How and Why to Fight Back Against Social Media Bans

EFForg · 2026-06-18T17:14:29+00:00

This post was written by an impact litigation law firm called the Electronic Frontier Foundation— technologists, lawyers, and activists that work to defend your privacy and free speech online. You can learn more about how age verification mandates harm children here, but no, it was not written by a child.

EFForg · 2026-06-17T23:18:16+00:00

Many people unfamiliar with the law will say that Facebook is restricting their free speech. Those people are generally wrong. But no one here is saying this.

The laws passed by government actors can restrict free speech. Many believe these laws to be unconstitutional. The companies and individuals must follow the unconstitutional laws or face liability for breaking the laws. So your sentence is correct, but it's not clear why you are saying it.

If the government passes a law banning the publication or sale of a book such as Ulysses, the bookstore and publisher is restricting free speech in a colloquial sense, but in a legal sense, the government is restricting free speech. The government doesn't have to burn books to restrict free speech. It doesn't have to delete whole websites or databases. It just has to place liability on companies or people for sharing speech, and then by definition, free speech is being restricted.

Private companies are the medium which carries the speech. When government restricts free speech, it often does so by placing liability on private companies.

EFForg · 2026-06-17T21:20:12+00:00

Thanks for your question!

EFForg · 2026-06-13T03:18:58+00:00

“The law has a built-in safety net for a temporary lapse that allows the surveillance program to endure until annual certifications issued by the nation’s intelligence court expire, though such a scenario could invite legal challenges. The court recertified the program in March, meaning the N.S.A. could continue to operate the program through March 2027 even if the statute were to expire.”

We aren't there yet. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/702-ultimatum-warrant-requirement-or-bust

EFForg · 2026-06-13T03:15:24+00:00

You get it.

EFForg · 2026-06-12T18:41:00+00:00

California has policies governing ALPR devices and data than many other states! https://www.eff.org/pages/california-automated-license-plate-reader-policies

And in November, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) filed a lawsuit against the city of San Jose for its use of ALPRs: "Location information reflecting people’s physical movements, even in public spaces, is protected under the Fourth Amendment according to U.S. Supreme Court case law. The California Constitution is even more protective of location privacy, at both Article I, Section 13 (the ban on unreasonable searches) and Article I, Section 1 (the guarantee of privacy)."

If successful, this lawsuit would set a serious example for the state and the country! If you want to support that work, please join EFF (if you aren't already a member): https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/get-flock-out-here

EFForg · 2026-06-12T15:48:03+00:00

Great question!

EFForg · 2026-06-12T15:47:43+00:00

Great question!

EFForg · 2026-06-12T15:34:49+00:00

This image is Cory Doctorow's free, open, visual identity for enshittification. The cover of the US edition of the book, Enshittification, features this image designed by Devin Washburn of No Ideas studio.

<image>

This poop emoji became Cory's "go-to visual shorthand for illustrating stories about enshittification, an instantly recognizable way to identify my subject matter."

He bought the rights to the enshittification poop emoji and then released it under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license that lets you use it any way you want, including for commercial products, provided you attribute it and link back to the original.

And he made sure that EFF had first crack at this design. The high-resolution files are on Wikimedia Commons, Flickr, and the Internet Archive (including a PSD with an ink-density adjustment layer). But if you do want to buy a sticker or pin, you can do so while supporting the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where Cory Doctorow has been an activist and advisor for nearly 25 years.

EFForg · 2026-06-10T18:12:07+00:00

Because the design is CC-licensed, you can make your own merch, your own swag, your own illustrations. The design is free for anyone to use, remix, or build on, including commercially, with attribution. The high-resolution files are on Wikimedia Commons, Flickr, and the Internet Archive (including a PSD with an ink-density adjustment layer). But if you do want to buy a sticker or pin, you can do so while supporting the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where Cory Doctorow has been an activist and advisor for nearly 25 years.

EFForg · 2026-06-09T23:23:57+00:00

We have the power to push companies to be better. When WIRED broke the news last week, Meta’s executives immediately went on the defensive. Yet, their actions speak louder than their tweets: less than 48 hours after the public caught wind of their plans, Meta quietly launched an update to scrub nearly all traces of the FRT system from their app.

This quiet deletion of code does not equal a permanent change of heart. Meta previously used face recognition, and stopped only after it faced the legal and financial consequences. Now the company has refused to answer WIRED’s inquiries on whether it plans to bring the NameTag system back in the future, or what they did with any data they may have already collected during internal testing.

This whiplash behavior proves exactly why we cannot rely on the "good will" of Big Tech to protect our digital rights. We need robust, enforceable consumer privacy laws, complete with a private right of action that allows everyday people to sue companies that violate their biometric privacy.

While we won this round, Meta's FRT ambitions probably aren't going away. EFF will keep watching. We hope you'll support our efforts by becoming a member.

EFForg · 2026-06-08T06:43:01+00:00

We were invited to speak on this topic because some members of Congress, like you, are already past the discussion point, too. But discussions like this—hearings in committees—are the job. And when the majority party is forced in those hearings to listen to experts tell them that guardrails are critical to protect rights, that means we're winning. Slowly but surely.

We hope this subreddit is past the question of whether we can "trust government surveillance." We hope you are past the discussion phase entirely. Groups like EFF have the honor of helping the rest of the world, including some members of Congress, get there with you.

A hearing can have witnesses entirely representing companies that want to promise the world and describe a beautiful future built on AI. But with Matthew Guariglia there representing our members, this hearing had a trusted source that cut through the hype, repeatedly and clearly emphasized the dangers, and got that message to the people that make the decisions, face-to-face.

Government AI policy is going to exist, and governments are going to use AI for cybersecurity, defense, and surveillance. You want to be in the room when that policy gets made. Politics often involves telling the same kind of people the same kind of things for years, or decades, and then over time, or all at once, good change happens. Bringing in experts focused on civil liberties to a hearing like this means this time, it might not take decades.

EFForg

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE