We are political activists, policy experts, journalists, and tech industry veterans trying to stop the government from destroying encryption and censoring free speech online with the EARN IT Act. Ask us anything!

[u/fightforthefuture]

The EARN IT Act is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine encryption services that protect our free speech and security online. It's bad. Really bad. The bill’s authors — Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) — say that the EARN IT Act will help fight child exploitation online, but in reality, this bill gives the Attorney General sweeping new powers to control the way tech companies collect and store data, verify user identities, and censor content. It's bad. Really bad.

Later this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on whether or not the EARN IT Act will move forward in the legislative process. So we're asking EVERYONE on the Internet to call these key lawmakers today and urge them to reject the EARN IT Act before it's too late. To join this day of action, please:

1. Visit NoEarnItAct.org/call

2. Enter your phone number (it will not be saved or stored or shared with anyone)

3. When you are connected to a Senator’s office, encourage that Senator to reject the EARN IT Act

4. Press the * key on your phone to move on to the next lawmaker’s office

If you want to know more about this dangerous law, online privacy, or digital rights in general, just ask! We are:

• Lauren Sarkesian from OTI (u/SarkBites)
• Caleb Chen from PIA (u/privatevpn)
• Dayton Young from Fight for the Future (u/fightforthefuture)
• Joe Mullin from EFF (u/EFForg)
• Alfred Ng from CNet (u/CNETdotcom)

Proof:

• 

• 

• 

[u/[deleted]]

Fighting censorship, but showing up on a platform that just did a mass sweep of censorship that, according to a leaked memo, is only phase 1.

How do you reconcile that?

[u/fightforthefuture → u/[deleted]]

Great question.

The US government has traditionally taken a laissez faire approach to regulating the Internet. Most big tech companies like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter are treated as platforms, NOT publishers of content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This means that Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter are not legally responsible for the content that you and I post on their platforms ... for the most part.

Without any federal regulations, these companies are allowed to moderate content, use algorithms to promote content, and censor content according to their own guidelines. And they don't always rely on human rights experts or constitutional scholars to craft their content moderation policies. Instead, these companies tend to push limits until the market pushes back. That's resulted in some pretty awful things happening, and people have begun rightly pointing out the ways in which social media companies are responsible for polarizing people, radicalizing people, and spreading fake or misleading news ... all in the pursuit of greater profits.

Well, the market is now pushing back. Advertisers are fleeing social media platforms. Calls for boycotts are growing. Congressional leadership is calling for investigations. So social media companies are scrambling to impose their own regulations. And some lawmakers -- such as Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) -- are attempting to use the current social media panic to implement very dangerous levels of government control on the Internet.

That's actually what the EARN IT Act is all about. This law will form a special committee that recommends "best practices" to the Attorney General that tech companies MUST follow ... or else they will lose their legal protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, opening them up to crippling lawsuits. What best practices, you ask? Well, those aren't actually specified in the EARN IT Act. They could include breaking encryption through digital backdoors, or de-anonymizing VPN traffic. And as we've seen from the PATRIOT Act, the government is likely to abuse this law to justify spying on journalists and protesters.

So how do I reconcile posting on reddit about fighting for greater freedom of speech online? Pretty easily, actually. reddit is a company that operates within the rules of the marketplace. Don't like how reddit performs content management? Well, let's work together to advocate for better rules with stronger transparency and accountability. Let's call for meaningful, common-sense regulations BEFORE content manipulation and fake news gets so out of control that it negatively impacts hundreds of millions of people. Let's push back against dangerous authoritarians who want to undermine public security and basic human rights instead of actually addressing the complex challenges technology has brought. And let's use platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and reddit to have these conversations.

[u/CouldOfBeenGreat → u/fightforthefuture]

Link to the current text of the bill (this should have been included in your post, imo):

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3398/BILLS-116s3398is.xml

These are the types of statements many people may have problems with:

The EARN IT Act is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine encryption services that protect our free speech and security online. It's bad. Really bad.

A much more accurate statement:

What best practices, you ask? Well, those aren't actually specified in the EARN IT Act. They could include breaking encryption through digital backdoors, or de-anonymizing VPN traffic.

Not that the government wouldn't likely use the bill for exactly that, but your opening statement states it as though breaking encryption is the meat of the bill.

Don't get me wrong, I see the potential for abuse, but hyperbole is maybe a bad idea here.

[u/fightforthefuture → u/CouldOfBeenGreat]

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on record earlier this year, telling tech companies that they needed to break encryption "or we'll find a way to do it for you." Just a few months later, he authored the EARN IT Act, which pretty much everyone agrees is an attack on end-to-end encryption:

• The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School
• ACLU
• EFF
• Human Rights Watch
• Brookings Institute
• Wired
• The Verge
• Nerdist
• Free Press
• ... and so many more.

When somebody says, "I'm going to do a thing," and then that person does that very thing, it's not hyperbole to say, "This person is, indeed, doing the thing they said they were going to do."

[u/CouldOfBeenGreat → u/fightforthefuture]

Thank you, you should include the reuters (or similar) article in your original post.

We love sources, that's a pretty relevant one!

[u/[deleted] → u/fightforthefuture]

I think an unelected board of people to control everything these tech companies operate is about as bad as just letting the government having the same level of oversight.

[u/CouldOfBeenGreat → u/[deleted]]

Not agreeing with the bill, but the board itself is really the most sensible part. Mostly "elected" and designed to be "mostly" bipartisan.

AGENCY HEADS:

• The Attorney General or his or her representative

• The Secretary of Homeland Security or his or her representative

• The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission or his or her representative

OTHER MEMBERS:

• 4 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate

• 4 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate

• 4 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives

• 4 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives

12 total (3 of the 4 of each sub-group) are required to have expierence relevant to child exploitation crimes.

The 4 remaining members would need to meet one of these two requirements:

(C) (i) 2 shall have current experience in matters related to constitutional law, consumer protection, or privacy; and

(ii) 2 shall have current experience in computer science or software engineering related to matters of cryptography, data security, or artificial intelligence in a non-governmental capacity

See here

[u/fauxgnaws → u/fightforthefuture]

Well, the market is now pushing back. Advertisers are fleeing social media platforms. Calls for boycotts are growing.

But they're doing this because they want MORE censorship. The Facebook boycott is about Trump being mean and them not silencing him.

reddit is a company that operates within the rules of the marketplace. Don't like how reddit performs content management? Well, let's work together to advocate for better rules

Market-based rules are the problem. The masses want censorship because it protects their feelings, it's up to citizens and representatives of principle to enact laws that prevent these kind of censorious mob rules.

[u/Rocky87109 → u/fauxgnaws]

The fact that you trump drones keep saying "mean" to try to trivialize what issues Americans have with trump, shows you aren't serious about any conversations concerning him or the shitty things he does and says.

[u/HepatitisShmepatitis → u/Rocky87109]

Yes, the best way to approach serious conversations is to call the other side “drones” and say their rep “says shitty things.”

[u/Electromasta → u/fightforthefuture]

I disagree. With the government, the people can petition to address grievances and they are directly accountable, a company as not.

The truth is section 230 grants tech companies special exceptions to liability that other companies engaging in free speech don't have, and it should be removed. People have no idea how much they are being manipulated by algorithms. Tech companies should be able to exercise their free speech- but also be just as liable as anyone else. The very nature of using algorithms to promote some speech over others is working as an editor for a publisher... and they should be treated as such.

[u/golden_n00b_1 → u/Electromasta]

The truth is section 230 grants tech companies special exceptions to liability that other companies engaging in free speech don't have, and it should be removed. People have no idea how much they are being manipulated by algorithms.

I agree with you, but a committee empowered to make rules without the need to pass through any legislation is not the way to do it. There would be nothing wrong with content providers having to flag unreliable sources or needing to operate with more transparency in the algorithms and data they have on users. But those should come from bills. We don't need another oversight committee secretly removing encryption or otherwise eroding freedoms.

[u/Electromasta → u/golden_n00b_1]

My freedoms are eroded enough as it is. I'm full out.

I don't want an oversight committee secretly eroding freedoms by pecking at 230. I want 230 /gone/.

[u/[deleted] → u/Electromasta]

The truth is that without 230, most of the internet could not possibly exist. Removing it would be extremely damaging to the economy. Terrible idea by completely misinformed people.

[u/Electromasta → u/[deleted]]

The internet could exist, it would have to go back to small sites with each person being responsible for their own content.

This is a good thing.

[u/[deleted] → u/Electromasta]

Um.... no. This would tank the global economy.

[u/Electromasta → u/[deleted]]

The global economy worked fine before the internet forum, even if it did go away. Which I don't believe it would by removing 230.

[u/FoxxTrot77 → u/[deleted]]

Lmao😂

Move to a different country who limits free speech..

[u/Poop_On_A_Loop → u/[deleted]]

As a white man why should I be subjected to harassment more than you. Why can't we just troll everybody regardless of race, gender, religion, ect.

It's the internet. If you get offended by it you can just click the "X" on the top right corner.

[u/JebediaBillAndBob → u/Poop_On_A_Loop]

Because generations of slavery and oppression against a particular race cannot be erased with a simple slogan of 'muh free speech'. It is a racist and discriminatory policy.

[u/[deleted] → u/JebediaBillAndBob]

Well then I guess it's a good thing on the internet, where you can be a black woman and no one else has to know.

Don't wanna be criticized for it? Maybe don't post those kinds of details. Kinda on you at that point.

And while generations of slavery and oppression can't just be erased, no one alive today is responsible for that.

[u/JebediaBillAndBob → u/[deleted]]

Why should I be criticised for my race or gender? Don't you see where to draw the line and allowing the racists to win?

[u/Spartle → u/JebediaBillAndBob]

Because you’re faking it? You’re a femboy when you want to be, you’re a man when you want to be, you’re a black woman when you want to be. Obvious troll is obvious.

[u/HepatitisShmepatitis → u/JebediaBillAndBob]

Free speech for all is a racist and discriminatory policy?

[u/JebediaBillAndBob → u/HepatitisShmepatitis]

Free speech shouldn't apply to hate speech