makes platforms subject to fines for not removing “illegal livestreams” within three hours.

This law would allow the Vietnamese government to print (foreign) currency. On top of these impossible demands lies another demand that is at vague as it is profitable.

Social media companies have also been told content that harms national security must be taken down immediately, according to two of the people and a third source.

National security is in the eye of the government beholder, which means social media services won’t necessarily know what to take down until they’ve been informed they’re already in violation of the super-vague law. Win-win for cash-strapped autocrats. Lose-lose for citizens unhappy with their representation and foreign companies who have yet to exit the Vietnamese market.

Why is this happening? Well, it looks like further censorship and rent-seeking from the Vietnamese government. It’s not like US companies haven’t done what they can to satiate the censorial regime.

According to data from Vietnam’s communications ministry, during the first quarter of 2022, Facebook complied with 90% of the government’s take-down requests, Alphabet complied with 93% and TikTok complied with 73%.

Not good enough, says a government that has found compliance to be unprofitable. The only solution — at least when you’re looking for sustainable revenue streams — is to create impossible situations that can be turned into fines, fees, threats, and excuses to craft even more legislative impossibilities to mitigate the future loss of income as companies exit the market or refine their algorithms.

This is Vietnam soaking the rich in the most self-serving way possible. It allows the government to dip into platforms’ billions while censoring criticism of the government by its population. Vietnam’s government has never cared what the rest of the world thinks about it, much less how its citizens feel about its overreach. With this proposal, it has the tools to stay funded while deliberately (and lawfully) ignoring criticism.

Filed Under: content moderation, illegal content, intermediary liability, national security, vietnam
Companies: facebook, google, tiktok, twitter

The EU Copyright Directive Is So Bad It’s Proving Really Hard To Transpose Into Decent National Laws

Copyright

from the some-of-us-may-have-warned-about-this dept

We’ve written numerous posts about the EU Copyright Directive, because it contains two extremely harmful ideas. The first is the “snippet tax“, an attempt by some press publishers to make sites like Google pay for the privilege of displaying and linking to newspaper publishers’ material – an assault on the Web’s underlying hyperlink technology. The second element is the upload filter, probably the worst development in the copyright world of the last few decades.

The EU Copyright Directive is not just a bad law, it is a badly drafted law. That’s proved by the fact that three years after the Directive was passed, and nearly a year since what was supposed to be the deadline for transposing it into national legislation, fewer than half of the EU’s Member States have done so, reported here by Euractiv:

only twelve EU countries [out of 27] have incorporated the measure into their national bodies of law, with Austria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Luxembourg doing it only after the Commission’s reprimand.

It comes as no surprise that the two main sticking points are precisely the snippet tax – Article 15 – and upload filters – Article 17. As the former Member of the European Parliament Felix Reda, who was involved in the legislative process of this Directive, told Euractiv, Article 17 in particular is a problem because the provision is:

“internally contradictory” in its requirement that platforms block copyright-infringing content from being uploaded while also ensuring that legal content is not removed.

Not unreasonably, in the face of this impossible task, EU Member States have metaphorically thrown up their hands, and simply transposed Article 17 word-for-word into their national laws, without attempting to detail how the new laws will work in practice.

This is just pushing the problems further down the road. At some point, deep-pocketed Internet platforms will start to bring legal challenges to these new laws that they are required to obey, but without being told how. It might be fun to watch some of these transpositions go down in legal flames, but none of this continuing fiasco will help creators, and it will hurt users trying to share and enjoy material online. Key elements of the EU Copyright Directive have been a waste of time, energy and money, right from the start, the result of selfish and short-sighted lobbying.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Originally posted to Walled Culture.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright directive, eu, snippet tax, upload filters

Secretive Private Company Shows No One — Not Even The NSA — Is Immune From Always-On Surveillance

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the if-you-like-spying,-you-should-like-being-spied-on-right? dept

In recent months, a lot of attention has been paid to private companies who assist governments with surveillance. Most of this has been focused on companies like Clearview (a company that scrapes the public web for data to sell to its customers) and NSO Group (an Israeli company that sells powerful cell phone exploits to a variety of human rights abusers). Other reports have focused on data brokers who use info harvested from phone apps to provide location data to US law enforcement, allowing them to circumvent the protections erected by the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision.

What’s been exposed by security researchers and investigative journalists is only the tip of the iceberg. Governments have a hunger for data and a desire to convert the ubiquity of smartphones into actionable intel.

And that’s where things get even more sketchy. We assume our respective governments will respect rights and engage in good faith dealings with companies offering unfettered access to devices and data.

Our assumptions are erroneous. Governments, for the most part, don’t care about the citizens they serve. And they sure as hell don’t care about people located beyond their borders — people they assume have no natural rights who can be targeted with a minimum of discretion and oversight.

More evidence of corporate America’s and the US government’s unwillingness to give a shit about the negative side effects of unfettered domestic surveillance has arrived courtesy of Sam Biddle and Jack Poulson of The Intercept.

A company with a nonexistent web footprint is promising the US government new means of warrantless surveillance — and it’s doing so by leveraging location data harvested from any source possible. There’s a new war underway and, despite the US’s lack of direct involvement, a private company is selling the US government on tech that will allow it to monitor the war via location data purchased from Twitter.

According to Brendon Clark of Anomaly Six — or “A6” — the combination of its cellphone location-tracking technology with the social media surveillance provided by Zignal Labs would permit the U.S. government to effortlessly spy on Russian forces as they amassed along the Ukrainian border, or similarly track Chinese nuclear submarines.

Twitter may have made efforts to exclude government agencies from directly accessing its data firehose but it isn’t quite as proactive when it comes to private companies who sell this data to government agencies. Moderating content is impossible. Moderating firehose access isn’t easy either, especially when third parties aren’t honest about what they’re doing with this data.

The twist in this case is how Anomaly Six demonstrated its social media-leveraging prowess: it turned secretive US government employees into targets.

To prove that the technology worked, Clark pointed A6’s powers inward, spying on the National Security Agency and CIA, using their own cellphones against them.

Do you want to know more about Anomaly Six? Good luck. The only thing on its website is an email address — one linking to an account that presumably ignores pesky questions from journalists and is only responsive to email addresses linked to upper levels of federal agencies.

At best, Anomaly Six appears to be another option for location data that allows the government (federal, local) to dodge the warrant requirement enacted by the Supreme Court. At worst, it’s the interceptor of multiple firehoses that allow government agencies to convert social media use into real-time tracking of citizens’ movements and activities.

Social media services are the attack vector, as a recording obtained by The Intercept points out.

According to audiovisual recordings of an A6 presentation reviewed by The Intercept and Tech Inquiry, the firm claims that it can track roughly 3 billion devices in real time, equivalent to a fifth of the world’s population. The staggering surveillance capacity was cited during a pitch to provide A6’s phone-tracking capabilities to Zignal Labs, a social media monitoring firm that leverages its access to Twitter’s rarely granted “firehose” data stream to sift through hundreds of millions of tweets per day without restriction. 

Laws and court precedent limit what the government can do. Anomaly Six asks why be limited by laws and precedent? Just get what you want from third parties, act on the intel, and rest assured that the gray area that stands between citizens and the government will almost always result in favorable rulings for government investigators.

The tools provided by this company, which apparently has access to the Twitter firehose, allow clients to drop a dragnet on worldwide Twitter usage, and track relationships between Twitter accounts, utilizing the location data to see what other accounts were in the area and who targeted users interacted with.

Not only is this company apparently circumventing restrictions on US law enforcement, it’s allegedly violating agreements private companies like A6 make when purchasing firehose access from Twitter.

The source also asserted that Zignal Labs had willfully deceived Twitter by withholding the broader military and corporate surveillance use cases of its firehose access.

As the Supreme Court has noted in decisions related to the Fourth Amendment and the “reasonable” expectation of privacy, sharing something with a private company is not the same thing as approving of carte blanche access by government agencies. Anomaly Six is operating outside of Fourth Amendment protections and citizens’ expectations about how their data will be handled. Sooner or later, this is going to cost the government some convictions, if not actual money. But, for now, it’s just (government) business as usual — business the government apparently feels comfortable conducting even when its contractor has demonstrated not even the most secretive federal agencies are beyond its reach.

Filed Under: cia, location data, mass surveillance, nsa, private data, surveillance
Companies: anomaly 6

Ways In Which Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Could Be Good

Predictions

from the always-look-on-the-bright-side-of-life dept

With it looking almost certain that Elon Musk will own Twitter in the very near future, a lot of people are freaking out, and I did think it was worthwhile to explore ways in which this might actually be good. At this point, I think it’s quite clear that Elon Musk’s comments about Twitter show an incredible disconnect from how any of this works, and he’s about to discover that his ridiculously naïve ideas about how Twitter should work, will not work in practice. I stand by the idea that his beliefs for how Twitter should work are unlikely to be good in the long run, if implemented in the manner he claims to want them implemented. And, of course, Musk’s reputation for how he treats workers at his companies remains reprehensible. His views towards many marginalized groups seems equally disgraceful, and I know many people are — for good reason — fearing that they will be put at risk. Other tech companies are going to lead a feeding frenzy on Twitter’s best employees, and a ton of important and useful institutional knowledge is going to rush out the exits. And a lot of it is going to be the institutional knowledge that could help Musk realize why he’s wrong on so much of this.

