Mediaboss Marketing

A key Senate committee voted to move forward one of the most dangerous bills weve seen in years: the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). EFF has opposed the Kids Online Safety Act, S. 1409, because its a danger to the rights of all users, both minors and adults. The bill requires all websites, apps, and online platforms to filter and block legal speech. It empowers state attorney generals, who are mostly elected politicians, to file lawsuits based on content they believe will be harmful to young people.

These fundamental flaws remain in the bill, and EFF and many others continue to oppose it. We urge anyone who cares about free speech and privacy online to send a message to Congress voicing your opposition.

TAKE ACTION

the "kids online safety act" isn't safe for kids or adults

Before the Senate Commerce Committee voted to move forward the bill on July 27, it incorporated a number of amendments. While none of them change the fundamental problems with KOSA, or our opposition to the bill, we analyze them here.

The first change to the bill is that the knowledge standard has been tightened, so that websites and apps can only be held liable if they actually know theres a young person using their service. The previous version of the bill regulated any online platform that was used by minors, or was reasonably likely to be used by a minor.

The previous version applied to a huge swath of the internet, since the view of what sites are reasonably likely to be used by a minor would be up to attorney generals. Other than sites that took big steps, like requiring age verification, almost any site could be reasonably likely to be used by a minor.

Requiring actual knowledge of minors is an improvement, but the protective effect is small. A site that was told, for instance, that a certain proportion of its users were minorseven if those minors were lying to get accesscould be sued by the state. The site might be held liable even if there was one minor user they knew about, perhaps one theyd repeatedly kicked off.

The bill still effectively regulates the entire internet that isnt age-gated. KOSA is fundamentally a censorship bill, so were concerned about its effects on any website or servicewhether theyre meant to serve solely adults, solely kids, or both.

Another significant change to the bill is a longer amendment from Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who railed against filter bubbles during the markup hearing. Thunes amendment requires larger platforms to provide an algorithm that doesnt use any user data whatsoever. The amendment would prevent websites and apps from using even basic information, like what city a person lives in, to decide what kind of information to prioritize.

The Thune amendment is meant to push users towards a chronological feed, which Sen. Thune called during the hearing a normal chronological feed. Theres nothing wrong with online information being presented chronologically for those who want it. But just as we wouldnt let politicians rearrange a newspaper in a particular order, we shouldnt let them rearrange blogs or other websites. Its a heavy-handed move to stifle the editorial independence of web publishers.

Theres also no evidence that chronological feeds make for better or healthier content consumption. A recently published major study on Facebook data specifically studied the effects of a chronological feed, and found that a chronological feed increased the share of content from designated untrustworthy sources by more than two-thirds relative to the Algorithmic Feed.

A small part of KOSA deals with targeted advertising. It would require disclosures about things like why the minor is being targeted with a particular advertisement.

This part of the bill is actually a positive stepprotecting users privacy, rather than imposing censorship on the content they can access. But as the only privacy-protective part of the bill, its pathetically small.

At this point in the internets history, we need more than mild disclosure requirements and more studies about behavioral ads. They should be banned altogether. And theres no reason to limit the ban to minors; behavioral ads are tracking the mouse clicks and browsing history of users of all ages.

A bill that worked to protect internet users by limiting tracking and protecting privacy would be great. Thats not KOSA, which barely even gestures at privacy protections, while offering politicians and police a comprehensive suite of censorship options.

Overall, these small changes to a flawed bill dont change the basic fact that KOSA is a censorship bill that will harm the rights of both adult and minor users. We oppose it, and urge you to contact your congressperson about it today.

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS to oppose kosa

See the original post:
Congress Amended KOSA, But It's Still A Censorship Bill - EFF

(CN) The Biden administration urged a Fifth Circuit panel on Thursday to nix an injunction that limits its communications with social media companies, arguing that persuading platforms to take down misleading posts did not cross the line into unconstitutional coercion.

In a 155-page order he issued on Independence Day, U.S. Chief District Judge Terry Doughty found Missouri, Louisiana and several individual plaintiffs had presented proof of arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history that infringed on the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

He granted the challengers a sweeping preliminary injunction, restricting White House staffers and numerous federal agencies communications with social media companies.

After appealing to the Fifth Circuit, the feds lobbied Doughty to stay his injunction.

Doughty denied the governments stay motion. The Trump appointee insisted his injunction only bars illegal conduct, and noted it has a long list of carveouts, allowing the administration to talk to social media firms about posts involving criminal activity, national security threats and those intended to mislead voters about voting regulations.

He also said the White House can still promote its policies and views on matters of public concern.

On July 14, however, a Fifth Circuit panel issued a temporary stay of the injunction and fast-tracked an appeal hearing.

Another panel of the New Orleans-based circuit court heard arguments Thursday.

Doughty compared the governments efforts to control social media discourse about Covid-19 and the 2020 presidential election to the Ministry of Truths propaganda and alteration of historical records in George Orwells dystopian novel 1984.

The dystopian theme continued in Thursdays 80-minute hearing.

