With his mafioso threats, Brendan Carr is doing what Reagan's FCC warned against: using vague notions of the "public interest" and "fairness" to force broadcasters to "kowtow to the wishes of an incumbent politician.” I explain why Reagan opposed such meddling: thedispatch.com/article/fcc-...

The new social media ban in Massachusetts is so sweeping in its definition of "social media" that it would require age-verification for Wikipedia. You don't protect kids by cutting off resources. acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:...

Logging on

As #spam continues to be a problem on #AO3, here's an update on the types of spambot comments you may see, what we're doing to combat them, and how you can help! Read more at otw-news.org/mr42w8j9

www.404media.co/wisconsin-ag... Wisconsin’s AV Bill got vetoed!

easter weekend (Passover days 3-5)

As someone who does vax outreach, this shows why govt vax messaging has been such a failure. Ppl were given this freedom framing & told that health is a personal choice. In reality we don't have sterilizing vax for Covid & and so the idea that getting vaxed means total personal freedom is harmful

BYE BYE BONDI 🥳🥳🥳🥳

I'm featured in WIRED again this week, (this time in their print issue!!) Had such a great time chatting with them about AI agents, inbox infinity, how I use my phone

Ohio's proposed drag ban would also ... ban sports bras. "Specifically, the bill changes Ohio’s pre-existing indecency statute to criminalize public exposure of a 'private area' − which includes a 'female breast below the top of the areola, whether nude or *covered by an undergarment*'"

These events have been held in Russia, China, and Qatar not really sure what point you're making here. The IOC and FIFA are notoriously corrupt. (also a bit hyperbolic to say the US is not safe enough to host such events if you ask me, especially considering the other places)

if john sauer can pass the bar and make it this far, so can I

Because when has a government obtaining lists of Jews ever gone wrong 🙄

"Technology, such as video games or social media, simply doesn’t influence dopamine receptors the way illicit substances do."

youtu.be/RvFKuEMb9Lc?... if you’ve ever seen southland tales (or never watched it and want a political satire for RIGHT NOW) check me out on the good, the bad, and the bruv with two of my best friends talking about how much we love this movie and how disturbingly relevant it is

FUCK NO

www.instagram.com/reel/DWPGPRg... I saw this reel and despite some of the political points being agreeable it made me never want to shop at lush again.

he's ignorant enough to actually believe he's building something useful and lasting

I was already pretty much all the way radicalized to this position, but hearing someone else say it pushed me over the edge

“Democratic lawmakers are pressing the nation's top intelligence official to publicly disclose whether Americans who use VPN services risk being treated as foreigners under US surveillance law—a classification that would strip them of constitutional protections against warrantless government spying”

"The only harm X has asserted is that its customers collectively chose X’s competitors over X" but "illegal group boycotts must involve a competitor at some level who seeks to restrain competition against an outsider to the agreement." X failed to allege that advertisers were restraining competition

Neither does Meta. Honestly this is the most pernicious lie that people spread about 230. It LETS PLATFORMS BE PUBLISHERS. They are publishers. They're just not liable for third party content. The whole POINT of 230 was "you are a publisher."

It's okay to hate Meta and wish for its collapse and failure. But the two jury verdicts this week are not the vehicle for that. They're going to have widespread impact across the internet, and will do real damage to every other internet service.

I listen closely whenever @rahaeli.bsky.social speaks about content moderation. Everyone should read this. Removing disordered eating content / communities could cause more harm to users than leaving it up. What does this mean then against the backdrop of the social media verdicts?

People always assume content moderation is easy. Remove the bad stuff. Keep the good stuff. The reality is that it's all a series of tradeoffs where every decision has problems, and the decisions *you* think are obvious, often turn out to have really negative consequences.

Some folks think I'm overreacting. Do the math. The wrong user encountering the wrong kind of content at the wrong time can now result in million dollar verdicts and settlements. Hosting user generated content in any form, algorithmically or otherwise, is not legally tenable. Hope they appeal!

currently watching the house hearing on the telecom act I have thoughts - more positive than I anticipated

Eighteen months ago, this would have sounded a little hyperbolic. Today, it's very hard to argue with any of it.

as much as I hate partisan debate, is being anti-internet and anti-230 kind of a right wing thing now? We call Gavin newsom leaving the left for his takes on Israel and such and he believes social media should be 16+ now. Also not to mention how much anti-internet sentiment exists in project 2025.

Also disappointed but not surprised at the coverage of mainstream media on the California case. Every expert CNN had on today (which I only heard because my mom insists on keeping it on XM in her car) was in favor of the verdict. They did not bring a single person to discuss the speech (1/?)

🧡

Cox v. Sony summary: The Thomas decision basically says there are two ways for there to be secondary liability in copyright and neither apply. Sotomayor concurrence disagrees, says there's more ways, like aiding/abetting liability. BUT she says that requires intent, which was absent here. Cox wins.

This doesn't "destroy" these corporate billionaires. It's a line item for them. They'll be fine. They'll iterate, at our expense, and survive. The "information" we'll have access to will be slop. And we won't be able to express ourselves anymore. But fuck us we'll stay. They know that.

This.

"Those other communities didn’t have any voice in the trial; and their voices are at risk of being silenced on social media as well."

"While any reconfiguration of social media offerings may help some victims, the changes will almost certainly harm many other communities that rely upon and derive important benefits from social media today." @ericgoldman.bsky.social blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/202...

News --> More than 100 Jewish faculty and staff members at Harvard write an open letter saying Trump's attacks on the university, done in the name of fighting "antisemitism," are actually contrary to the interests of Jewish people:

Plus you better not be queer... or neurodivergent I guess. That probably makes you a "vulnerable" user too.

With Section 230 effectively dead in spirit, any kind of content (or moderation decision) that could remotely trigger adverse mental responses in users is a massive risk. I think we're about to see content loss the 5x the scale of what we saw with FOSTA.

The social media cases are going south. @elizabethsipod.bsky.social pointed out that this is going to hit mental health and fitness content the hardest. I think that's right. I don't know how you operate a social media service these days. But I do know content on the fringes can't survive.

Cox v. Sony is out! An ISP is not liable for copyright claims if it “merely provid[es] a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.” For expert analysis, check out our episode on the oral argument with @pamelasamuelson.bsky.social.

it gets to a point

I know a lot of people are cheering this on because Meta sucks, but it's a really problematic result and if it holds will be terrible for the open internet. This case easily should have been tossed on 230 grounds. That it wasn't means Section 230 is that much weaker today.

The number of replies excusing this are absolutely fucking despicable.

spring 🌼🌼🌼🌼🌼

I've fought this fight for over two decades, and I can not stress how much personal shame around masturbation drives censorship politics. People are upset that they can't repress their own desire and they desperately want someone else to blame.

We are straight up in state controlled media now. It's wild how Trump is using FCC broadcast threats to literally control the networks. We really are living in fascism. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...

What’s at stake in the fight against age verification is not just a single bill in a single state. It’s about whether “protecting children” becomes a legal pretext for embedding government control online that reinforces specific moral and religious worldviews. www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...

Someone spotted these at a gas station. 👇

I OFFICIALLY HAVE TWO SCHOOLS GOING TO THE BIG DANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER #MARCHMADNESS #MACTION