October, 04 2021, 04:07pm EDT
![Fight for the Future](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012623/origin.jpg)
New Facebook Whistleblower Shines Light on Algorithmic Harms. The Solution Is Privacy Legislation That Makes Facebook's Surveillance Driven Business Model Illegal.
Congress can and should pass a privacy law strong enough to kill Facebook.
WASHINGTON
Last night, the whistleblower behind a series of Wall Street Journal articles about Facebook revealed herself in interviews with 60 minutes and a number of major news outlets. Frances Haugen, a former member of Facebook's civic integrity team, correctly points to algorithmic-amplification-that's-maximized-for-engagement as being at the root of many of Facebook's harms. Notably, this is something that human rights activists and experts have been saying for years, and it's not just Facebook--other giants like YouTube employ the exact same surveillance capitalist business model. So the question is, in this watershed moment that could define the future of technology and public policy, what do we as a society do with this information?
Fight for the Future, a leading digital rights group known for organizing the largest online protests in human history in defense of net neutrality and against online surveillance, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to the group's director, Evan Greer (she/her):
"The Internet is awesome. Facebook is terrible. This is a watershed moment where we need to fight for policy that preserves the democratizing and revolutionary potential of the Internet, while finally putting an end to the inherently harmful business model of Silicon Valley's most powerful companies.
We owe thanks to ALL of the whistleblowers and journalists who have helped shine a light on the grim inner workings of Facebook's surveillance capitalist machine. The problem with Facebook's products is not that they host user generated content. It's that they use machine learning to show us the content that Facebook thinks we want to see (and suppress content that they don't want us to see or think we don't want to see), in order to keep us on the platform longer and sell more ads.
What Facebook sells is not an online message board where people can express themselves, it's surveillance-driven algorithmic manipulation that's maximized for engagement. Regulating the algorithms that companies like Facebook and YouTube use to recommend content can be difficult--many policies that attempt to do so run afoul of the First Amendment. Other suggestions, like changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, would do more harm than good, silence the voices of marginalized communities, and could actually solidify Big Tech giants' monopoly power.
But here's what we can do. Congress should pass a Federal data privacy law strong enough to kill Facebook's current business model entirely. Outright banning harmful algorithmic amplification is hard, but lawmakers can absolutely make it illegal for Big Tech companies to engage in the mass surveillance and data harvesting practices that power the algorithms they use to recommend and suppress content. This is where lawmakers should focus their attention coming out of tomorrow's Senate hearing. In the coming days, Fight for the Future will launch a major new campaign calling for a privacy law strong enough to end surveillance-driven algorithmic recommendation.
As I wrote in a recent Twitter thread, to get the right answers we must ask the right questions. Which problems are social media platforms merely shining a light on? Which problems are social media platforms actually causing or exacerbating? Of those problems, what is actually causing them? Is it networked communications as a whole, or is it specific to a business practice like algorithmic manipulation. And finally, which problems are social media platforms (even the problematic ones) potentially addressing or mitigating? If we don't ask these questions then we will gravitate towards policy solutions that fail to address the root cause of Big Tech's harms, or worse, policies that do more harm than good.
There is no single silver bullet solution that will magically fix the Internet. But pushing our elected officials to finally get off their butts and pass a real Federal data privacy law would be a damn good start."
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Big Win in California as Big Oil Drops Effort to Drill Near Schools and Homes
"Big Oil spent tens of millions of dollars trying to fool voters," said one campaigner, "but it was no match for the groundswell of people power and community support."
Jun 27, 2024
Environmental, climate, and public health advocates on Thursday cheered what one green group called a "historic win" as a Big Oil industry group dropped a California ballot measure challenging a law banning oil drilling near homes, schools, and businesses.
The Sacramento Beereported that the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) will withdraw its ballot measure seeking to overturn the state's ban on drilling for oil within 3,200 feet of residential, educational, and commercial buildings.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill—introduced by then-state Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-80)—in September 2022.
"We just won our David vs. Goliath battle," the Protect California Communities campaign said on social media. "Big Oil officially withdrew their deceitful initiative!"
"Our law is safe and will finally take effect," the group added. "We just protected California neighborhoods from toxic oil drilling!"
CIPA chairman Jonathan Gregory issued a salty statement following the ballot measure's withdrawal.
"Supporters of the energy shutdown can make unfounded claims in the press and in paid advertisements, but they can't make those claims in court without evidence," he said, according to the Bee. "That's why we are pivoting from the referendum to a legal strategy."
However, Newsom said CIPA's move "ends harmful drilling in our communities and enforces common-sense pollution controls."
"Big Oil saw what they were up against—and they folded, again," the governor said on Thursday. "No parent in their right mind would vote to allow drilling next to daycares and playgrounds. This is a huge win for all Californians, especially the two million living within a half-mile of these operations."
Food & Water Watch California director Chirag Bhakta said in a statement that "while this is a moment to celebrate the power of people coming together to take on Big Oil, we must continue to get toxic oil drilling out of neighborhoods, as well as all fossil fuel infrastructure, which also poses a huge risk to public health and causes pollution to our water and air."
Bhakta added that Newsom must now "immediately shut down the dangerous Aliso Canyon gas storage facility which was the site of the biggest methane blowout in U.S. history almost a decade ago and is an ongoing threat to nearby residents."
Communities for a Better Environment Darryl Molina Sarmiento said that "Big Oil spent tens of millions of dollars trying to fool voters, using the profits made at the expense of community health, but it was no match for the groundswell of people power and community support we were able to unite all across California."
Food & Water Watch's Bhakta said that public opposition to repealing the law "proves once again that Californians do not want dangerous and polluting oil rigs in their backyards, near where their children go to school and play or near hospitals."
"We will not sacrifice our communities anymore," he vowed. "This victory is due to the dedication of so many, and particularly frontline communities who are experiencing the brunt of the oil industry's pollution and have been advocating for years to get dirty oil drilling out of their backyards."
Nalleli Cobo is one of those people. The 22-year-old activist—who helped found the grassroots group People Not Pozos (Spanish for wells)—is recovering from illness related to growing up alonside an oil well and has been tirelessly fighting against Big Oil's plans to drill near residential communities.
"When I was about 11, I was diagnosed with asthma. By the time I turned 19, we had shut down the drilling in our South L.A. neighborhood, but not before I was diagnosed with stage 2 reproductive cancer," Cobo explained. "I lost my ability to bear children as a result. After three surgeries, eight minor procedures, three rounds of chemotherapy, and six weeks of radiation, I was cancer-free as of two years ago, at 20."
"My experience, like that of others who live in neighborhoods polluted by oil drilling, is a constant reminder that those in power do not value our health and wellbeing," she added. "It's a signal that some communities are expendable, that our lives don't matter as much as the fossil fuel industry's profits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Key Senate Panel Launches Probe of Big Oil-OPEC Collusion
Illegal coordination between oil companies and OPEC may have cost U.S. families thousands of dollars in higher costs for gas and other necessities.
Jun 27, 2024
Announcing a probe into potential efforts by fossil fuel companies to illegally coordinate with international oil producers in order to fix prices, U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on Wednesday wrote to 18 oil giants demanding that they turn over communications with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, commonly known as OPEC.
Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wrote to companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, weeks after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused the former CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources Company of attempting to collude with OPEC.
Text messages, WhatsApp communications, and records from in-person meetings showed that Scott Sheffield tried to collude with representatives of OPEC countries to manipulate oil and gas production worldwide and raise oil and gas prices.
The commission made its discovery while reviewing a plan by ExxonMobil to acquire Pioneer in a $64.5 billion deal.
"The FTC's findings indicate that Sheffield and Pioneer may not have been the only individual or entity engaging in such collusive activities," wrote Whitehouse to the 18 oil giants, citing numerous examples.
"We're talking $500-1000 dollars of extra cost per year to Americans through direct and indirect effects of this conspiracy."
"In view of the findings against Sheffield, I seek to understand whether other oil producers operating in the United States may also have been coordinating with OPEC and OPEC+ representatives concerning oil production output, crude oil prices, and the relationship between the production and pricing of oil products," said Whitehouse.
Whitehouse called on the companies to provide communications between and among companies' corporate and affiliate officers and members of the OPEC Secretariat and OPEC+ concerning oil production output, crude oil prices, and the relationship between the production and pricing of oil products, dating from January 1, 2020 through the present.
The companies have until July 12 to provide the materials, the senator said.
Whitehouse noted that efforts by Sheffield and, potentially, other oil executives, to illegally coordinate oil production and prices with OPEC, may have had major, tangible effects on American families. He cited an analysis by the American Economic Liberties Project which found that "crude oil price-fixing schemes may have caused over 25% of the increase in inflation that hurt so many American families throughout 2021 in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic."
"Since the U.S. consumes 7 billion barrels of oil annually, the amount saved by shale oil drillers during their price war with OPEC was $140 billion to $210 billion a year," wrote Matt Stoller, the group's research director.
"Once that price war ended, presumably so did the savings," Stoller continued. "The cost itself is likely a lot higher because pulling shale off the market when demand spiked probably caused prices to increase by much more than $20-30 a barrel. Anyway, we're talking $500-1000 dollars of extra cost per year to Americans through direct and indirect effects of this conspiracy. This cost shows up most obviously in the form of more expensive gas, but higher oil prices increase the price of everything right down to potato chips because of gas being a primary cost in distribution of goods and services. For a family of four, that's two to four thousand dollars a year in higher costs."
Whitehouse wrote in his letter to the oil company that he was "concerned about the possibility that oil and gas companies could be engaging in collusive, anti-competitive activities with OPEC+ that would raise crude oil prices, resulting in higher costs not only for American families, but also for the U.S. government when it acquires crude oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Puts Countless 'Lives at Risk' by Ruling Against Clean Air
"With this decision, the Supreme Court has abandoned any pretense of neutrality in cases involving environmental regulations," an expert said.
Jun 27, 2024
Health and environmental groups decried a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Thursday that suspended an air pollution rule with far-reaching implications set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The justices ruled 5-4 in Ohio v. EPA to nullify the rule, designed to protect people in states downwind from smog-forming pollution, until the case can be decided on its merits in federal court, siding with the industrial polluters and upwind states who'd petitioned them to do so.
"With this decision, the Supreme Court has abandoned any pretense of neutrality in cases involving environmental regulations," Sam Sankar, a senior vice president at Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, said in a statement.
"The Court's order puts thousands of lives at risk, forces downwind states to regulate their industries more tightly, and tells big polluters that it's open season on our environmental laws," he added.
A coalition of health and environmental groups, including Earthjustice, agreed that the ruling would have devastating effects.
"Today's decision is deeply disappointing," the coalition wrote in a joint statement. "It will result almost immediately in pollution that endangers the health of millions of people."
Initial thoughts on Ohio v. EPA - Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion reflects two longstanding trends in his environmental law jurisprudence: deep skepticism of agency experts and emphasis on state authority over environmental protection. You can read my analysis of these trends…
— Rachel Rothschild (@ProfRRothschild) June 27, 2024
The legal dispute stems from the EPA's 2015 ozone pollution regulations. States were required to issue plans showing compliance, and last year the EPA determined that 23 of the plans were insufficient, issuing its own plan for those states. The agency said that in 2026 alone, the multi-state plan would prevent about 1,300 premature deaths.
The EPA plan set off a flurry of legal challenges by fossil fuel companies, power companies, and related trade associations, as well as upwind states. Some challenges were successful in getting federal courts to temporarily suspend the EPA rules in individual states. However, the consolidated case, Ohio v. EPA, hasn't yet been heard by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and that court denied a request for a suspension of the rule in the meantime.
The plaintiffs then sought emergency relief from the rule at the Supreme Court, arguing that it could cost "hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in costs over the next 12 to 18 months." The Supreme Court normally dismisses such relief requests, but in this case not only accepted the case onto its shadow docket, but took the unusual step of hearing oral arguments, which most shadow docket cases don't have, as they tend to deal with stays and injunctions, and not the fully-fledged merits of a case.
At the oral arguments, in February, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that the case was even before the court, given that it hadn't even been heard on its merits by the D.C. Circuit court.
"What I’m a little concerned about is that really your argument is just boiling down to we think we have a meritorious claim and we don't want to have to follow the law while we’re challenging it," Jackson said to the plaintiffs' legal team. "And I don’t understand why every single person who is challenging a rule doesn’t have the same set of circumstances."
Jackson is one of three liberal justices on the court, but it was in fact conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett who authored what The New York Times called a "spirited" dissent to Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion.
"The court today enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits," Barrett wrote. "In so doing, the court grants emergency relief in a fact-intensive and highly technical case without fully engaging with both the relevant law and the voluminous record."
Rachel Rothschild, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote on social media that Gorsuch's opinion drew on his "deep skepticism of agency experts and emphasis on state authority over environmental protection."
The conservative justices' aversion to agency expertise was also evident in both its 2022 ruling against the EPA's climate change rules and its 2023 ruling against the EPA's water pollution rules.
The Center for American Progress wrote in February that a loss in Ohio v. EPA would be another "devastating reversal" for the EPA as the agency struggles to assert "the authorities that Congress has explicitly granted it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular