This is a question that everyone should ask—and then be infuriated by the answer.

This is cute, but also Ring doorbells are seriously the thing that scares me most on Halloween.

This is a helpful EFF overview that I’m posting to bookmark for later.

I got skeptical of Section 230 for a while, but folks like Doctorow and Mike Masnick have brought me back around.

Look, it’s hard to oppose legislation that purports to be “for the kids,” but with the EFF, Mike Masnick, and other voices I respect still firmly against this, I’ll be calling my reps—and encouraging others to do the same.

There’s so much inane blathering about free speech on the internet that it’s easy to sometimes forget that it can be a real concern. Here’s one such example.

Student monitoring software is gross to begin with, but monitoring for LGBTQ+ content makes it even grosser. Love it when EFF tackles ed tech.

Can’t believe it’s been ten years; can’t believe we’re not collectively furious about this.

This sounds worrying to me. Surveillance can and will be abused, and we should be wary about embracing it on this scale.

I’ve enjoyed reading Alice Marwick’s work in the past, and I really enjoyed her appearance on the EFF’s podcast here.

So this is the OGL kerfuffle I’ve heard a bit about recently. This would be a bad move by WotC, but I’m also intrigued by what the EFF has to say here.

Edtech professionals aren’t paying nearly enough attention to this sort of thing.

See, this is censorship.

I hadn’t realized so many academics were working with data brokers. It’s kind of scary! The EFF has some good points here about so-called “data for good”—and rightly brings up that ethics review boards should be thinking about this sort of thing.

Who is allowed to watch the watchmen? This is why I’m grumpy about Lexington being hush hush about its new automated license plate readers—it sets a precedent for secretive use of even more invasive surveillance.

Here’s the EFF pointing out that “free speech” on these platforms means something very particular rather than a broad, deep commitment to legally-protected expression.

Doctorow is spot on here. Apple may be the most benevolent of the big tech companies, but it still has far too much power over its users.

I’ve been plenty spooked by Ring’s video capabilities, but apparently I haven’t been worried enough about its audio surveillance.

Disappointing news, but glad for the fight that the EFF and others are waging.

The only thing worse than the already-bad reality of powerful, private data brokers is public agencies buying what they have to sell.

EFF cares about and actually understands free speech and content moderation, so their voice is especially important today.

Seems to me that not using proctoring software is the best response to these concerns, but glad to see the EFF sponsoring efforts to regulate its inevitable use.

This idea increasingly resonates with me.

This is unjustifiable.

Intellectual property is important, but overreach is a real problem. We should be liberalizing IP, not cracking down on it.

Time to write some representatives. This is terrifying stuff.

Such an important read.

Easy to forget that YouTube is functionally the only game in town… and that there are big consequences for that.

Appreciate this argument for the need for true ISP competition alongside net neutrality.

Such a good conversation on such an important topic.

Very interested in the idea of making contributions to open source software tax deductible.

Surveillance remains scary.

Time to write some representatives. This is scary stuff.

Always appreciate the EFF’s perspective.

Surveillance is scary.

Good progress but need more.