Writes Alexander B. Howard, the founder of Civic Texts, in "Has the Tide Turned for TikTok, Telegram and X?" (NYT).
१० सप्टेंबर, २०२४
"Three major events have shaken up the social-media world in the past two weeks."
"First, French authorities detained Pavel Durov, the iconoclastic billionaire behind the online platform Telegram. Then, a judge suspended the microblogging service X in Brazil. Soon after, a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania ruled that the mother of a 10-year-old child who died copying a TikTok self-asphyxiation video can sue the service, circumventing a blanket legal immunity the company has long claimed. While each of these events took place in a different country with its own laws, together they demonstrate a sudden shift in the balance of power between governments and technology companies.... Finding the right balance between user safety and free expression will not be easy. It will require investing in existing institutions like the Federal Trade Commission to strengthen their capacity to check digital authoritarianism, anti-competitive behavior and anti-consumer business models or features, and building new ones that lay out bright lines for transparency and accountability online...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
Can the mother be sued for giving her daughter unsupervised access to tiktok? What did she expect?
And today the harris/biden lawfare FAA just delayed approval for launch and recovery of Starship 5 for.... (wait for it) ....60 days! Gee, until right after the election....even though Starship 5 has been ready to go since early August.
And for what frivolous and obvious politically driven lawfare rationale?
"Industrial wastewater" being released at Boca Chica via the launch deluge system...which uses drinkable potable water...which had already been hashed out with state and federal authorities.
Make no mistake, actions taken by the international and national members of The Blob have made it perfectly clear what they will do to any political opponents if they can completely consolidate political authoritarian power.
"together they demonstrate a sudden shift in the balance of power between governments and technology companies...."
Of course, in two of the three it involved governments cracking down on the very few social media companies that were taken over by free speech advocates. Prior to that, social media companies willingly did the government's bidding. And of course QueMala has strongly stated that she believes businesses like X should be brought to heel.
Also, NYT with malice aforethought publishing misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation about public figures, presumably to influence and steer democracy and judicial opinion. Progress, indeed.
A transnational model of fascism.
Why no mention of Facebook or YouTube? Are they not also a threat to society?
"Finding the right balance between user safety and free expression will not be easy."
It seems pretty easy to me, in the US anyway. Users are responsible for their own safety and free expression is subject only to the categorical limitations as set forth in USSC precedent.
The corrupt left will use "but it's for the children" as yet another excuse to silence their critics.
Make the internet safe for children.
Finding the right balance between user safety and free expression will not be easy.
Like hell it will. First Amendment jurisprudence is pretty clear. Fraud, defamation, and incitement to imminent lawless violence are not protected. Everything else is, including what the fascist Left calls "disinformation" and "hate speech."
Today's GOP wants to control the government and serve the People. Democrats want to control the People and be served by the government.
If you're calling for government control of the People's freedom of speech you are calling for fascism.
Kamala is a nightmare.
If the Dems try to steal this... (scratches a line in the sand).
Goetz von Berlichingen
Apologies for the extra spaces. 'Twasn't my intention.
MfG
Goetz von Berlichingen
This is why we lost Lawn Darts.
The FAA has been political for a while. At least since Musk made his conversion.
After the fascists in France seized Durov, then let him out on bail, Telegram has modified its privacy statement, just saying.
They missed the biggest one:
4) Kamala Harris announcing that it will be her administration's policy to provide "oversight" and "regulation" of free speech on internet platforms.
In a few cases in the U.S., parents have now been charged when their kid goes on a shooting rampage. You provided the training and access to a weapon, normalized the idea that you might shoot first and ask question later, you are the agent without whom there might have been no crime. I think lawyers say "but for your actions ...." So I'm tempted by the idea that a parent provided access to TikTok, perhaps paid for it, etc.
Is it a matter of finding the right government agency? I've been reading about WW I: all of the major governments lied and propagandized to their own people to the point that there was no way to surrender, back down, change tactics in the trenches dramatically, or consider a peace agreement. "We've got them worked up, and now if we show weakness they'll turn on us." Even though several major players were destroyed by the war--the old Russian and Austrian regimes, the Ottoman Empire--Germany vs. Britain and France started up again in a few years, and suddenly Japan was a major player having been a bystander before. Only a lunatic would have planned this sequence of events, and lying/propaganda by governments was a big part of it.
Two of these things are not like the other.
Google, Facebook, Apple, AT&T, Verizon ... all have secret agreements with the United States government to allow them to eavesdrop on any conversation you are having on your phone, text or otherwise in complete violation of the 4th and 1st Amendments to the United States Constitution. They are arresting anybody who provides end-to-end encrypted messaging applications.
Don't expect any court help either. The Supreme Court authorized a Star Chamber called "the FISA court" to conduct extra-Constitutional surveillance of any US citizen.
“Finding the right balance between user safety and free expression will not be easy. It will require investing in existing institutions like the Federal Trade Commission…”
And maybe change its name to Ministry of Truth.
Even by prog standards, this is such BS.
"a sudden shift in the balance of power between governments and technology companies"
Huh? Governments always had and have more power. How many tanks does Musk have?
"Finding the right balance between user safety and free expression"
What user is "unsafe" on X? If a user feels unsafe on X, she can get off, no prob. User safety is itself an illiberal authoritarian trope.
"It will require investing in existing institutions like the Federal Trade Commission to strengthen their capacity to check digital authoritarianism, anti-competitive behavior and anti-consumer business models or features"
IOW, government coercion and censorship are needed. But nothing is more "anti-consumer" than such coercion.
"building new ones that lay out bright lines for transparency and accountability online"
Certainly the feds don't recognize any bright lines, don't do transparency, and are rarely accountable. What costs did the Twitter censors suffer? Without Musk's purchase, how transparent would the censorship regime have been?
They're very aggressive about keeping them lost, too...
Of course, Brazil banned X because they refused to have a legal agent in the country. Musk apparently feels the rules don't apply to him.
It all sounds ripped from today's headlines, doesn't it. it was almost better when the rulers of all of the countries in Europe were all cousins, and peace could be made before the absolute destruction of one or the other countries.
Oddly enough disempowering the gatekeepers is never considered as an option.
@Frederson: Of course, Brazil banned X because they refused to have a legal agent in the country. Musk apparently feels the rules don't apply to him.
Tell the whole story, you lying leftist heap of shit. X/Twitter had any number of lawyers in Brazil. That bald Bond-villain demon who sits on their Supreme Court, but in reality seems to be the behind-the-scenes dictator of the whole country, threatened to throw them in jail for not following his censorship demands, even though they were illegal under Brazilian law. Musk terminated their employment to keep them out of prison.
We should be air-dropping arms and ammunition to the Brazilian people, with encouragement to slaughter that black-robed ghoul and about ten thousand other communist politicians and bureaucrats. All Constitutions, including our own, are so much tissue paper. There is nothing that keeps men free except the willingness to kill as many other men as it takes to make them stop oppressing you.
"The GOP has shifted to the far-right since the 1990s, embracing illiberalism & anti-democratic views.
The Democratic Party has not shifted far-left."
- Alexander B. Howard
Yeah. I don't trust his take on free speech, the internet, the time of day, etc.
This is really funny:
"It will require investing in existing institutions like the Federal Trade Commission to strengthen their capacity to check digital authoritarianism"
Field Marshall Freder with another moronic and pro-leftist totalitarian hot take.
X was banned for refusing to abide by the dictatorial demands of a commie judge that actually contradict standing Brazilian law. Because what do laws and rules mean to commies?
Freder's beloved commie judge then also simply ordered the seizure of SpaceX Starlink assets, a completely separate business entity....which fully demonstrated the commie lawlessness of the dictatorial left that Freder so admires.
And finally, the ONLY reason the commie judge is demanding X hire and have in place a "local" rep...is so the commie judge can throw that person into the growing Brazilian Gulag to create leverage and pressure on X....so X simply said "no" to that arrangement.
Freder - -That sounds like leftist Bullcrap.
Your everything else includes child porn, among other things.
Perhaps your oversimplification is missing some major components
Drago, the judges actions were further ratified by a panel of judges.
Perhaps it's hard for you to understand, but neither Elon Musk nor you are Brazilian legal experts and despite how much you want to pretend, the Supreme Court of Brazil gets to decide on Brazilian law.
Freder - Why do so many of you loyal leftists blindly adhere to the stomping of free speech?
Dumb Lefty Mark thinks additional commie judges in Brazil supporting the original commie judge in his lawless actions is somehow proof that its all "legal".
