Techdirt

It goes without saying that the current pandemic has altered our national broadband conversation. What it has not changed, as those of us who have been working in this space are painfully aware, is the reality which existed long before COVID-19. Nor has the virus undone any of the decisions made over the last few decades which have lead us here — a moment epitomized by a viral image of two girls attending classes from a Taco Bell parking lot.What is particularly difficult to accept are the limited options which can provide immediate relief. There are some quick fixes, like the hotspot the school district provided for those two girls, but these stopgap measures are imperfect and, often, ineffective. Mobile hotspots have limited coverage areas, often come with data caps, can be unsustainably expensive and provide access at sub-broadband speeds. Rather than closing a divide, they shift and mask it while creating two different classes of internet user — yet hundreds of millions of dollars are being expended on them. In a moment like this, we must employ every tool we have; we must also not lose sight of what else is possible.In Chattanooga, The Enterprise Center has been working to close this divide for some time. We have a program, Tech Goes Home, that provides devices, help in finding low-cost home access and digital skills training to those who need the assistance. We have supported more than 4,900 individuals and worked with over 100 partner organizations through the program, but we still have a lot of work to do. After years of research and hard work by local governments, anchor institutions, and nonprofits across the country, we have made progress, yet the digital divide persists.It feels callous to point out the opportunity we have, with more than 216,000 Americans now dead of this disease — but the pandemic has shone a light on systemic inequities, and we cannot look away. For particularly those of us who have worked around digital access and inclusion, there is a (perverse) sense of hope that our neighbors may be able to face whatever comes next on more equal footing.So what else can we do about it? Partners in Chattanooga and Hamilton County recently launched HCS EdConnect, an initiative to ensure every student will have the home access they need to succeed during the pandemic, and beyond; in addition, we’ve worked to expand access to public WiFi across the county. Below, we will tell you how this response became possible while offering both some local best-practices and policy recommendations which can have an impact on other such initiatives.A New Chattanooga StoryHCS EdConnect, powered by EPB will provide home broadband access to every economically disadvantaged family in our school district — roughly 17,700 families or 28,500 students — for at least the next decade and at no cost to them. This access is fiber-backed, offering a minimum 100Mbps symmetrical connection; any family receiving financial assistance through programs like SNAP or the Federal School Lunch Program are eligible, as is any family with a child attending a CEP (Community Eligibility Provision) school.HCS EdConnect represents a $15.3M commitment to the fundamental reality that the Internet is integral to a 21st century education, and that any equitable public education requires equitable access to the Internet. In utilizing municipal broadband to ensure not just access, but high-speed connectivity sufficient for students and their entire families, EdConnect is truly a first-of-its kind initiative — and our future depends on it being the first of many.It has been a true community effort. Funding partners for HCS EdConnect include Hamilton County; the City of Chattanooga; BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee Foundation, private donors, the Smart City Venture Fund, representing numerous local philanthropies, and CARES, funded under a grant project with the State of Tennessee. Numerous community organizations, public and private, have played vital roles in implementation.Chattanooga has an advantage stemming from EPB’s investment in municipal fiber more than a decade ago, and it is worth noting that timeline because we want to be clear in saying that this project could not have taken place overnight. Getting started, however, happened almost that quickly. From our perspective, municipal fiber isn’t the only reason we were able to make this commitment, but investment in infrastructure, public, private or some partnership thereof must be part of any long-term solution.What Made Our Response Possible?Community Leadership: EdConnect could not have happened without the leadership of the partners at the core of this work: Hamilton County Schools Superintendent Bryan Johnson, EPB CEO David Wade, Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke and Hamilton County Mayor Jim Coppinger. From rapid deployment of public WiFi to this decade-long commitment to home access, our community leaders banded together to see this project through; this has not been the work of one organization, buoyed by others, but an all-in approach. Our community, cemented by a mid-size city, often tells the story of “working together works” — this is an instance of living that story.Multi-stakeholder Partnership: Our multi-stakeholder collaborative has numerous advantages: There has been, from a high level, a commitment to not stopping when confronted by barriers, but going over, around or through them. Because each partner brings differing resources and capacities to the table, navigating challenges (and developing creative solutions) is that much easier. Trust in the community, we have learned again and again, is essential. For families who feel they have been let down by program after program, promise after promise, a relationship, like that with the teacher their child sees every day or a pastor from their church, offers an opportunity to build trust in something new.Creativity in Funding: This multistakeholder approach extends to funding, as well: Funds for EdConnect and our expansion of public WiFi have come from the public sector (The City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Hamilton County Schools and EPB), the private sector (BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee), philanthropy (The Benwood Foundation, Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga, The Footprint Foundation, The Robert L. and Katherina Maclellan Foundation and the Lyndhurst Foundation) and individual donors, as well as through State CARES funding. There was no single source of support available for this initiative, but we treated that as an opportunity for community ownership rather than a reason to scale back.A Commitment to All Meaning: All An ‘if you build it’ strategy rarely reaches everyone, and it’s impossible simply to make connectivity happen to a community: You’ve got to build with them. For an initiative truly focused on equity, we knew that it could only be as successful as connecting those hardest to reach. This ethos was at the heart of building the tracking system for eligible families, to ensure decisions could be informed by data (Were certain geographies or schools lagging in connection rate? Was a specific demographic not opting in or scheduling service?), as well as in adapting outreach and communication strategies.A Multi-Pronged Approach: And, finally, knowing that no single solution could work for everyone, we invested in multiple strategies. This includes long-term investment in public WiFi, which offers emergency connectivity now and potential unanticipated benefits later, from neighborhood walkability to test-bed infrastructure, for environmental censors and the like. And, as we explore more sustainable solutions with local co-ops and other ISPs, it also includes mobile hotspots for those few hundred families who live outside of the footprint EPB is, per state policy, legally allowed to serve.What Else Can Make a Difference?Local Control: As noted above, EPB cannot provide service to all of Hamilton County; this has not stopped us from finding creative solutions, but not every community can draw on our breadth of providers. (Tennessee, for example, has expanded the authority of co-ops to offer internet service.) There are numerous, successful models for how public interests and private sector opportunities align around broadband, but restrictive preemption laws are a barrier to ensuring universal access.Access to Funding: Infrastructure is expensive, but we are witnessing the devastating cost of failing to invest play out in real-time. Chattanooga was creative in response to the pandemic, but we had to be. As a city of fewer than 500,000 residents, despite an MSA of that size, Chattanooga did not have access to dedicated CARES funds, while larger municipalities like Nashville and San Antonio were able to draw on single funding streams to invest in connectivity solutions. Tennessee does fortunately have a state broadband office, and, working with state officials, our local delegation was able to secure more than $3 million in CARES funding to help bridge the digital divide for students locally — but not every state or community has these resources. Additional dedicated funding, for more than an emergency response and with a timeline beyond December 30th, is essential.Modernizing E-Rate: Schools should be able to utilize E-Rate funding to provide or subsidize home access. The very existence of homework supposes that essential learning happens outside of the classroom. Schools, underfunded as they are, make incredibly difficult budget decisions every day; continuing to hamstring their ability to operate and equitably serve students with funding already available will have needless and devastating consequences.Accurate Mapping: Finally, we need better mapping — not just of where service is available, but at what speeds and at what cost. Our current digital divide is not just a question of access, but of affordability. That we largely use FCC maps which only illustrate a partial story (and which overestimate coverage) to determine funding for deployment leads to families going unserved. In preparing both our public WiFi deployment and EdConnect outreach, we often relied on proxy data to inform decision making, like food insecurity mapping, from our United Way and 211; information from the school district on families who had not been in touch following the March closures; and modelling from Esri and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga’s GIS department.Where We Go From HereWe firmly believe Chattanooga’s model is a replicable one, but we also know that the digital divide impacts more than K-12 students and their families. College students, the rising number of unemployed Americans, seniors and other medically vulnerable populations are just a few groups for whom affordable access to broadband is a dire necessity. COVID-19 has highlighted decades of systemic redlining, underinvestment and restrictive policy decisions, but it has also led to a newly shared understanding and experience of this digital divide. Closing it, though, is possible; we’re proving it.Deb Socia is President and CEO of The Enterprise Center, a nonprofit that nurtures innovation in Chattanooga with the goal of connecting people to resources and building an inclusive community. Geoff Millener serves as senior program and operations officer for The Enterprise Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Way back in 2013, we discussed an interesting study conducted by Google looking at the effect of let's play and video game reviews has on the gaming industry. That study's conclusion was that viewers watched let's plays at a far higher clip than, say, video game trailers. Two-thirds of those views appeared to be watchers focusing on the video itself, whereas the other third were watching on secondary devices/screens in order to find tips and tricks for completing the game in question. Both were conducive to promoting the gaming industry, being a method for finding out if a game is worth buying and because gamers know they have a resource to help complete a game.Fast forward to 2020 and Google has its own game-streaming platform that it's trying to get off of the ground. One of the folks that works at Google on the platform is Alex Hutchinson. And when it comes to let's play videos and streams, hoo boy does he have some thoughts.

The 2021 All-In-One AWS, Cisco, and CompTIA Super Bundle has 22 courses and over 240 hours of content to help you prepare to sit for various IT certification exams from Amazon, CompTIA, and more. The courses cover the latest best practices for working in the cloud and many have practice tests you can take to help prepare yourself for the real deal. This bundle is on sale for $99.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Trump has made no secret of the fact he adores law enforcement. One of the first edicts he issued from his office told America in no uncertain terms that cops were to be respected, if not worshipped, for deigning to stand between millions of US peons and the forces of evil.

It was the technology that was supposed to change the world. According to carriers, not only was fifth-generation wireless (5G) supposed to bring about the "fourth industrial revolution," it was supposed to revolutionize everything from smart cities to cancer treatment. According to conspiracy theorists and internet imbeciles, 5G is responsible for everything from COVID-19 to your migraines.Unfortunately for both sets of folks, data continues to indicate that 5G is nowhere near that interesting.A number of recent studies have already shown that U.S. 5G is notably slower than most overseas deployments (thanks in part to government's failure to make more mid-band spectrum available for public use). Several other studies have shown that initial deployments in many cases are actually slower than existing 4G networks. That's before you get to the fact that U.S. consumers already pay more for wireless than a long list of developed nations, something likely to get worse in the wake of mindless industry consolidation.While 5G is important, and will improve over time, it's pretty clear that the technology is more of a modest evolution than a revolution, and 5G hype overkill (largely driven by a desperate desire to rekindle lagging smartphone sales) is a far cry from reality.That's not stopping us from already hyping 6G, though. As carriers begin the fairly mundane process of building the standards framework for the next next-generation standard, the familiar promises of near-magical capabilities are already starting to emerge. Just ask Mazin Gilbert, AT&T's VP of network analytics and automation, who appears to have learned absolutely nothing the last few years, and is already equating 6G to The Matrix:

The EU is now starting to work in earnest on what is likely to be its most important new law for the online world, the Digital Services Act (DSA). Techdirt wrote about this last year, when the European Commission started sketching out (bad) ideas for the new law. The basic impetus for the DSA is to replace the EU's e-Commerce Directive, which was passed 20 years ago, and is clearly in need of an update. As the European Commission's page on the DSA explains, there are two core elements:

While the music industry's war on stream-ripping sites -- sites that have perfectly legitimate and legal uses -- continues, it's true that this is a war in which one side has almost universally surrendered. Facing legal opposition with well-funded industry groups, most stream-ripping sites simply close up shop when staring down litigation. But Russia-based FLVTO.biz has been an exception. We first wrote about the site's decision to defend itself back in early 2019. At that point, the owner of the site, Tofig Kurbanov, had successfully argued in a Florida court that the United States legal system had no jurisdiction over his site, given that it operates in Russia and makes no effort to entice American patronage.It was a sensible ruling. After all, why should anyone want websites in one nation to be subject to the laws of every other nation's laws just because the internet is designed to be international? And, yet, the RIAA labels appealed the ruling and got it reversed. The case was sent back to the lower courts where it was supposed to once again proceed, except that Kurbanov's team has asked the Supreme Court to consider its jurisdiction arguments once more.

The city of Portland, Oregon is still in the midst of anti-police brutality protests stemming from the killing of Minneapolis resident George Floyd by police officer Derek Chauvin. Federal officers arrived in Portland in July, making their presence known by engaging some extremely questionable tactics.Their arrival was met with their addition to an ongoing lawsuit against law enforcement seeking an injunction banning cops of all types from assaulting or dispersing journalists and legal observers. The plaintiffs secured an injunction. They also secured an agreement from local police to stop treating those reporting and observing protests as protesters, exempting them from dispersal orders and forbidding them from being targeted with crowd control measures, such as tear gas and rubber bullets.The federal interlopers gave zero fucks. They were added to the injunction but immediately violated it. The feds' excuse? Sometimes protesters and rioters disguised themselves as press to avoid being dispersed and/or assaulted. The district court pointed out the local police had made no such accusations and appeared capable of controlling crowds without violating their agreement.The federal agencies appealed. In August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction. A short opinion stated the federal government had shown evidence it would suffer "irreparable harm" if officers weren't allowed to assault members of the press and other non-protesters. The emergency stay of the district court's injunction was granted.The Appeals Court has now fully addressed the government's arguments and reversed its stance. The federal defendants are no longer exempt from the injunction forbidding them from assaulting journalists.The government made three arguments in favor of assaulting journalists and observers. First, it argued journalists would not be deprived of Constitutional rights if assaulted or otherwise removed from areas where protests are taking place. It also argued that observing or recording protests (as observers or journalists) was not protected by the First Amendment -- not when dispersal orders have been given. Finally, it argued federal officers were not targeting journalists and observers for being journalists and observers, so any OC spray/bullets headed in their direction were just part of solid, proven crowd control efforts. This last argument was made despite recordings being submitted to the court that showed federal officers appearing to deliberately target journalists with pepper spray and other forms of force.The Appeals Court [PDF] says a lot of what the government is asserting simply isn't true. There's ample evidence showing federal officers deliberately targeted journalists and observers.

You might think that Congress has more important issues on its hands, with a pandemic still going on, issues around disinformation and the election, massive fires still burning in parts of the US, a record number of hurricanes pounding the south... but it appears that Congress thinks the most pressing issue is gutting Section 230. As you'll recall, right after FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly made some generally straightforward statements about how the 1st Amendment wouldn't let the government interfere with social media platforms, Trump informed O'Rielly that his nomination to stay at the FCC had been rescinded.It seems pretty clear that in the world of Trump, all that he wants out of his FCC is to act as his own private speech police. To that effect, he not only put in place the obviously unconstitutional executive order pushing NTIA to petition the FCC to "reinterpret" Section 230 of the Communications Act -- the law that enables social media to exist in its current form -- but has since put pressure on the FCC to move forward with that effort. While some had hoped that maybe Ajit Pai would find a backbone and his long-stated principles in his giant Reese's mug, he has proven he has neither, and moved forward with the process to make the FCC the internet speech police.Of course, there remains a problem. O'Rielly is still there, and both the Democrats on the FCC have made it clear they disagree with this plan. When the announcement was made that O'Rielly's nomination had been pulled, I heard from multiple FCC experts who told me there was "no way" that a new Commissioner could be nominated, vetted, paraded before the Senate, and voted on before January 20th. However, it appears that a Senate that has decided it can rush through a candidate for an open Supreme Court seat rather than deal with the actual problems of the country can also do the exact same thing for an FCC Commissioner.Last month, Trump nominated the guy who wrote the unconstitutional executive order, Nathan Simington, to the seat, and again I was told that his nomination was unlikely to be reviewed by the Senate before the new session began next year. Not so, apparently. As Politico reported last week, the Senate Commerce Committee has agreed to rush through his nomination in "near record time" with a hearing set for November 10th.It's going to be fascinating to watch all those Senators who spent years claiming they were absolutely, 100% against the FCC regulating anything to do with the internet do total 180s and make sure that Simington is ready to become the speech police for the internet.

Correlation is not causation, but if you gear yourself up like you're going to war, chances are you're going to treat the people you're supposed to serve as enemy combatants.This is what police departments have been doing for years. The federal government's 1033 program allows local PDs to help themselves to military surplus, which includes armored vehicles, armored vests, assault rifles, and grenade launchers. Cops have stopped looking like cops and started looking like combat units. The end result appears to be deadlier police forces more interested in shock, awe, and escalation than defusing tense situations.A study of 1033 program use in Georgia by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution shows the more law enforcement gets from the military, the more often it uses deadly force.

As was expected following Ajit Pai's announcement that the FCC would be moving forward with the rulemaking process to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Act in response to a petition from NTIA -- instigated by the President's unconstitutional executive order, which came about because Twitter suggested people research the facts,following Trump tweeting blatant disinformation regarding elections and ballots -- the FCC's General Counsel Tom Johnson has released the FCC's legal explanation for how it could possibly have authority here.The shorter answer is that it has no authority here. It hasn't had authority over websites on the internet ever. Indeed, when the Cox/Wyden bill that became 230 was being debated in Congress, they made it quite clear in floor speeches that the intent of their bill was to prevent the FCC from having any authority over websites. That was the point. As Cox said during a floor speech:

As was expected following Ajit Pai's announcement that the FCC would be moving forward with the rulemaking process to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Act in response to a petition from NTIA -- instigated by the President's unconstitutional executive order, which came about because Twitter suggested people research the facts,following Trump tweeting blatant disinformation regarding elections and ballots -- the FCC's General Counsel Tom Johnson has released the FCC's legal explanation for how it could possibly have authority here.The shorter answer is that it has no authority here. It hasn't had authority over websites on the internet ever. Indeed, when the Cox/Wyden bill that became 230 was being debated in Congress, they made it quite clear in floor speeches that the intent of their bill was to prevent the FCC from having any authority over websites. That was the point. As Cox said during a floor speech:

The Complete DevOps Courses And Practice Tests Bundle has 12 courses designed to get you up to speed on the latest knowledge and skills a good DevOp needs. Courses cover Docker, Kubernetes, OpenShift, Ansible, Git and GitHub, DialogFlow, and more. It's on sale for $40.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

I know, I know: Trumpists have decided that part of the culture war they need to create for the election is that "big tech" is somehow "censoring conservatives." The narrative is complete bullshit, but the Trump cultists are so deeply bought into it that they'll make themselves look absolutely ridiculous to further it. The latest is that a bunch of Republican officials apparently don't understand Twitter and, in trying to continue this anti-tech culture war, instead demonstrated to the world that they can't read.The issue: a few weeks back Twitter introduced a new feature, popping up a little warning if you go to retweet an article before actually clicking through on it. They had been testing this for a few months, but finally rolled it out widely a few weeks ago. The idea is to try to get people to read through what it is they're retweeting, rather than blindly retweeting it without reading. It's an experiment to try to slow the spread of disinformation and to get people more engaged. I don't know how well it will work, but the logic behind it makes some amount of sense.Except... on Wednesday, prominent Republicans discovered this feature, and incorrectly thought that it was (1) blocking retweets (2) blocking access to links it was actually telling people to click on and (3) only applying this to content that Trumpists liked.The Twitter account for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans tweeted a screenshot claiming that Twitter "put a warning label" on a Sean Hannity link. Of course, in their very screenshot (which it appears they did not read) it clearly says: "Headlines don't tell the full story. You can read the article on Twitter before Retweeting." And then it has a link to "Learn more" which tells people about the policy.So, to be clear: this is not a warning label. It is not applied selectively to Republican content. If they had actually clicked through to the underlying article they wouldn't have seen it. If they had read the label that they screenshotted it clearly explains it. If they had any confusion they could have clicked on the link to get even more information about what's happening.But, no, these geniuses immediately insisted it was a Twitter plot against "conservatives."And the thing is, their idiot followers are buying it. There are tons of replies to the tweet about how Congress needs to take away Section 230 or shut down Twitter because of this... effort to encourage people to read before they tweet.But, of course, it spread quickly. The President's son Don Jr. retweeted someone else showing a screenshot and added three sirens:He also tweeted out a somewhat infamous internet troll claiming that Twitter only does it for the Republican fundraising site WinRed, but not for the Democratic fundraising site ActBlue. This is wrong. All it means is that the troll clicked through to an ActBlue page before trying to retweet, but not the WinRed page. And yet, the troll's supporters are incorrectly claiming this is "election interference."Then we have Rep. Doug Collins from Georgia, currently running to be Senator in Georgia (against Kelly Loeffler, so there are no good choices), who got the same message FOUR TIMES and apparently read it zero times because he took screenshots and retweeted all four times, even though it says quite clearly that all it's asking you to do is to READ a link before you retweet it. And Collins is apparently too stupid to realize that this is happening on any article you have first clicked on. Finally, it's NOT "censorship" in any sense of the word to nudge you towards actually reading the article. It's like the reverse of censorship. It's encouraging you to read the content.I'd really like to believe that there are some competent, level-headed politicians within Congress, but right now the Republicans there seem to be embracing the "we're so fucking stupid that we'll tweet out examples of how we can't read" as a strategic culture war play.

Back in 2015, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo unveiled a Broadband for All pledge the state proclaimed would invest $500 million to ensure statewide broadband access by 2018. The effort was to be funded largely by legal settlements struck with banks after the last recession, with dollar-per-dollar matching pledges by companies promising to deliver speeds of at least 100 Mbps down, 25 Mbps up across the state.The problem (and tell me if you've heard this one before): ample subsidies and five years later and many New Yorkers say they still can't get even substandard broadband. And according to NY's own data on the project, the "matching funds" promised by industry wound up not materializing the majority of the time:

Very few people in law enforcement want to be told the truth. Fortunately for them, those that speak to and for law enforcement are similarly uninterested in speaking the truth. The man at the top of the law enforcement food chain -- Attorney General Bill Barr -- has turned his second tour at the head of the DOJ into a bullhorn for the airing of law enforcement grievances. He encourages their unwillingness to comprehend the damage they've done has led directly to the animosity they're now experiencing. He reflects their unearned outrage, allowing them to feel their anger is righteous.It isn't. But that's not what any law enforcement officers or officials are hearing from Bill Barr. His speech to the Major Cities Chiefs Association contains little more than unbridled support for law enforcement and disdain for the ungrateful public. It's also full of provably wrong assertions. Apparently, if cops must be lied to improve their morale, it's lies they will get, courtesy of the head of the DOJ.Barr opens up by bashing the media for turning cops into villains. He doesn't actually cite the "bad apple" analogy, but it's in there, even if it's unspoken.

We've known for some time that the sorts of automated filters that get applied to various internet-y things are flawed in the extreme. But of all the filters that annoy me the most, profanity filters are the worst. And, no, it's not just because I use curse words like commas. Rather, it's the combination of just how badly this is used, such as how Google thought for years that "bisexual" was a naughty word, along side how nefarious actors can block all sorts of non-profane language just by calling it profane. Add to all of this that a total lack of nuance for identifying so-called "naughty words" regularly causes perfectly non-profane content to be blocked or censored and this all begins to look like an exercise worth giving up.For a great example of that last bit, we need only to look at a recent remote conference conducted by paleontologists that went awry due to a profanity filter.

Summary: Before even the World Wide Web existed, Usenet was a popular gathering place for various niche communities to congregate. In many ways it was similar to what Reddit has become today, except that it was not controlled by any single company. Instead there were a number of newsgroups (like subreddits) and various news servers that could choose to carry whichever news groups they wanted.Each news group was a specialized topic area, so there could be newsgroups for Bob Dylan’s music (rec.music.dylan) or computer languages (comp.lang.lisp). One newsgroup, started in 1990, was alt.tasteless which, as the name suggests, was a newsgroup for sharing offensive content. As its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) noted:

I know that it's 2020 and the normal concepts no longer make any sense, but on Monday of this week, quite a story broke that spread quickly through the media world. CNN and New Yorker famed legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was apparently suspended from both companies, after it was revealed that he was caught masturbating on a Zoom call with New Yorker colleagues, in which they were playing an election simulation game (that appears to be similar, but not identical to the election simulation game we created -- though I swear that ours does not involve any masturbating legal analysts).Shoshana Weissmann noted that this story -- as horrific as it might be -- is also a perfect example of why we have Section 230.

Let's be clear: despite ample rhetoric to the contrary, U.S. broadband has always been a mediocre mess. Despite decades of incalculable industry handouts and political lip service, 42 million Americans (double official FCC estimates) still lack access to any broadband whatsoever. 83 million Americans are trapped under a broadband monopoly. Tens of millions more Americans are stuck with a duopoly, usually a combination of a cable giant and a phone company unwilling to upgrade or even repair aging DSL lines because it's not profitable, quickly enough, for Wall Street's liking.The triple whammy of limited competition, regulatory capture, and Congressional corruption has resulted in the U.S. being utterly mediocre (or worse) in nearly every major broadband metric that matters. Billions upon billions in state and federal subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory favors are thrown at massive monopolies that fail to live up to their end of the bargain time and time again. Worse, government efforts to track and report on broadband coverage and pricing data has been substandard for a generation, often by intentional design (after all, you don't have to fix a problem you refuse to measure or even acknowledge).As a result, U.S. consumers pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for slower broadband than many overseas nations. Telecom industry customer service is ranked among the worst of any industry in America. Marginalized and low-income communities are most often left disconnected, but even in "tech-centric" cities like San Francisco and Seattle, monopolization and substandard service is often the accepted norm. America's a country that likes to crow about its technological supremacy, yet toddlers in the COVID era have been forced to huddle in the dirt outside of fast food restaurants just to get online for class.Instead of rising to this challenge, we've repeatedly doubled down on the very practices that helped create the problem in the first place. Whether it's the rubber stamping of competition and job-eroding megamergers and consolidation, the steady elimination of meaningful state and federal oversight of telecom monopolies, or simply refusing to adopt policies that drive meaningful competition to market, we're locked in a cycle of dysfunction that repeatedly prioritizes monopoly revenues over public welfare, market health, or technological innovation.It doesn't have to be this way. As parents, students, and employees alike run face-first into a problem we've simply refused to fix, the COVID crisis creates a unique opportunity to rethink our approach to broadband delivery with an eye on accurate data, affordability, and the public good.With that as backdrop, we've decided it would be timely to embrace broadband access (or the lack thereof) as our latest Techdirt Greenhouse panel. So we've collected a diverse array of international authors on the front lines of bridging the digital divide, deploying bleeding edge technological and regulatory solutions for a problem decades in the making. I'm hopeful this collection of industry leaders, activists, executives, and others can shine a little light on how we got here and where we need to go, using the urgency of the COVID crisis to drive meaningful, localized solutions to a problem that should have been solved long ago.As we noted during our last two panels on content moderation and privacy, we want Techdirt Greenhouse to be a conversation, not a unidirectional bullhorn. As such, if you'd like to participate -- or are an expert eager to respond to any of the pieces posted over the coming weeks -- please feel free to reach out.

As you've already heard, the DOJ filed the long-expected antitrust case against Google earlier this week. Karl has already discussed how it appears to be a politicized weapon wielded by Attorney General Bill Barr to create a bogus culture war around how Trump is "taking on" big tech. Cathy has looked at one weird aspect of the case -- how its own argument regarding trademark genericide actually cuts against the idea that Google is a monopoly.However, what strikes me as most noteworthy about the filing is how insanely weak the argument is. As was already discussed, many lawyers in the DOJ had said they really needed more time to put together a complete case against Google... and it shows. I know that the folks who have been agitating for antitrust actions against Google for years are cheering this on, but that seems incredibly short sighted. As is currently filed (and it will likely change!), the case is so weak that Google would likely win in court, and it would then be more difficult (though not impossible) to craft another antitrust case later.First, the case is fairly limited in what it argues. It focuses on Google's search distribution deals (e.g. getting Google to be the default search engine in things like Firefox or iOS, for which Google pays many, many millions of dollars). This seems like a weird choice for a variety of reasons.

Not everyone is gifted with the skill of organizing tasks and doing them the right way. Sometimes, it takes a long time to make our own system, be efficient, and improve our work routine. But that doesn't have to be the case. The Productivity Masterclass: Personal Productivity course has useful and time saving tips to increase productivity to a completely new level. No myriad of items to look at and no tough apps to tackle. You'll learn how to focus, stay active, and avoid procrastinating, and being a lot more productive. It's on sale for $10.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Don't misread the title of this post to think there's only one thing wrong with the DOJ's antitrust complaint against Google. There's plenty. But on the list is this particular self-defeating argument included in the complaint -- the complaint where the DOJ basically has but one job: show that Google is a monopoly.To understand it, we need to first understand the idea of "trademark genericide." That's what happens when your brand name is, well, just too good and people start using your branding as the default word to describe the product or service in general. Famous examples include "Band-Aid," "Thermos," "Xerox," and plenty of other words we're all used to using in lower-case form to describe things that aren't actually produced by the companies that had those trademarks.The issue here is not actually whether Google has lost its trademark rights due to genericide, which is a technical question particular to the operation of trademark law and not relevant to the issues raised here. The DOJ isn't actually arguing that Google has anyway. But what it is arguing is that the same basic dynamic has occurred, where the branded name has become a widely adopted synonym to describe other people's similar goods and services. However, in doing so, it has blown up its own argument because that means there are other similar goods and services. Which means that Google is not a monopoly.Look at what it argued (emphasis added):

We've already discussed at length how the FCC's support of Trump's dumb attack on social media and Section 230 is some of the most blistering hypocrisy we've ever seen (and we've seen a lot). This was, you'll recall, an agency that whined like a toddler for five straight years about how some fairly modest rules holding telecom monopolies accountable was somehow "government run amok," yet has now pivoted gracelessly into supporting Trump's dumb, likely unconstitutional effort to have the FCC police social media -- despite having little to no authority to actually do so.It's been amusing to watch folks like FCC boss Ajit Pai sheepishly avoid really addressing that his colleague Mike O'Rielly was fired by Trump simply for very timidly pointing this out. It's also been amusing to watch Pai, who I guarantee knows that Trump's EO is an idiotic mess, pretend that's not the case as he pushes the NTIA request to "re-examine Section 230" through the bureaucratic grist mill just to generate some bad faith election headlines and please "dear leader."That's supported by this recent Washington Post article that makes it clear top FCC brass knows this idea is garbage but is moving forward anyway because we wouldn't want to make the idiot king mad:

Donald Trump's lurid myths about bad hombres crossing the border to wreak havoc in the United States have failed to be ushered into existence by CBP and ICE. Try as they might, the two agencies have done little more than process a bunch of bog-standard illegal entries. And... um... target college students here legally. Numbers were fudged, but it has proven to be an exercise in futility. This attempt to villainize immigrants has been abandoned by both Trump and these DHS components.Trump's new favorite enemy-of-America is "antifa." The president seems to believe antifa is a hierarchical organization capable of being crippled by intelligence gathering, strategic arrests, and the occasional extrajudicial killing. He's wrong about this as well. But that's not stopping the DHS and its protest-centered task forces from doing everything they can to prove some massive anti-facist conspiracy exists. This includes flying in FBI analysts and their tech to "exploit" data taken from arrestees' phones in hopes of finding some link between ongoing protests and Big Leftist.All the money being spent in hopes of toppling an idea and prosecuting federal crimes isn't really accomplishing either of those tasks. As the AP reports, the feds aren't having any luck massaging Trump's antifa fever dreams into coherent shape. Nor are they really finding much federal crime to prosecute.

I've tried with Nintendo. For some years now, I have both complained about how strict and hamfisted the company is when it comes to allowing fans to express their fandom in the form of fan-created games and content, as well as offered the company advice as to how it could be just a little more cool about all of this. The frustration really starts to boil over when you realize just how much cool content the world could have if Nintendo could figure out some way not to be as protectionist as possible and instead seek out ways to work with fans to allow for this sort of thing. To be clear, as I have said in the past, Nintendo certainly can act this way when it comes to how it treats its fans, but it doesn't have to act this way.But, when you jump at every fan-made work like a toddler on meth jumps at their own shadow, I suppose you just can't help yourself. The most recent evidence that Nintendo isn't changing course comes in the form of a fan-created Zelda game put up on GitHub that Nintendo swiftly got taken down.

Over the last year or so there's been a concerted effort by patent maximalists to try to shred a long line of very good Supreme Court rulings that finally (after two decades) limited just some of the destructive nature of patent trolling. There was an attempt in Congress to literally reject all of those key Supreme Court cases, and bring back Congress's full support for patent trolling. The current head of the patent office has been spewing a bunch of similar nonsense as well, and seems to have no recognition that patents that are too broad hinder, rather than help innovation. And now we have Judge Randall Rader, who ran the federal patent court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), for many years before stepping down due to an ethics scandal.That ethics scandal? Being way too chummy with patent lawyers who practice before him. As we've noted over the years, part of the problem with the setup of CAFC -- a special appeals court for all patent appeals cases to go to -- was that the judges on it tended over time to buy into patent maximalism, because they basically only spoke to patent lawyers.Judge Rader has now decided to pop back up again to argue that we need more bad and broad patents in order to enable more patent trolls. Or America won't be able to compete. Or some such nonsense.

The origins of Techdirt lie in a newsletter that Mike started over 20 years ago, and in all that time, the business models for online journalism have never stopped evolving and changing, especially when it comes to independent reporting. Now, newsletters are making a comeback with a new model, driven especially by writers flocking to the Substack platform. One such person is technology journalist Casey Newton with his new Platformer newsletter, and this week Casey joins the podcast to discuss his experience and what it can teach us about the future of independent journalism online.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Last month we noted how Bill Barr was rushing DOJ staffers (much to their chagrin) to launch his "antitrust inquiry" into Google. Why? Three reasons. One, it helps Trump allies and Google adversaries like "big telecom," Oracle, and Rupert Murdoch. Two, it helps put the utterly false narrative of "social media unfairly censors Conservatives" into headlines during an election. And three, it creates leverage over companies that have finally just begun to take online hate speech and disinformation (a cornerstone of Trumpism) seriously. Genuine concerns about "monopoly power" are the last thing on these folks' minds.Right on cue, Bill Barr this morning announced that the Department of Justice is suing Google, claiming that the company's anticompetitive practices in arenas such as search "have had harmful effects on competition and consumers." The initial press release compares Google's dominance to historical natural monopolies of note, such as 80's era AT&T:

If you asked most people what the Cambridge Analytica scandal was about, many would insist that it involved the company illegally sucking up all sorts of data from Facebook and using that to nefariously micro-target people with ads or information in a way that supported Donald Trump or suppressed the interest in voting for Hillary Clinton. As we pointed out years ago, it seemed like everyone was very much misinterpreting what happened with Cambridge Analytica.The reality is now coming out, but so many people are so bought into the original myth story that I doubt it will get much attention. First off, over in the UK, government investigators have now admitted that Cambridge Analytica didn't really do anything special or have any access to data that lots of others had:

FidgetCable is the only cable that's always tidy. No more cables getting tangled and knotted in your bag or on your desk. This 3 ft. cable has magnets to keep your cable exactly how you want it to be. Just pull out the amount of cable you need and the unused portion will remain coiled up. There are USB to Lightning or USB-C to Lightning cables in 3 packs of black or white for $47. Or the same options are available in glow-in-the-dark for $52.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We've said it before, many times: there is no such thing as a publisher/platform distinction in Section 230. But in those posts we also said other things about how Section 230 works, and perhaps doing so obscured that basic point. So just in case we'll say it again here, simply and clearly: there is no such thing as a publisher/platform distinction in Section 230. The idea that anyone could gain or lose the immunity the statute provides depending on which one they are is completely and utterly wrong.In fact, the word "platform" does not even show up in the statute. Instead the statute uses the term "interactive computer service provider." The idea of a "service provider" is a meaningful one, because the whole point of Section 230 is to make sure that the people who provide the services that facilitate others' use of the Internet are protected in order for them to be able to continue to provide those services. We give them immunity from the legal consequences of how people use those services because without it they wouldn't be able to – it would simply be too risky.But saying "interactive computer service provider" is a mouthful, and it also can get a little confusing because we sometimes say "internet service provider" to mean just a certain kind of interactive computer service provider, when Section 230 is not nearly so specific. Section 230 applies to all kinds of service providers, from ISPs to email services, from search engines to social media providers, from the dial-up services we knew in the 1990s back when Section 230 was passed to whatever new services have yet to be invented. There is no limit to the kinds of services Section 230 applies to. It simply applies to anyone and everyone, including individual people, who are somehow providing someone else the ability to use online computing. (See Section 230(f)(2).)So for shorthand people have started to colloquially refer to protected service providers as "platforms." Because statutes are technical creatures it is not generally a good idea to use shorthand terms in place of the precise ones used by the statutes; often too much important meaning can be lost in the translation. But in this case "platform" is a tolerable synonym for most of our policy discussions because it still captures the essential idea: a Section 230-protected "platform" is the service that enables someone else to use the Internet.Which brings us to the term "publisher," which does appear in the statute. In particular it appears in the critically important provision at Section 230(c)(1), which does most of the work making Section 230 work:

You might recall how the Wisconsin GOP, with Donald Trump and Paul Ryan at the head of the parade, struck what they claimed was an incredible deal with Foxconn to bring thousands of high-paying jobs to the state. Initially, the state promised Foxconn a $3 billion subsidy if the company invested $10 billion in a Wisconsin LCD panel plant that created 13,000 jobs. The amount of political hype the deal generated was utterly legendary, helping market Trump as a savvy dealmaker who'd be restoring technological greatness to the American Midwest.Of course experts repeatedly warned that the deal was too good to be true, and likely would never recoup the taxpayer cost as structured. Those warnings were ignored. And unsurprisingly, as the subsidy grew fatter, the promised factory began to shrink further and further, to the point where it's incredibly unlikely much of anything will be built at all. All now cold comfort to taxpayers who have already doled out a small fortune, or the local residents who had to move thanks to a factory that will likely never exist.Last week, reports emerged that Wisconsin finally appears to be waking up to the scam, and would finally be blocking any more taxpayer subsidies from lining the company's pockets. This week, The Verge (which has done a phenomenal job tracking this bottomless grift from the get-go) penned a great breakdown of the scam, which Trump initially called "the eighth wonder of the world." Ultimately the project isn't much of a project, much less a wonder of any real note:

A seldom used mandate from France's 2006 anti-terrorism law is being wielded rather conspicuously in a single French city to lock up small business owners.

For the moment, police officers in Vallejo, California aren't allowed to use their cell site simulator. A tentative ruling [PDF] issued by a judge says the city violated the law by approving the purchase of a Stingray device without instituting a privacy policy governing its use -- a policy explicitly approved by the city council and subjected to public scrutiny prior to adoption.The case challenging the new device's purchase and use was brought by Oakland Privacy. Matthew Gauriglia of the EFF breaks down the multiple ways the city and its PD skirted their obligations to Vallejo residents.

Esports continues to march down the path toward greater adoption. As we've detailed over many posts, esports had already become a cultural thing heading into 2020. But if anyone expected a regression back to IRL sports, the COVID-19 pandemic essentially cemented the cultural adoption of competitive video gaming. With even greater adoption by IRL professional sports leagues, and with many widely used social media platforms getting in the game and accelerating all of this, esports have continued to hit impressive milemarkers that showcase just how big this is all becoming.It's not slowing down. Signs of that acceleration can be seen first in a glitzy advertisement Nike has put out as it too jumps further into esports gaming.

People throw around a variety of terms that sometimes need to have more specific meanings. When talking about physical goods, when people talk about "knockoffs" or "counterfeits" they're usually referring to a trademark issue. And, in some sense, this is what trademark is supposed to be about. For many years we've argued that trademark should not be lumped in with patents and copyrights, as the concept, purpose, intent, and even Constitutional underpinnings are entirely different. It's extremely frustrating to see people lump in patents, copyrights, and trademarks as "intellectual property" as if they were all similar. They are not. And trademarks are especially different.Indeed, we've always said that (unlike with the other two) trademarks are mostly a consumer protection law, so that you know who is actually making the things you're buying, and you know the origin of it. That is, we let Coke have a trademark on the Coca-Cola branding so that consumers don't get tricked into buying something that isn't Coke, while believing it is. This is why a key part of trademark law has always been the "likelihood of confusion." If there's no likelihood of confusion, than there isn't a trademark violation.But here's an interesting question: if someone is making a counterfeit product... is it still violating trademark laws against counterfeiting if buyers know it's counterfeit? A recent 9th Circuit Court ruling suggests... perhaps not. The case is not about this issue directly, but is about two separate companies who each (independently it appears) came up with products called "Eye Dew." One, Arcona, created an eye cream that in a tall cylindrical silver bottle. Arcona registered a trademark on the name. Around the same time (or even possibly a bit earlier), a different company, Farmacy Beauty, developed its own eye cream, also named EYE DEW. The packaging of the two products looks very, very different:

We've got another cross-post episode for you this week, featuring Mike's recent appearance on Robert Amsterdam's Departures podcast. The conversation touches on many aspects of internet regulation, Section 230, and related issues — but the main focus of discussion is one big mess: Trump's executive order about TikTok, and what it means for innovation.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

I'm not quite sure what has gotten into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas lately, but he's been on quite a roll in terms of deciding he wants to toss out all sorts of well-settled precedents (including, in at least one case, his very own precedent). What's alarming, though, is that he seems particularly focused on hacking away at free speech and the 1st Amendment. Back in 2016, when people were discussing whether or Donald Trump could "open up" libel laws, lawyer Ken White noted that there was no real appetite among judges to attack free speech.However, it certainly looks like Thomas has that appetite, and is trying to inspire others.It started a year and a half ago, when he (basically out of nowhere) suggested that NYT v. Sullivan was no longer good law. That's the case that set up the well-established and well-recognized standards for defamation of a public figure. It's a key 1st Amendment case, because it sets the bar quite high in an effort to protect free speech about public figures -- saying that it can only be defamation if the speaker saying it knows that the statement is false, or says it with "reckless disregard" for whether or not it is false. While this makes it difficult for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit, that's the point. If you believe in the 1st Amendment, then that standard needs to be quite high.Today, Thomas decided to also suggest he believes that Section 230's 1st Amendment protecting elements have been interpreted too broadly, and suggests that he'd like to overturn nearly 25 years of "settled" law about how broadly 230 should be applied. He did this as part of the Court rejecting the petition in the Malwarebytes case. We'll have more on this case later, but as we've written in the past, it involves a troubling interpretation that says if moderation is used in a way deemed anti-competitive, 230 does not protect that moderation.Thomas agrees with the decision to reject hearing that case, but then decides to signal his desire to basically undermine the original Section 230 ruling in Zeran v. AOL that set the bar, by noting that Section 230 provided a very broad immunity. That ruling was in the 4th Circuit, but basically every other appeals court that has ruled on 230 has adopted the Zeran standard. There is no circuit split, and the the Supreme Court has never directly examined the issue. Thomas suggests they should.To be clear, while there are dozens (or perhaps more than that) of kooky and crazy interpretations out there of Section 230, Thomas's critique of the interpretation is much more measured. That doesn't mean that it's correct. Indeed, I think it's wrong on multiple accounts. But it's not wrong in the completely nonsense sort of ways that so much 230 analysis is these days. First, he discusses what 230 is and how it came about, including a discussion about historical distributor liability (much of which we discussed in our recent Greenhouse post about online liability before 230).In short, pre-230, there was publisher liability and distributor liability -- which were two separate concepts. Under distributor liability, you could be held liable if you had knowledge of illegal products that you were distributing. The Zeran ruling more or less said that the concept of distributor liability is gone on the internet. It ruled that Section 230 created a broad immunity for internet distributors. For what it's worth, the authors of Section 230, Chris Cox and Ron Wyden, have long said that this was the correct interpretation of the law they wrote.The key argument that Thomas makes is that Section 230 was not designed to completely eliminate the concept of "distributor liability." He argues that a strict reading of 230 would retain a separate form of distributor liability, and that Zeran went too far:

The world's law enforcement agencies are back at it, advocating for the demise of end-to-end encryption. The last time they all got together like this, they were complaining to Facebook for thinking about adding encryption to its Messenger service.Because Facebook does so well reporting child porn to the proper authorities, the proper authorities have gathered to decry its decision to encrypt this service, claiming it would result in a lot of unobserved child porn being passed between users. With Facebook unable to eavesdrop on messages, the images and videos can be shared unnoticed.And, again, the international law enforcement community is asking for weaker encryption… and namechecking Facebook as the cause of and potential solution to all the world's child porn problems. The new "international statement" opens up with a united declaration that everyone loves encryption, before getting to the long list of "buts."

The iBolt ChargeDock is a magnetic docking solution for your iPhone. It has never been easier to simply dock your phone and then drive. Connect to your car’s audio system or Apple CarPlay with our 2m long, MFI Apple approved Charge and sync cable. Mount your phone in an easy to view position with our included ROK 3 suction mount or in your home or office with the included adhesive mini ball mount. The ChargeDock is case and Qi wireless charging compatible with proper metal plate placement. It's on sale for $18.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Hunting down suspects these days doesn't require canvassing the area of a crime scene for witnesses and suspects. All it takes is a warrant. But these are not your regular warrants. To start with, there's no suspect to target and no property of theirs to search. These "reverse" warrants work the way you'd expect them to: backwards. Law enforcement agencies approach companies like Google with demands for the information on everyone in areas near crime scenes and work backwards from the data dump to find suspects.It doesn't always work. Sometimes they get the wrong person. Other times, investigators are shot down by judges who recognize it's impossible to generate probable cause for the search of everyone in a certain area at a certain time. Reverse warrants for location data and devices turn everyone into a suspect when investigators seek this information.But reverse warrants aren't just for location data, as c|net reports. A warrant first spotted by Robert Snell of the Detroit News sought something else: everyone who performed a Google search for a certain home address.

We've noted for fifteen-plus years how entrenched telecom monopolies literally write state telecom laws that ban towns and cities from building their own broadband networks. Even in cases where incumbent monopolies refuse to deploy service. This has gone hand-in-hand with endless (and false) claims that community-run broadband networks are are some kind of vile socialist boondoggle. In reality, data shows these home-grown networks routinely offer faster, cheaper, and better service, in large part because they're run by folks with an active, vested interest in (and direct accountability to) the communities they operate in.That's not to say community-run broadband networks are some mystical panacea, or the answer to the broadband problem in all markets. But it is a successful niche solution for areas out of reach of broadband, and it can help drive competition to markets neglected by incumbents like AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast. As COVID and remote learning/working further highlights the sorry state of U.S. broadband, it's been interesting to watch a steady shift in awareness that just maybe letting giant telecom monopolies write state law to stifle creative broadband alternatives wasn't a good idea.Fixing the "broadband digital divide" will require a huge array of different options. Case in point: Springfield, Missouri is building a fiber optic network for the city, and struck a public/private partnership with CenturyLink which will then lease access on the network. The result: better, faster, cheaper service.

For about a decade now we've been questioning why the government is allowed to seize domains over claims of illegal behavior happening on a website. It seems to us that seizing a website is the equivalent of seizing a printing press or books -- both of which would be deemed clear 1st Amendment violations. Unfortunately, even when those seizures have proven to be for made up reasons, no one has been able to challenge the underlying ability of the government to seize domains. And now it seems to happen all the time. And even if you believe the websites in question are doing something bad, seizing the websites is problematic.The latest such case is the Justice Department announcing that it had seized a bunch of domains pushing disinformation on behalf of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Summary:Facebook has struggled to moderate "hate speech" over the years, resulting in it receiving steady criticism not only from users, but from government officials around the world. Part of this struggle is due to the nature of the term "hate speech" itself, which is often vaguely-defined. These definitions can vary from country to country, adding to the confusion and general difficulty of moderating user content.Facebook's application of local laws to moderate "hate speech" has resulted in collateral damage and the silencing of voices that such laws are meant to protect. In the United States, there is no law against "hate speech," but Facebook is still trying to limit the amount of abusive content on its site as advertisers flee and politicians continue to apply pressure.Facebook moderators use a set of internal guidelines to determine what is or isn't hate speech. Unfortunately for many users, the guidelines -- which they never saw before ProPublica published them -- result in some unexpected moderation decisions.Users wondered why hate speech targeting Black children was allowed while similar speech targeting, for instance, white men wasn't. The internal guidelines explained the factors considered by moderators, which led exactly to these seemingly-inexplicable content removals.According to Facebook's internal guidelines, these categories are "protected," which means moderators will remove "hateful" content targeting anything on this list.

A law enforcement agency looking to dodge oversight has a few options. First, there's the 1033 program, which allows agencies to pick up useful things like guns, bullets, armored vehicles, grenade launchers… and… um… filing cabinets, I guess. Going this route means spending federal money rather than local money. So, if you're not spending local tax dollars, you really don't need to ask permission.Another accountability dodge is the discretionary spending allowed by civil asset forfeiture. Law enforcement agencies directly profit from property seized and are given a lot of latitude on spending those dollars. City/county oversight is rarely involved. Very few localities have implemented strict reporting on seizures so the money flows from victims through cop shops and into the hands of cop tech purveyors.There's a third option: use private money. Donors with deep pockets and minimal concerns about the people they're bypassing pay for surveillance tech and other law enforcement goodies. Again, because no public money is involved, the public is left out of the equation. This happened in Baltimore, where a Texas philanthropist purchased an aerial surveillance system capable of covering the entire city. No one was told about it until after it went up in the air.The same thing is happening elsewhere. Lots of private companies and individuals are buying stuff for police departments, allowing them to circumvent accountability measures. Some of these "private" concerns should be considered public, considering their narrow focus. As ProPublica reported in 2014, the Los Angeles Police Foundation -- a "private" charity -- asked for $200,000 from Target Corp. to buy the Los Angeles Police Department data analytics software from Palantir. It also purchased several automatic license plate readers for the department. No public oversight was involved since it was "private" money.Joseph Cox reports on more of this public/private bullshit for Motherboard. Another "private" charity -- the San Diego Police Foundation -- has gifted local cops with a high tech phone cracking tool.

Say it with me now: not every last thing needs to be connected to the internet. If we've learned anything through the myriad of posts we have done on the internet of broken things, it's that far too many devices that need not be internet-connected are instead wide open to security flaws and connectivity-related flaws and outages. Pet feeders, so-called smart locks, healthcare devices: all examples of things that have been broken or broken into thanks to their being connected to the internet in wildly insecure manners.But what if I told you that a lack of basic security could result in a device you bought potentially forcing you to have someone come at your penis with an angle grinder? Well, if you bought a Cell Mate chastity lock, you should damn well be concerned.

Once again this week, the President decided to attack Section 230 because social media companies decided to highlight that he was posting dangerous misinformation (this time about the relative dangers of COVID-19, which he was downplaying). Yet, for reasons I do not understand, the President never seems to address copyright law, even though that law is what is actually forcing his and his campaign's content to be legally removed from social media.Over the last few months we've highlighted multiple times that Trump and his campaign have had posts removed from social media due to DMCA 512 takedown notices. And it happened again this week after Twitter removed a tweet from the Trump campaign on copyright grounds.The tweet in question made use of a video clip showing the San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk scoring a touchdown from last Sunday's 49ers/Eagles game. The clip (somewhat ridiculously) superimposed Trump's head over Aiyuks, and put the well known graphic of the coronavirus on Eagle's defender Marcus Epps (whom Aiyuk leapt over in getting to the end zone). The message of the video (stupidly) is that Trump was somehow able to "avoid" the coronavirus (which, I should remind you, he did not). The video is stupid on multiple levels, including the the sickening and despicable implication that those who died from COVID-19 are somehow just not strong enough.However, I think there's a pretty strong argument that the video would be protected as fair use -- and that the takedown issued by the copyright holder (likely the NFL) was not a legitimate takedown. In fact, it's possible that the NFL issued the takedown for political reasons, as there's no argument that this somehow harmed the NFL directly. It's a short clip. It's used in a transformative (if stupid) way.In other words, this is an actual example of the law being used for censorship. Unlike Section 230. And yet, we don't see Trump or his supporters calling for that aspect of copyright law to be fixed. Indeed, copyright law is even worse, because if the Trump campaign keeps getting copyright strikes like this, the law says that Twitter must shut down his account for repeat infringements. Will Trump and his supporters finally see that the real problem for censorship is copyright?Instead they're asking to take away Section 230, which (at best) would create a situation more like copyright in which the legal incentive is much stronger towards pulling down such content. It remains incredible to me that in all of these discussions about social media and "censorship" everyone is focused on the law that protects speech online, rather than the law that forces websites to pull down legal content.

Say goodbye to back-and-forth emails and wasted time trying to arrange a conversation. Novocall TimeSync is an online meeting scheduler designed for remote teams. It allows you to automatically keep tabs on scheduled meetings and calls, and seamlessly sync people, schedules, and outcomes. TimeSync makes every meeting easier and integrates with your calendar, Zoom, Google Hangouts, Salesforce, HubSpot, Google Analytics, and Facebook. A one year subscription is on sale for $30, and the unlimited subscription is on sale for $40.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

I am perplexed. US district court judge Alfred Covello seems to have a very strange understanding of the 1st Amendment. As first noted in the Hartford Courant (who didn't link to the ruling) Covello has ruled that holding up a sign telling drivers that there are police ahead is not protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Because I'm not the Hartford Courant, you can read the whole ruling yourself.First off, let's be clear: Covello is wrong, and hopefully the ACLU (which is handling this case) will appeal. Plenty of other courts have ruled otherwise, including that merely flashing your headlights to oncoming cars is a form of protected speech, which seems way less expressive than holding up a printed sign saying that police are up ahead.To put an even finer point on this: by holding up a sign warning drivers that police are up ahead, the plaintiff in this case, Michael Friend, was actually encouraging drivers to obey the law. Which seems like a good thing. Except that the police didn't like him telling people to obey the law, because they make money from people not obeying the law. Either way, holding up a sign about what government employees are doing is quintessential protected free speech.Covello's reasoning is... bizarre.