Tag: censorship

Governor Newsom hopes new social media law will help censorship of “hate speech” and “disinformation”

A bill has been signed into law in California, designed to obligate social media companies to submit enforcement reports twice a year to the state attorney general, and publicly post policies on “hate speech,” disinformation, harassment, and extremism.

After signing the law – AB 587 – Governor Gavin Newsom announced that this is a unique social media “transparency and accountability measure” that is meant to protect Californians from hate and discrimination.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The reports will require tech companies to explain how and if they define and remove content from a number of categories, such as hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.

The reports are also expected to go into automated moderation, what happens to flagged content, and how many times it has been viewed.

Newsom seems to believe that social media is being weaponized to spread hate, disinformation, harassment, and lies that threaten communities, and vowed that California will not “stand by” as this is happening.

Keep reading

‘Stochastic Terrorism’ Is The Newest Way The Left Plans To Censor Dissent

Far left activists have recently deployed a “sophisticated, academic-sounding” crowbar to batter tech companies and ideological dissenters alike, but the strategy is getting mixed reviews from free speech and extremism experts interviewed by the Daily Caller.

Instances of the phrase “stochastic terrorism” have seen a massive spike online since 2016 and more recently in the last few months, as activists seek to de-platform and censor personalities and brands that refuse to hew to their particular worldview.

“I believe concept creep helps explain the sudden and relatively recent uptick in the phrase ‘stochastic terrorism,’” Komi Frey, a research fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) told the Caller. “The term ‘terrorism’ understandably evokes fear, so it captures people’s attention. Furthermore, the government can take very extreme measures to combat and punish terrorism.”

Keep reading

Biden’s Sneaky Censors

“Tech platforms are notoriously opaque,” the White House complained last week, saying Americans deserve to know more about how online forums decide “when and how to remove content from their sites.” Yet the Biden administration, which routinely pressures social media companies to suppress speech it does not like, is hardly a model of transparency in this area.

In a lawsuit filed last May, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt argue that the administration’s “Orwellian” crusade against “misinformation” violates the First Amendment. They are trying to find out more about this “vast ‘Censorship Enterprise’ across a multitude of federal agencies,” and the administration is fighting them every step of the way.

So far, Landry and Schmitt have identified 45 federal officials who “communicate with social media platforms” about curtailing “misinformation.” Emails obtained during discovery show those platforms are desperate to comply with the government’s demands for speech restrictions, including the removal of specific messages and accounts.

Keep reading

Yet another “whistleblower” means yet more censorship

Anew Twitter “whistleblower” has come forward. Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, allegedly a former hacker and Twitter’s ex-head of security, testified in front of congress today, with dire warnings about the business practices of the social media giant.

Did he talk about the company’s egregious attacks on their users’ free speech under the guise of “protecting” the public?

Did he mention the suppression of alternative and independent journalism through practices such as “shadow-banning” and discretely removing followers?

Perhaps he told them about how, like all major social media platforms, it is so cross-pollinated with intelligence assets it may as well be considered just another branch of the Deep State.

No, none of that. His main concern is that Twitter’s security is too lax, and that the platform’s “cyber-security failures” leave it potentially open to “exploitation” that can “cause real harm to real people”.

Keep reading

“The Regime of Censorship Being Imposed on the Internet is Dangerously Intensifying in Ways I Believe Are Not Adequately Understood”

U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald has condemned the Government, media and Big Tech for coordinating to censor dissent. Writing on Twitter on Tuesday, the Intercept cofounder blasted those who have taken advantage of a series of ‘crises’ as a pretext to conspire to suppress their ideological opponents. The searing Twitter thread is reproduced in full below.

The regime of censorship being imposed on the internet – by a consortium of Washington D.C. Democrats, billionaire-funded ‘disinformation experts’, the U.S. Security State, and liberal employees of media corporations – is dangerously intensifying in ways I believe are not adequately understood.

A series of “crises” have been cynically and aggressively exploited to inexorably restrict the range of permitted views and expand pretexts for online silencing and deplatforming. Trump’s election, Russiagate, January 6th, Covid and war in Ukraine all fostered new methods of repression.

During the failed attempt in January to force Spotify to remove Joe Rogan, the country’s most popular podcaster – remember that? – I wrote that the current religion of Western liberals in politics and media is censorship: their prime weapon of activism.

But that Rogan failure only strengthened their repressive campaigns. Dems routinely abuse their majoritarian power in D.C. to explicitly coerce Big Tech silencing of their opponents and dissent. This is Government censorship disguised as corporate autonomy.

There’s now an entire new industry, aligned with Dems, to pressure Big Tech to censor. Think tanks and self-proclaimed ‘disinformation experts’ funded by Omidyar, Soros and the U.S./U.K. Security State use benign-sounding names to glorify ideological censorship as neutral expertise.

Keep reading

The World Economic Forum doesn’t like the criticism

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has been inserting itself into a number of core issues for humanity with ever-increasing vigor over the past couple of years, that coincided with the pandemic: publishing information about the future of artificial intelligence to the future of education, technology tracking humans, and so on and on.

One would think that when an unelected and unaccountable group like this decides to not merely offer its two cents on a topic but position itself as a de facto policymaker that wants to steer regulation and “ethics” standards – it would also be open to criticism.

But in thinking that, one would be wrong. It looks like the WEF can dish it out – but can’t really take it. The main message conveyed recently by WEF Managing Director Adrian Monck is basically – don’t talk about us.

And critics, including politicians in various countries, are being branded as “conspiracy theorists” and “disinformation” peddlers for talking about them.

Keep reading

Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, 12 US Agencies Involved in Social Media Censorship Push: Documents

Over 50 officials in President Joe Biden’s administration across a dozen agencies have been involved with efforts to pressure Big Tech companies to crack down on alleged misinformation, according to documents released on Aug. 31.

Senior officials in the U.S. government, including White House lawyer Dana Remus, deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty, and onetime White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt, have been in touch with one or more major social media companies to try to get the companies to tighten rules on allegedly false and misleading information on COVID-19, and take action against users who violate the rules, the documents show.

In July 2021, for instance, after Biden said that Facebook was “killing people” by not combating misinformation effectively, an executive at Meta reached out to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, a Biden appointee, to say that government and Meta teams met after the remarks “to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”

The same executive later wrote to Murthy saying, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken to further address the ‘disinfo dozen,’” including removing pages linked to the group.

Keep reading

Google to bans apps containing “misleading health claims that contradict existing medical consensus”

The Android app store, Google Play, has introduced sweeping new rules that ban apps containing what the tech giant deems to be “misleading health claims that contradict existing medical consensus, or can cause harm to users.”

The new rules are part of a Google Play “health misinformation” policy that came into force on August 31. Some of the examples of in-app content that’s banned under this new policy include “misleading claims about vaccines, such as that vaccines can alter one’s DNA,” “advocacy of harmful, unapproved treatments,” and “advocacy of other harmful health practices, such as conversion therapy.”

Google’s new policy comes at a time when the medical consensus has changed multiple times over the last few years. In 2020 Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), said that Pfizer’s reported 90% COVID-19 vaccine efficacy rate was “extraordinary.” In 2021, Fauci said the vaccine will “protect you against the surging of the delta variant.” But this year, former White House COVID response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx admitted that she “knew” COVID vaccines would not prevent infection.

Keep reading

FACEBOOK TELLS MODERATORS TO ALLOW GRAPHIC IMAGES OF RUSSIAN AIRSTRIKES BUT CENSORS ISRAELI ATTACKS

AFTER A SERIES of Israeli airstrikes against the densely populated Gaza Strip earlier this month, Palestinian Facebook and Instagram users protested the abrupt deletion of posts documenting the resulting death and destruction. It wasn’t the first time Palestinian users of the two giant social media platforms, which are both owned by parent company Meta, had complained about their posts being unduly removed. It’s become a pattern: Palestinians post sometimes graphic videos and images of Israeli attacks, and Meta swiftly removes the content, providing only an oblique reference to a violation of the company’s “Community Standards” or in many cases no explanation at all.

Not all the billions of users on Meta’s platforms, however, run into these issues when documenting the bombing of their neighborhoods.

Previously unreported policy language obtained by The Intercept shows that this year the company repeatedly instructed moderators to deviate from standard procedure and treat various graphic imagery from the Russia-Ukraine war with a light touch. Like other American internet companies, Meta responded to the invasion by rapidly enacting a litany of new policy carveouts designed to broaden and protect the online speech of Ukrainians, specifically allowing their graphic images of civilians killed by the Russian military to remain up on Instagram and Facebook.

No such carveouts were ever made for Palestinian victims of Israeli state violence — nor do the materials show such latitude provided for any other suffering population.

Keep reading