Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet has been nominated
Speaker 1: for a Shorty Award for Disinformed, our mini series on disinformation,
Speaker 1: and it would mean so much to me if you
Speaker 1: would take a moment and vote for us. It only
Speaker 1: takes a moment and you can vote every day. Go
Speaker 1: to tangoti dot com slash vote. That's t a n
Speaker 1: G O t i dot com slash vote to vote,
Speaker 1: or check the link in our show description. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Disinformed, a mini series from There Are No Girls
Speaker 1: on the Internet. I'm Bridget Todd. Okay, So a secret
Speaker 1: shame of mine is that I make a tech podcast,
Speaker 1: but I haven't really taken on public personal stance on
Speaker 1: one of the biggest tech policies of our time. Section
Speaker 1: to thirty, a piece of legislation passed in which basically
Speaker 1: says that Internet platforms can be sued or held liable
Speaker 1: for content that people post on those platforms. One reason
Speaker 1: is that it's a complex issue that requires a bit
Speaker 1: of nuance and complexity to even discuss. You know who
Speaker 1: isn't exactly the poster child for under in a nuance
Speaker 1: and complexity, Donald Trump. Currently, social media giants like Twitter
Speaker 1: receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that
Speaker 1: they're a neutral platform. My executive order calls for new
Speaker 1: regulations under section two thirty of the Communications Decency Act.
Speaker 1: When he repeatedly called for ending Section to thirty, it
Speaker 1: kind of through a polarizing ranch into the existing debate,
Speaker 1: turning the whole thing into a partisan talking point rather
Speaker 1: than a real conversation. There's a diversity of thought about
Speaker 1: Section to thirty. Last season, we spoke to Attorney Carried
Speaker 1: Goldberg who advocated for changes to section to thirty. Here's
Speaker 1: a clip, but they're saying that basically, the Internet as
Speaker 1: we know it when it exists without section two three
Speaker 1: and we're going to lose you know, all the this
Speaker 1: wonderful free exchange of ideas if we if we lose
Speaker 1: section to three. And I helped total bs on that,
Speaker 1: because number one, you're assuming that the Internet as we
Speaker 1: know it is a great place and as we know
Speaker 1: it like should be preserved. You know, it's kind of
Speaker 1: like any constitutional argument or or make America great again.
Speaker 1: You're assuming that it is the things are great and
Speaker 1: that everyone has the same level of free speech. But
Speaker 1: I mean speech on the Internet really belongs to those
Speaker 1: who are the loudest, and basically for companies Amazon, Facebook,
Speaker 1: Microsoft and Apple. I mean they control the Internet and
Speaker 1: we've got all our issues with anti trust and also
Speaker 1: the quantity. So the most hostile people on the Internet
Speaker 1: are the ones who have the greatest protections. But digital
Speaker 1: rights groups like Fight for the Future say overbroad changes
Speaker 1: to Section two thirty will further harm marginalized communities online.
Speaker 1: Evan Greer has been fighting for digital rights online for
Speaker 1: almost a decade. The name is Evan Greer, and I'm
Speaker 1: a director of Fight for the Future, which is a
Speaker 1: nonprofit that works to protect people's basic rights in the
Speaker 1: digital age. Evan is also a musician and a lot
Speaker 1: of her music criticises big tech. Here's a taste. Once
Speaker 1: consent was manufactured, Now it's prsted for clerks, algorithms make decisions.
Speaker 1: I took a bit of a roundabout path to this work. Actually,
Speaker 1: I dropped out of college and became a full time
Speaker 1: touring musician for about a decade um and traveled around
Speaker 1: making a living playing poppy, queer, political punk and folk
Speaker 1: music for a living. I started touring, playing about two
Speaker 1: hundred to three hundred shows a year and offering workshops
Speaker 1: and trainings on a wide range of social justice, environmental justice,
Speaker 1: and economic justice issues, primarily for college students, but I'll
Speaker 1: so for labor unions and nonprofits and high school students
Speaker 1: and youth detention centers and you know kind of all
Speaker 1: different types of spaces UM. And you know it really
Speaker 1: through the course of that work, it was kind of
Speaker 1: it was the early two thousands, the Internet was exploding. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, I I had more fans on my Space
Speaker 1: then than I have like Twitter followers now, which is
Speaker 1: kind of hilarious. UM. But it was also you know,
Speaker 1: this was like pre napster um, you know, and there
Speaker 1: was a lot of musicians kind of coming out of
Speaker 1: the underground, UM folks who were queer folks who were
Speaker 1: UM playing you know, music that was way outside the
Speaker 1: mainstream or who you know, you know, we're kind of
Speaker 1: marginalized identities, marginalized musicians, and we were seeing the Internet
Speaker 1: is this like incredible um engine and platform for giving
Speaker 1: us a voice UM and kind of you know, taking
Speaker 1: on some of these gate key birds that had always
Speaker 1: UM sort of controlled what was cool or what music
Speaker 1: got to be heard. And so you know, there were
Speaker 1: so many of us that were like putting our music
Speaker 1: up for free on archive dot org and then having
Speaker 1: people send us donations, like again before Napster, before Spotify,
Speaker 1: before any of this stuff, um. And so for me
Speaker 1: that was like the wake up where I was like, Wow,
Speaker 1: this technology is really powerful and it you know, has
Speaker 1: this you know. I I distinctly remember like one specific
Speaker 1: moment of my first tour of Europe showing up at
Speaker 1: like a record store in Prague in the Czech Republic
Speaker 1: and there was like a hundred nineteen year old punk
Speaker 1: kids that knew all the words to all of my
Speaker 1: songs and like I had never toured there. I didn't
Speaker 1: have a record label, I didn't have a publicist, and
Speaker 1: it just it struck me. I was like, this is
Speaker 1: all because of the Internet. Like these kids have all
Speaker 1: downloaded this music, they've shared it, they've created a community
Speaker 1: of like wanting to hear this type of stuff. Um.
Speaker 1: And that was like, you know, just a really powerful
Speaker 1: moment for me. And so when you know, I wish
Speaker 1: I had some really cool end to that story, like
Speaker 1: or whatever, but really the end of it is then
Speaker 1: I had a kid, and I maxed out a couple
Speaker 1: of credit cards trying to make a living, you know,
Speaker 1: supporting a family as a transgender, anti capitalist folk singer,
Speaker 1: and then I realized I might need a quote unquote
Speaker 1: real job. This would turn out to be an opportune
Speaker 1: time for Evan to be further pulled into the world
Speaker 1: of digital rights activism. Today, Google's main page shows a
Speaker 1: black rectangle and the words tell Congress, please don't censor
Speaker 1: the web. Wikipedia has shut down the English language version
Speaker 1: of its online encyclopedia for the day. A chorus of
Speaker 1: opposition was growing against legislation called the Stop Online Privacy
Speaker 1: Act or SOPA. Legislation ostensibly meant to crack down on
Speaker 1: the piracy of copyrighted content online, but was widely criticized
Speaker 1: for the chilling impact it would have on free expression online.
Speaker 1: Huge Internet companies like Reddit, Wikipedia, and Mozilla protested the
Speaker 1: legislation by taking their websites offline for twenty four hours
Speaker 1: about a year after the organization had formed. A year
Speaker 1: after the SOPA strike, um you know, the Internet blackout
Speaker 1: as it was often called at the time, which was
Speaker 1: the largest online protest and human history where um you know,
Speaker 1: I wasn't even at the organization then, but fight for
Speaker 1: the future and many other groups basically mobilized hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of organizations and websites to black out their online presences,
Speaker 1: and we drove more than eight million phone calls to
Speaker 1: Congress in a single day to defeat UM copyright legislation
Speaker 1: that could have led to widespread Internet censorship. So I
Speaker 1: kind of came into the organization in the aftermath of that.
Speaker 1: For Evan, it was always music that illustrated the power
Speaker 1: of the Internet and its ability to connect people, and
Speaker 1: that's what drives her fight to protect it. Just quickly started, um,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of seeing the parallels between the work
Speaker 1: that I had done as an artist, where I was
Speaker 1: trying to use a song or um, you know, little
Speaker 1: you know, introduction to a song to connect with people
Speaker 1: and move them on an emotional level, to try to
Speaker 1: move them toward action of some type or another. Maybe
Speaker 1: that was just throwing some money in the hat for
Speaker 1: the benefit, or maybe it was you know, signing a
Speaker 1: petition or writing a letter to a political prisoner or
Speaker 1: whatever it was. But now with quite for the future,
Speaker 1: seeing well, I'm doing kind of the same thing. I'm
Speaker 1: not necessarily throwing out a song, although I still do
Speaker 1: write and record music, and I've got a new album
Speaker 1: coming out. The next single comes out next week. But um,
Speaker 1: you know, we're also sort of painting and coloring with
Speaker 1: with websites and with action tools and with videos and
Speaker 1: with infographics. Um. But instead of reaching you know, dozens
Speaker 1: or hundreds or you know, for me, on a very
Speaker 1: very good night, maybe a couple of thousand people, Um,
Speaker 1: we're able to reach hundreds of thousands, millions, sometimes even
Speaker 1: tens of millions of people and move them to take action.
Speaker 1: And again it's that same feeling that I had at
Speaker 1: that show in Prague of just recognizing the Internet has
Speaker 1: changed the rules for what isn't isn't possible within our
Speaker 1: political system, you know, in some ways that are really terrible,
Speaker 1: and I think we're starting to grapple with the reality
Speaker 1: of that, but also in ways that are really profoundly
Speaker 1: transformative and democratizing. And the way that you know, Fight
Speaker 1: for the Future's goal is to ensure that technology and
Speaker 1: the Internet specifically are largely a force for empowerment and
Speaker 1: liberation rather than a force for exploitation and oppression. Um.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of my roundabout story of like how
Speaker 1: I came to this work and also why it matters
Speaker 1: to me. I have to tell you that feeling that
Speaker 1: you've described of the Internet being the source of uniting
Speaker 1: people and connecting people across continents, across the globe, that
Speaker 1: was exactly the same thing that got me so excited
Speaker 1: about the Internet when I first got my clunky dial
Speaker 1: up computer and was definitely putting hell of viruses on
Speaker 1: it by trying to download the music off of Napster. Uh.
Speaker 1: That was Yeah, that was such a transport. Like you know,
Speaker 1: I grew up in a small town, so that was
Speaker 1: such a transformative thing for me, and is why I'm
Speaker 1: so interested in the Internet now. And I love how
Speaker 1: you've described this overlap. And I noticed in your music
Speaker 1: there is quite an overlap between your stances, but as
Speaker 1: it pertains to tech and big tech and the music
Speaker 1: that you make. I was listening to your song before
Speaker 1: we got on the call, Emma Goldman would have beat
Speaker 1: your ass. And on the on the vand camp site
Speaker 1: you tell you describe the story behind that name. Can
Speaker 1: you tell us a little bit about that? Yeah, so
Speaker 1: it's funny. I um, it's interesting. For this album, I've
Speaker 1: ended up doing a few kind of historical deep Dives.
Speaker 1: The song I have coming out next week is is
Speaker 1: sort of a transliberation anthem, and I made a music
Speaker 1: video for it that features like archival footage of Sylvia
Speaker 1: Rivera and Marcia P. Johnson and the work that they
Speaker 1: did in the aftermath of Stonewall, but also going back
Speaker 1: even further to like the Competence Cafeteria riot, and like,
Speaker 1: I think of myself as someone who like, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of knows my radical history or whatever, and every
Speaker 1: time I like really sink my teeth into this stuff,
Speaker 1: I'm just so struck by, like how much of our
Speaker 1: history is kind of stolen or hidden from us. Um
Speaker 1: and And so this was an example that I wrote
Speaker 1: this whole song based on like an anecdote about Emma
Speaker 1: Goldman that I, you know, I don't know, like had
Speaker 1: heard or maybe read somewhere. And then when I find
Speaker 1: and like I I wrote up the whole song, and I, like,
Speaker 1: you know, it was writing the introduction for it was
Speaker 1: like I gotta go find a source for that, and
Speaker 1: then I found out that it like wasn't entirely true basically,
Speaker 1: but the story that I had heard was that like
Speaker 1: she had like literally bull whipped her like ex boyfriend
Speaker 1: because he was like trash talking um Alexander Berkman after
Speaker 1: he had attempted to assassinate Henry Frick, who was like,
Speaker 1: you know, one of these Robert Baron hyper capitalists, you
Speaker 1: know types, UM, and you know, it was sort of
Speaker 1: this like moment of division within the left in the
Speaker 1: United States during that era. It turns out that it
Speaker 1: was it was and quite her ex boyfriend. It was
Speaker 1: like a mentor type guy. And yeah, he had condemned
Speaker 1: Alexander Frick and she like basically like hit him with
Speaker 1: like a toy whip of some sort, which like to
Speaker 1: which I was like, how is there a toy whip?
Speaker 1: That's just this seems weird. I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: really a toy. This is all very problematic. But yeah,
Speaker 1: and then apparently she like expressed regret about it later
Speaker 1: in her life or whatever. But but I don't know,
Speaker 1: I just felt like there was something powerful for me
Speaker 1: about that kind of like um expression of um, a
Speaker 1: woman's rage um, and and specifically toward kind of a UM,
Speaker 1: you know, someone who was seen as like a mentor,
Speaker 1: like a respected um man in the community and just
Speaker 1: kind of like not taking any bullshit and like literally
Speaker 1: getting up there and like whacking him in front of
Speaker 1: a crowd. UM. And so you know, I just feel
Speaker 1: like I aspire to to be that direct um in
Speaker 1: my uh you know, activism, et cetera. And you know
Speaker 1: Emma Goldman, um, you know, like every figure throughout history, UM,
Speaker 1: you know had had many nuances and and um you know,
Speaker 1: but I she's definitely someone who has been UM an
Speaker 1: inspiration to me and many others. It's pretty punk rock,
Speaker 1: I have to say, right, I mean, come on, it's
Speaker 1: punk punk af the different kinds of campaigns that Fight
Speaker 1: for the Future takes up. One of them really surprised me,
Speaker 1: this campaign to ban facial recognition at festivals like music festivals,
Speaker 1: and I had no idea what was going on. I
Speaker 1: used to work for a music festival called Afropunk, and
Speaker 1: I thought, God, there are spirst of all a. There's
Speaker 1: so much overlap between digital rights and music and arts communities.
Speaker 1: And then also there are so many ways that like
Speaker 1: surveillance is playing out in these ways that we might
Speaker 1: not even know, we might not even be aware that
Speaker 1: we were being surveilled in these ways. Yeah. Absolutely, And
Speaker 1: I mean the good news that I can say is
Speaker 1: that that campaign that you just mentioned, UM, that we
Speaker 1: ran with Tom Morello, the guitar Surrey against the Machine
Speaker 1: and a bunch of other prominent musicians was hugely successful,
Speaker 1: and we actually got more than forty of the world's
Speaker 1: largest music festivals to say that they won't use facial
Speaker 1: recognition surveillance at their events. UM. And you know, for
Speaker 1: folks who maybe you know, I'm sure folks are increasingly
Speaker 1: aware of facial recognition and the problems with it. But
Speaker 1: you know, for me, that's hugely significant because a lot
Speaker 1: of the conversation about facial recognition has centered on government
Speaker 1: and law enforcement use of this technology, which makes a
Speaker 1: lot of sense because it's being used right now by
Speaker 1: police and law enforcement agencies predominantly targeting communities of color,
Speaker 1: predominantly targeting black folks. UM. And the technology itself is racist.
Speaker 1: It has racial bias baked into the current algorithms, and
Speaker 1: it's automating, automating, and exacerbating these existing systems that are
Speaker 1: also already racist. So when you take, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a system of policing that you know, um measurably has
Speaker 1: disproportionately harmed black and brown communities for centuries, and then
Speaker 1: you layer on top of that a technology that essentially
Speaker 1: just speeds up and automates those same discriminatory processes that
Speaker 1: were already happening. You just get supercharged discrimination and supercharge
Speaker 1: state violence toward a community that's already uh, disproportionately affected
Speaker 1: by it. And so it makes again makes perfect sense
Speaker 1: that the conversation has kind of started there with government use,
Speaker 1: but all of those same things are true with corporate
Speaker 1: and private use as well. They're enormously discriminatory things that
Speaker 1: private companies can do with a technology like facial recognition. Um.
Speaker 1: And so music festivals, I think we're a really good
Speaker 1: example because it's so public and visible, um and all
Speaker 1: kinds of people like to go to music festivals, right,
Speaker 1: and so I think it does. It was one really
Speaker 1: good way not just to kind of, um, get these
Speaker 1: policies in place to protect individual music listeners that want
Speaker 1: to go to a festival without having their biometric information
Speaker 1: collected by a private corporation, but it's also sort of
Speaker 1: a way of educating people, right, Like getting prominent musicians
Speaker 1: talking about this helped put facial recognition on the map
Speaker 1: as a dangerous, toxic technology that no one likes, and
Speaker 1: that's building momentum for what we really need in the end,
Speaker 1: which from our perspective at Fight for the Future is
Speaker 1: something closer to abolition than reform. We think that this
Speaker 1: is a technology that um is fundamentally unjust and that
Speaker 1: poses such a profound threat to the future of human
Speaker 1: civilization and liberty um that it can't be effectively regulated.
