There is a lot of buzz this morning around @realDonaldTrump's new executive order on social media companies and regulation of internet companies. I want to take a few moments to discuss why these new regulations are important, regardless of where you stand politically. 1/

Internet companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter believe themselves to be above the law. Then CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, stated in his book, "The online world is not truly bound by terrestrial laws." They view this lawlessness as a net positive. 2/

When Schmidt testified before the Senate in 2011 he said "High tech runs 3x faster than normal business. And the government runs 3x slower than normal business. So we have a 9x gap...And so you want to make sure that the government does not get in the way and slow things down" 3/

Google's Larry Page went further stating, "We should set aside a part of the world...where we can try out some new things and figure out what is the effect on society, what's the effect on people, without having to deploy kind of into the normal world" without regard for law 4/

Part of this lawlessness is due to government sheltering of these companies. Section 230, the statute subject to Trump's executive order, shields website owners from lawsuits for user-generated content. 5/

Section 230 states "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Maybe that makes sense. Why should a company be sued for stupid remarks made by a user? 6/

The problem with Section 230, however, is that it allows companies to self-regulate. As we know, most of these internet companies are bad at self-regulating. They consistently violate privacy laws and norms by collecting our personal data. 7/

And when the government hears of these violations, regulators often come snooping. The companies then backtrack saying that they stopped these violations through self-regulation, the government says okay, and then the companies go right back to doing it in different ways. 8/

But if Section 230 is about shielding companies from legal liability over user-generated speech, why is it so important and why do you need to devote a whole thread to it, Vince? Good question. Bear with me. 9/

Internet companies make their money on data extraction. Companies like Google then use that data to predict user behavior to push products on users based on their vast internet profile. This is problematic for two reasons: 10/

First, a user cannot delete his/her data from the internet. There is no right to be forgotten in the U.S., and even if there was, internet companies would just find other creative ways to keep extracting user data, which they have consistently done in the past. 11/

Second, and perhaps more philosophically, extraction of data for predictive purposes limits our human freedom and democratic rights. We as people have the right to free thought, autonomy, and self-determination. 12/

When companies attempt to predict our behavior, they basically say that they know better what we want than we do. They attempt to meld our minds without us even knowing, all for their economic benefit. 13/

Section 230 allows companies to extract as much user behavioral data as they please without recourse. The content they post on social media, their thoughts and feelings, are all now owned and used by internet companies against them. 14/

As Shoshana Zuboff, author of "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," writes, "Section 230's protection of 'intermediaries' now functions as another bulwark that shelters this extractive surveillance capitalist operation from critical examination." 15/

Internet companies "no longer host content but aggressively, secretly, and unilaterally extract value from that content." That's why internet companies have consistently fought against the repeal or erosion of Section 230. 16/

But Section 230 is just the tip of the iceberg. The government must do more to reign in on the abuses of internet companies. This should not be a partisan issue. Those on the left should celebrate the fact that Republicans, though out of self-interest, want more regs 17/

Limited to no regulation of internet companies is dangerous for the health of our democracy. It not only allows companies to act as if they are above the law, but it also allows them to challenge the very notion of human freedom and self-determination. 18/

Maybe this thread means nothing to you. Maybe it wasn't worthy my time. Maybe I'm falling on deaf ears. But if you agree that regulation of internet behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Amazon is a good thing, please do 2 things: buy "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" & RETWEET