Mediaboss Marketing

How people feel about Big Tech has changed since last year.

A new study from the Pew Research Center found that fewer people in the US want more regulations for Big Tech companies. This decline, which spans across the political spectrum, showed that 44 percent of Americans are in favor of more government regulation compared to 56 percent of those surveyed last year.

That doesnt necessarily mean theyre all in favor of less regulation; for example, 32 percent of liberal Democrats surveyed say that the current amount of regulation is just right compared to the 23 percent who thought so in 2021. However, 27 percent of moderate or liberal Republicans do support less regulation, up from 13 percent, and 36 percent of conservative Republicans do, too, up from 11 percent. Only 35 percent of those conservative Republicans surveyed desire more regulation now, a drop from the 59 percent recorded in 2021.

In 2018, following Facebooks Cambridge Analytica scandal that found that the company harvested data from at least 50 million users without their permission, many people called for more regulations from the US government, and Congress went on to question Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other tech leaders. Globally, this sparked a backlash against Big Tech companies and lots of ideas about how to regulate them. The EU in particular has been pushing hard with a huge new antitrust law called the Digital Markets Act, though its implementation has been postponed until next year. Its also enforcing older laws like the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, to hold tech companies more accountable for their business practices.

The Pew study also addresses one possible reason why Americans might be softening on additional regulation: the popular idea that social networks are censoring speech. Now, 77 percent of Americans surveyed say that its likely that social media platforms intentionally censor opposing political viewpoints, up from 73 percent in 2020, and 44 percent say these platforms favor liberal views over conservative ones, according to the survey.

Twitter, Facebook, and others have been criticized by users for censorship, but prospective new Twitter owner Elon Musk has declared he would take a more relaxed approach to how Twitter handles its content moderation. As Verge contributing editor Casey Newton points out in his latest Platformer newsletter, Musk might want to look at these companies transparency reports; he explains that many of these removals referenced in complaints about censorship are rooted in mistakes and that social networks remove others because its good for business. Over and over again, social products find that their usage shrinks when even a small percentage of the material they host includes spam, nudity, gore, or people harassing each other, Newton writes.

Understanding that can help people have better conversations surrounding online content.

See original here:
Fewer Americans think Big Tech should have more regulations - The Verge

In the wake of the death of the Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and the images of Israeli police officers beating pallbearers at her funeral, the discussion over the past week has focused primarily on the question of the damage to Israels international reputation and not the fear that a life was taken due to an error the responsibility for which has not yet been determined, whether that of an Israel Defense Forces soldier or a Palestinian gunman. The violence of the police officers during the funeral procession also drew little attention from most Israelis and Israeli media outlets. To many people, appearances are everything.

Against the backdrop of this public atmosphere, it is easy to understand how it is that the IDF Military Censor which operates by dint of emergency regulations that have been in effect since the country's establishment, in the name of national security got up on its hind legs in order to prevent a different publication with the potential to affect Israels image: the purpose for which, according to defense sources, then-Mossad chief Yossi Cohen traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2019 (see story, page 1).

Cohen visited Congo three times during that year with the Israeli billionaire businessman Dan Gertler, without coordinating with the authorities and while concealing his identity. During at least two of these trips he met with Congos former president, Joseph Kabila, a matter that aroused the suspicion of President Felix Tshisekedi. Cohens relationship with Kabila and his uncoordinated visits triggered apprehension in people close to Tshisekedi, and in a rare move he expelled the Mossad director from the country at the end of the third visit. Cohens odd conduct, which led to his expulsion and the exposure of his activity in Congo, is the part of the story that was not censored.

The purpose of these visits is in itself a Pandoras box, but the censor is not permitting publication of those details. It appears that Cohens mission in Congo had only a tangential connection to Israels national security, and his employment of the Mossad in dealing with it raises difficult questions regarding the judgment of Cohen and of the state.

It can be said with a great degree of certainty that the Military Censor is preventing publication for considerations having to do with the image of the state that do not necessarily have direct bearing on its security. Although publication of the details of the affair has the potential to generate an international storm, it is difficult to imagine that their disclosure could do concrete damage to national security.

Just as the Military Censor does not have a mandate to prevent publication of the images from Abu Aklehs funeral even though they are harmful to Israels image it is similarly exceeding its mandate when it prevents publication of Cohens reasons for traveling to Congo. The censor must immediately lift the blackout on details of the affair. A state whose military censor operates out of considerations of the optics does not deserve to be called a democracy.

The above article is Haaretz's lead editorial, as published in the Hebrew and English newspapers in Israel.

Read the rest here:
Who is the Israeli army censor protecting? - Haaretz

My first personal recollection of feeling censored was when a valued but left-leaning client corrected me in mid sentence. I had used the word Democrat instead of Democratic. After a few of these encounters I noticed myself, slowly falling in line, guarding my speech, in an attempt not to offend in my work place.

Fast forwarding a few years, Ive watched the divide between the news organizations grow. The information they choose to present reveals their bias as they echo the same talking points in unison. No matter if their information is true or not, they forge on, never apologizing for misinformation or actual lies.

The 2016 and 2020 presidential elections confirmed the great political divide between Americans. It was during these years more informed and engaged citizens started self censoring. Too many people associated with only those they agreed with politically. Partisans watched the news outlets that bolstered their political agenda and were content repeating talking points without sufficient research to substantiate their accuracy.

Today we have media outlets and big tech telling us what we can say and what we can see. The fact checkers successfully covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 Presidential election. It is now being exposed by the New York Times as truth. Why now? Probably because it no longer stands in the way of their agenda or more likely, incriminating evidence is about to be revealed. The fact checkers have proven themselves to be partisan hacks.

Now lets explore the high gas prices with these facts in mind. When President Trump left office we were energy independent. President Biden on his first day in office shut down the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. He also stopped the extraction of oil on federal lands. Did that cause the price of gas to go up? Yes, it did. Biden was sending a message to the fossil fuel industry that he was starting the great shut down of Americas most valuable asset, fossil fuel. Does Ukraines war have a part in high gas prices? Yes, but prices were already heading upward before the war.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Biden has imposed sanctions on Russian petroleum. Who will this impact more, the Russians or the US? I dont know. What I do know is I support exploration and development of all energy sources. Biden should abandon his quest to cripple the fossil fuel industry and get on the Drill Baby Drill bandwagon, ASAP.

Biden is begging Venezuela, Mexico and the Saudis to ramp up their drilling and send the US more oil. Begging other countries to potentially pollute their own environment so the US can claim the moral high ground of environmental purity, screams of hypocrisy.The green economy Biden envisions is being hoisted on the American people at a time when the technology is not sufficient to meet the demand. This is a suicidal act that will destroy our economy and crush the middle class in our country.

For years I have heard the drum beat of Russia, Russia, Russia. The media and the government have told us about all the misinformation Russia is spreading. My thoughts on this issue lead me to more questions than answers. Could Russia be feeding Europe and the US misinformation about climate change to curtail our production of fossil fuels? Could Russia be funding non-profits to produce bogus climate models to sway the public with fear? Is Putin using Europes dependency on Russian petroleum as leverage in his war in Ukraine? So many questions and so few answers.

In my childhood I remember how terrible I thought it was that Russia censored their newspapers. Back then it seemed unimaginable censorship would ever be used in the United States.

We are living in a time when Americans are accused daily, by fact checkers aka censors, of spreading misinformation. Whether its Hunter Bidens laptop, COVID, spying on a sitting president, etc., we are censored. When scoffed at stories are eventually proven to be factual, the media or the government never acknowledges it with an apology and seldom a correction. They just move on, not caring if you notice.

Though some of us do not recognize our own country these days, we are not living in a foreign land, we are simply living in foreign times. I conclude with a quote attributed to the 6th century Greek storyteller Aesop, United we stand, divided we fall.

Lorraine Christensen is a retired Oroville business owner.

Visit link:
Censorship and misinformation what are we to think? | Editor For A Day - Chico Enterprise-Record

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) One year after YouTube removed from its site a video in which an Ohio attorney touted lies about COVID-19, eight Republicans approved a bill to counter what they called Big Techs suppression of free speech.

In an 8-4 vote Thursday, the Civil Justice Committee approved House Bill 441 to prohibit social media platforms from censoring expression based on a users viewpoint not including speech thats already deemed illegal under federal law, like harassment or shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The bill joins an increasingly national discourse concerned with the uptick in social media sites deplatforming or restricting users ranging from the permanent suspension of former President Donald Trumps Twitter account due to incitement of violence to removing individual Facebook posts promoting Holocaust denial conspiracies.

By preventing Big Tech companies from continuing to engage in viewpoint discrimination, we hope to protect the free exchange of ideas and information in Ohio, Rep. Scott Wiggam (R-Wooster) said in his testimony before the Civil Justice Committee.

While the bill does not equip the state with the power to enforce the censorship ban, it does allow individual Ohioans to file a civil suit against social media companies with more than 50 million U.S. users that block, remove or restrict them from using their site.

Bill co-sponsors Wiggam and Rep. Al Cutrona (R-Canfield) did not respond to requests for comment.

Since January 2020, Twitter has challenged nearly 12 million accounts, suspended more than 8,000 and removed nearly 84,000 posts the social media giant said constituted potentially harmful and misleading information about the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Twitters Transparency Center.

A Fremont attorney who testified against Gov. Mike DeWines COVID-19 shutdown orders before a House committee in 2021 was also the victim of what Wiggam called a government-induced attempt to regulate speech.

A video recording of Thomas Renz was removed from YouTube after the platform determined his speech violated their terms of service by spreading COVID-19 misinformation including a debunked claim that no Ohioans under the age of 19 died from the virus, according to the Associated Press.

Big Tech companies have censored individuals in response to suggestions and pressures from government officials and so have censored Americans on behalf of the government, Wiggam said in his written testimony.

Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio who testified against HB 441, said its unlikely the legislation would survive a legal battle in court.

Unlike government agencies or public entities, social media platforms are private actors and thus arent required to abide by free speech protections under the First Amendment, he said.

These are private entities; they make the decisions whether they have a policy or not, Daniels said. They make these decisions ultimately as to what they want to host or entertain or have on their social media sites.

Ohio itself, Daniels said, could be found in violation of the First Amendment if HB 441 is enacted, as governments are prohibited from compelling speech in other words, forcing an individual or company like Facebook to support or broadcast certain expressions.

Mandating a social media platform to maintain certain content on its site, Daniels said, would be the similar to the government dictating what a newspaper can print or requiring an anti-abortion group to spread messaging supporting a persons right to an abortion.

The idea that the government can do this with private entities would essentially mean all bets are off government controls speech thats out there and will force you to say whatever the government thinks is appropriate, Daniels said.

HB 441 also doesnt clarify what type of action is deemed viewpoint discrimination by social media companies, Daniels said, creating a murky, ambiguous body of law that could open the door for the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits.

It doesnt have to be political speech. It can be for some reason, you know, Facebook wants to remove your cupcake recipe, he said. Everybody agrees they shouldnt be doing something like that thats unfair and not what the people need or want. But again, its their website. Its their social media company.

Cutrona, however, contended that social media platforms act as common carriers like the U.S. Postal Service, phone companies and public transportation that are responsible for the transmission of goods via services open to the general public.

Commons carriers are required to operate with neutrality, which Daniels said explains the fact that the post office cant refuse to deliver a National Rifle Association newsletter because it disagrees with the NRAs speech. And Amtrak, he said, generally does not concern itself with a passengers political views.

These services are affected with a public interest, are public accommodations, are central public forums for public debate, and have enjoyed governmental support in the U.S., Cutrona said in his written testimony. As such, Ohio is well within its rights to stop Big Tech from censoring users based on their viewpoint.

But Daniels said social media giants dont operate or advertise themselves as common carriers, as they obviously exercise control over speech, enforcing myriad speech-related rules within their terms of service.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a similar bill into law allowing residents to sue social media companies over speech violations only to be served with a preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement by a federal judge in June 2021.

The legislation now at issue was an effort to rein in social-media providers deemed too large and too liberal. Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest, the Florida judge wrote in his injunction order.

A Texas bill restricting a social media companys ability to regulate users speech was also hit with a preliminary injunction by a federal judge in December 2021.

The judge said the enacted legislation would radically upset the ways in which social media platforms operate by stifling their ability to maintain safe, useful, and enjoyable sites for users.

Content moderation and curation will benefit users and the public by reducing harmful content and providing a safe, useful service, the federal Texas judge wrote in his injunction order.

Despite Daniels certainty that HB 441 will witness a similar fate in court, hes convinced the bills sponsors are using the legislation as a bully pulpitto garner the publics attention toward the issue.

Even the threat of introducing a law, the threat of having a bill out there and passing it into law those types of things they hope, essentially, will cause social media companies to change what they are doing.

Excerpt from:
Ohio bill would allow users to sue Facebook, Twitter over censorship - NBC4 WCMH-TV

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE TUSK, a censorship-free web browser for conservatives with an emphasis on free speech, launched on Tuesday, allowing users to "browse right" on the internet.

TUSK founder and Virtual World Computing CEO Jeff Bermant feels "most popular browsers and search engines are inherently left-leaning and biased" and he wanted to create a place where conservatives can see what like-minded people are saying.

"TUSK was developed with the idea of free speech, because if you go to other browsers and you go to their news feeds, you'll find that its center left or it's left and you weren't getting the full story," Bermant told Fox News Digital.

LEVIN: THE NEW YORK TIMES 'WORSE THAN FAKE NEWS'

Bermant, who was inspired by the work of high-profile conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, believes that right-leaning news organizations werent easy to find through popular search engines that millions of Americans rely on. TUSK is a private browser intended to bring free speech and provide conservative information that Bermant created after Levin called for conservatives to fight back against what he calls American Marxists.

"One of the things I have a talent of is knowing how to build browsers We built a news feed that is basically a conservative news feed and we built what you would call the links or the tiles. Instead of populating them with some brands you might want to buy, we populated them with conservative sites," Bermant said. "You know, tech, or the web, is basically controlled by liberals."

Because of liberals controlling tech, Bermant believes many conservative news organizations are buried and hard to find using traditional search engines such as Google. "There wasnt an easy place to go," he said.

NEW YORK TIMES SCOLDED FOR HANDLING OF HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY

Bermant feels TUSK can help change the web-browsing experience for conservatives.

"Its really needed because otherwise you dont really realize that youre being censored," he said. "Youre not seeing the news that you want."

Bermant said many conservative websites get placed on the third or fourth page of results when a user is searching for something on traditional search engines, even if the article is exactly what they were looking for.

"As the scientists know who built the web, you wont go to that page," he said.

Unlike other search engines, TUSK doesnt monitor users, collect data to sell for profit or create profiles.

"We want to respect your privacy," Bermant said, noting that a portion of proceeds from sponsored ads will go to veterans groups.

"Most popular browsers and search engines are inherently left-leaning and biased," according to TUSKs founder. (bernardbodo)

While TUSK targets conservatives and provides easy access to right-leaning information, users can also find liberal news organizations on the search engine if they want to simply by pushing a few buttons.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We're all about free speech," Bermant said. "We want you to see what the other side is saying we built this for free speech because we felt that basically Americans are being censored in their browsers, in their search engines."

TUSK is available for download for mobile and desktop devices by visiting the App store or tuskbrowser.com.

Fox News' Matthew Wall contributed to this report.

Read this article:
Censorship-free web browser launches for conservatives with an emphasis on free speech - Fox News