Speaker 1: It really does need to be banned outright for both
Speaker 1: government and the vast majority of private uses as well.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick break that are back like for
Speaker 1: the Future advocates for big stances like the outright banning
Speaker 1: of facial recognition technology because that's what their members want.
Speaker 1: They don't want incremental, bit by bit changes to harmful
Speaker 1: tech policies. Rather they get behind big swing for the fences,
Speaker 1: bold actions. I'm always struck by that. You know, there's
Speaker 1: that notion in Washington, d C. That like, oh, what
Speaker 1: people really want is like compromise and like, you know,
Speaker 1: watered down things, and that's just so bogus, and like
Speaker 1: we see it again and again in politics that you know,
Speaker 1: know what people want is like real fundamental change UM.
Speaker 1: And you know what we've seen is that you know,
Speaker 1: people are actually much more um resonate, much more with
Speaker 1: the idea of this technology is harmful, let's ban it
Speaker 1: than they do with you know what we what we
Speaker 1: really need as an opt in, consent based regulatory framework
Speaker 1: that like allows corporations to continue selling the stuff and
Speaker 1: profiting UM, but put some rules to the road in place.
Speaker 1: Note like that is not you know, A, that's an
Speaker 1: incorrect UM policy that won't actually protect the most vulnerable
Speaker 1: people from the harms of this technology, but B it's
Speaker 1: just not a good rallying cry either, right, And so
Speaker 1: for us it's always you know, it's both about leading
Speaker 1: with what we think is right and always fighting for
Speaker 1: the biggest possible, you know, are we kind of frame
Speaker 1: it as like just this side have been possible, right,
Speaker 1: Like we always try to aim our sites as high
Speaker 1: as we can go, and we're a very small organization,
Speaker 1: so we have to like ruthlessly prioritize like is this
Speaker 1: really one of the things to go all in on
Speaker 1: and fight for or is this one of the ones
Speaker 1: we have to just let go and hope somebody else,
Speaker 1: you know, picks it up and fights for it. Um.
Speaker 1: But when we decide to go in on something that's
Speaker 1: at the top of our minds is basically a is
Speaker 1: this a huge you know, is this a win that
Speaker 1: if we win, will fundamentally change things and and concretely
Speaker 1: benefit large numbers of people. I first met Evan when
Speaker 1: she was leading a coalition call of of dozens of
Speaker 1: progressive activists and digital rights groups about Section to thirty
Speaker 1: in response to the Safe Tech Act, legislation sponsored by
Speaker 1: Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Herrono, and Amy kolbachar to make
Speaker 1: changes to Section to thirty. The last time Section to
Speaker 1: thirty was changed was back in to Stop Enabling Sex
Speaker 1: Traffickers Act or SESTA, got bipartisan support in the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate, and was signed by Trump. SESTA becoming
Speaker 1: law meant that platforms would be held responsible for knowingly
Speaker 1: facilitating or supporting sex trafficking. Now this might sound like
Speaker 1: a good thing, but it actually ended up causing a
Speaker 1: lot of harm to people involved in sex work consensually
Speaker 1: who were not being trafficked well. Meeting celebrities endorsed the
Speaker 1: legislation in a p s A, call your congress person
Speaker 1: or senator and say what the asked them to amend
Speaker 1: Section to thirty and then call them again until they
Speaker 1: do something. Please call yours? Will you call yours? But
Speaker 1: this is why people like Evans say it's so important
Speaker 1: to have a thoughtful debate and conversation about Internet regulation.
Speaker 1: Most people agree that something needs to be done, but
Speaker 1: if you do something just to say you're taking action,
Speaker 1: you could end up inadvertently causing more harm. And we
Speaker 1: know the people most likely to be harmed are those
Speaker 1: who are already marginalized. Full disclosure. As someone who makes
Speaker 1: a podcast about the Internet, people often ask me about
Speaker 1: my position on Section to thirty, and I am kind
Speaker 1: of ashamed to admit that. I said, like, oh, I
Speaker 1: don't really know. You know, I'm glad, I'm glad that
Speaker 1: smart people are having the conversation. You know, we last
Speaker 1: season we spoke to Attorney Carried Goldberg, who was very
Speaker 1: much in favor of changing Section to thirty. And you
Speaker 1: and I were on a call, the coalition call about
Speaker 1: Section thirty, which was fascinating and I feel like I
Speaker 1: learned so much. But the thing that really struck me
Speaker 1: was even though we were on this coalition call with
Speaker 1: like um civil rights groups and justice groups and social
Speaker 1: change groups, it was clear to me that there was
Speaker 1: not consensus on the call of where folks stand. So
Speaker 1: I guess I want, I wanna, I wanna ground our
Speaker 1: converse station in that um. But then my question is
Speaker 1: sort of where do you and fight for the Future
Speaker 1: stand on Section to thirty? And you know what, like
Speaker 1: what is your position on this legislation? I think the
Speaker 1: way that you framed it there is really important because
Speaker 1: I think one thing that's happened is Trump just to
Speaker 1: put it bluntly, right, like Trump started tweeting things like
Speaker 1: repeal Section to thirty and and then you know, and frankly,
Speaker 1: you know, Joe Biden has also called to revoke section too,
Speaker 1: and so part of what has happened is something that's
Speaker 1: actually a very complex um policy debate and conversation has
Speaker 1: now been sort of thrust into the like CNN, MSNBC,
Speaker 1: Fox News like level of debate. It is a tiny
Speaker 1: law that's had a huge impact on the internet, as
Speaker 1: we know, it's section and anytime that happens, just like
Speaker 1: the the thoughtfulness of the conversation, you know, there's like
Speaker 1: a you could draw a graph right of like how
Speaker 1: much how much attention is this getting on cabled TV
Speaker 1: to like how intelligent of a conversation are we having
Speaker 1: about it? And it's like a you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: good at math, but they're like no, right, UM. And
Speaker 1: so I think but that said, you know, I think
Speaker 1: within UM social justice and civil rights and human rights
Speaker 1: spaces UM, there is a more thoughtful conversation happening in
Speaker 1: the sense that I think there is. You know, there's
Speaker 1: maybe broad disagreement around exactly what should be done, but
Speaker 1: there's increasing agreement about the harms. Right, Like all of
Speaker 1: us on you know, the call that you reference agree
Speaker 1: like big tech is a problem. Their business model is
Speaker 1: fundamentally incompatible with basic human rights and democracy. They're exacerbating
Speaker 1: existing disparities in our society. They are amplifying harmful ideologies
Speaker 1: like white supremacy UM that have long to stronghold UM
Speaker 1: in the United States and around the world UM, and
Speaker 1: within our political institutions and economic institutions. UM. You know.