And most typical of Dumb Lefty Mark: he actually believes there are no Brazilian law experts outside of Brazil!
Hey Dumb Lefty Mark, there are law firms specialializing in global business and financial investment operations within Brazil throughout the western world.
Its amazing how often the Dunning-Kruger crew happily self-identify.
Bingo.
You don't have to be an expert in Brazilian law to see that Brazilian law is fascism in action. Mark may wonder why the Brazilian Constitution is not admired and held up as a beacon of freedom throughout the world.
Freder and Mark want you to know that because Musk decided not to ask people to voluntarily go to jail and have their assets seized and their life destroyed, it is perfectly justifiable to shut down free speech.
See, the leftist brazilian judge said "appoint a representative or I shut you down! And no matter who you appoint, I will have them jailed and their personal assets seized, just like your last representative! I'm a gonna seize property and put people in jail regardless!"
To Mark and Freder, this is all entirely appropriate: jailing the attorney of a company solely because you don't like the company is what Freder and Mark live for.
I am curious to know if there is precedent here regarding books. Can the publisher of "How to Hide a Dead Body" be sued if a couple of teenagers decide to make that a project and murder a neighbor?
9/10/24, 2:26 PM Aught Severn said...It seems pretty easy to me, in the US anyway. Users are responsible for their own safety and free expression is subject only to the categorical limitations as set forth in USSC precedent.
The USSC shouldn't be the arbiter here. They're as fallible as the other 2 branches. The 1st Amendment doesn't have any caveats in it, USSC not withstanding. The USSC has ruled very poorly and badly in the past and there's no guarantee they won't in the future.
The only way to survive all this is to forever and continually limit what governments are allowed to get away with. Unfortunately, too many people think governments are on their side. They are not and almost never have been.
What about those whose children learned about gender transitioning from TikTok and undertook life-altering surgery as a result?
It will require investing in existing institutions like the Federal Trade Commission to strengthen their capacity to check digital authoritarianism, anti-competitive behavior and anti-consumer business models or features,
Oh I think the authoritarianism is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!
"The corrupt left will use "but it's for the children" as yet another excuse to silence their critics."
If the left cares so much about children, why do they work so tirelessly to insure as many as possible are aborted?
..."We are now in a time when new guardrails are being enacted to protect societies. That’s a welcome, long-overdue development...."
I notice the words First Amendment appear nowhere in this article, and that the words 'freedom of expression' and 'free speech' are used only to unfavorably paint Durov and Musk as unworthy, cheap-talk posers. And also, that his (Howard's) position is one of those toadying 'I assume one knows what is proper' nose-in-air pronouncements. There are some who would benefit by being punched.
So, according to Howard, any of the problems with the illegal use of X, or Telegram, or any other public social media, by criminal and criminal intent, may be immediately laid at the feet of the heads of those organizations, and they can be taken to task for it. Now... if that doesn't smell funny, then simply transmute it over to another industry. Did anybody drive recklessly and kill someone? Did anybody forget to mop the wet floor by the dairy case? Were a few bolts left off that cabin door? Let's roast the CEO, then. And these are highly-regulated industries, I'm referring to.
This isn't about holding corporations accountable - it's about the control of free speech, using these unsupportable props as the justification. It is heartening to see so many people correctly identifying those that would silence others, and spotlight those that would attempt to strip rights that they have no power to meddle with. We can see, in real time, the phases of that progression ultimately looks like: France. England. Brazil. Venezuela. Cuba. Red China. North Korea.
Look carefully; we are on that timeline, too.
When the Chicago Tribune published the "Rainbow Five" plan to oppose FDR's planning for the European war, Roosevelt chose to leave Col McCormick, an arch enemy politically and an isolationist, alone rather than stir up a fuss. Ditto with the revelation of the breaking of the Japanese code, which risked huge consequences if they saw the report, No attempt was made to punish the source of the leak. The Japanese never suspected.
The people who wanted everyone to carry a vaccine "passport" to engage in society now want your speech run through an AI "fact checker" programmed by the government. Remember their rallying cry? "F--- YOUR FREEDOM".
Leave it to a question about censorship to bring out the commie warriors and their lefty lies.
And what happened to the 300,000 "unaccompanied minors" who have come through the nonexistent border ?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा