Long thread/48
People sell their privacy willingly, and it would be "undue interference in the market" if we took away your "freedom to contract" by barring companies from spying on you after you clicked the "I agree" button.
These people have been repeatedly warned about the severe dangers to the American public - as workers, as citizens, as community members, and as consumers - from the national privacy free-for-all, and have done nothing. Fuck them, every one:
https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy
48/
Comments
Displaying 0 of 1 comments
Cory Doctorow
In response to this postLong thread/49
Now, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and not every one of Bill Clinton's internet policies was terrible. He had exactly *one* great policy, and, ironically, that's the one there's the most energy for dismantling. That policy is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (a law that was otherwise such a dumpster fire that the courts struck it down). Chances are, you have been systematically misled about the history, use, and language of Section 230.
49/
Long thread/50
Which is wild, because it's 26 words long and fits in a tweet:
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Section 230 was passed because when companies were held liable for their users' speech, they "solved" this problem by just blocking every controversial thing a user said. Without Section 230, there would be no Black Lives Matter, no #metoo
50/
by Cory Doctorow ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 1