Speaker 1: So like everyone sort of agrees on the problems, and
Speaker 1: and I think we're now trying to figure out, well,
Speaker 1: what are the solutions. And I think it's healthy that
Speaker 1: there's disagreement or ongoing discussion about trying to figure out
Speaker 1: what the solutions are. Right. And so like, there's tons
Speaker 1: of groups that I work with every day on issues
Speaker 1: like surveillance or issues like privacy. And maybe we don't
Speaker 1: totally agree on Section two thirty, UM, but like we
Speaker 1: all know, we're like trying to get to the same place, right,
Speaker 1: And like, I think it's healthy that we can have
Speaker 1: these these conversations. And UM. That said, I think it's
Speaker 1: also really important that, UM we push for a more
Speaker 1: thoughtful conversation. UM. And for myself, UM, you know, one
Speaker 1: of the things I've been really specifically trying to do
Speaker 1: is er nonprofits and progressive groups to listen to sex workers. UM.
Speaker 1: This has been kind of my mantra UM in this
Speaker 1: section to thirty conversation because really, when we talk about
Speaker 1: what would it look like to change Section to thirty,
Speaker 1: we only have one concrete example, which is Sesta Fosta,
Speaker 1: the last major piece of legislation that created a carve
Speaker 1: out in section to thirty that lawmakers claimed was intended
Speaker 1: to address sex trafficking. UM. And what we know is
Speaker 1: that in fact it didn't actually do anything to address
Speaker 1: actual sex trafficking. But it was devastating for UM sex workers,
Speaker 1: UM and for their safety. UM. And it ended up
Speaker 1: leading Internet platforms to shut down entire subsections of websites,
Speaker 1: shut down places where, um, sex workers were able to
Speaker 1: kind of set their own rules, set their own terms,
Speaker 1: and have more autonomy. Um. And that there's actual studies
Speaker 1: that show that that led to actual loss of life. Right.
Speaker 1: And so sex workers safety and advocacy organizations have been
Speaker 1: sounding the alarm about this since before Sesta Fasta, and
Speaker 1: for where I'm sitting, it does frustrate me, um that
Speaker 1: I feel like, Um, you know, there are progressive groups
Speaker 1: who are just kind of you know, looking to beat
Speaker 1: up on the tech companies, which I'm all for, Like,
Speaker 1: let's beat up with the tech companies. I am with you.
Speaker 1: I am in the front row with a pitchfork. Um.
Speaker 1: But um, in doing so trampling or ignoring the voices of,
Speaker 1: you know, a community that has already been disproportionately harmed
Speaker 1: by uncareful UM policy change. Right. Um, So that's kind
Speaker 1: of a broader framing. But I didn't actually answer your question,
Speaker 1: which is what is our position? So, you know, Fight
Speaker 1: for the Future sees Section to thirty not primarily as
Speaker 1: a protection for companies, but actually as an essential law
Speaker 1: that is sent really enables all user generated content on
Speaker 1: the Internet. So the speech of ordinary people, right, UM,
Speaker 1: the people who wouldn't be on cable TV or the radio,
Speaker 1: but who are now able to create memes and jokes
Speaker 1: and write blog posts and UM share videos on TikTok
Speaker 1: or wherever um or um you know share photos or
Speaker 1: um be an adult creator or be uh you know,
Speaker 1: storybook creator or whatever it is. Section two thirties the
Speaker 1: law that essentially allows for all of that to take place,
Speaker 1: UM by making it so that corporations who care only
Speaker 1: about making money, right, and we should always remember that
Speaker 1: are not disincentivized from UM hosting our speech and our
Speaker 1: creativity and our ideas and our opinions. UM. And I
Speaker 1: think it's particularly important for myself as a transperson, and
Speaker 1: I think for anyone who's a creator of a marginalized
Speaker 1: identity of any kind to recognize that our creations are thoughts,
Speaker 1: are ideas are often unpopular among the general public. Right.