That said, there are some ways in which the Musk takeover could be good for Twitter. First, simply taking Twitter private could be the best thing for the company. In the past, I’ve spoken about how Wall Street’s quarterly demands on Twitter were bad for the company and were likely going to get in the way of the more lofty vision of rethinking how Twitter should work. Short term focus on growing profits and the userbase were a real risk towards a long term focus on rethinking Twitter’s role in enabling conversation.

As a private company, Twitter will have a lot more room to maneuver without the quarterly drumbeat and threats from more short-sighted Wall St. folks who have been demanding a more short term profit focus, over long term company viability. Of course, while Musk has said he’s not interested in the economics of the deal, he has lined up a bunch of Wall St. banks to help him finance the deal, and they are still going to demand a return, meaning that this is likely only a brief reprieve from the Wall St. drumbeat, and it’s not clear that there would really be enough time for the long term focus to take hold.

Next, despite the many reasons I’ve explained why Musk’s view of Twitter remains laughably naïve, I actually think that many of the ideas he’s presented show a good initial instinct for someone who has no actual experience managing such a website. Talking about viewing the site as instrumental for free speech, about dealing with the spam and scams, and also about open sourcing the algorithm, are, in fact, good first thoughts. Indeed, they’re so good that they’re the kinds of thoughts that were around when Twitter first got started, and helped build the company into what it became today.

Of course, getting from there to where we are now happened for many good reasons (and a few bad ones). And that’s part of why I argued earlier that most of Elon’s ideas for how content moderation should work are actually taking Twitter back to square one. There are reasons why every social media company — no matter how much they insist they’re about “free speech” — end up in a similar spot with regards to content moderation. And it’s not because “woke” employees demand it. It’s because everyone learns that this is a massive, impossible challenge, and there are only so many ways to approach it. And, contrary to public perception, Twitter is at the leading edge of the learning curve on this issue. If a lot of that institutional knowledge doesn’t walk out the door and can educate Musk on why his initial views are behind the times, it could allow the company to continue to make big steps forward. Of course, that’s a really, really big “if.”

Either way, even if Twitter did make the changes Musk suggested he’d make, just like every other “free speech” website out there, he’d quickly have to realize how unworkable it is, and it’s likely that Twitter would move back to the same model every other company uses, because otherwise, they’d be hemorrhaging users very, very quickly.

However, back to his first thoughts: there are many, many people who think they know how to “fix” social media, and most of their ideas are terrible and unrealistic. Musk’s are also terrible and unrealistic, but they actually come from a similar sensibility to those who have built successful social media platforms (just woefully unrealistic). As I explained in my earlier post, “open sourcing” the algorithm is not nearly as simple as Musk seems to think it is, but if his instincts are to make the platform more open, more transparent, and even more friendly to developers, that provides some opportunities as well Jack Dorsey and Parag Agarwal have actually made a big move towards a form of open sourcing Twitter with the funding and support of the Bluesky project, and if Musk is serious about “open sourcing” aspects of Twitter, he could do even more to embrace that. Dorsey has long supported the idea of “algorithmic choice” which is not quite open sourcing the algorithm, but is a much smarter approach to all of this, and Musk could embrace that as part of his plan as well.

Of course, much of this really boils down to the fact that (perhaps contrary to public opinion), Twitter has actually done a lot of very thoughtful moves in the past few years, towards making the platform much better, and much more resilient for those purposes. In other words, contrary to Musk’s claims, I think if he really understood what Dorsey did over the past few years, and Agarwal’s initial efforts to date, I think he’d realize that it’s actually much closer to his own vision (more openness, more about serving democracy) than he thinks. So, really, if Musk can allow them to keep doing that (perhaps in an accelerated fashion) without the fear and pressure of Wall Street, it could lead to something good. Unfortunately, though, given some of his initial statements, his reputation for how he treats workers, not to mention his reputation towards marginalized groups, I fear that much of the institutional knowledge necessary to make all this work is already rapidly heading for the exits.

And that leads us to one final way in which Musk’s takeover could be good: it could accelerate the success of an alternative space that takes on the role that Twitter currently holds. Whether that’s some other company stepping up and becoming that space, whether it’s an embrace of something like ActivityPub/Mastodon, whether it’s something entirely new, certainly is impossible to predict. But, having seen massively popular and successful companies collapse in the past, the demand for such tools doesn’t magically disappear with them. Someone will step in to fill the void if Musk messes it up.

Filed Under: content moderation, elon musk, free speech, institutional knowledge, open source
Companies: twitter

Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Ethical Hacker Training Bundle

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The 2022 Ultimate Ethical Hacker Training Bundle gives you access to 13 courses focused on bug bounty hunting and penetration testing. You’ll learn about Python, Kali Linux, Burp Suite, Nmap, and more. To keep up with the ever-evolving digital world, all future updates for all courses are included for free. The bundle is on sale for $40.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal