roger stone – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the welcome-to-the-content-moderation-game dept

Remember Gettr? That’s the Trumpist social network run by former Trump spokesperson (and vexatious lawsuit filer) Jason Miller that promised to be supportive of “free speech.” As we point out what happens with every new social network that jumps into the space with promises to “support free speech!” and “not censor!” before long they will begin to realize content moderation is required to keep your site running — and soon they discover that content moderation will involve difficult choices. And, sometimes, it involves making mistakes.

Of course, whenever Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or whoever else note that they made a “mistake” with a content moderation decision and reverse it, there are always some people who insist it couldn’t possibly be a mistake and must be [insert conspiratorial reason here]. So I find it hilarious that on Wednesday, Gettr got to experience all this as well. First, Trump buddy and admitted “dirty trickster” Roger Stone went on Gab — another such social network — to whine about how he was “censored” by Gettr, claiming it was because he had made what he believed were disparaging remarks about Miller (and Steve Bannon).

"Gettr actually suspended my account," Roger Stone wrote on Gab. He further claimed that Steve Bannon and Jason Miller are lovers of sorts – and his banning was due to being critical of the duo.

— Zachary Petrizzo (@ZTPetrizzo) August 25, 2021

This graphic alone is pretty hilarious, given all the people who insisted that Gettr doesn’t do moderation.

A few hours later, Jason Miller told Salon reporter Zachary Petrizzo, that it was all a mistake, and blamed the problem of a bunch of fake Stone accounts that the site was trying to get rid of. In the process, Miller claimed, they “accidentally” deleted the real Stone’s account. The timing coming right after Stone made remarks about Miller was, apparently, entirely coincidental.

“Multiple fake Roger Stone accounts were suspended following user complaints, but his real Gettr account was inadvertently suspended too,” Miller told Salon via email. “His correct account is currently active, and the imposter accounts have all been removed.”

It’s almost like… running a social media account with malicious actors are trying to abuse requires content moderation, and that will often involve making mistakes, rather than, say, “bias” or desires to silence particular people.

Who knows why Gettr actually suspended Stone? These kinds of things happen all the time on all the other social media sites too. It doesn’t mean it’s malicious or directed at silencing a critic (though, honestly, there’s a higher likelihood that is true with a site like Gettr than with Twitter or Facebook, that actually have real policies in place and a history of training staff to moderate judiciously). It could actually be a mistake. Just like Twitter and Facebook sometimes make mistakes.

I’m still waiting for Miller and his fans to realize that all of these challenges that Gettr is facing are no different than the ones that other social media apps faced — and that maybe all their earlier complaints of “censorship” were just as bullshit then as the claims about Gettr being censorial today are. I get the feeling that I’ll be waiting a long, long time for that recognition to set in.

Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, content moderation, jason miller, mistakes, roger stone
Companies: gab, gettr

Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?

from the hypocrites dept

It’s been absolutely fascinating — though not at all surprising — to watch a ton of Trumpists mentally struggling with the process of understanding the nature, importance, and necessity of content moderation online over the last few months via Parler. As you may recall, after whining about being moderated on sites like Twitter and Facebook, a bunch of Trump fans started using Parler, a site that was only recently revealed to have been cofounded by Rebekah Mercer (Parler fans like to claim that their users are migrating from Twitter to Parler, but most of them are still using Twitter, because Parler is mostly them preaching to the converted).

Parler’s founders (including Mercer) and its biggest fans have been insisting that Parler stands for “free speech” and that unlike Twitter, it won’t moderate content. Indeed, despite claiming that it would only moderate “based off the FCC and the Supreme court” (whatever the fuck that means), we knew that the site would end up doing much more moderation, just like every other social media site.

In fact, we highlighted how Parler seemed to be doing a speedrun through the content moderation lessons of every previous social media network that comes on the scene, promising to do no moderation at all, and then quickly discovering that that’s impossible. First, you have to moderate some content under law (such as child sexual abuse material). Second, there is plenty of content that you have strong legal reasons to moderate (such as copyright infringement, to avoid massive liability). Third, every site recognizes they need to deal with straight up spam. And lots of sites insist that they can just do that and nothing else. But then they discover that they have people on their platform trolling, harassing, and abusing others.

Last summer, we highlighted how Parler was banning trolls who were joining the platform just to make fun of Parler and its users. Hilariously, that post keeps getting comments every few days from Parler users saying things like “of course Parler has to ban you leftist trolls.” Just a few examples from our comments. This guy says that he needs Parler as a sort of “safe space.”

So, how does censorship feel to you? Parlor provides a place where people can escape the insults, bullying, Mental/emotional assaults. Try presenting a point of view without name calling, with facts and data, with an open mind and with a little thought toward strangers and how the vitriolic hates speech affects them. Then perhaps the lefties will be welcome.

This is pretty hilarious, given how frequently Trumpists mock others for wanting “safe spaces” and insisting that “hate speech” is not a thing. And then there’s this one from someone who thinks its obvious that the users trolling Parler should get banned:

Every last one of those crybabies up there just self-explained why they were banned. Lol “I created an account just to mess with conservatives.” Yeah dude, I can see why you were banned. If you create an account just to screw with people, you’re a troll and you SHOULD be banned regardless of the web site. If you create an account to debate and give general respect to everyone, then no, you’re fine. The people above got exactly what they deserved. NO WEB SITE is going to allow harassment of any kind. Period.

Um. Yes, that was the very point of that post. That every site discovers it needs to deal with harassment. And that’s a big part of the reason why people get kicked off of Twitter.

I find it hilarious that the same crew who insists that Twitter/Facebook are “censoring” them, immediately spins around and insists that it’s totally obvious that Parler must remove “trolls, hate speech and harassment” without recognizing their own hypocrisy.

Anyway, sooner or later we were going to have a controversy in which Parler moderation impacted their Trumpist-style supporters, rather than just the folks jumping in to troll. And that day is today.

The Daily Beast has an article giving some of the important background. A SuperPAC connected to convicted political scammer Roger Stone is trying to get people to write in Trump’s name in the two Georgia Senate runoff elections:

The most aggressive call to boycott or cast protest ballots in the two runoff races has, so far, come from a dormant pro-Trump super PAC with ties to Stone that unveiled a new initiative to retaliate against the Republican Party?s supposed turncoats by handing Democrats control of the U.S. Senate.

The group, dubbed the Committee for American Sovereignty, unveiled a new website encouraging Georgia Republicans to write in Trump?s name in both of the upcoming Senate runoff elections, which could determine the party that controls the upper chamber during President-elect Joe Biden?s first two years in office. The PAC argued that doing so will show support for the president in addition to forcing Republicans to address the wild election-fraud conspiracy theories floated by Trump supporters and members of his own legal team.

This entire campaign is somewhat bewildering, since (1) there is no way to write-in names during the run-offs and (2) it would seem to go against Trumpist interests to sink the support of the two Republican candidates. So it was somewhat amusing to suddenly find out that Parler is apparently blocking hashtags related to this campaign:

For what it’s worth, Parler’s recently hired policy executive says that the accusation may have been “a glitch” according to Newsweek. And I’d totally buy that is a possibility.

There seems to be no way to link directly to that Parler post, but it says:

This is false, as evidenced by the fact that this post showed up when I searched for the tag.

There may be a glitch, or a delay of some kind, because the initial screen summarizing the results showed ?1 post,? and then when you click on that, you see a whole bunch.

Please people, don?t jump to conclusions. I know you?re accustomed to biased content curation, but we don?t do that here. Ask before jumping to conclusions.

However, I will note that when Twitter admitted that it had a glitch that filtered some people out of auto-complete and latest results in search, the same folks rushing to Parler now (such as Ted Cruz) insisted that it was obviously deliberate and to this day continue to falsely accuse Twitter of shadowbanning them. So it’s pretty rich for Parler people to say “please people, don’t jump to conclusions.” The only reason Parler has any audience at all is because its insanely gullible userbase jumped to a bunch of false conclusions about Twitter moderation.

Again, Parler has every right to moderate however it sees fit. And getting rid of trolls and assholes is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Also, glitches happen all the time. However, I find it amusing that once again, Parler is learning all the same lessons that Twitter learned over time — and Parler’s users (and employees) are demanding we give Parler the benefit of the doubt they never gave Twitter. So before Parler’s fervent supporters rush into our comments to defend Parler, let me be clear: Parler has every right to do this. No one is mocking them for that. We’re mocking them for (1) insisting that Parler wouldn’t do this and (2) for the fact that you give Parler the benefit of the doubt that you refuse to give Twitter.

Filed Under: content moderation, georgia elections, glitch, roger stone, section 230, social media
Companies: parler, twitter

Democratic National Committee's Lawsuit Against Russians, Wikileaks And Various Trump Associates Full Of Legally Nutty Arguments

from the slow-down-there-dnc dept

This morning I saw a lot of excitement and happiness from folks who greatly dislike President Trump over the fact that the Democratic National Committee had filed a giant lawsuit against Russia, the GRU, Guccifier 2, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, the Trump campaign, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and a few other names you might recognize if you’ve followed the whole Trump / Russia soap opera over the past year and a half. My first reaction was that this was unlikely to be the kind of thing we’d cover on Techdirt, because it seemed like a typical political thing. But, then I looked at the actual complaint and it’s basically a laundry list of the laws that we regularly talk about (especially about how they’re abused in litigation). Seriously, look at the complaint. There’s a CFAA claim, an SCA claim, a DMCA claim, a “Trade Secrets Act” claim… and everyone’s favorite: a RICO claim.

Most of the time when we see these laws used, they’re indications of pretty weak lawsuits, and going through this one, that definitely seems to be the case here. Indeed, some of the claims made by the DNC here are so outrageous that they would effectively make some fairly basic reporting illegal. One would have hoped that the DNC wouldn’t seek to set a precedent that reporting on leaked documents is against the law — especially given how reliant the DNC now is on leaks being reported on in their effort to bring down the existing president. I’m not going to go through the whole lawsuit, but let’s touch on a few of the more nutty claims here.

The crux of the complaint is that these groups / individuals worked together in a conspiracy to leak DNC emails and documents. And, there’s little doubt at this point that the Russians were behind the hack and leak of the documents, and that Wikileaks published them. Similarly there’s little doubt that the Trump campaign was happy about these things, and that a few Trump-connected people had some contacts with some Russians. Does that add up to a conspiracy? My gut reaction is to always rely on Ken “Popehat” White’s IT’S NOT RICO, DAMMIT line, but I’ll leave that analysis to folks who are more familiar with RICO.

But let’s look at parts we are familiar with, starting with the DMCA claim, since that’s the one that caught my eye first. A DMCA claim? What the hell does copyright have to do with any of this? Well…

Plaintiff’s computer networks and files contained information subject to protection under the copyright laws of the United States, including campaign strategy documents and opposition research that were illegally accessed without authorization by Russia and the GRU.

Access to copyrighted material contained on Plaintiff’s computer networks and email was controlled by technological measures, including measures restricting remote access, firewalls, and measures restricting acess to users with valid credentials and passwords.

In violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a), Russia, the GRU, and GRU Operative #1 circumvented these technological protection measures by stealing credentials from authorized users, condcting a “password dump” to unlawfully obtain passwords to the system controlling access to the DNC’s domain, and installing malware on Plaintiff’s computer systems.

Holy shit. This is the DNC trying to use DMCA 1201 as a mini-CFAA. They’re not supposed to do that. 1201 is the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA and is supposed to be about stopping people from hacking around DRM to free copyright-covered material. Of course, 1201 has been used in all sorts of other ways — like trying to stop the sale of printer cartridges and garage door openers — but this seems like a real stretch. Russia hacking into the DNC had literally nothing to do with copyright or DRM. Squeezing a copyright claim in here is just silly and could set an awful precedent about using 1201 as an alternate CFAA (we’ll get to the CFAA claims in a moment). If this holds, nearly any computer break-in to copy content would also lead to DMCA claims. That’s just silly.

Onto the CFAA part. As we’ve noted over the years, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is quite frequently abused. Written in response to the movie War Games to target “hacking,” the law has been used for basically any “this person did something we dislike on a computer” type issues. It’s been dubbed “the law that sticks” because in absence of any other claims that one always sticks because of how broad it is.

At least this case does involve actual hacking. I mean, someone hacked into the DNC’s network, so it actually feels (amazingly) that this may be one case where the CFAA claims are legit. Those claims are just targeting the Russians, who were the only ones who actually hacked the DNC. So, I’m actually fine with those claims. Other than the fact that they’re useless. It’s not like the Russian Federation or the GRU is going to show up in court to defend this. And they’re certainly not going to agree to discovery. I doubt they’ll acknowledge the lawsuit at all, frankly. So… reasonable claims, impossible target.

Then there’s the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which is a part of ECPA, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which we’ve written about a ton and it does have lots of its own problems. These claims are also just against Russia, the GRU and Guccifer 2.0, and like the DMCA claims appear to be highly repetitive with the CFAA claims. Instead of just unauthorized access, it’s now unauthorized access… to communications.

It’s then when we get into the trade secrets part where things get… much more problematic. These claims are brought against not just the Russians, but also Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Even if you absolutely hate and / or distrust Assange, these claims are incredibly problematic against Wikileaks.

Defendants Russia, the GRU, GRU Operative #1, WikiLeaks, and Assange disclosed Plaintiff’s trade secrets without consent, on multiple dates, discussed herein, knowing or having reason to know that trade secrets were acquired by improper means.

If that violates the law, then the law is unconstitutional. The press regularly publishes trade secrets that may have been acquired by improper means by others and handed to the press (as is the case with this content being handed to Wikileaks). Saying that merely disclosing the information is a violation of the law raises serious First Amendment issues for the press.

I mean, what’s to stop President Trump from using the very same argument against the press for revealing, say, his tax returns? Or reports about business deals gone bad, or the details of secretive contracts? These could all be considered “trade secrets” and if the press can’t publish them that would be a huge, huge problem.

In a later claim (under DC’s specific trade secrets laws), the claims are extended to all defendants, which again raises serious First Amendment issues. Donald Trump Jr. may be a jerk, but it’s not a violation of trade secrets if someone handed him secret DNC docs and he tweeted them or emailed them around.

There are also claims under Virginia’s version of the CFAA. The claims against the Russians may make sense, but the complaint also makes claims against everyone else by claiming they “knowingly aided, abetted, encouraged, induced, instigated, contributed to and assisted Russia.” Those seem like fairly extreme claims for many of the defendants, and again feel like the DNC very, very broadly interpreting a law to go way beyond what it should cover.

As noted above, there are some potentially legit claims in here around Russia hacking into the DNC’s network (though, again, it’s a useless defendant). But some of these other claims seem like incredible stretches, twisting laws like the DMCA for ridiculous purposes. And the trade secret claims against the non-Russians is highly suspect and almost certainly not a reasonable interpretation of the law under the First Amendment.

Filed Under: cfaa, conspiracy, dmca, dnc, donald trump junior, ecpa, gru, hack, hacking, jared kushner, julian assange, paul manafot, rico, roger stone, russia, sca, trade secrets
Companies: dnc, wikileaks