Future Tense

Future Tense Newsletter: Are Social Networks Profiting From Terrorism?

The logo of Twitter is displayed on a computer screen in London on Sept. 11, 2013.

AFP/Getty Images

Greetings, Future Tensers,

Earlier this year, the families of three victims of the San Bernardino terror attack filed suit against Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Their claim? That the companies share responsibility because they profited from propaganda that helped radicalize the perpetrators.

The new legal theory, writes Nina Iacono Brown, is based on federal laws that make it illegal to provide “material support” to terrorists—including “communications equipment.” Lawsuits related to the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting, the 2016 Brussels airport bombing, and the 2015 Paris attacks take a similar tack and will soon put the theory to the test in court.

How terrorist organizations like ISIS harness social media to recruit and disseminate propaganda is also on the mind of British Prime Minister Theresa May. In the wake of recent attacks, both she and other European leaders are moving forward with plans “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online.” However, as Molly Land explains, the policies would actually make us less safe in the long run. Moreover, she writes, such moves would act as an invitation for countries to censor and punish digital speech even more than they already do—a scary thought, considering what recently happened in Pakistan.

This week, our Slate writers have also been following the latest fallouts and rollouts from transportation companies Uber and Lyft. Jonathan Fischer bids good riddance to Uber CEO and founder Travis Kalanick. Henry Grabar has some questions about the company’s new tipping function. (We’ll add one more: Will we tip the robot drivers too?) Will Oremus explains how the new, not-exactly-novel Lyft Shuttle undermines city buses. And Rahul K. Parikh asks whether doctors should play along with the Uberization of health care.

Other things we read between trying to match Maluuba’s record Ms. Pac-Man score (damn it, Inky!):

On second thought: Should the Patent and Trademark Office be allowed to change its mind? Rochelle C. Dreyfuss explains how the Supreme Court will soon decide.

Blatant negligence: Josephine Wolff unpacks the story of the breach of 198 million voter files privately compiled for the GOP.

Back in the ring: A few weeks after seemingly leaving the cause behind, Netflix announced that it was rejoining the fight for net neutrality. Angelica Cabral writes why it may be best for business after all.

Rebooting the library: Chris Berdik explains how libraries are moving beyond quiet stacks to become “lively, high-tech hubs of collaborative learning.” Don’t worry, the books still have a place alongside the computers, robots, videos, circuitry kits, and 3-D printers.

Event:
Three years after the release their best-selling book, The Second Machine Age, MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee are back with a deep dive into the key forces driving our increasingly digital age. Join Future Tense on Thursday, June 29, in New York for a conversation with the pair about their latest book, Machine, Platform, Crowd, and about how to build a future that doesn’t leave humans behind. RSVP to attend here.

Prepping for what really happens after societal collapse,
Kirsten Berg
for Future Tense

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University.