I woke up to the news that Linda Yaccarino, CEO of 𝕏 (formerly known as Twitter), announced they were filing an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, four of its members, and the World Federation of Advertisers for a “systematic illegal boycott” of 𝕏.
In her announcement-slash-hostage video that was definitely-not-satire-but-could-be, she mentioned the “global town square” with a cadence obviously intended to invoke feelings of the salons of 18th Century Paris. Unfortunately, these days 𝕏 feels less like a “marketplace of ideas”, and more like an abandoned asylum where a few die-hards with nowhere else to go have been left to fend for themselves among panhandlers, alley cats, vagrants, street preachers, and unmedicated schizophrenics wearing dunce hats on their heads, sandwich boards on their bodies, and poo in their diapers, all screeching about threats only they can see, or worse, trying to lure us into a dungeon where they can take us hostage, tape open our eyes and be force-fed idiotic takes, reality distorting made-up “facts”, weird homoerotic psychological projections (otherwise known as conservative media) and extremely unhealthy niche fixations.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the love-hate relationship I have with that platform. I love it less and hate it more every day. I’ll quit one day, I promise.
Anyway, my point is, the disconnect between Yaccarino’s “global town square” in that video and what 𝕏 is right now for the average user is… hilarious. People are dunking on it (myself included), but I need to point something out.
I am incredibly frustrated at all the self-identified “tech journalists” (read: sponsored content creators who create listicles and don’t know the first thing about tech…), who screech about “speech”, “regulation” and “big tech”, with absolutely no idea how laws are made, how government works and what is actually involved in any of it.
Ironically, they appear to be in the business of screeching at people in the “global town square” that somebody should DO SOMETHING. Yes. We know. We get it. You hate Musk. He took away your badge that said you were special and cool. You’re used to saying something and everyone around you scrambling to make it so, with all thinking outsourced and all action or work delegated. We get it. Monopoly bad, except for when said monopoly works in your favour. Screech. Traffic cone. Screech. Somebody do something about tech! written on your sandwich board, as if nobody had ever thought of that twenty years ago. Capitalism bad too, until it affects your revenue, then it’s hate speech! Screech. Screech. Screech. Twitter Dunk.
Anyway.
Assuming you’re actually concerned with “big tech”, interested in the actual problem, and not just upset that people you don’t like are getting engagement and the people you used to bully with impunity can now talk back…
How do you propose we do that, then?
You are aware that this is… kinda hard to do, right?
Let me explain something. Sorry, it’s in the form of a very long non-tweet and isn’t a 15 second video. It might take a minute. It’s actually kind of complex.
With the current state of the tech industry, because it was ignored by so many for so long, it’s going to take thousands of cases, tens of years, hundreds of statutes and many, many thousands of regulations to implement what you are screeching about.
And guess what?
These lawsuits are part of that.
Every. Single. One.
Yes. Even the cringe ones. And especially the ones initiated by fuckwits.
How Is Law Made?
Laws are usually made in one of three ways:
- Statute: Politicians write bills. The legislature then passes that bill and it becomes a statute.
- Case Law: Judges interpret the meaning of those statutes and apply them to cases.
- Policy/Delegated Legislation/Regulations: Bureaucrats implement, which involves some interpretation (less now) and enforcing as they go, depending on what authority they have been given, and that is frequently siloed (let’s park this part, but it is important to note, because tech regulations fall under this category).
Last time I checked (and to the shock of Americans), there are quite a few – lots of – countries. And, though there are often similarities and overlaps, different countries each have their own laws, norms, and procedures. In federal systems like the United States and Australia, both state laws and federal laws apply to each case. We have six states, and America, always bringing its special brand of crazy (for better or worse) has 50 states, each with its own statutes, procedures, norms, subcultures, industries, and interest groups. Then you have the EU, which has countries. And China and India, who have almost half the world’s population with different systems entirely. You get my drift. Then, you have the international layer – the real super fun stuff – which mostly operates on a legal principle called “trust us, bro”, but, as recent events have demonstrated, is mostly toothless, at least when it interferes with the interests of the United States (which of course means the interests of United States corporations, because they’re a plutocracy).
Tech companies (and all multi-nationals, but tech in particular) have benefitted from 50+ years of exploiting all those gaps. Legislators and Judges were painfully slow on the uptake, and users were way too distracted with the shiny things and actually believed the dorks in hoodies when they said “trust us, bro”, they effectively fucked us over, robbed us blind and fucked us the arse without our consent, and now they have all the advantage, because they (literally) own our secrets, control the information we consume, sponsor the people who write and enforce the laws (to ensure they don’t write or enforce any laws), and now the whole world is in a position where “the interests of the United States” and “Big Tech” (including Palantir, and all the advertisers and half-witted marketing consultants – who uncritically harvested all our secrets on their behalf in order to sell us a fucking Diet Coke – are now one and the same).
Cool. Easy. No big deal. Simple. Someone should do something about that.
This is the problem I have dedicated the rest of my life to fixing. Easy. Simple. Ugh.
Are you bored yet?
Exactly.
Not exactly a viral tweet, is it?
In defence of vexatious litigants with cash to burn
Anyway, now that you know more about tech law and how laws are made than any tech “journalist”, you will understand that case law matters a lot, especially in America. In Australia it is a lot more restrictive, but Judges in the US generally have far more leeway to make law via interpretation based on “novel circumstances” (which is a polite way of saying, “the crazy lands in the courts and this tests the law.” or, as I have said, “90% of the laws are for the 10% of fuckwits”). So, when crazies and fuckwits test the law and its limits, and defend their actions with the out-there arguments, everyone else understands where the edges are.
And there is no better way to do that in tech in 2024 than to be a full-time fuckwit with deep enough pockets and an army of lawyers who will hop from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, fight petty battle after petty battle, fuckwit against fuckwit, test after test and loophole after loophole, like Elon Musk.
You have to remember that all of the bigger fights, such as having unfair terms in the Terms of Service ruled unconscionable or your rights as a user or creator to receive payment for your data, or your right to amend or be forgotten, all need to be built on a pile of lots and lots of precedents and clarifications and points of law, across the globe, to be even remotely achievable. All it will take is the right cases, the right courts, and the right arguments and the right precedents, and they won’t be able to do this shit anymore. And every new case is a step closer to the bigger goal: protecting user rights, and taking our shit back that was stolen from us without our consent. And the more cases that can clear up all the distractions and side issues, the stronger the foundation for the big ones.
And we get to do it on Elon Musk’s dime.
Enter …the Fuckwit.
We need more case law and more fuckwits testing legal boundaries because statutes and regulations are not going to be enough. For example, Reid Hoffman, Founder of LinkedIn (and a part-time fuckwit), has gone mask-off, saying his $7m donation to Kamala Harris’ campaign has strings attached. Billionaire global empires – whether tech bro, corporate media or hedge fund – are the only fuckwits that can afford to fight their petty grievances in court. Most of us ordinary non-fuckwit people lack the resources to fight any of this and, so, billionaire global empire fuckwits are going to have to be the ones that duke it out, and, well, we’re all just going to have to hope that some of the wins trickle down in the process.
To take tech on is a massively complex, expensive and decades-long feat that very few people have the skills and resources to accomplish. The only way to take all of it on is bit by bit, case by case, country by country and close all those gaps, one by one. Also, with the relative transparency of the US discovery process is excellent for those of us who are less powerful and less petty, giving us access to information we wouldn’t ordinarily be able to afford (i.e. the more stuff that is on the public record, the cheaper/more accessible that information becomes for future action – something journalists SHOULD BE DOING INSTEAD OF BEING STUPID CONTENT FACTORY BABIES).
None of means I agree with, or support, Musk. Musk is a full-time fuckwit. The platform is garbage now. But, intelligent people understand that multiple things can be true at the same time, and mature people actually bring solutions rather than dunks, clap-backs and screeching about “regulating tech” and nothing else to actually follow through.
We WANT more clarity via legal judgements. The more of these cases, the quicker it goes up the chain and we get some actual binding decisions. This is the system working as it should.
Anyway, I am so fucking sick of so-called “tech journalists” playing cheerleader for their clickbait thunk factories, instead of actually doing analysis. Leaving it to people like me, who are not paid, talking to 10 people. Sigh.
ALWAYS SUPPORT LAWSUITS. EVEN THE FRIVOLOUS ONES. THEY’RE NECESSARY AND VERY MUCH NEEDED.
Also, crazy cases are the most fun. They make the drudgery of slogging through 250 admin law cases worth it, which is what I did this week and am writing this to avoid doing more. heh. Take care x