Speaker 1: And so what Section to thirty does is it basically
Speaker 1: allows platforms to host things that might be unpopular and
Speaker 1: thus might get them sued. UM. And what happens if
Speaker 1: you radically change or remove or gut section to thirty
Speaker 1: is you put these content moderation decisions, which we know
Speaker 1: the platforms are already doing a terrible job at and
Speaker 1: it hands them to not away from the trust and
Speaker 1: safety team or whoever is already doing kind of a
Speaker 1: bad job at it, and gives it to the most
Speaker 1: risk averse corporate lawyers in the world who are going
Speaker 1: to do an even worse job at it. These are
Speaker 1: lawyers that do not have a power analysis. They do
Speaker 1: not care about the speech of marginalized people. They just
Speaker 1: care about protecting their platform from getting sued. And so
Speaker 1: if that means that they remove wholesale entire categories of
Speaker 1: speech or engage in widespread censorship of marginalized people's viewpoints
Speaker 1: and posts and opinions, they will happily do that in
Speaker 1: order to protect themselves from lawsuits. And that's what we
Speaker 1: saw with Sesta Fausta. It didn't actually end up coming
Speaker 1: down on the companies. They just kind of figured out,
Speaker 1: all right, fine, we'll just shut down. This is not
Speaker 1: about defending the companies. I don't particularly care very much about, um,
Speaker 1: you know, the company's profits or uh, you know how
Speaker 1: much money they have to spend on lawsuits. What I
Speaker 1: care about is the impact that that then has on
Speaker 1: marginalized people's speech in particularly social movement and for me,
Speaker 1: Section two thirty is such a crucial law for protecting
Speaker 1: speech like, for example, a video of police violence, which
Speaker 1: in a world without sex and to thirty would almost
Speaker 1: certainly invite lawsuits from law enforcement who would claim that
Speaker 1: it's defamatory or that its incitement right um, like the
Speaker 1: me too movement UM, where you know, people are able
Speaker 1: to speak out about abusive behavior UM, and platforms are
Speaker 1: willing to host that speech because they know UM that
Speaker 1: they're not going to get sued for giving people a
Speaker 1: platform to speak um and speak their truth UM. And
Speaker 1: so I always think about the impact on those movements.
Speaker 1: Fight for the Future sees Section to thirty as one
Speaker 1: of the most important laws protecting free speech and human
Speaker 1: rights in the digital age. And that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: we don't think it can ever be changed. Right, No
Speaker 1: law is sacrosanct. Laws are just laws, UM. But we
Speaker 1: are very concerned that um, you know, rushed or uncareful
Speaker 1: changes to Section two thirty will do far more harm
Speaker 1: than good. And we also think it's largely a distraction
Speaker 1: from the policies that we really need to be fighting for,
Speaker 1: like strong federal data privacy legislation that cuts off the
Speaker 1: huge stream of data that these companies are collecting and
Speaker 1: using to manipulate people, like practices like a like banning
Speaker 1: practices like non transparent algorithmic amplification, where Facebook isn't just
Speaker 1: letting white supremacists spout off, they are actively saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: you seem like you might be a white supremacist. Do
Speaker 1: you want to meet these other white supremacists in this
Speaker 1: white supremacy group, um, for the purpose of gaining more
Speaker 1: money through advertising, right, um. And so our feeling is
Speaker 1: that there are real policies that are sitting right there
Speaker 1: in front of us, like passing strong federal data privacy legislation,
Speaker 1: like enforcing existing antitrust and civil rights laws, like pushing
Speaker 1: for FTC investigations into specifically harmful business practices again like
Speaker 1: algorithmic manipulation like micro targeting, um, etcetera. UM. And we
Speaker 1: could be getting to work getting those done if we
Speaker 1: weren't constantly going around in circles in this kind of
Speaker 1: partisan gridlock debate around Section two thirty and UM, we
Speaker 1: could do it in a way that would actually address
Speaker 1: the problem at its root. Um. And then finally I'll
Speaker 1: just say, you know, I think one thing that people
Speaker 1: often miss when thinking about Section two thirty, or one
Speaker 1: thing that's happening a lot is I think lawmakers have
Speaker 1: almost got it into their minds that Section two thirty
Speaker 1: are taking away. Section two thirty is like the only
Speaker 1: lever that they have to hold big tech companies accountable.
Speaker 1: And I hear this a lot um from lawmakers from
Speaker 1: groups that I work with, where they're like, yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't think this is really a good solution, but I
Speaker 1: just don't know what else to do, Like someone has
Speaker 1: to do something about these companies, right, And I resonate
Speaker 1: with that, like these harms are real and they're happening
Speaker 1: right now, and they're traumatic, and we do have that
Speaker 1: sense of like we have to do something. Um. But again,
Speaker 1: I think if there's one thing that we've learned over
Speaker 1: the last number of years around Internet policy, and if
Speaker 1: there's one thing that we should take away from Sesta Fausta,
Speaker 1: it's that we have to do the right thing, not
Speaker 1: just something, because if we just do something, it will
Speaker 1: almost always end up coming back to hurt the people
Speaker 1: who are already being hurt. Um. And it won't actually
Speaker 1: hold the companies that we want to hold accountable accountable
Speaker 1: because they have exponentially more resources, they have deep pockets,
Speaker 1: they can afford the lawyers, right, And so what we
Speaker 1: end up with if we make changes to Section to
Speaker 1: thirty that are not thoughtful, is we could actually end
Speaker 1: up solidifying the monopoly power of the largest, most abusive
Speaker 1: players like Facebook and Google. They're the ones that can
Speaker 1: afford the armies of lawyers to deal with lawsuits. And
Speaker 1: we might end up inadvertently crushing any alternative that could
Speaker 1: come along and provide a better service or a better
Speaker 1: model or a better community online, and leave the big
Speaker 1: tech companies as the only ones left standing because they're
Speaker 1: the only ones that can afford to survive in a
Speaker 1: world without Section to thirty. And so for me, you know,
Speaker 1: this isn't sort of like, well, are you for the
Speaker 1: companies or you for uh, you know, holding them accountable?
Speaker 1: For me, this is I'm for the people. I'm for
Speaker 1: human rights, and I believe that defending Section two thirty
Speaker 1: and fighting instead for real, meaningful policy changes that will
Speaker 1: actually address the root causes of the harms that we
Speaker 1: see from these surveillance capitalist monopolies. Um, that's what I'm
Speaker 1: fighting for, and that's what Fight for the Future wants
Speaker 1: to see. More. After a quick break, let's get right
Speaker 1: back into it. I'm so happy that you started this
Speaker 1: conversation being grounded in talk about sex work. It's kind
Speaker 1: of well to me how often people who are involved
Speaker 1: in sex work are the ones who are really innovating
Speaker 1: online because they have to. Yet they're so marginalized in
Speaker 1: sideline in those same conversations about online policy. They're just
Speaker 1: not really given a voice on conversations that impact them
Speaker 1: so directly. Your average sex worker is more of an
Speaker 1: expert on section to thirty than like anyone any pH
Speaker 1: d or or academic who like studies this you know,
Speaker 1: content moderation or thinks that they do because they have
Speaker 1: to be right and like people's I think this is
Speaker 1: also about reframing how we think about expertise, right I
Speaker 1: you know, I've just been banging my head against the
Speaker 1: wall over the last few months because I just constantly here,
Speaker 1: you know, a panel and NPR and they have like
Speaker 1: you know, random law professor, a random law professor B
Speaker 1: and like a representative from YouTube or whatever, or like
Speaker 1: you know, some former c. I a guy who like
Speaker 1: studies disinformation when they're not busy spreading it about Latin
Speaker 1: American governments or whatever, and like that's the panel, and
Speaker 1: you know, and they're framed as experts and the reality is,
Speaker 1: you know, they're the people who are experts in online
Speaker 1: harms and and online and tech policy. Are people who
Speaker 1: have lived experience with what these policies actually do when
Speaker 1: they go into effect. And I think, you know, if
Speaker 1: there is one thing, you know, like if I could
Speaker 1: just snap my fingers and make anything happen, it would
Speaker 1: be to force like every progressive nonprofit based in d
Speaker 1: C and every lawmaker to like sit in a captive
Speaker 1: audience and just listen UM for a couple of hours.
Speaker 1: Two groups like the Sex Workers Outreach Project UM or
Speaker 1: Swap behind Bars or Reframe Health and Justice UM or
Speaker 1: the wood Whole Freedom Foundation who are UM leading the
Speaker 1: lawsuit against SESTA fasta UM and actually listen and listen
Speaker 1: to UM how these policies play out. Because it feels like,
Speaker 1: you know, often a lot of the conversations around Section
Speaker 1: two thirty are sort of framed as like, here's a
Speaker 1: bunch of terrible things that have happened and and and
Speaker 1: everyone's like, yeah, those things are all terrible. And then
Speaker 1: it's like and that's why we need to change section
Speaker 1: to thirty. And that's where the disconnect is, because again,
Speaker 1: no one disagrees that there are real harms that are
Speaker 1: springing from these platforms behavior, from their business models, UM,
Speaker 1: from the status quot um. You know, I am so
Speaker 1: far from someone who thinks the Internet is fine, just
Speaker 1: leave it alone. UM. You know, we need real policy,
Speaker 1: and we need to act quickly, and we need um
Speaker 1: to fight for meaningful change. UM. But again, I think
Speaker 1: that that mentality of like, UM, well let's just do
Speaker 1: something so we can say we did, I think it
Speaker 1: is actually profoundly immoral because UM, at that point, again,
Speaker 1: you're not recognizing that just doing something quote unquote can
Speaker 1: actually end up doing really profound harm. And if you're
Speaker 1: not listening to folks who are truly marginalized, who are
Speaker 1: actually have lived experience with being on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of content moderation, with being on the wrong side of
Speaker 1: platform power, UM, then you're you're not actually fighting for
Speaker 1: UM policies that protect the most vulnerable, and we're kind
Speaker 1: of just recreating a lot of the same mistakes that
Speaker 1: we've made in the past. Again, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: for myself, I think often about the mainstream gay rights
Speaker 1: movement UM that you know, systematically for decades de prioritized
Speaker 1: its most vulnerable members UM, including sex workers and transfolks
Speaker 1: UM and basically anyone who was not assists, white man
Speaker 1: looking to get married or joined the military. UM. And
Speaker 1: I think now our mainstream organizations are recognizing those mistakes
Speaker 1: and starting to reckon with them and really genuinely are,
Speaker 1: at least on a policy level, starting to fight more
Speaker 1: for policies that benefit UM, you know, trans folks, or
Speaker 1: at least fight against UM this surge in discriminatory legislation, etcetera. UM.
Speaker 1: But then I see other movements where we're making same
Speaker 1: mistake UM. And so for me, I always try to
Speaker 1: base my activism not in what some academics says, not
Speaker 1: in what's popular in Washington, d C. Or what's hot
Speaker 1: button on TV, but in the lived experience of people
Speaker 1: who have UM real experience with with how these policies
Speaker 1: actually play out on the ground. As someone who lives
Speaker 1: in d C and has worked for many an organization
Speaker 1: where I wonder, you know, who are we actually centering here,
Speaker 1: I think in my personal activism, I always try to
Speaker 1: think about the folks who are actually the most marginalized
Speaker 1: or the most oppressed, because if we're able to center
Speaker 1: them and lift them up, we will all benefit. We
Speaker 1: will all benefit. When the people who are directly impacted
Speaker 1: and most marginalized are amplified, supported and lifted up, we
Speaker 1: will all impact. It fundamentally changes how you think about
Speaker 1: these things. And I guess for me again, I just
Speaker 1: wish that more folks were thinking about this through the
Speaker 1: lens of like what actually fixes this problem versus like,
Speaker 1: you know, how can we score some points against the companies? Right?
Speaker 1: Like I want to score points against the companies as
Speaker 1: much as anybody else. These companies are UM doing harm.
Speaker 1: They're evil, they are um, you know, profiting off of
Speaker 1: a business model that again is really incompatible with UM
Speaker 1: so many of the things that we hold dear um.
Speaker 1: But like, I don't want to just dunk on them.
Speaker 1: I want to like actually do something about their power
Speaker 1: and take it away from them and put it back
Speaker 1: in the hands of of everyone, right and and reclaim
Speaker 1: the internet as the technology that we talked about at
Speaker 1: the beginning that like you and I both have felt
Speaker 1: the power of and that is giving us this opportunity
Speaker 1: to have this conversation right now and to let people
Speaker 1: listen to it UM. And I just want to make
Speaker 1: sure that we um, you know, as we're looking to
Speaker 1: address harms, we also recognize UM the ways in which
Speaker 1: this technology has profoundly liberatory potential. And I think it's
Speaker 1: also part of that is also about looking at the
Speaker 1: status quo. Right. If we think about the world before
Speaker 1: the Internet, right, there was still disinformation. It was just
Speaker 1: on cable TV. Look at crime reporting in the nineties, right,
Speaker 1: which was so blatantly overtly anti black and racist. Right,
Speaker 1: it was all about constantly hyping up crime in cities
Speaker 1: to play on people's fears, specifically white people's fears, to
Speaker 1: push racist policies. Right now we see that democratized in
Speaker 1: a way on with kind of you know, things like
Speaker 1: next door and Facebook, etcetera. And it's still a problem,
Speaker 1: but it's not a new problem, right, It's a problem
Speaker 1: that has shifted mediums and UM shifted forms. But I
Speaker 1: think there's something about the the the instinct to blame
Speaker 1: technology that has rooted in a collective unwillingness to acknowledge
Speaker 1: that these hateful, harmful, bigoted ideologies and movements have been
Speaker 1: part of this country since its inception, and I think
Speaker 1: there is sort of a you know, it's almost like
Speaker 1: a collective amnesia around that that kind of pushes us
Speaker 1: to be like, oh, this is a new problem created
Speaker 1: by the Internet, and it's like, no, this is an
Speaker 1: old problem that's being reflected back to us by the internet. UM.
Speaker 1: And instead of blaming the Internet, we need to actually
Speaker 1: hold ourselves accountable UM and work for the structural change
Speaker 1: that we need. Structural change to our social safety net
Speaker 1: could actually be one potential solution to the spread of disinformation.
Speaker 1: We already know that people turn to lies and conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories and distortions when they're scared or anxious. If more
Speaker 1: people's basic human needs were taken care of, fear could
Speaker 1: drive less of our discourse and policy. I would argue that, like,
Speaker 1: you know, policies like universal health care UM and UM,
Speaker 1: you know, ensuring that everyone has adequate housing and food
Speaker 1: and access to education and basic survival would do a
Speaker 1: lot more to address things like viral disinformation than anything
Speaker 1: you do you could do to Section to thirty or
Speaker 1: even anything else with tech policy. Because these are problems
Speaker 1: that are UM springing out of broad structural issues and
Speaker 1: then kind of being exacerbated or amplified by technology. They're
Speaker 1: not being created by it. And I think that's actually
Speaker 1: really important and something that UM is uncomfortable to grapple
Speaker 1: with because it also sort of means like there isn't
Speaker 1: some quick fixed silver bullet. It kind of just means
Speaker 1: we've got to keep doing the work UM and recognize
Speaker 1: that change takes time. And you know, I'm so inspired
Speaker 1: by those who come before us, who were you know,
Speaker 1: many of whom died before they actually saw the the
Speaker 1: results of their organizing UM and UM. You know, for me,
Speaker 1: it's it's about recognizing that every day that something there's
Speaker 1: something integral about protecting the transformative power of this technology
Speaker 1: in the hopes that UM in future generations we will
Speaker 1: look back and say, I'm glad that FOAK spot to
Speaker 1: make sure that we have this tool and that it's
Speaker 1: and that it's available to UM marginalized communities to organize
Speaker 1: and fight for our liberation UM, and that we fought
Speaker 1: back against the worst uses of technology like facial recognition
Speaker 1: or like automated license plate readers or other forms of
Speaker 1: harmful surveillance, because I do think this debate, or this
Speaker 1: fight over whether technology will largely be a force for
Speaker 1: good or continue down this path of being a force
Speaker 1: for exploitation and greed and corruption UM, is going to
Speaker 1: determine not just the future of technology, but the future
Speaker 1: of humanity. UM. And so for me, that kind of
Speaker 1: gets me out of bed every day and keeps me
Speaker 1: up every night. UM. But that's why I think it's
Speaker 1: worth fighting for. Today's episode featured music from Evan Greer's
Speaker 1: new album, Spotify a Surveillance. Check it out at the
Speaker 1: band camp link in the show description. If you've enjoyed
Speaker 1: this podcast, please help us grow by subscribing. Got a
Speaker 1: story about an interesting thing in tech, or just want
Speaker 1: to say hi. We'd love to hear from you at
Speaker 1: Hello at tango dot com. Disinformed is brought to you
Speaker 1: by There Are No Girls on the Internet. It's a
Speaker 1: production of iHeart Radio and Unbossed. Creative Jonathan Strickland is
Speaker 1: our executive producer. Tory Harrison is our supervising producer, and engineer.
Speaker 1: Michael Lamato is our contributing producer. I'm your host Bridget Tod.
Speaker 1: For more great podcasts, check out the iHeart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts.