The electronic farce foundation

I think the EFF still largely for the good, but there are aspects of it that start to make me feel they’re concerned about protecting the freedoms of business rather than consumers. That feels like it might start making it a joke, like the NRA.

They still champion the anti-surveillance state, which is a key thing that needs to be raised. However, I guess my key example of where it falls apart is section 230. I fundamentally agree with the protections of Section 230, but the ideal that the platform isn’t the publisher of ideas and the individual is responsible for what they say falls apart in the modern age.

From my link above, in the words of the EFF:

Section 230 embodies that principle that we should all be responsible for our own actions and statements online, but generally not those of others. The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say.

I think for the most part that holds true where there is no thumb on the scale via an algorithm. I do think one of the biggest problems that face the web is algorithmic feeds. This is the platform deciding what gets surfaced and when they do that, they should be responsible for what’s seen.

Some small time forum that just hosts a forum with a list of posts ordered by the latest post made should not. However, there is no reason a billion-dollar company that decides what gets surfaced should not be moderating slop and propaganda, in my mind.

Take YouTube, as one example, regardless of what I look at, what the homepage surfaces is clickbait, A.I. slop that’s largely the kind of content that is exactly the problem with the web. In my mind, YouTube is only valuable if you use an external search engine to surface subjects you want. Everything is suggest is garbage. Google made that happen, and Google can fix it. They’re not a small company just getting by.

Bot accounts and bad actors heavily rely on algorithms to get their alternative narratives out there. If it were just a message board that sorted data by time, all those sock puppet posts would just disappear onto page 2,3, etc. Imo, that’s because the algorithmic feels are a publisher decision to push content up, and the publishing platform should be held responsible.

I think even if you put a size limit on the platform and allowed unrestricted algorithms on small platforms, that would even be okay.

I just don’t think it’s right that the world’s richest man can push false narratives on his platform which will push his comments on people and get away with it. If anything is said, it will be weak and late. Yet companies end up blocking the UK or small communities in the UK shutdown out of fear of what Ofcom may do to them over some person’s comment.

Basically, I think the EFF needs to see this problem and not just flat out fight against anything because, to me, it does feel like it’s turning in to a libertarian ‘protection business’ rather than considering what really protects consumers. Thinking more about the little people and taking a balanced approach that reigns in billion-dollar companies while protecting small business and consumers would be far better, in my opinion.