Tag: social media

Net Neutrality Could Expand Biden’s Social Media Censorship To The Whole Internet

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in one of the most important cases this term, one with critical implications for First Amendment free speech rights as society proceeds further into a world reliant upon internet service.

The controversy at the heart of Murthy v. Missouri is the Biden administration’s effort to pressure or “jawbone” social media to censor various opinions and public policy advocacy about the Covid pandemic that it found objectionable. 

The Biden administration naturally claims it was simply engaging in discourse with social media leaders to “inform and persuade,” but discovered correspondence included direct threats against the companies while White House officials openly and publicly threatened new “legal and regulatory measures” if the targeted groups failed to submit to its desires. 

Those revelations only confirm widespread suspicion that the left-leaning administrative state, favored and further empowered by the Biden administration, seeks to exploit its vast authority to suppress the speech of Americans who don’t share its preferred narratives or big-government goals.

The Supreme Court must now determine whether that White House pressure campaign crossed the line into unconstitutional intimidation and censorship, even without formal government prosecution or enforcement. Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Biden administration’s form of “informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief,” even where the targeted groups are “free” to ignore its threats, because “people do not lightly disregard officers’ thinly veiled threats.” 

Keep reading

National Parks Celebrate April Fool’s Day with Paranormal Pranks on Social Media

In honor of April Fool’s Day, a number of national parks turned to the paranormal in an attempt to pull a fast one on their social media followers. Perhaps the most impressive joke this year came by way of Zion National Park which shared a photo (seen above) that, upon first glance, appears to show a Sasquatch visiting the site’s picturesque Watchman Trail. “Though typically known to inhabit North America’s Pacific Northwest region, Bigfoot, like many visitors, has chosen Zion as her destination for recreation,” the park wrote on Facebook before, as is custom, revealing that the photo was a hoax.

Zion National Park was not the only location to enlist Bigfoot in Thursday’s tomfoolery as Whiskeytown National Recreation Area posted a typically hard-to-decipher image which they claimed was a “close-up photo of Bigfoot” purportedly “captured by one of our former employee’s wildlife cameras recently.” Showing some serious commitment to the bit, they went on to say that “scientists are struggling to come up with an answer for how this unique species has moved into the park from locations west” and detailed a number of theories for the odd turn of events until ultimately unleashing the all-too-familiar April Fool’s punchline.

Keep reading

Colorado Amendment Addresses Concerns On Banning Social Media Marijuana Posts, But Questions On Psychedelics And Other Drugs Remain

Colorado lawmakers advanced an amended social media bill on Thursday that, as introduced, would have forced platforms to ban users for talking positively about marijuana online. But while the sponsor says the issue has now been “worked out” with recent changes, critics contend the revised legislation still fails to address concerns around statements regarding other substances, including state-legal psychedelics, certain hemp products and even some over-the-counter cough syrups.

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

Initially that provision would have applied to all controlled substances under state law, but an amendment from the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Chris Hansen (D), includes language saying that “a social media platform may allow a user to promote, sell, or advertise medical marijuana or retail marijuana to users who are at least twenty-one years of age” so long as the content complies with state cannabis laws.

Members of the Senate Committee on Business, Labor and Technology at Thursday’s hearing unanimously approved the amended bill, advancing it to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable report.

“We have worked out adjustment language with the MJ industry,” Hansen told Marijuana Moment in an email about the amendment last week, in response to questions about the potential consequences of the bill. “Those amendments will be distributed later today in preparation for the bill being voted on in committee on Thursday.”

But even before the amendment landed in committee this week, a fellow at the center-right think tank R Street Institute, said the changes leave major issues unaddressed.

“The updated version would still prevent users from from promoting NyQuil or anti-anxiety medications among many others, even though it exempts marijuana,” Shoshana Weismann, who first called out the potential problems in the bill’s drug-related language, told Marijuana Moment in an email. “And if you promote those medications, you will be reported to law enforcement. That is asinine.”

The amended bill also still specifies that its restrictions apply to certain hemp products with more than 1.25 milligrams THC or a CBD-to-THC ratio of less than 20 to 1, as well as most other hemp-containing products intended for human consumption that are not “a dietary supplement, a food, a food additive, or an herb.”

Keep reading

FBI Agent Says He Hassles People ‘Every Day, All Day Long’ Over Facebook Posts

The FBI spends “every day, all day long” interrogating people over their Facebook posts. At least, that’s what agents told Stillwater, Oklahoma, resident Rolla Abdeljawad when they showed up at her house to ask her about her social media activity. 

Three FBI agents came to Abdeljawad’s house and said that they had been given “screenshots” of her posts by Facebook. Her lawyer Hassan Shibly posted a video of the incident online on Wednesday.

Abdeljawad told agents that she didn’t want to talk and asked them to show their badges on camera, which the agents refused to do. She wrote on Facebook that she later confirmed with local police that the FBI agents really were FBI agents.

“Facebook gave us a couple of screenshots of your account,” one agent in a gray shirt said in the video.

“So we no longer live in a free country and we can’t say what we want?” replied Abdeljawad.

“No, we totally do. That’s why we’re not here to arrest you or anything,” a second agent in a red shirt added. “We do this every day, all day long. It’s just an effort to keep everybody safe and make sure nobody has any ill will.”

Keep reading

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