- Republicans’ first order of business this coming 118th Congress must be to introduce a legislative firewall between the White House — and its offshoot federal law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice and its offshoot, the FBI — and private social media companies.
- The dissemination of news and the facilitation of public discourse is central in any democracy that allows genuine participation on the part of its citizens. Open public dialogue is a “public good”, or something which, like clean air, benefits everyone equally and greatly.
- Providers of public goods are generally regulated under common carriage laws. The Communications Act of 1934, for instance, allowed AT&T to enjoy monopolistic power over the public good it provided: the interconnecting of the American people by way of a unified, national standard for telephone communication.
- In exchange for enjoying monopoly power, and to ensure that public goods truly remain beneficial to the public, special duties or restraints are generally imposed on such companies.
- With companies such as Compuserve and AOL in mind, Congress sought to hand out special liability relief with the idea of promoting two public goods: an internet characterized by a wide dissemination and diversity of ideas; and an incentive system for platforms to create family-friendly environments.
- Unfortunately, in the ensuing case law that has been built up in dealing with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, two giant, related problems have emerged, both involving a misreading of a landmark court decision: Zeran v. AOL.
- The first problem is that what Congress intended when it comes to protecting social media companies from liability tied to defamatory messages posted on their platforms has been greatly expanded and now encompasses virtually any and all decisions regarding “content moderation”, such as removing the accounts of epidemiologists with whom Dr. Anthony Fauci, the FBI, CIA, and possibly other federal agencies, might disagree.
- The second problem is that the “good faith” condition Congress imposed on these companies to ensure against arbitrary or biased content-removal decisions has been completely erased. It is now never applied to social media companies at all.
- Both problems can be traced to a misunderstanding and incomplete reading of Zeran v. AOL.
- As a result, as Michigan State University law professor and former Commerce Department telecom official Adam Candeub writes, “social media platforms are now treated like they’re above the law.”
- Thankfully, this can be easily changed, even at the regulatory level. Non-discrimination policies need not create a “wild west” scenario. To a large extent, people really do not need moderators to curate what they see on social media. They are free to do that themselves.
- Removing the distortive “curators”, editors, “fact-checkers” and middlemen from the information process — and reaching people who previously have been sheltered from diverse opinions — will likely not tear people apart. It might even help to bridge misunderstandings and fill in a few gaps. That, perhaps, is the ultimate public good.https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19261/big-tech-censorship
Big Tech
All posts tagged Big Tech
Is Twitter and these other social media outlets publishers or not?
‘More facts are coming to light about how privately-owned giants and de-facto digital public squares with billions of users cooperate with the US government – this time in a court document that Forbes writes got accidentally unsealed.
The document is what’s known as a “keyword warrant” – only the third that has surfaced so far publicly, though their number is feared to be higher than expected – and it shows that federal government had secretly ordered Google to identify anyone who searched a name, address, or telephone number, in a 2019 Wisconsin case of a missing minor.
In order to find the suspects in the presumed kidnapping and sexual abuse of the minor, those investigating the case decided to ask Google to turn over data on every person who happened to search the girl’s name, her mother’s name (in two different spellings), or their address. The data requested by the authorities included access to Google users’ accounts, CookieIDs, and their IP addresses, and in all covered Google searches performed during 16 days of one year.
In a sea of warrants asking data from Big Tech and their social media, the keyword searches, along with the geofence ones are considered to be among the most worrying when it comes to their potential to implicate perfectly innocent people, thanks to the “dragnet” approach.
Namely, these two types of warrants are not asking for data from suspects investigators have already identified; instead, they are hoping to come across them, and don’t care if everyone accidentally finding themselves within a physical perimeter or using a keyword in their search that has nothing to do with a crime might have their data given to government agencies.
In the Wisconsin case, Google cooperated and provided the requested information last year, but the document doesn’t show how many people got their Google accounts and IPs turned over.
Examples like this demonstrate that Google continues to work with the authorities even on warrants that are based on dubious legal grounds. All the same, the tech giant continues to defend its practices and promises that it is complying with the law while protecting user privacy.
However, “privacy experts are concerned about the precedent set by such warrants and the potential for any such order to be a breach of Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches,” writes Forbes, and adds, “There are also concerns about First Amendment freedom of speech issues, given the potential to cause anxiety among Google users that their identities could be handed to the government because of what they searched for.”’https://reclaimthenet.org/secret-warrants-against-google-search-terms-are-on-the-rise/
If Big Tech can do this to the President of the USA and social media platform Parler what can they do to little ole you and me?
‘The move by large technology firms to de-platform “free speech” social media site Parler has a chilling effect, said White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Director Peter Navarro.
“What we have here is a classic collusive oligopoly, a kind of new wine in an old bottle,” Navarro told Fox Business. “What we saw with this attack on Parler was chilling to me. It’s one thing to de-platform everybody for free speech. But, this was a pincer move where Google and Apple, [the] first part of the pincer, was to not allow Parler apps to be down.”
Over the past week, Google and Apple removed Parler from their respective app-downloading programs, while on Monday morning, Amazon Web Services (AWS) suspended services for the website. Parler then filed a lawsuit against AWS, arguing the Seattle-based tech giant violated its contractual agreement, later adding that a representative sent text messages to Parler CEO John Matze that appeared to suggest AWS only cared about whether President Donald Trump would sign up—rather than violent content.
Parler also asserted that AWS violated the Sherman Antitrust Act in its court filing in Washington state.
Navarro added that Amazon initiated a “brutal kill by taking the cloud away as a small company” because it was no longer able to access its data. “Effectively, Amazon wiped out that company,” he said.’https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-trade-advisor-amazon-suspension-of-parler-is-chilling_3656940.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-01-14-3
Communism has always sought to rewrite history to fit their agenda. Now, ‘Elijah Schaffer, National Reporter at The Blaze, who is currently facing scrutiny from Left-wing media outlets for entering the Capitol Jan. 6 to report on the protest, says big tech is trying to “rewrite history” in the aftermath of the riot, creating an unstable society that will likely lead to more civil unrest.
“I really am afraid for our country and for these tech companies who are creating a society that is meant to implode, and I would say I am starting to believe that this is by design…This is a political opportunity to hold power,” said Schaffer on The Foreign Desk with Lisa Daftari podcast Tuesday.
Schaffer does not believe big tech banned President Donald Trump because they believe he was responsible for the riots but believes censorship is being used as “retribution for big tech companies in the ruling class, now as we know them, to completely crush political opposition going forward and to rewrite history.”
While Schaffer does not condone the actions taken at the Capitol, he expressed frustration at the hypocrisy of the Democrat party for ostracizing Trump-supporters for years, telling them “they were less valuable, sub-human, their votes didn’t matter, they were racist, sexist.”
Schaffer believes Democrat lawmakers set the precedent for the Capitol breach through failed policies and double standards implemented in the midst of Black Lives Matter riots throughout the country.
“The failed policies are what led to this. When you don’t punish rioters for 10 months, and you let them off the hook and you create a national sentiment that people can break into public buildings, can occupy them, can riot, and be let go, even if they’re arrested the district attorneys will let them go, you are enabling people who might have previously never thought of doing these things to feel like they’re ok to do them,” said Schaffer.
“When you dehumanize and ostracize people until they feel like they have no power, they often use violence as a last resort,” which Schaffer points out is the exact reasoning used to understand why many BLM protests turned violent.
Schaffer has been regularly covering civil unrest and riots for 10 months, sometimes covering three riots in one week but is receiving major backlash from the Left for entering the Capitol to cover the riot, despite law enforcement allowing him entrance with his press pass.
“A lot of publications have smeared me with being a racist or being an extremist, because I’ve done the job they were supposed to do,” said Schaffer.
“They are trying to get me imprisoned for 10 years as many of these activists have stated online…They will not rest until I am locked up for a decade, and that shows you what kind of political fight we’re up against that just recording from the inside creates an opportunity for your opposition. They’re not happy with just ruining your financial future, your social reputation, they want to see you as a political prisoner because you were doing your job.”’https://www.foreigndesknews.com/trending/reporter-big-tech-is-trying-to-rewrite-history-in-wake-of-capitol-riot/
The world is in a mess but that shouldn’t be a surprise to a born again Christian. What the Left are doing is really showing their hate for the God of the Bible, the Creator. John the Apostle wrote in 1John 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. The Left also hate anyone, Christian or not, that loves and cherishes free speech and truth. The Left hates those who say there are ONLY TWO GENDERS and not seventy or more. The Left hates those who say a person cannot decide from day to day what gender they are! That’s why they hate Savanah Hernandez.
‘Savanah Hernandez has been making her own way in the news media world since 2016 and despite censorship, harassment and even a Twitter ban, the Texas resident has carved out an integral spot in the industry with her work.
Hernandez initially began working with Infowars.com as a producer and eventually a reporter, going undercover to expose bias at events such as the Women’s March.
Throughout her young career, Hernandez has been attacked both while doing journalism, as well as performing activism for acts as simple as holding a sign.
Hernandez has since joined Elijah Schaffer on BlazeTV as the producer of his show ‘Slightly Offensive,’ a political podcast that also involves on-the-ground reporting.
Hernandez (who ironically goes by ‘Sav Says’) joins Andrew Says to explain how Big Tech censorship has affected her career. Along with detailing how she plans to help small businesses during lockdowns, Hernandez gives her best case scenario for the Biden presidency.’https://www.rebelnews.com/hate_speech_is_free_speech_savanah_hernandez_on_andrew_says?utm_campaign=ac_savannah_1_11_21&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
whatyareckon 