The Harris-Walz Tech Policy Platform… Is Still Bad
from the get-better-tech-policy-people-please dept
As we head into another Presidential election, one thing has been consistent from the last two such elections as well: the tech policies of both major parties are terrible.
The Donald Trump Republican platform for 2025 is beyond crazy with all sorts of nonsense. The “tech” part of it is barely worth a mention, but just the fact that they see things like age verification laws as a first step to banning pornography should give you a sense of how batshit crazy (and against fundamental rights) it is.
That said, the Democratic platform is not great. It’s not batshit crazy, like the GOP plan, but it’s still generally bad. It’s the kind of thing that is going to lead to a lot of wasted time and effort as moral panic know-nothing “we must do something” types push out bad idea after bad idea, while people who actually understand how this stuff works have to do our best to educate against the nonsense.
Much of the tech policy part of the document appears to have been written for Biden on the assumption he was going to be the candidate, so there’s always a chance that Harris will somehow change it later on. But, on most tech policy issues, she’s been in line with Biden. In particular, both of them have hated on Section 230 for ages. Biden has insisted it should be repealed and has stumped for KOSA, despite the obvious harm it will do to kids (especially LGBTQ+ kids).
Harris hasn’t been great on these issues either. When she was California’s Attorney General, she filed a highly questionable case against Backpage that was thrown out on Section 230 grounds. She then sued Backpage execs directly in another terrible case, accusing them of “digital pimping.” In both cases, she was going after a platform or its executives for actions of the users of those platforms. As we’ve seen in the years since Backpage was shut down by the federal government, it has only served to put more women at risk.
Also, she was among the state Attorneys General who signed onto a very dumb letter, demanding that Congress amend Section 230 to let them ignore Section 230.
So, none of this is that surprising from either Biden or Harris, but, still… it’s not great to see in their official platform:
We must also fundamentally reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields tech platforms from liability even when they host or disseminate violent or illegal content, to ensure that platforms take responsibility for the content they share.
The issue, which has been explained to administration officials (and Congress) over and over again, is that platforms do take responsibility for the content they share, otherwise users and advertisers (especially) head for the exits.
The platform also misrepresents the Surgeon General’s report on kids’ mental health and social media:
President Biden believes that all companies, including technology companies, should be held accountable for the harm they cause. The president has raised the alarm that social media and other platforms have allowed abusive and even criminal conduct like cyberstalking, child sexual exploitation, and non-consensual intimate images to proliferate on their sites – and called on Democrats and Republicans to unite on legislation to address these issues. The Surgeon General issued an advisory warning about the impacts of social media on youth mental health, noting that he cannot conclude social media is safe for children and adolescents. Democrats will pass bipartisan legislation to protect kids’ privacy and to stop Big Tech from collecting personal data on kids and teenagers online, ban targeted advertising to children, and put stricter limits on the personal data these companies collect on all of us
I mean, yes, the Surgeon General concluded that he could not conclude that it was safe for kids… but he also said that it was helpful for many kids and similarly “could not conclude” that it was inherently harmful either.
But the way the Democratic platform presents it is much scarier and misleading.
Anyway, it’s a small part of a much larger platform, and tech issues aren’t major issues this year. One also hopes that, if elected, there will be other more pressing things on the congressional agenda rather than fucking up the internet based on pseudoscience and a misunderstanding of the First Amendment.
And, of course, it’s not like Trump is any better on any of this stuff.
Filed Under: democratic platform, free speech, internet policy, joe biden, kamala harris, kosa, mental health, section 230, tech policy, tim walz
Comments on “The Harris-Walz Tech Policy Platform… Is Still Bad”
Tech regulation has been pretty terrible, and it’s disappointing to see those positions continued for now. But when push comes to shove, I will still vote for Harris-Walz because, even then, it would feel irresponsible not to. I’d rather deal with bad tech policy, than batshit insane tech policy.
Re:
Better to have an administration with a chance of changing their minds or improving, than one that very openly doesn’t think half the population should have rights in the first place.
Re: Re:
Exactly.
Re: Re:
Funnily enough, if there’s an administration that has a minuscule, non-zero chance of changing course, it’d be this one.
Biden HAS changed course on Israel.
Re: Re: Re:
I sincerely hope they’ll change their mind on this subject too. Or at least push more sensible legislation on the topic.
Re: Re: Re:2
I guess this also wouldn’t be the first time section 230 has been under attack. Politicians haven’t seemed to understand its significance for quite a long while..
Re: Re: Re:
If their stance on Israel can begin to change, surely their stance on tech regulation can change too.
They’re building their new platform on what the newer gens care about, surely that’ll make what that demographic says far more notable to them.
Who needs choices?
This “First Past the Post” voting system just plain sucks.
Great, back to dooming about the end of the open internet no matter what happens come election day, I guess.
(This is an exaggeration on my part, but it has become very exhausting to see it constantly under threat from bad tech policy. Somebody please tell me things aren’t actually so grim.)
Re:
My main fear is regarding section 230 specifically, since that’s very essential to the internet as we know it.
Re:
I can’t say not to worry, but at least Biden listens, even if only to serve himself.
