The law says (or can be read as saying) that companies can't stop doing business in Texas. I wonder if they'll try anyway. Declare that "your regulations have made it too expensive to operate in your state" and roll the dice. Daphne Keller made similar remarks:
Regardless of what the Texas law says, might this be the best litigation posture for platforms anyway?
Skip trying to comply (which is impossible), maybe get a better forum, make the thousand blooming flowers of local litigation in Texas all be about jurisdiction?
I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia has more than 50 million monthly "users", if you count the people who access it rather than those with accounts, as the law seems to suggest.
Who will be the first to sue Wikipedia because its article about them isn't exactly what they want?
I was just saying that "authenticate all real humans" sounds like a directive from an evil supercomputer.
"Authenticate all real humans" is some "where is Sarah Connor?"-level shit.
So, Sen. Blumenthal doesn't want to fund the police.
"Covered platform’’ means a commercial software application or electronic service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.
Who writes these definitions? Is a website an "electronic service"? Will every webcomic that runs ads or sells merch have to endure an annual audit?
It currently has nineteen cosponsors after being announced yesterday. I don't see how it fails to become law.
I keep trying to say something intelligible about that Facebook-to-Amazon comparison, but my brain jumps the rails every time. Is it incompetent? Malicious? A synergy of both?
EARN IT will undoubtedly make the CSAM problem worse by making it more difficult for companies to track CSAM down and report it, and more difficult for law enforcement to track down an arrest those actually responsible for it.
If I were a Senator, I would rather not be remembered for doing this.
Of course, we all know how it'll play out: the law passes, CSAM gets worse, politicians rise up to say we need an even stronger law to stop the rising tide....
Between this, yesterday's announcement that YouTube is teasing NFTs, the various moves in the UK and EU to regulate away encryption... does anyone else get the feeling that as far as being a potentially good thing, the Internet is, well, over? Like, there was this interval in history where it seemed like we could actually build this technology into something good for education, for communication and understanding, for commerce and competition, but now it's "we're building a surveillance state to benefit robber barons, and you'll thank us for it".
Yep. Facebook will live, and Wikipedia will die. Sounds like a bad trade to me.
Nobody who says "marijuana cigarette" should be considered an expert.
"The marihuana cigarette, or 'reef cockroach'..."
The letter I just sent:
I am gravely concerned to see that Sen. Warren has co-sponsored a Republican bill to repeal the foundational document of Internet regulation known as Section 230. This is terrible on policy grounds: even those experts who support some type of regulatory reform agree that a total repeal of 230 would entrench monopolies and make it harder to moderate content and thus harder to fight online hate speech. Beyond that, it is terrible on optics: allying with the senator who fist-bumped the January 6th coup attempt?
The Senator is, I'm sure, aware that regulatory changes require planning and evidence-based investigation. Indeed, it was not long ago that the Senator co-introduced the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act, which would have tasked the Department of Health and Human Services with investigating the effects of SESTA/FOSTA, the previous change to Section 230.
On any subject as complex as Internet regulation, there will be times when reasonable people can differ. But this is a moment when the Senator owes the public an explanation.
I voted for the Senator in the 2020 primary because I liked the candidate who "had a plan for that". What's the plan now?
Blake C. Stacey
Didn't Monster also get criticized in the not-too-distant past for slave labor in its supply chain?
"Facebook versus data scrapers" sounds like "the people lose, the lawyers win".
While it may have no problem stripping UK residents of strong data and communication protections, it may find it more difficult to talk powerful businesses into accepting less-than-solid protections for their financial interactions and transmission of sensitive proprietary info.
It's gonna be interesting to see how the City responds to this....
Negotiations over EU tech policy must set some kind of record for the combination of consequential and incomprehensible.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by blakestacey.