Tag: social media

AMA President Advocates for Stricter Censorship of Health “Misinformation,” Urges Platforms To Follow YouTube’s Strict Speech Policy

The American Medical Association (AMA) President Jesse Ehrenfeld is arguing in favor of more censorship, supposedly targeting those “spreading misinformation.”

Ehrenfeld is happy with how Google/YouTube is doing that, via the controversial “medical misinformation” policy which he says “landed a solid punch” (against suspected medical information, not free speech, according to him). And, Ehrenfeld is urging other platforms to adopt similar rules.

YouTube mandates that its users must strictly adhere to whatever local health authorities or the World Health Organization say about health-related matters.

Interestingly, Ehrenfeld unwittingly provides an example of the notorious “revolving door” practice between the US government and private tech companies when he quotes from a blog post co-written by Garth Graham, whom he identifies as “a former US deputy assistant secretary for health who now leads YouTube Health.”

In a blog post of his own, Ehrenfeld now writes that US federal officials, including the surgeon general, have an obligation to “actively counter voices” that are deemed to be deliberately spreading misinformation about (Covid) vaccines and other issues.

Ehrenfeld then goes into the Murthy v. Missouri case, currently in the US Supreme Court, and how to “balance” the need to suppress those voices with the First Amendment speech protections.

The case accuses the Biden White House of colluding with private companies to censor speech, but Ehrenfeld’s organization, along with four other medical associations, doesn’t appear to see anything wrong in that.

Keep reading

How the EU Plans to Regulate Online Influencers Towards “Responsible” Online Speech and Conduct

EU’s next target in the bloc’s self-inflicted “war on disinformation” is – online influencers.

The initiative comes with the stated goal to “educate” influencers, using regulations, about what their responsibilities are in case “harmful” content they share happens to be deemed as having a “potential” adverse impact on their audience.

You could hardly get more convoluted in trying to push through rules that are not meant to prevent unlawful behavior – because none is happening – but to, regardless, steer online narratives in a desired direction. And that’s why you know this is coming from Brussels, even if reports had failed to specify.

And “from Brussels” is a double entendre, since the idea originates from the current, 6-month Belgian EU presidency, the European Conservative reported. “Harmful content with potential impact” would be the usual collection of poorly or controversially defined disinformation, hate speech, cyberbullying, and the like.

Keep reading

Florida bans social media for kids under 14. Will the bill hold up?

Florida has passed a bill to ban minors under 14 from having social media accounts, and online platforms will be forced to delete any accounts already owned by those under the legal age.

For people between ages 14 and 15, parental consent will be needed to register a social media account.

The bill, HB 3, is considered one of the most restrictive social media bans for minors in the U.S. and will take effect on Jan. 1, 2025. But some critics believe the law won’t stand up to a constitutional challenge, and argue it infringes on the First Amendment rights of young people in the state.

Proponents of the law, however, say it will protect children from online harm and risks to their mental health.

The bill was championed by Republican Speaker Paul Renner, who warned of social media’s “addictive technologies” at the bill-signing ceremony held at a Jacksonville school.

“A child in their brain development doesn’t have the ability to know that they’re being sucked into these addictive technologies and to see the harm and step away from it, and because of that we have to step in for them,” Renner said.

“Social media harms children in a variety of ways,” Gov. Ron DeSantis stated in a news release after signing the bill into law. “HB 3 gives parents a greater ability to protect their children.”

Meanwhile, Democrat Anna Eskamani, of the Florida House of Representatives, argues the law will do the opposite for parents.

“Though I agree more needs to be done in protecting our youth on social media, this bill goes too far in taking away parents’ rights and banning social media usage — and thus First Amendment Rights — for young Floridians,” Eskamani said in a news release.

Keep reading

USAID’S Disinformation Primer: Global Censorship In The Name Of Democracy

A report from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) outlines how the government agency has been encouraging governments, tech platforms, establishment media outlets and advertisers to work together to censor huge swaths of the Internet. The 97-page “disinformation primer,” obtained by conservative firm America First Legal under the Freedom of Information Act, purports to be fighting fake news. However, much of the organization’s focus appears to be on preventing individuals from finding information online that challenges official narratives and leads to increased questioning of the system more generally.

The document calls for regulating video games and online message boards, steering individuals away from alternative media and back towards more elite-friendly sites, and for governments to work with advertisers to cripple organizations that refuse to toe official lines financially. Furthermore, it highlights government-backed fact-checking groups like Bellingcat, Graphika, and the Atlantic Council as leaders in the fight against disinformation, despite the fact that those groups have close connections to the national security state, which is an overwhelming conflict of interest.

The news that a government agency is promoting such a program is worrying enough. However, we shall also see how USAID itself has promoted fake news to push for regime change abroad.

Keep reading

EU To Start Fining Platforms up to 6% of Global Revenue if They Fail To Censor Election “Disinformation” Under New Censorship Law

The EU is about to start punishing large online platforms for not tackling “election disinformation” to the bloc’s satisfaction.

In order to make good on the threat, the EU is putting to use its censorship law – the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton is quoted as saying that platforms like X, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and Facebook, but also search engines, must operate according to the guidelines that are currently being drafted.

Reports say that companies behind these platforms and services could be forced to pay fines of up to 6 percent of their global revenue unless they fight “disinformation” related to elections.

This figure specifically concerns whatever is designated as AI or deepfakes-based “disinformation.”

Tech companies are expected to “take measures and mitigate risks,” Breton, who is DSA’s “enforcer,” said. The Brussels bureaucrats speak about this as moderation, rather than censorship, and have decided to consider this year as “pivotal” when it comes to elections.

And the EU is in a hurry to start mandating the rules – reports say this could happen in the next few weeks. It will be possible to enforce the guidelines thanks to their inclusion in the DSA, and they will come into force as soon as they are adopted.

Heaping further pressure on tech companies to censor, and regulating them in this way, is explained as necessary to prevent things like turnout suppression, fake news, and, of course – and in particular, according to EU leaders – Russia’s “malign influence” ahead of elections in the bloc this year.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Should Reject Clandestine Government Censorship of Online Speech

When federal officials persistently pressured social media platforms to delete or downgrade posts those officials did not like, a government lawyer told the Supreme Court on Monday, they were merely offering “information” and “advice” to their “partners” in fighting “misinformation.” If the justices accept that characterization, they will be blessing clandestine government censorship of online speech.

The case, Murthy v. Missouri, pits two states and five social media users against federal officials who strongly, repeatedly, and angrily demanded that Facebook et al. crack down on speech the government viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy, or national security. Some of this “exhortation,” as U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher described it, happened in public, as when President Joe Biden accused the platforms of “killing people” by allowing users to say things he believed would discourage Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who echoed that charge in more polite terms, urged a “whole-of-society” effort to combat the “urgent threat to public health” posed by “health misinformation,” which he said might include “legal and regulatory measures.” Other federal officials said holding social media platforms “accountable” could entail antitrust action, new regulations, or expansion of their civil liability for user-posted content.

Those public threats were coupled with private communications that came to light only thanks to their discovery in this case. As Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga noted on Monday, officials such as Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty “badger[ed] the platforms 24/7,” demanding that they broaden their content restrictions and enforce them more aggressively.

Those emails alluded to presidential displeasure and warned that White House officials were “considering our options on what to do” if the platforms failed to fall in line. The platforms responded by changing their policies and practices.

Facebook executive Nick Clegg was eager to appease the president. In emails to Murthy, he noted that Facebook had “adjust[ed] policies on what we’re removing”; had deleted pages, groups, and accounts that offended the White House; and would “shortly be expanding our COVID policies to further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content.”

Facebook took those steps, Clegg said in another internal email that Aguiñaga quoted, “because we were under pressure by the administration.” Clegg expressed regret about caving to that pressure, saying, “We shouldn’t have done it.”

According to Fletcher, none of this implicated the First Amendment because “no threats happened.” He meant that federal officials never explicitly threatened platforms with “adverse government action” while urging suppression of constitutionally protected speech.

That position is hard to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court held that Rhode Island’s Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth had violated the First Amendment by pressuring book distributors to drop titles it deemed objectionable.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Appears Wary of Blocking Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Collusion

During oral arguments in a major First Amendment case on Monday, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about restricting interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms. This concern emerged during the Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) case, which delves into the extent of governmental influence over online content.

Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, presented oral arguments for the petitioners in the case, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and several other current and former members of the Biden administration.

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

During the oral arguments today though, the justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion. According to Fletcher, the litmus test for legality should be the presence or absence of threats from the government, asserting that using the bully pulpit for exhortations is a right protected under the First Amendment.

Fletcher also tried to argue for the significant power and autonomy of social media companies, noting their capability to resist governmental pressures.

The solicitor general of Louisiana, Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing one of the Republican-led states behind the lawsuit, argued that the government’s actions amounted to coercion, effectively leading to censorship by social media platforms. He highlighted a significant shift in the focus of government-led content moderation. Initially aimed at tackling foreign interference and misinformation, these efforts increasingly targeted speech by American citizens, particularly around the contentious topics of the 2020 election and the pandemic.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga’s viewpoint. “And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that.”

Keep reading

Colorado Bill Would Force Social Media Platforms To Ban Users Who ‘Promote’ Marijuana, Psychedelics And Hemp Products

A center-right think tank is raising alarm about a Colorado bill that it says would make it illegal to talk positively about marijuana online. The prohibition would also apply to many hemp products as well as some federally legal pharmaceuticals.

Among other provisions, SB24-158—a broad proposal around internet age verification and content policies—would require social media platforms to immediately remove any user “who promotes, sells, or advertises an illicit substance.”

The bill’s definition of illicit substance includes not only illegal drugs but also many that are legal and regulated in Colorado. It pertains to any controlled substance under state law, including schedules I through V under state law.  That means the bill would affect state-legal marijuana, certain psychedelics—which voters legalized through a 2022 ballot measure—and even some over-the-counter cough syrups that contain small amounts of codeine.

Beyond scheduled drugs, the bill specifies that its restrictions also apply to certain hemp products with more than 1.25 milligrams THC or a CBD-to-THC ratio of less than 20 to 1 and most other hemp-containing products intended for human consumption.

If enacted onto law, companies would also need to publish “a statement that the use of the social media platform for the promotion, sale, or advertisement of any illicit substance…is prohibited.”

The R Street Institute says the restriction would impact not only cannabis companies but also any individual who posts positively about marijuana.

“Basically, the Colorado Legislature is trying to force social media companies to ban the promotion of marijuana,” the group’s social media director, Shoshanna Weissman, wrote in a new article. “And because what constitutes ‘promotion’ remains undefined, the bill would likely force platforms to remove all pro-marijuana free speech in a state where recreational use is legal.”

Not only is the ambiguity of “promotion” an issue, but the bill’s broad definition of illicit substances could also cause confusion, R Street says.

The think tank points out that the bill’s definition of illicit substances “would make it unlawful for businesses to promote them for sale or even for regular people to talk about their benefits online.”

“This clearly violates the First Amendment, as the bill is unconstitutionally narrow in scope,” Weissman wrote. “Basically, if speaking highly of or advertising these substances were truly dangerous, the state would have banned advertising in all its forms (e.g., print, television, digital).”

Keep reading

Keith Olbermann suggests ‘hope’ for Trump’s assassination in X post

Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann appeared to “hope” that former President Trump would be assassinated in a recent X post that prompted calls for his banishment from the social media platform.

Olbermann was referring to the Biden-Harris HQ X account flagging a clip of Trump saying he had been persecuted worse than any president in history, including Abraham Lincoln.

“Trump says he has been treated worse than Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated,” the Biden campaign account posted on Saturday.

“There’s always the hope,” Olbermann wrote, linking to the post.

Olbermann, a far-left personality known for his inflammatory comments, has also recently called for the dissolution of the Supreme Court.

One account that responded to Olbermann’s post suggested the commentator’s account should be “permanently suspended” for appearing to endorse someone killing Trump, the presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination. Trump is trying to become only the second president since Grover Cleveland to win another White House term after losing a previous re-election bid.

Multiple major media outlets and political figures have criticized Trump in the wake of an Ohio campaign speech in which he argued that the American auto industry would experience a “bloodbath” if Biden were to be re-elected in November.

While speaking to CNN “State of The Union” host Dana Bash on Sunday, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stressed that Trump cannot win the upcoming election and spun his “bloodbath” remark as possibly being a threat to Americans.

“We have – we just have to win this election because he‘s even predicting a bloodbath. What does that mean? He‘s going to exact a bloodbath?” she asked.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Appears Wary of Blocking Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Collusion

During oral arguments in a major First Amendment case on Monday, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about restricting interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms. This concern emerged during the Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) case, which delves into the extent of governmental influence over online content.

Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, presented oral arguments for the petitioners in the case, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and several other current and former members of the Biden administration.

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

During the oral arguments today though, the justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion. According to Fletcher, the litmus test for legality should be the presence or absence of threats from the government, asserting that using the bully pulpit for exhortations is a right protected under the First Amendment.

Fletcher also tried to argue for the significant power and autonomy of social media companies, noting their capability to resist governmental pressures.

The solicitor general of Louisiana, Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing one of the Republican-led states behind the lawsuit, argued that the government’s actions amounted to coercion, effectively leading to censorship by social media platforms. He highlighted a significant shift in the focus of government-led content moderation. Initially aimed at tackling foreign interference and misinformation, these efforts increasingly targeted speech by American citizens, particularly around the contentious topics of the 2020 election and the pandemic.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga’s viewpoint. “And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that.”

Keep reading