Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Backdoors And Backsteps
from the ctrl-alt-speech dept
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben are joined by a group of students from the Media Law and Policy class at the American University School of Communication. Together they cover:
- U.K. orders Apple to let it spy on users’ encrypted accounts (Washington Post)
- US lawmakers respond to the UK’s Apple encryption backdoor request (Engadget)
- UK: Encryption order threatens global privacy rights (Human Rights Watch)
- Analysis: AI Summit emphasizes innovation and competition over trust and safety (DFR Lab)
- An overdue idea for making the internet safer just got the funding it needs (Platformer)
- Google-backed public interest AI partnership launches with $400M+ for open ecosystem building (Techcrunch)
- Britain dances to JD Vance’s tune as it renames AI institute (Politico)
- Section 230 Still Works in the Fourth Circuit (For Now)–M.P. v. Meta (Eric Goldman)
- TikTok Opts to Not Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to the US Supreme Court (Law.com)
- Shopify says risk of fraud, not Nazi swastika, was reason for Kanye West store takedown (The Logic)
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.
Filed Under: ai, artificial intelligence, content moderation, encryption, eu, first amendment, free speech, kanye west, uk
Companies: apple, google, meta, shopify, tiktok
Comments on “Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Backdoors And Backsteps”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Talking To Section 230’s Co-Authors Such as Chris Cox?
If you did talk to Chris Cox, did you ask him anything about how NetChoice has posted articles on its website applauding Trump & Co.’s approach to Free Speech and other right-wing trash and how that’s supposed to gel with NetChoice supporting Section 230 and other actual free speech?
Re:
Et tu Netchoice?
Re: Re:
NetChoice loves all the clout they get from their case against Paxton and such since they can hide behind it. They have been a pro-Republican organization since the very start. I would love for more tech journalists to hold NetChoice accountable for their support for dirtbags like Trump and their two-faced nature on speech.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oh joy, my post got flagged. Does anybody on this site actually give a shit about how GOP think-tanks like NetChoice, which dyed-on-the-wool Republican Chris Cox is on the Board for, are not actually our best allies? I would love a Karl Bode piece on how orgs like NetChoice are pro-Trump. Or how orgs like TechFreedom fly the flag of free speech and Internet freedom but then go to bat nonstop for telecoms in Net Neutrality cases and tech corpos in Antitrust suits.
Re:
Oh, it’s you again.
Yeah,so when Netchoice is doing the opposite of defending 230 or similar, it will be noted.
You need to get past the idea that noting a good bit of work done is some kind of hero worship, and drop the ideological purity police shtick.
It’s not like they are getting funding or a platform for whatever else from BestNetTech. i can’t see what your issue is. It’s like you think they are somehow pulling the wool over our eyes, and we’re being fooled into… something. As if there is another party doing the work, but we are ignoring them.
You know what? Hate them for whatever other bullshit they’re into, that’s cool, but if it isn’t salient enough to be covered by BestNetTech’s limited resources, it won’t be covered.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
NetChoice is going to bat for Trump and leaning on the lies about the Biden Administration “censoring” things. That is a serious red flag and not a mild difference in opinion. Claiming I’m doing some “ideological purity police schtick” is absurd. It would be nice if BestNetTech could do a piece or two on NetChoice’s bullshit like how they’ve resoundingly mocked and picked apart the same arguments from conservative politicians.
Chris Cox is one of the co-authors of Section 230 and is on the Board Of Directors of NetChoice. He’s gonna show up in Mike’s podcast series, very likely. A platform where I suspect Chris is gonna do everything he can to flex the idea that NetChoice are the good guys, when they clearly are not.
Re: Re: Re:
dude shut up with your ideological purity police schtick
Re: I retract my statement…
The more you speak, the less convincing you are. If Netchoice was pro-Republican from the start, why is one of their most reoccurring opponents in court cases is Texas (a Republican stronghold)? The states that have been ramping up age-restrictive, anti-porn, or any regressive digital policies that Netchoice has been pushing against? Most of them red states. The two big cases involving S. 230, Murphy and Paxton in 2023? From Texas and Missouri, two deeply Republican states.
