Tag: social media

California Attorney General Bonta Pressures Top Social Media and AI Executives to Address “Misinformation”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has penned a letter to major social media and “AI” companies. And Bonta’s not urging them to “do better” on innovation, competition, and the like.

No – the letter is all about “election misinformation.”

It’s becoming almost pathological at this point, but the entire ruling apparatus in the US (and that includes not only officials but also politically and ideologically affiliated media outlets) is hammering in the message of that being an actual “threat to democracy.”

As if the largest companies in the said industries didn’t hear all this already dozens of times, Bonta goes out of his way to repeat the message to Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Open AI, Reddit, TikTok, X, and YouTube – (wouldn’t that one fall under the Alphabet category? But Bonta lists the video platform separately).

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Keep reading

Bill Gates Wants AI-Based Real-Time Censorship for Vaccine “Misinformation”

Microsoft founder Bill Gates continues with his crusade, as part of the mission of the Gates Foundation, to not only proliferate the use of vaccines but find new justifications to in effect, force them onto those skeptical or unwilling.

One of the methods Gates has clearly identified as helpful in achieving this goal is hitching his “vaccine wagon” to the massive, ongoing scaremongering campaign and narrative around “misinformation” and “AI.”

Gates spoke for CNBC to reveal he may be a vaccine absolutist – but not a free-speech one. He also didn’t sound convinced that America’s Constitution and its speech protections are the right way to go when he brought up the need for “boundaries” allowing some new “rules.”

Gates’ argument incorporates all the main talking points against free speech: misinformation, incorrect information (aka, fake news), violence, and online harassment. And, he sneaked in vaccines in there, while making a case for “rules” in the US as well.

“We should have free speech, but if you’re inciting violence, if you’re causing people not to take vaccines, where are those boundaries that even the US should have rules? And then if you have rules, what is it?” Gates is quoted as saying.

Keep reading

Court Blocks Parts of California’s Social Media Law in Free Speech Clash

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has granted a partial preliminary injunction in the X Corp. v. Bonta case, which concerns some provisions from California’s online censorship (“moderation”) law, AB 587.

In explaining the ruling, the court said that X Corp. is “likely to succeed in showing that the Content Category Report provisions facially violate the First Amendment.”

The law, introduced by 10 Democrats and one Republican in the state legislature and later adopted, mandates that large social media companies must report to California’s attorney-general regarding the details of their “moderation” apparatus. These companies are required to submit “Content Category Reports” twice a year.

The reports should include statements regarding whether the companies’ terms of service define hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference; if that is the case, the authorities want to know what those definitions are.

The irony of many laws dealing with the same subjects failing to properly define these categories aside, but the court of appeals judges found that this was one of the provisions that likely violated the First Amendment, therefore granting an injunction against it, and several other portions of AB 587 (under section 22677).

Another part of the law that saw the same fate relates to large social media platforms submitting a detailed description of their “moderation policies, and information about flagged content” when it comes to the same categories of speech (hate speech, racism, etc.)

The Ninth Circuit in this way reversed a previous decision by a district court not to grant a preliminary injunction – which is a temporary block until the courts decide on the merits of the case.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

Keep reading

Tony Blair Calls for Global Agreement on Social Media Speech Restrictions

Fresh off the crackdown on so-called “keyboard warriors” over social media posts connected to the recent anti-mass migration riots, leading leftist politicians in Britain are beginning to demand for new speech restrictions on the internet.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose neo-liberal Labour Party government enacted some of the strictest speech laws in modern British history, has joined the chorus of commentators demanding a new crackdown on social media.

Speaking to LBC Radio this week, Blair said: “The world is going to have to come together and agree on some rules around social media platforms.

“It’s not just how people can provoke hostility and hatred but I think… the impact on young people particularly when they’ve got access to mobile phones very young and they are reading a whole lot of stuff and receiving a whole lot of stuff that I think is really messing with their minds in a big way.

“I’m not sure what the answer is but I’m sure we need to find one.”

Keep reading

MSNBC calls for boycott of social media platform X, contributor calls for Elon Musk’s prosecution

MSNBC has called for a boycott against the social media platform X, claiming that its owner, Elon Musk, has pushed misinformation relating to the upcoming election.

An opinion piece published by MSNBC calling for the boycott cited a recent report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate which claimed to have identified 50 instances where Musk posted false claims about the election. The MSNBC piece also accused Musk of amplifying conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism.

“If every moderate-to-liberal human and organization stopped using the site, that might pressure Musk or his board of directors to stop weaponizing it,” the opinion, written by journalist Jay Michaelson, argued.

“It isn’t even a boycott. Leaving X isn’t like boycotting Coors because it’s too right-wing or Bud Light because it’s too left-wing. Those boycotts are fine — that’s part of capitalism too — but X is different in kind. Because unlike beer, the X product itself is the problem,” Michaelson added.

A recent guest on MSNBC also commented on claims that Musk has pushed misinformation on the platform, suggesting that he should be prosecuted over his exercise of free speech rights on X. Businessman and investor Roger McNamee, appearing on MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” argued that there could be a legal case against Musk due to his statements on social media.

“Like any American, he has a right to his own opinion and he has a right to express his opinion. However, that right is not unlimited,” McNamee stated. He went on to note that Musk has “special limitations that wouldn’t apply to normal people” because his companies, specifically Starlink and SpaceX, are government contractors.

Keep reading

Commie Kamala Harris Promises to Use DOJ to “Hold Social Media Platforms Responsible” for “Misinformation” as Defined by Those in Power

In 2019 Kamala Harris was invided to speak at the NAACP Fight for Freedom Dinner in Detroit, Michigan.

During her talk Kamala warned that she will prosecute social media for “misinformation’ as defined by those in power.

At heart, Kamala Harris is a stone-cold Marxist.

Kamala Harris: And we’ll put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice. We will double the Civil Rights Division and direct law enforcement to counter this extremism. We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. If you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don’t police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community.

Under Kamala Harris speech in America will be a crime – just like it is in any tyrannical regime.

Charlie Spiering: Elon Musk, RFK Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard are raising concerns of free speech under Kamala Harris.

In 2019, Harris vowed to use the DOJ and law enforcement to ‘hold social media platforms responsible’ for ‘misinformation’ as part of the ‘fight against this threat to our Democracy’

Keep reading

Facebook Blocks Secret Recording of DOJ Official Saying Trump Case is “Nonsense”

Facebook is once again at the center of a censorship storm after being accused of blocking the circulation of a video exposing harsh criticisms by a official regarding the prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

The video, also published on Rumble features undercover footage showing Nicholas Biase, the chief spokesman for the Manhattan US Attorney’s Office, which brought cases against President Trump, slamming Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s Trump case as a “perversion of justice.”

“Honestly, I think the case is nonsense,” Biase says in the video.

Users who went to share the video on Facebook were hit with the following message: “We can’t review this website because the content doesn’t meet our Community Standards. If you think this is a mistake, please let us know.”

Keep reading

Brazil’s $9,000 Fine For Accessing X Puts “Wall Of Censorship” Between Citizens And Unregulated Information

Brazil has not just banned X (formerly Twitter) from the entire country, but citizens will now be fined $9,000 a day (more than the average salary in the country) for using VPNs to access the platform. X is the main source of news for Brazilians, who will now be left with government-approved sources or face financial ruin in seeking unfettered information.

The Guardian is reporting that the confiscatory fines are part of a comprehensive crackdown on efforts to get news through X, including ordering all Apple stores to remove X from new phones.

The move puts Brazil with China in the effort to create a wall of censorship between citizens and unregulated information.

For the anti-free speech movement, Brazil is a key testing ground for where the movement is heading next. European censors are arresting CEOs like Pavel Durov while threatening Elon Musk.

However, it is Brazil that foreshadows the brave new world of censorship where entire nations will block access to sites committed to free speech values or unfettered news. If successful, the Brazilian model is likely to be replicated by other countries.

The reason is that censorship is not working. As discussed in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” we have never seen the current alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media interest against free speech. Yet, citizens are not buying it.

Despite unrelenting attacks and demonizing media coverage, citizens are still using X and resisting censorship. That was certainly the case in Brazil where citizens preferred X to regulated news sources. The solution is now to threaten citizens with utter ruin if they seek unfettered news.

The question is whether Brazil’s leftist government can get away with this. The conflict began with demands to censor supporters of the conservative former president Jair Bolsonaro. When X refused the sweeping demands for censorship, including the demand to name of a legal representative who could be arrested for refusing to censor users, the courts moved toward this national ban.

Keep reading

BRAZILIAN CONFUSION: Hefty Fines for Accessing Social Media Platform X via VPN Were NOT Rescinded – What Changed Was that VPNs Are Not Outright Banned In the Country Anymore

Brazil, thy name is confusion.

There is a saying here in the ‘tropical country’ that says: ‘Brazil is for professionals‘.

Being born and raised here, we are used to a maze of bureaucracy and a general lack of clarity in all public matters.

Following the blocking of the social platform X in Brazil, a question that was raised by freedom lovers worldwide was the usage of VPN’s by Brazilian users to bypass this spurious prohibition.

This was highly anticipated by our Supreme Court overlords, who decided in a first moment to prohibit the usage of VPN, as well as instituting a 50k reals (over $9k) fine for using VPNs to access X.

This decision was later partially reformed, and that’s where the confusion started.

Some social media users (I saw it posted by DogeDesigner/@cb_doge and also by Charlie Kirk/@Charliekirk11) are suggesting that the fines for accessing X via VPN were rescinded – which would in fact be a victory for free speech.

But that is not the case – as much as I can find.

In fact, what changed is the previous decision to make VPN forbidden in Brazil. That is no longer the case, which is good news for the 75 million VPN users in Brazil.

But it is still forbidden to use this technology to access X, and the fines are still on, although there is some level of push back from the Order of Attorneys of Brazil (OAB).

Keep reading

Technofascism: The Government Pressured Tech Companies to Censor Users

“Internet platforms have a powerful incentive to please important federal officials, and the record in this case shows that high-ranking officials skillfully exploited Facebook’s vulnerability… Not surprisingly these efforts bore fruit. Facebook adopted new rules that better conformed to the officials’ wishes, and many users who expressed disapproved views about the pandemic or COVID–19 vaccines were ‘deplatformed’ or otherwise injured.”
—Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting in Murthy v. Missouri 

Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, has finally admitted what we knew all along: Facebook conspired with the government to censor individuals expressing “disapproved” views about the COVID-19 pandemic.

Zuckerberg’s confession comes in the wake of a series of court rulings that turn a blind eye to the government’s technofascism.

In a 2-1 decision in Children’s Health Defense v. Meta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit brought by Children’s Health Defense against Meta Platforms for restricting CHD’s posts, fundraising, and advertising on Facebook following communications between Meta and federal government officials.

In a unanimous decision in the combined cases of NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, the U.S. Supreme Court avoided ruling on whether the states could pass laws to prohibit censorship by Big Tech companies on social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube.

And in a 6-3 ruling in Murthy v. Missouri , the Supreme Court sidestepped a challenge to the federal government’s efforts to coerce social media companies into censoring users’ First Amendment expression.

Welcome to the age of technocensorship.

On paper—under the First Amendment, at least—we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are now only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.

Keep reading