Electronic Frontier Foundation
The EFF was founded 30 years ago to help insure the protection of human rights in the modern era of computing, and it has done much excellent work in this arena. Lately, however, it has strayed into the fields of politics and social justice. Here is the guts of a letter I sent them, expressing my disappointment with their evolution.
Where I do have a problem is when minorities, however defined, are given preferential treatment in your legal work. Your about page emphasizes human rights, which clearly apply to all humans; identity considerations are irrelevant. When you concentrate on minorities because they are most adversely affected, you are trying to get better treatment for minorities. While this may generally, as you suggest, result in better protection of human rights for all, that is not guaranteed. Worse, it is an affront to non-minorities whose rights are no less violated than those of minorities.
While it may be true that certain minorities are more heavily impacted, rights are rights, and the degree of impact is immaterial. Everybody's right to free speech is inviolable, whether they have something to say or not. Everybody's right to privacy is inviolable, whether they have an important need for privacy or not. Making a distinction, or a case, based on impact, is bogus in the framework of protecting human rights. A poor black woman has the exact same human rights as a rich white man. I grant you, the former may often be more negatively impacted than the latter with regard to things like money, status, and opportunity. In the context of rights, however, there is no difference.
Historically, EFF has been about maintaining human rights in the face of advancing technology. If I'm understanding your diversity statement correctly, EFF is evolving from fighting for equal rights and opportunities, to fighting for fair opportunities and outcomes. Equal is easy to define and justify, but the same cannot be said for fair. Additionally, I do not think it is properly the job of EFF to have any concern about outcomes.
This all seems to be part of a pronounced veer to the left, as evidenced by, for example, your recent actions regarding TikTok. You assert that the President is violating our First Amendment rights, yet you remain curiously silent about Google's ongoing blatant abuse of its de facto monopoly status to influence public opinion and voting.
NBC's childish explanation of Section 230 (which you recommend) would be laughable if you and so many other intelligent people didn't actually take it seriously. Hate speech, lies, and disinformation are very much in the eye of the beholder, which is exactly why free speech is so damned important. One man's patriot is another man's terrorist; thus allowing (even requiring) companies to serve as censors is fraught with danger. When it is done, it needs be with concise definitions, right of redress, and impeccable impartiality, all of which have been consistently and one-sidedly flouted by our social media giants. NBC's "helpful" "explanation" studiously ignores the crux of the matter, namely that companies that act as publishers are not entitled to Section 230 privileges.
EFF has a long and brilliant record of noble endeavor in the field of protecting human rights. Sadly, it seems to be "evolving" (straying) into other fields, including politics and social justice. This is a deplorable development, unworthy of the high ideals with which the company was founded.
