Control over online speech should be in users’ hands
Doja Cat, DaBaby, Noah Cyrus lead fashion march
The U.S. election and its dramatic aftermath have elevated the debate about how to deal with online misinformation and disinformation, lies and extremism. We saw social media companies permanently kick the president, some of his allies and conspiracy groups off their platforms for election misinformation, raising eyebrows around the world and leading to accusations that they’re being robbed of their First Amendment rights. At the same time, people used social media to communicate plans to commit violence at the Capitol, drawing complaints that platforms don’t do enough to censor extremism.
This has exacerbated calls by politicians and others to regulate online speech by imposing rules on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms. Lawmakers are backing various wrongheaded proposals for this.
One would change the law to hold tech companies legally liable for the speech they host, by amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — the thought being that platforms will remove harmful speech to avoid multiple lawsuits. Another would give state legislatures power to regulate internet speech. Last but not least, now-former president Donald Trump issued in May an executive order that would essentially insert the federal government into private internet speech, letting government agencies adjudicate platforms’ decisions to remove a post or kick someone off. The Biden administration can rescind the order — but so far it has not.
It is important to note that the law as it currently exists gives platforms both the right to curate their content as they see fit (thanks to the First Amendment) and protects them from liability for the choices they make about what to remove or leave up. Without these protections, it is unlikely that we would have seen the growth of these platforms in the first place, nor are we likely to see further flourishing of competition in the space.
The purported remedies under consideration by lawmakers are highly and dangerously flawed and flout First Amendment speech protections. They would foster state censorship antithetical to democracy.
Big tech companies would have more control over online speech than they already have because they can afford the legal fights that will scare off new entrants to the market. What’s more, they would push legal, protected speech offline, and silence the voices of marginalized and less powerful people who rely on the internet to speak out.
Instead, users should have more power to control what they see on their feeds. They should be able to move freely with their data from one platform to another when they don’t like what they see. There should be more competition and more choice of platforms so users can seek out the one that works for them. Mergers and acquisitions among social media companies should be more closely scrutinized, and our antitrust laws better enforced to foster competition. Instead of having one giant platform gobbling up its competitors, we need multiple, diverse platforms for people to choose from.
Facebook, Twitter and Google have way too much control over public discourse and do a mostly horrendous job at moderating speech on their platforms. The decisions they make to take down posts or close accounts are inconsistent and vague, and lack transparency. Platforms should adopt standards like the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation, which frame content moderation practices around human rights considerations.
Tech companies have a First Amendment right to edit and curate the content on their platforms, free of government interference. The government cannot force sites to display or promote speech they don’t want to display or remove speech they don’t want to remove. We support this right. The government shouldn’t have the power to dictate what people can or cannot say online.
But until platforms embrace fairness, consistency and transparency in their editing practices, give users more power over their social media accounts, and embrace interoperability so users won’t lose data if they decide to switch platforms, and until policymakers find ways to foster competition, we will continue to see misguided calls for the government to step in and regulate online speech.
Jillian C. York is director of International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and author of “Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance Capitalism.” Karen Gullo is an analyst and senior media relations specialist at EFF. They wrote this for InsideSources.com.
NEW YORK — Doja Cat went for neon feathers and a moto jacket-inspired leather dress zipped allll the way down and DaBaby brightened up the Grammys in a bright mustard and green floral suit as music’s big night Sunday offered a luxe fashion moment for the stars.
Dressed in Roberto Cavalli, Doja Cat’s look included cat-claw zips on each arm. DaBaby, his mom, Linda by his side in red, rocked Dolce & Gabbana.
“I want to be the cat lady, so let me be that,” Doja told E!
Topping off his suit with a wide-brim green hat, DaBaby was on hand in person but earlier created an Instagram red carpet moment with his daughter since no kids were allowed at the Los Angeles show.
Joanie Leeds, winner of the best children’s music album, did something similar at a distance from home in New York.
“I actually created a step and repeat and a red carpet,” she told reporters during a virtual news conference before the show. “We all walked the red carpet and we had a photographer here and took some really good pictures.”
Leeds wore a multicolor sequined gown by Nicole Miller, and she slid off her silver heels to show on camera.
“Just because we’re virtual this year, I wasn’t going to wear my hoodie sweatshirt,” said Leeds, a first-time Grammy winner.
Due to pandemic precautions, the “red carpet” was not the usual mass of cameras and TV crews. A select few outlets were permitted on site to conduct live interviews — a safe distance apart.
The night’s host, Trevor Noah, showed up for the pared-down carpet in a classic black tuxedo, while nominee Debi Nova went
Due to pandemic precautions, the “red carpet” was not the usual mass of cameras and TV crews. A select few outlets were permitted on site to conduct live interviews — a safe distance apart.
big — and pink — in a mini dress that had a huge train and tropical details, by Georges Chakra. Phoebe Bridgers wore a black gown adorned with a beaded human skeleton, from Thom Browne, and Megan Thee Stallion wore a strapless bright orange princess look with a high side slit and a huge back bow and train by Dolce & Gabbana.
In Dundas, H.E.R. rocked a burgundy, mid-calf robe with matching wide-leg trousers.
Noah Cyrus spoke to reporters in a cream gown with a huge cape-like effect that encircled her face. It was a Schiaparelli, a somber Cyrus and first-time Grammy nominee said. She said she was honored to be the first to wear it. Cyrus is mourning the recent death of her grandmother.
“I just wish my grandma could have seen this,” she said of her nomination.