Netchoice isn’t pro-Republican, but it’s not Pro-Democrat either, they’re pro-free speech. They represent a lot of websites, big and small. They’re not a perfect organization by any means (that letter of them supporting Jim Jordan and Rand Paul’s ideas is… a choice), but neither is the concept of free speech. And I think it’s rather reductive that the answer to formalizing a true free speech movement is to exclude the organization that defends, defending, and will defend Section 230 because they’re pressured into supporting a questionable-at-best legislation. In fact, I say that’s counterproductive for the first amendment.
And if you want to die in that hill, well you do you. But you’re going to have to convince me with a little more concrete evidence (outside of the letter) and legitimate sources.
Also why do you have such a weird hate boner for Chris Cox?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
TD keeps eating my reply, let me see if this one goes through:
https://netchoice.org/netchoice-applauds-president-trump-orders-to-unleash-golden-age-of-american-innovation-and-stop-federal-censorship/
https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/16/24345310/cfpb-digital-payment-apps-rule-lawsuit-technet-netchoice
Applauding Trump over stupid garbage and suing the CFPB over the Bureau doing its job are things that should raise some warning signs.
Re: Re: Re:
bro no one cares about your anti free speech ass
Re: Re:
“Also why do you have such a weird hate boner for Chris Cox?” because it’s the same guy who doomposts about 230
Re: Re: Re:
You got the wrong guy. I’m the guy constantly spiraling about 230.
And I don’t even know who the fuck Cox is.
Re: Re: Re:2
it’s gets confusing but yea the other guy really hates netchoice for some reason
Re: Re:
The comments system keeps eating my replies. Probably because of the links and spam protection? Let me see if this one gets through if I just give the titles of the articles for you to search on your search engine of choice.
“Netchoice Applauds President Trump’s Orders to Unleash ‘Golden Age’ of American Innovation and Stop Federal Censorship” – Netchoice’s own website.
“CFPB sued for trying to regulate digital payment apps more like banks / NetChoice and TechNet are challenging the bureau’s effort to oversee compliance with federal fraud and privacy laws by Apply Pay, Google Wallet, Cash App, Venmo and others” – The Verge
As for my “hate boner” for Chris Cox? I feel like as the co-author of Section 230 and ostensibly big on free speech, he should be doing something as a member of the Board Of Directors to keep NetChoice from drinking the full Trump Kool-Aid. He’s a Republican at a think-tank that is lending their support to idiotic Republican agendas and therefore he deserves more scrutiny than he’s been given.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
If you want some more of NetChoice being insane, here’s a snippet from “Democrat Leaders Don’t Like the First Amendment. Republicans Should Tell Voters.”:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
shut up bro
Re: Re: Re:
shut up anti free speech
who let this far left anti free speech guy in the comments section
So if Tiktok isn’t taking the section 230 case up to SCOTUS, isn’t it effectively dead?
Or am I misunderstanding what’s going on here.
Re:
Given the lack of news-buzz about it the last day or two, since I just learned about it, I take it that it wasn’t the end of the world.
Re:
It’s bad for lawsuits in the 3rd Circuit, but I’m guessing that another case will eventually bring this issue up to the Supreme Court (as I mentioned, possibly this MP v. Meta case) as there’s now a pretty clear circuit split.
The ruling in Anderson didn’t make 230 dead, but does limit it’s usefulness regarding algorithmic recommendations.
Re: Re:
so basically it could have been worse
Re: Re:
Ah, I see. Suppose we’re now at a point where SCOTUS gets to decide if the fourth or third circuit are correct about their ruling regarding algorithmic recommendations.
Re: Re: Re:
Which, might I add, depending on the ruling, would have..INTERESTING results on peoples’ social media feeds.