Tag: social media

Reddit Now Requires Age Verification In UK To Comply With Nation’s Online Safety Act

The news and social media aggregation platform Reddit now requires its United Kingdom based users to provide age verification to access “mature content” hosted on its website.

Users must prove they are eighteen years or older to read or contribute such content.

UK regulator Ofcom stated “We expect other companies to follow suit, or face enforcement if they fail to act.” Internet content providers who fail to adopt such measures can face fines of up to eighteen million pounds or ten percent of their worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.

For continued violations or serious cases, UK regulators may petition the courts to order “business disruption measures” such as forcing advertisers to end contracts or preventing payment providers to provide revenue for the platforms. Internet service providers can be required to block access to their users.

Reddit announced a partnership with Persona to provide an age verification service. Users will be able to upload a “selfie” image or a photograph of their government issued identification or passport as proof of majority. The company stated the age verification is a one-time process and that it will only retain users’ date of birth and verification status. Persona proffered they would only retain the photos for seven days.

David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, called the UK’s Online Safety Act a real tragedy: “UK users can no longer use the internet without having to provide their papers, as it were.”

The rules come as no surprise given the regulatory over-reach of many European governments.

The canards of Protecting the Children or Online Safety provide indirect tools to deny access or curtail speech, tools too tempting or useful for pro-censorship politicians and officials.

Keep reading

Court rules Mississippi’s social media age verification law can go into effect

A Mississippi law that requires social media users to verify their ages can go into effect, a federal court has ruled. A tech industry group has pledged to continue challenging the law, arguing it infringes on users’ rights to privacy and free expression.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overruled a decision by a federal district judge to block the 2024 law from going into effect. It’s the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country.

Parents – and even some teens themselves – are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the new laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch argued in a court filing defending the law that steps such as age verification for digital sites could mitigate harm caused by “sex trafficking, sexual abuse, child pornography, targeted harassment, sextortion, incitement to suicide and self-harm, and other harmful and often illegal conduct against children.”

Attorneys for NetChoice, which brought the lawsuit, have pledged to continue their court challenge, arguing the law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages.

Keep reading

Backroom Politics and Big Tech Fuel Europe’s New Spy Push

A hastily arranged gathering within the European Union is reigniting fears over a renewed push for sweeping surveillance measures disguised as child protection.

Behind closed doors, a controversial “Chat Control” meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, has raised alarms among digital rights advocates who see it as a thinly veiled attempt to subvert the European Parliament’s current stance, which expressly prohibits the monitoring of encrypted communications.

Despite no formal negotiations underway between the Parliament, Commission, and Council, Javier Zarzalejos, the rapporteur for the regulation and chair of the Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE), has chosen to hold what is being described as a “shadow meeting.”

Notably, this comes over a year after the Parliament reached a compromise aimed at defending fundamental rights by shielding private, encrypted exchanges from warrantless surveillance.

The meeting’s guest list, obtained by netzpolitik.org, painted a lopsided picture.

Government and law enforcement figures from Denmark, including its Justice Ministry, which has put forward an even stricter proposal, are slated to attend, alongside Europol, representatives from Meta and Microsoft, and several pro-surveillance NGOs like ECPAT.

Also expected is Hany Farid, a US academic affiliated with the Counter Extremism Project, an organization known for its close relationships with intelligence agencies.

What was missing from the invitation list until late Monday was any representation from civil liberties groups or organizations that have consistently pushed back against warrantless monitoring.

Keep reading

Court Ruling on TikTok Opens Door to Platform “Safety” Regulation

A New Hampshire court’s decision to allow most of the state’s lawsuit against TikTok to proceed is now raising fresh concerns for those who see growing legal pressure on platforms as a gateway to government-driven interference.

The case, brought under the pretext of safeguarding children’s mental health, could pave the way for aggressive regulation of platform design and algorithmic structures in the name of safety, with implications for free expression online.

Judge John Kissinger of the Merrimack County Superior Court rejected TikTok’s attempt to dismiss the majority of the claims.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

While one count involving geographic misrepresentation was removed, the ruling upheld core arguments that focus on the platform’s design and its alleged impact on youth mental health.

The court ruled that TikTok is not entitled to protections under the First Amendment or Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for those claims.

“The State’s claims are based on the App’s alleged defective and dangerous features, not the information contained therein,” Kissinger wrote. “Accordingly, the State’s product liability claim is based on the harm caused by the product: TikTok itself.”

This ruling rests on the idea that TikTok’s recommendation engines, user interface, and behavioral prompts function not as speech but as product features.

As a result, the lawsuit can proceed under a theory of product liability, potentially allowing the government to compel platforms to alter their design choices based on perceived risks.

Keep reading

Trial begins as Meta investors, Zuckerberg square off over alleged privacy violations

An $8 billion trial by Meta Platforms (META.O) shareholders against Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders kicked off on Wednesday over claims they illegally harvested the data of Facebook users in violation of a 2012 agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

The trial started with a privacy expert for the plaintiffs, Neil Richards of Washington University Law School, who testified about Facebook’s data policies.

“Facebook’s privacy disclosures were misleading,” he told the court.

Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under President Joe Biden and a Meta (META.O) director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to take the stand later on Wednesday in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court.

The case will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants including former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen as well as former board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies (PLTR.O) co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix (NFLX.O).

A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment.

Keep reading

The Pentagon’s about to start using xAI’s Grok — and other federal agencies could be next

Elon Musk’s xAI is launching a new government-facing service. Its first client happens to be the largest employer on Earth.

The Department of Defense will pay up to $200 million for “Grok for Government,” a new collection of AI products geared toward use by federal, local, and state governments.

The department has also awarded similar contracts to Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI, which launched its own government-facing initiative last month.

“The adoption of AI is transforming the Department’s ability to support our warfighters and maintain strategic advantage over our adversaries,” Doug Matty, Chief Digital and AI Officer of the Department of Defense, said in a statement.

xAI said its government-facing products would include models designed specifically for national security purposes and eventually for use in classified environments.

The company also said those products would be available for purchase via the General Services Administration, opening the door for other federal agencies to use them.

The announcement comes less than a week after Grok went on an antisemitic rant on X. The company later apologized for the chatbot’s “horrific behavior,” though workers at the company erupted in anger internally over the incident.

Keep reading

Digital ID: Bluesky to Launch Age Checks in UK

Bluesky is preparing to introduce age checks for users in the UK, following obligations under the country’s controversial censorship law, the Online Safety Act.

The platform revealed that individuals will have several options to verify their age, such as facial scanning, ID upload, or payment card entry.

The system will operate through Kid Web Services (KWS), a tool developed by Epic Games to help online platforms manage age verification and implement parental controls.

Users who opt out of verification, or who are under 18, won’t be excluded entirely but will encounter stricter limitations. Access to adult-oriented material will be restricted, and features like direct messaging will be disabled.

Passed in 2023, the Online Safety Act has triggered alarm among digital rights advocates, who argue that the legislation could severely curtail free speech and privacy by linking everyone’s online comments to their real-world ID.

Keep reading

France waging ‘crusade’ against free speech and tech progress – Telegram boss

France has embarked on a “crusade” against free speech and progress itself, Telegram founder Pavel Durov said on Friday after Paris launched a probe against the social media platform X. The French authorities should talk to tech companies instead of prosecuting them, the entrepreneur believes.

The actions of the “French bureaucrats” will only “scare off investment and damage the country’s economic growth for decades,” the Russian-born billionaire wrote on X.

The French authorities announced a probe against the Elon Musk-owned platform on Friday for allegedly manipulating algorithms “for purposes of foreign interference.” The investigation was prompted by two complaints, one filed by a French lawmaker and the other by a government cybersecurity official, both of whom accused X of threatening French democracy. Musk has not commented on the development.

Keep reading

France opens criminal probe into X algorithms under Musk

A French prosecutor has opened a criminal investigation into social platform X and its owner, Elon Musk, on accusations of “creating bias in France’s democratic debate.”

The investigation comes after Musk’s artificial intelligence (AI) company, xAi, deleted multiple posts from its chatbot Grok that included antisemitic comments. Among them, Grok called itself “MechaHitler” and insinuated that the Jewish people were controlling Hollywood.

French National Assembly member Thierry Sother and European Union Parliament member Pierre Jouvet asked Arcom, France’s digital content regulator, to look into Grok’s behavior Thursday. 

“Since the July 4th update, Grok has substantially changed behaviors leading it to comment antisemitic ideas, to praise Hitler and even to support Le Pen,” Sother said to French media Libération.

X has not immediately responded to requests for comment.

X and Musk have been on French and European radars since January when Éric Bothorel, a French parliamentarian, raised concerns over X’s use of personal data, a biased algorithm and the reduction of diversity in posts. 

He also denounced Musk’s personal interference within the platform, calling it “a true danger and a threat for our democracies,” according to Libération.  

Keep reading

This Newly Implemented Online Speech Code Just Gave European Censors Another Weapon

Under the shadow of the European Union’s Digital Services Act censorship regime, Europeans already face fines, raids, and arrests for their social media posts, but starting July 1, the Code of Conduct on Disinformation has the force of law. The once-voluntary “code,” a 56-page document that spells out censorship strategies, is now an enforceable “benchmark” that the EU can use to measure tech companies’ censorship regimes.

The Code requires large online platforms to meet “tougher transparency and auditing obligations aimed at stamping out disinformation,” according to Tech Policy Press. Previously, the Code operated as a “self-regulatory framework” for tech companies before the EU “endorsed” its “integration” into the DSA.

The DSA “regulates online intermediaries and platforms” to police so-called “disinformation.” Under the law, which went into full effect last year, tech companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, and X are required to undergo independent audits that “assess” their management of “disinformation risks,” Tech Policy Press reported. The Code commitments will act as “benchmarks” for these assessments, where applicable.

In April of 2023, the EU designated 19 large tech companies required to comply with the DSA. All of these companies serve more than 45 million monthly users in the EU, and 14 of them are U.S.-based, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco told The Federalist. As of June, the Commission is still “supervising” these tech companies under the DSA.

“The EU is trying to impose its draconian, very restrictive free speech regime on the world,” Tedesco said in an interview.

Full adherence to the Code is now a “marker of DSA compliance” for companies, according to Tech Policy Press. “While signing on [to the Code] remains optional,” “failing to adhere to its commitments may now trigger investigations or fines.”

Keep reading