Mediaboss Marketing

The Biden Administration sure isnt taking Donald Trumps Big Tech lawsuits seriously. A week after the former Presidents lawyers argued in court filings that his removal by social-media firms amounted to state action, the Administration broadcast that it is coordinating with the firms to remove content.

Were flagging problematic posts for Facebook , said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday, referring to coronavirus misinformation. Meanwhile, the Surgeon General, an officer in the department of Health and Human Services, released a report with a page of suggestions on what technology platforms can do to crack down on certain information. The Verge reported that officials at Twitter met with the surgeon generals office on Monday to discuss its misinformation policies.

Its been clear for some time that the tech giants look to government to determine what coronavirus-related speech to allow. YouTubes misinformation policy bans content that contradicts the evolving guidance of health authorities. Facebook stopped blocking some commentary on the lab-leak theory of the viruss origins only after President Biden ordered an investigation into the possibility.

Public-private coordination is not in itself sinister. The government can be an important source of information, and most people would agree that its not an abuse of Facebooks authority to suppress, say, fraudulent medical advice that goes viral.

Yet as the acute crisis phase of coronavirus passes, a government arrangement with private firms to control speech about the pandemic looks less salutary. We dont know how deep the coordination goes, and Mr. Trumps lawsuit makes a weak case. We also dont know to what extent the platforms are complying with the White House in what they consider the public interest, or if they also fear retaliation.

Continue reading here:
Censorship Coordination Deepens - The Wall Street Journal

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Thank god for the Canadian Senate.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The Senate held up the Trudeau governments obnoxious, anti-democratic Bill C-10 long enough that the legislation to regulate personal posts on the Internet failed to become law.

The bill was still on the order paper when Parliament rose for the summer. That means its still alive and debate on it in the upper chamber will quickly resume should Parliament resume in September.

However, if an election is called before the House and Senate return, Bill C-10 will die a well-deserved death.

What wont die, though, is the Liberals desire to limit Canadians freedom and crown themselves or their appointees the final arbiters of what is and is not acceptable to put on the Internet in Canada.

Bizarrely, the Liberals have convinced themselves that in order to save free expression they have to limit it. And they believe this mission is so urgent, completing the passage of C-10 and its sister bill, C-36, will almost surely be one of their first tasks when Parliament resumes (unless they fail to win re-election, of course).

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Back in the spring, when Canadians and pundits began complaining that C-10 was an outrageous and unwarranted assault on free speech, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau scoffed at such accusations. He labelled them fringe thinking.

Steven Guilbeault testified at the Commons Heritage committee that a very high proportion of Canadians are asking the government to step in. Clear majorities in English and French Canada wanted government to step in and prevent harmful speech, he insisted. (Never once did the minister define what kind of speech was harmful.)

A briefing paper prepared by his office in early June got a bit of closure to the answer. Legal but offensive social media comments were intimidating valuable voices and causing them not to engage in discussions of important issues.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

The conclusion of Guilbeaults staffers: Harsh online comments are preventing a truly democratic debate. They are undermining Canadian democracy, so even if posts are legal, the government needs the power to remove offensive comments from the Internet.

Offensive to whom, though?

See what I mean? The Liberals have convinced themselves that in order to save democracy and free speech, they have to tightly regulate what Canadians get to say online.

Thats dangerous doublethink. And it proves the Liberals are intellectually unsuited for the task of protecting Charter rights.

Which do you think is a greater threat to democracy: repugnant statements online by individuals with no power to enforce their screeds or committees of bureaucrats and progressive politicians sitting in judgement over what can and cannot be posted?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As if C-10 were not enough to prove the Liberals understand nothing about free speech, consider that just before Parliament rose the Trudeau government introduced Bill C-36, an act that would reinstate the Canadian Human Rights Commissions (CHRC) power to conduct hate-speech witch hunts.

The commission had so abused its power before by going after individuals who challenged political correctness, that the Harper government stripped the CHRC of what were known as Section 13 powers.

Now the Liberals not only want to restore the commissions power, they want to beef it up with threats of up to $70,000 fines for any individual Canadian suspected of posting statements that promote detestation or vilification.

Posts could be instantly ordered removed and suspected offenders could be placed under house arrest, even if there is no evidence a criminal act has been committed.

And while the Liberals claim all this has broad public support, under questioning from Ontario Conservative MP Alex Ruff, Guilbeaults staff was forced to admit that of the hundreds of letters and emails they had received on C-10, not a single one supported the bill.

No support at all.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Toronto SUN, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of The Toronto Sun Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read more:
GUNTER: The dangerous doublethink of the Liberal government's online censorship - Toronto Sun

Twitter is finding new ways to censor political opinion it is not fond of. After making biased censorship the norm on the platform, Twitter appears to have decided to censor tweets that expose liberal hypocrisy. The latest instance featured the controversy around the photograph of dead Reuters photojournalist Danish Siddiqui.

On the 16th of July, Twitter user Yosha (username @BlackDrug) shared the screenshot of a conversation on her account where she pointed out the hypocrisy of liberal intellectuals. She used the tweets of Stuti Mishra, journalist with The Independent, to point how liberals claimed that the photograph of Siddiquis corpse would hurt sentiments but do not think twice before using photographs of funeral pyres to score political points.

Yosha had used the following two screenshots in her tweet:

Initially, the screenshots were labelled sensitive media.

But on 18th July, Yosha was notified that her tweet violated Twitter rules against abuse and harassment. According to Twitter, Yosha engaged in targeted harassment. Consequently, her account has been locked for 12 hours.

But the Twitter censorship went beyond only Yoshas tweet. The platform is forcing people to remove tweets where they had quote-tweeted the above tweet by Yosha. On the 18th of July, this journalist had his account locked for the same.

As can be seen, the tweet did not contain any image and comprised only of four words. Twitter claimed that a tweet that did not contain any image violated rules against posting media depicting the moment of death of an individual. Perhaps, it was motivated by the images in Yoshas tweet but even makes little sense as the her tweet itself was said to violate abuse and harassment rules, not the rule related to dead body photographs.

The rules that this journalists account was claimed to violate is bizarre and exists from 2019. According to the rules, the platform may remove media that takes pleasure in the suffering of the deceased or laughs at or otherwise mocks the deceased.

But it is not clear how a tweet that does not contain any image would violate a rule specifically for tweets that contain images. This instance marks a great escalation in Twitter censorship. The platform has basically decided to censor tweets that expose liberal hypocrisy. Now, not only does the platform assist liberals gain a wider reach for their propaganda but they will silence others who expose their agenda. The censorship is as political as it gets.

Danish Siddiqui was killed by the Taliban during clashes with Afghanistan. Following his death, a photograph of his dead body began to circulate on social media. Journalists wanted people to not circulate the photograph because it was apparently disrespectful, after using photographs of funeral pyres for their politics. Twitter appears to have accommodated their interests by censoring those who exposed their hypocrisy.

It also further elucidates the fact that there are no rules anymore because they are applied selectively, based on the political preferences of the individual; which again marks a very dangerous turn of events.

Read more here:
Twitter censors tweets that exposed liberal hypocrisy over Danish Siddiquis photograph, calls it abuse and harassment - OpIndia

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sent letters to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey demanding answers on their collusion with the Biden administration to suppress free speech. Senator Hawley said the revelations raise questions as to whether the platforms are operating as arms of the federal government.

Senator Hawley writes,This casual admission of collusionbetween the state and corporations that have monopolized the flow of information and therefore dictate the terms of service for the public squareis shocking. The First Amendment is sacrosanct, and it is unconscionable that the federal government has evidently enlisted private actors to police speech in ways that they are unable.

Senator Hawley requested the CEOs provide a full account of social media content flagged by the Biden administration, what content they have been asked to remove, and what content has been removed following the requests.

Read the full letter to Facebookhereand the full letter to Twitterhere.

Post Views: 692

Related

See the original post here:
Hawley hammers Facebook and Twitter on collusion with Biden administration to censor speech - kttn

Jen Psaki, White House press secretary, speaks during a news conference in the James S. Brady Press ... [+] Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, July 2, 2021. The pace of U.S. hiring accelerated in June, with payrolls gaining the most in 10 months, suggesting firms are having greater success recruiting workers to keep pace with the economy's reopening.Photographer: Samuel Corum/Bloomberg

On Friday afternoon, White Press Secretary Jen Psaki was a hot topic on Twitter after she had a curt exchange with Fox New Channel's Peter Doocy over the issue of Covid-19 vaccine misinformation on social media. President Joe Biden has been especially critical of social media platforms, notably Facebook, for allowing the spread of misinformation about the coronavirus as well as vaccines.

Biden has blamed misinformation for stalling U.S. vaccine rates, and suggested, "They're killing people," when asked what his message was to the social networks for allowing misleading claims to spread.

"The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated," Biden added.

Facebook was quick to respond to the president.

"We will not be distracted by accusations which aren't supported by the facts," a company spokesman said in a statement to NBC News. "The fact is that more than 2 billion people have viewed authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines on Facebook, which is more than any other place on the internet. More than 3.3 million Americans have also used our vaccine finder tool to find out where and how to get a vaccine. The facts show that Facebook is helping save lives. Period."

Censorship Or Not?

The fact that the president took aim at a social media platform has been widely called out by many on social media platforms, suggesting it was censorship, while others even saw it as a First Amendment violation. However, that isn't accurate.

"I was surprised when the White House called out Facebook by name," said Bob Jarvis, lawyer and professor of Law at Nova Southeastern University.

"I think it would have been more appropriate if the White House simply had reminded Americans that there is a lot of misinformation on the web and that everyone, as always, should approach the web with a good deal of skepticism and be very careful as to what they believe, even if information appears on a social media platform that they like and regularly use," Jarvis added. "Obviously, however, the White House is very frustrated with the misinformation that is impeding its drive to get 'shots in arms.' And it obviously feels that there is no political downside in calling out Facebook.This assessment undoubtedly is correct, inasmuch as Big Tech currently has few, if any, friends."

Misinformation Is Protected Speech

Some cable talking heads, as well as social media political pundits, have also pondered whether "misinformation" would in fact be protected. Comparisons to yelling fire in a crowded theater have been suggested online, but Jarvis said that isn't comparable, however.

"'Misinformation' is covered by the First Amendment," he added. "Under the First Amendment, all information, no matter how wrong, is protected by the First Amendment. That is why, for example, Holocaust deniers can say what they say. Justice Holmes's exception for falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not concerned with the fact that the misinformation is wrong. Instead, it carves out the exception it does because the 100% certain consequence that will follow is that there will be an immediate stampede and, as a result, immediate death.

"Likewise for the other well-known exception i.e., publicizing troop movements in wartime," Jarvis explained. "Here, we cannot say with 100% certainty that people who do not get immunized will contract Covid and die. In fact, we know that at least some of them won't contract Covid."

Another misconception that has circulated on social media is that social media companies are also bound by the First Amendment, and their respective removal of Covid-19 related posts would be a form of censorship. That isn't accurate either.

"The First Amendment has to protect misinformation, otherwise, someone would have to decide what constitutes misinformation," said Jarvis. "The government clearly cannot be given that power, because that's a direct route to dictatorship. But a private company like Facebook, which is not subject to the First Amendment which, of course, applies only to the government can decide that someone is spewing false information and can decide not to give that person their time; or, in the case of Facebook, their platform and access to their users."

Ban Them All?

Twitter users also reacted quickly to call out Psaki for stating on Friday that social media companies should provide transparency about their rules.

"You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others if you are providing misinformation out there," is what she said, but many took those words out of context.

"Jen Psaki stood at the podium and essentially said that people who are banned from one social media platform should be banned from all of them. Free speech is dead in America if these people get their way," wrote Rep. Lauren Boerbert (@laurenboebert) (R-Colo.), who has remained quite critical of the Biden administration.

Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker), CEO of BeckerNews.com, also took aim at Psaki, suggesting, "This is *truly* dangerous."

However, in context what Psaki meant wasn't that someone should be banned from all social media if one platform makes the decision to do so, but that it should be based on the content that individual was posting.

"I did understand Jen Psaki's comment to be that if you are banned from one social media platform for spreading Covid-19 misinformation you should be banned from all other platforms, and that platforms should work together to create a 'blacklist' of users," said Jarvis.

"I don't believe there is any other way to interpret her comment," he added. "Again, this is fine under the First Amendment because the platforms are private companies and therefore are not subject to the First Amendment.And the government is merely suggesting that the platforms ban people who spread Covid-19 misinformation and is not requiring the platforms to do so, which would violate the First Amendment."

Read the original post:
Misinformation: The White House And Jen Psaki Didn't Actually Call For Censorship Of Social Media - Forbes