But only if everyone campaigns HARDER.
It’s still pretty shitty, but at least it’s possible to force Harris to change her mind.
Re: Re:
I’m more than certain there’ll be plenty pressure and talk from various groups if a repeal or damaging amendment of section 230 ends up on the table again, at least.
I simply wish I wouldn’t have to live with that kind of anxiety hanging over me all day.
Re: Re:
I unfortunately also can’t do much myself, since I don’t live in the US.
All I can do is hope that the bad things don’t happen, pretty much.
Voting for Republicans is being a literal traitor against this country, so good call.
Re:
Look at the Libertarian Party. They are literally the only ones who get tech, free speech, and a host of other issues right. Their candidate is Chase Oliver. I encourage you to check him out.
Re: Re: Voting third party: The more involved way to throw your ballot in the trash
No idea offhand how reasonable their candidate or party might be in general but at the moment thanks to the delightful voting system the US has voting third party on anything beyond perhaps very local votes(small town level or lower) is the equivalent of lighting your ballot on fire after you fill it out, and as such is a terrible idea especially right now.
Re: Re: Re:
Depends where you live. I’m from California, so the Democrat taking the state is a foregone conclusion. Aside from a handful of places (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania), most states are solidly red or solidly blue, so you’re throwing your vote away no matter what.
Re: Re: Re:2 Several minutes of work for years if not decades of results
That sounds like a great way to ensure that a state stays red or blue, not so great if you ever want to change it.
I live in heavily republican state yet I still vote, and still plan on doing so for as long as I can. Why? Because while the odds that my vote(or the votes of other non-republicans here) will change anything on the state level or higher is almost zero the only way to ensure that my vote is completely useless is if I didn’t vote at all.
I mean hell, speaking of forgone conclusions florida was a guaranteed republican win in the upcoming election not too long ago yet from what I’ve been hearing that might not be the case so long as non-republicans there get out and vote and enough disgruntled republicans either abstain or flip.
If any lesson should be taken away from the likes of Trump it’s that complacency is how you hand the other side a win. Always vote as if your vote matters and might make a difference, because if enough people decide to sleep on what they see as an ‘easy win’ they might wake up to a surprising loss.
Re: Re: Re: voting third party
It’s hardly a bad idea.
First off, I’m not voting for whoever the “lesser evil” is. I’ll pass on the vote for evil altogether.
Second, if enough people start voting third party, even if those parties are not real threats themselves, it may force some change in the big two as they try to gather those votes back to themselves.
Third, it’s like casting three or four ballots! It’s great. Or maybe it’s more like Schrödinger’s ballot. I cast my ballot for a third ballot, have some people yell at me that it’s a vote for the R candidate or D candidate. That’s three votes right there, but then we wait for the election. The supporters of whoever loses then get to blame the entire loss on my vote. Shoot, it’s a super ballot worth tens or hundreds of thousands of votes!
Anyway, I’ll vote third party this year for the third presidential election running. Probably vote for someone with no chance of winning the Senate as well. And I’ll feel absolutely fine about it, because I voted my conscience and did my civic duty in casting my ballot.
Re: Re:
libertarian
Anyone who doesn’t believe that the government should be used for control and oppression, but firmly believes in the right of walmart-style corporations and the wealthy to do so.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=libertarian
'All companies'? Really?
President Biden believes that all companies, including technology companies, should be held accountable for the harm they cause.
Strange then that tech companies seem to be the only ones facing regulatory attempts to crack down on their rights while blaming them for anything that goes wrong these days, and how when it comes to detailing the ‘harms’ tech companies are supposedly responsible for those making that claim seem to lie more often than not about what those harms are and the evidence they have to support their claims.
Re:
I’ve noticed that as well. I’m not exonerating tech companies; they’ve done all kinds of things ranging from dubious to actively harmful. But they have plenty of company in the natural resource, utility, financial, commercial, real estate, and retail sectors. It’d be good to recognize that and at least try to address the worst offenders first. (Although I recognize that trying to decide/quantify “worst” is a difficult problem.)
Lesser of two evils
Really does feel like we’re picking a poison that mildly irritates us rather than straight up kills us huh?
Re:
First US election? Congrats on popping your political cherry!
Re: Re:
Ain’t my first unfortunately. Just wish it wasn’t always picking the lesser of two evils but hey, a man can dream
Re: Re: Re:
Snark withdrawn then, my bad.
Ranked choice voting, independently drawn districts, and other things would certainly help the situation… but, ultimately, choosing the best of less-than-perfect options for representation is simply the nature of the beast.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, ranked voting and districts that are not insane. Also no more disenfranchisement and registered at birth.
It would be nice if the people were actually represented by their representative in this representative form of government, some representatives do – most not so much. Perhaps the people could vote upon major issues due to their representatives not doing it for them.
Re: mischaracterization
The entire structure of American Democracy requires one to select the party that most closely resembles ones interests. There will rarely be 100% alignment between ones beliefs and the beliefs of the two parties.
Characterizing that as “the lesser of two evils” isn’t helpful; in fact, I think it’s quite harmful to the project of American Democracy.
Thinking of it, and speaking of it, in different terms: “who is more my tribe,” or “which group better represents my interests” is far more helpful because it’s not inherently negative or off-putting. Which means it might encourage others to–or at the very least NOT discourage others from-voting.
It sucks that section 230 reform is in the Dem Party Platform, but that’s fungible! We can do the work to fix that.
Re: Re:
How did “push them left” work out for Biden on matters such as the new Israeli war and healthcare bubbo?
You clowns get the dysfunctional government you deserve because you won’t do a damn thing to make it function.
their first job
First, they need to work on broadband access for all. Stop letting Comcast, Spectrum etc rake in huge profits off something that should be a utility at this point. No American should be so poor that they can’t afford broadband.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike just loves him the kids and their addictions.
Mike be mad.
Mike more dangerous than Melon Mush sometimes.
Re:
takes your meds hermen
Re:
What.
No, actually. WHAT.
Re:
…said no human, ever.
Also in the Dem platform:
-Passing bipartisan legislation to protect kids’ privacy and stop Big Tech from collecting kids and teenagers’ personal data online and ban targeted advertising to children
So still pushing KOSA and COPPA 2.0.
Re:
Maybe not specifically KOSA but they’re definitely still on the age-verification train it seems.
Re: Re: You can have user privacy or 'no kids allowed', pick ONE
Which is quite the trick given any age-verification system would by necessity involve requiring users to hand over highly personal identifying data to sites to check and (for CYOA reasons) store.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
As far as the porn ban goes one IPTV service is gearing up
The 178000 channel service I have mentioned has zero server prein the USA so any porn ban will not apply to them
The age verification laws do not apply to them because none of their server infrastructure is in the United States, so they cannot be prosecuted in the United States
They have been in.tje Notorious Markets reports at times
If the mpaa, ace, fact, etc cannot shut them down, surely a porn ban cannot.
IPTV starters shows the channels in order of most recently added, and they just added about 500 porn channels
Combine that with every premium movie and sports channel known to man and all.thr cable channels in every country on earth. I use it to NFL and NCAA football, any gane I want, no blackouts either.
In England people can watch TV without a TV licence and use a VPN and they won’t be detected. That probably drives HM government crazy.
Then again conservatives might to think twice about shutting them down as cable networks are dropping newsmsx and these pirate IPTV services will be the only way to watch. Infowars, one American, and
Newsmax are the only way to watch those channels
Re:
Only if its through on demand services apart from BBC iPlayer. Get a clue, fool.
The government and individual politicians should be liable for the harm they cause.
See how this works?
Re: Oh if only...
‘All of you that voted for FOSTA raise your hands. Just kidding, we’ve already got the voting records. Anyway, you’re all on the hook for a bunch of murders, assaults and sex trafficking, hope you’ve got your lawyers on speed-dial!’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I could see sales of secure wiping software going way up if this porn ban passes.
As long as you are not in Texas you are not committing any crime doing this
In Texas you could likely be charged under the “instrument of crime” statutes
There are certain kinds of jamming legal in other states that is a crikebin Texas
I saw where sometime back remote controlled spike strips wouid not deploy in a pursuit there and when they did finally get him they found a jammer that Jams the 315 MHz frequencies those use, the same as your garage door opener or key fob
He was charged under the “instrument of crime” laws in Texas
He broke no federal laws but did break Texas law because he was jamming those channels in furtherance of criminal activity
Jamming 315 MHz did not break Federal law but did break Texas state law
I could see abortion clinics in California that are jamming GPS or cellular Internet so that their home state cannot get their location data possibly being charged in Texas for usung an instrument of crime
The clinics that do this are breaking any California law or any federal laws, but I could see Texas prosecuting them once they ban abortion travel down there, especially if she is wearing an ankle monitor. Jamming an ankle monitor is not illegal in California but is a crime in Texas
Jamming erad card readers woukd be a crime in Texas but would not break federal law as the jammer fluid be seen as an instrument of crime in furtherance of interfering with law enforcement but no federal laws would be broken
So if travel in Texas keep.tuat jammer turn off that jammer while you are there
Also, radar jammers wouid likely fall under the same criminal statue, so keep that radar jammer turned off in Texas
Re:
This post is literally not about any specific “porn ban” thing.
Bloody hell nobody cares about your wild-ass legal jargon talk.
Re: Re:
It’s worse.
It’s straight up disinformation masquerading as an ad for pirate IPTV.
You keep claiming this, but you don’t really give any evidence that it’s broadly true. You can’t just point to a few examples and extrapolate that to say that’s true everywhere. Especially in the face of counterexamples.
Re:
It’s amazing how short memory some people have, that also includes you Arianity. But hey, believe what you want and you don’t even need pierce your little bubble of unreality by asking a company buying ad-space if they would want the ads next to some “interesting” content featuring anti-semitism, pro-terrorism, racism or right-wing nuttery for example.
Oh look, there’s even a Wikipedia article about brand-safety online and what types of content-categories to avoid.
Just because you have chosen to stick your head into the sand doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t see what’s going on.