An attorney for the state of Louisiana asked the three judges on the panel to imagine a scenario where senior White House staffers told book publishers to burn books critical of the federal government, and threatened to go after the publishers with an antitrust investigation when they refused to go along.

And then suppose all the book sellers decided the game wasnt worth the gamble and they started complying. Thats exactly what you see in the record here, said John Sauer, Louisiana special assistant attorney general.

Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny gave his own bleak scenario.

He said Doughtys injunction is so broad if there were a natural disaster and untrue statements about it circulating on social media were endangering Americans, the government would be powerless to discourage social media companies to stop spreading the lies.

And, Tenny continued, if a law enforcement official believed certain posts were part of a human trafficking conspiracy he or she would not be allowed to bring the posts to social media platforms attention.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, questioned if either of those examples would be excluded from the communication prohibitions in Doughtys injunction.

We dont know whether they are, Tenny replied. The plaintiffs have argued they are not. The exceptions are very unclear.

In complaints of online censorship, the most prominent narrative is from Republicans who say social media companies censor right-wing or conservative speech Exhibit A being Twitters suspension of former President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

But the challengers claim the governments pressure campaign secretly started in 2017 during Trumps tenure in the White House when senior congressional staffers, coordinating with the FBI, started regularly traveling to Silicon Valley to meet privately with platforms content-moderation chiefs.

They claim the governments censorship efforts dramatically increased after Biden took office in January 2021. And White House officials, including Bidens former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, threatened the companies with legal consequences and adverse legislation, namely doing away with protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The provision shields social media companies from liability for content posted by third parties and lets them moderate content as they see fit.

Tenny noted it would fall to Congress, not President Biden, to repeal that law. The idea that if you dont do what the president wants hell amend Section 230 or antitrust laws is far-fetched, he said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett agreed with Tenny that the federal officials and the president should be able to make public statements to persuade people about matters of public concern. I think that passes First Amendment muster with flying colors, the Trump appointee said.

But here you have the government in secret, in private, out of the public eye relying on fairly unsubtle kind of strong arming, in veiled or not so veiled threats thats a real nice social platform you got there, it would be shame if something happened to it, he added.

Tenny insisted that the government had not coerced any social media company to censor any posts because it had not threatened them with any punishment for not doing so.

Louisiana and Missouri convinced Doughty they have standing by laying out in their lawsuit, filed in May 2022, they themselves have been censored online.

The Louisiana Department of Justice said in August 2021the Google-owned video sharing platform YouTube had censored it for sharing footage in which Louisianans criticized mask mandates and Covid lockdown measures.

Missouri says YouTube also removed video of four public meetings in the states St. Louis County because some citizens stated masks are ineffective against transmission of Covid-19.

But Tenny, the Justice Department attorney, argued in Thursdays hearing the states and individual plaintiffs lack standing since they have not alleged they intend to make similar posts in the future.

To have standing they have to show they have a future, ongoing injury, he asserted.

Tenny said the Biden administration is no longer focused on combating misleading posts about Covid because its pandemic public health emergency ended in May.

Sauer, Louisianas counsel, took issue with that contention. This notion that Covid censorship is over is totally unsupportable, he said.

He explained that two weeks ago he gave a talk about this litigation and criticized the federal governments censorship.

It was taken down the next day by YouTube. I was censored as a lawyer for the Louisiana attorney general. Do not tell me that Louisiana doesnt face ongoing censorship injuries as a result of federal influence, he stated.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement, appointed by George W. Bush, was also on the panel. The judges gave no timeline for a ruling.

Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Link:
Red states accuse Biden administration of censorship before Fifth ... - Courthouse News Service

We all know that history can teach us lessons, and that diving into the darkest parts of our history is necessary to avoid repeating it.

The curator of a Central New York art collective is hoping that an exhibit detailing the censorship of artwork in Nazi Germany can cut through some of the discourse here in the U.S., where conversation on both sides of the aisle is focusing on potential ways of limiting various forms of expression.

If I remember correctly the building was built in 1926, Peter Svoboda, curator of the Station Art Gallery told us as he walked us upstairs to where the gallery is housed in one of Syracuses iconic historic buildings. It was part of the train complex and this was the freight building.

As we discuss the buildings history, we arrive at an exhibit dedicated to one of the darkest periods of world history.

When I was in Germany three years ago, I came upon six pictures in the Munich museum, he said. These were in one of the shows in 1937 that Hitler sponsored called the Great German Art Show. All of the art was realistic.

He says in 1937, these examples of how Adolf Hitlers government felt art should be presented were juxtaposed with examples of modern art across the street. The modern installment being called the Degenerate Art Show. The idea was to show the German people what was an acceptable for of expression, and what wasnt.

Across the street was modern art, and that bothered Hitler and the Nazis and some psychiatrists quite a bit because it wasnt realistic art, he said.

His research found that not only was the art mocked, shamed and ultimately banned but the artists themselves were persecuted.

Many of the artists here were sent to concentration camps, he said. Most of their art was destroyed, and many of them were even killed.

He stresses that Hitler came to power during a low point in Germany, where post-war sanctions and the Great Depression meant morale was low.

He built the Autobahn, he started to rebuild the Armed Forces, and this gave people jobs, he said.

Svobodas extensive research links that economic rebound to Hitlers ability to control apopulation desperate for stability, and how limiting forms of expression and independent ideas was a large part of that process.

Especially where art all of a sudden was used as a massive political propaganda tool, he said.

He says most people have an understanding of the ultimate atrocities of the Nazi regime, but he hopes that here in the U.S. people on the left, right and everywhere in between will defend their freedom of expression, and he hopes the exhibit can help them understand how not preserving that freedom can lead to unimaginable consequences.

The whole basis of democracy is based on the ability for people to express themselves, and art is a major way to express yourself and also to have an effect on culture, he said.

The exhibit can be seen at the Station Artist Collective Gallery on Burnet Ave. in Syracuse, it is open indefinitely and you can find out more information about hours by visiting their website or Facebook page.

Excerpt from:
CNY art exhibit explores impact of censorship on art - Spectrum News

By jake@stormlake.com | on August 08, 2023

Book banning is bad business, as school and city officials are finding out in Alta. The school will need to ban potentially hundreds of books if they refer to sex under a new state law. That means that the Alta Community Library, which shares its stacks with the Alta-Aurelia School District, would have to do a massive purge of its 21,000 books (60% of which are the citys).

This has prompted the city to think about establishing its own separate library just so a seventh grader doesnt have access to a book like Catcher in the Rye. That is not hyperbole. The book is on a list of 347 proposed for censorship in the Urbandale School District. A different list of banned books, with similar classics tagged, is circulating in the Norwalk School District. Its hard to imagine what Alta-Aurelia might come up with.

We could have more than 300 sets of rules depending on the school district and how prudish an influential set of patrons are with the school board.

We recall several years ago leading Republican legislators declaring that you could not have local control over livestock confinement because you would have 99 sets of rules, and that would be a mess for the pork industry.

Yet the same party thinks it is okay to make school boards into a censorship authority.

The Iowa Department of Education, under the guidance of Gov. Kim Reynolds who cooked up this law, refuses to issue regulations for school districts to follow. Everyone is on their own. Thats not leadership, its chaos.

And it is wasteful. The city and school district had a nice thing going, sharing facilities and staff. It saved money. It created a program the city probably could not afford on its own. Were pretty sure no innocent eyes were exposed to anything of prurient interest that they could not otherwise find on their cellphone or on TV during primetime. Alta and Aurelia always have been able to establish community standards and did not need the assistance of the governor and legislature.

Sen. Lynn Evans, a Republican who supported the book-banning bill, is an Aurelia native and former superintendent of schools. He is confident that the city and school district will work something out. He thinks there is a way to cordon off adult books from sixth- graders and the like. The city is not necessarily as optimistic. We certainly appreciate the citys anxiety over trashing much of its collection.

Its a shame that the legislature didnt think this through. Its too bad we let partisans or holy rollers write our curriculum standards instead of trained educators. You would think the University of Northern Iowa or Buena Vista were grooming socialists and perverts to run our schools. The Department of Education is derelict to just ignore it.

Republicans created a mess for their core constituency: rural Iowa. This is what Alta and Aurelia get a big headache from stupidity and zeal.

Original post:
Editorial: A mess of censorship - The Storm Lake Times

Elon Musks $44 billion acquisition of Twitter last year was fueled by his stance against censorship. However, critics argue that Musk himself is now engaging in censorship through his companys lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Musks business accuses CCDH of advocating for internet censorship and seeking to stifle free expression.

CCDH, on the other hand, claims that it highlights instances of misinformation, hate speech, and harmful content on social media platforms. Internet safety campaigners, including the father of Molly Russell, have criticized Musks lawsuit as an attack on civil society.

The lawsuit, brought against CCDH by X Corp, alleges breaches of terms of service, improper use of login credentials, interference with contracts, and intentional harm caused to X. It also claims that CCDHs actions have resulted in significant financial losses for X through paused or halted advertising campaigns.

Experts are skeptical of Xs claims, stating that advertisers have long been put off by Twitter due to Musks controversial behavior. They believe that CCDHs research is just one of many factors influencing advertisers decisions.

CCDHs CEO, Imran Ahmed, has stated that they will continue to fight the lawsuit, despite the significant costs involved. X is seeking unspecified damages and aims to prevent CCDH from conducting research on its platform.

The lawsuit also ventures into conspiracy theories, suggesting without evidence that CCDH is being supported by Xs competitors and government entities.

While CCDHs research has been criticized for not being peer-reviewed, supporters argue that they should not be sued for their work.

In the midst of this legal battle, Musk aims to transform X into an everything app similar to Chinas WeChat, but the platform currently relies heavily on advertising revenue. Musk acknowledges that advertising revenue has dropped by 50% at X, which amounts to a significant financial burden for the company.

See more here:
Elon Musk's Twitter Lawsuit: A Battle Over Censorship - Clayton County Register