Mediaboss Marketing

Saintly Heart is a small, online Catholic toy shop, which describes the wooden toys and temporary tattoos it sells as a playful way for kids to learn about the saints. Clearly, theyre not the type of outfit youd expect to be selling products with overtly sexualized positioning.

Yet according to Instagram, thats exactly what Saintly Heart did so much so that owner Maggie Jetty received notice on Jan. 22 that a tag to one of her products had been removed from an Instagram post she had made more than a month previously.

The overtly sexualized product in question? A wooden figurine of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

I was shocked because Ive never had any issues with Instagram or having a Catholic item on there, Jetty told the Register, noting the irony that an image of the Patroness of the Unborn was flagged on the day when the Church specifically prays for the legal protection of unborn children.

Jetty immediately followed up with Instagram, submitting a request that the decision be reviewed. But, now, more than three weeks after the fact, she has yet to hear back, describing the Facebook-owned social-media platforms system for managing complaints as kind of like a black hole.

On its own, what happened to Saintly Heart might be easy to dismiss as a fluke or a quirk of the algorithms used by social-media platforms to filter out offensive content. After all, Catholic items arent the only products that have been mistakenly tagged as overtly sexualized. A picture of Walla Walla onions in a wicker basket, for instance, received the same treatment from Facebooks algorithms in October 2020.

However, a recent slew of similar instances of de facto censorship affecting Catholic businesses, organizations and individuals is renewing concerns about the possibility of Big Tech bias against Catholic and other religiously conservative viewpoints.

In addition to Saintly Heart, several other Catholic small businesses are reporting products being blocked on social media for ill-fitting reasons, often times months after the products had first been placed on digital markets without event. An ad for Just Love Prints Rest in Him vinyl sticker, for instance, was censored by Facebook because of its apparent sexually suggestive manner. Other companies have had images of saints flagged for promoting alcohol consumption, with alcohol in no way represented in the images.

Other recent instances of de facto censorship seem less attributable to bizarre but unintentional algorithmic overreaches. The Catholic publisher TAN Books has faced social-media difficulties with a number of its products. Carrie Gress The Anti-Mary Exposed was pulled from a Catholic gift shops Instagram and Facebook accounts in January nearly a year after it was first posted after being flagged as an adult product.

TANs Facebook ads promoting Kimberly Cooks Motherhood Redeemed and Paul Kengors The Devil and Karl Marx were recently pulled down, in the formers case because of an alleged violation of the social-media platforms Sensational Content Policy and the latter because of Facebooks apparent policy to limit ads related to politics during the general elections, which were held months ago.

Perhaps most egregious of all, ads have also been pulled for Regina Domans Stations of the Cross, on the basis that the books cartoonized, non-gory depiction of the Crucifixion perhaps the most iconic and widespread image in world history contained shocking, sensational, inflammatory or excessively violent content.

In one of the most brazen and obvious instances of viewpoint censorship, the Twitter account of Catholic World Report (CWR) was suspended after the outlet tweeted a Catholic News Agency news brief describing Dr. Rachel Levine, President Joe Bidens nominee to be assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, as a biological man identifying as a transgender woman.

CWRs account was locked on Jan. 24 on the basis that the tweet in question violated Twitters rules against hateful conduct, purportedly for pointing out that Levine is indeed a biological male. On Jan. 27 Twitter responded to CWRs complaint, confirming that a violation did take place, and therefore we will not overturn our decision.

On Jan. 29, Twitter reversed course and lifted CWRs suspension, offering no clarification directly to CWR, but telling Catholic News Agency that the enforcement action was taken in error and has been reversed. But Carl Olson, CWRs editor, pointed out that the shift only happened after the story began to spread, generating pushback against the social-media giant from the likes of the Catholic League and even secular sources.

I would have to say No, Olson said when asked if he thought CWRs Twitter account wouldve been restored without widespread outcry. I have to think that if nobody noticed it and we didnt even mention it, and this just kind of went along, I think the account would have been [permanently] locked for not agreeing to remove the offending tweet.

Olson said he wasnt surprised that the offending tweet was initially labeled as hateful, given the totalitarian tendencies of transgender ideology, which treats any disagreement with its conception of human sexuality as a form of violence. He said this viewpoint is highly influential among Big Tech employees, well-documented to be far more progressive and nonreligious on average than the American public.

He said what CWR experienced is part of a wider pattern of post-election aggression from Big Tech platforms against those with opposing viewpoints.

I think thats really part of whats going on, Olson told the Register. I think theres a little bit of a kind of testing of what the response is, when outlets are blocked or issued warnings.

Mary Eberstadt, the Panula Chair at the Catholic Information Center and a senior fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute, made a similar assessment. Writing for Newsweek, she suggested to President Biden that his election has emboldened your liberal and progressive allies to target for ostracism and punishment a new band of deplorables: your fellow Catholics. Eberstadt urged the president to tell your progressive allies, and everyone else, that prejudice remains prejudice even when it is aimed against people who did not vote for you.

Lack of Transparency

Theres no denying the recent flux of Catholic voices and entities caught in the content filters of Big Tech platforms, but does this series of anecdotes necessarily indicate deep-seated, systemic bias against Catholics and other conservative viewpoints in the way these companies moderate content, perhaps even baked into their algorithms?

Its hard to say, says Rachel Bovard which is a big part of the problem.

Because there is no transparency, the terms [of enforcement] are so vague, and there are no actual details about how Big Techs algorithms actually work were just kind of left scratching our head, Bovard, the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute, told the Register.

Bovard, who also serves as a senior adviser to the Internet Accountability Project, testified on Big Tech bias before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law in October 2020. The lack of transparency regarding Big Techs decision-making about content moderation and the way their algorithms work means denials of bias are just as unverifiable as accusations, she said.

Bovards testimony cited Mark MacCarthy, a senior fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University, who suggested that Big Tech could dispel accusations of bias by allowing researchers to examine their internal practices related to system-wide algorithmic and content moderation a suggested solution that Bovard noted no company has pursued.

Speaking to the Register, Bovard suggested that the lack of transparency is intentional, allowing progressive social-media giants to aggressively moderate content that violates their political commitments behind a veil of vague community standards. A prominent recent example was the suppression of an October New York Post article alleging that then-candidate Biden was involved in his son Hunters business dealings with foreign energy companies. The Posts Twitter account was initially locked on the grounds that its story was based on illegally obtained information, a standard inconsistently applied across the platform.

Another recent high-profile case was the permanent ban of former President Donald Trump from Facebook and Twitter for allegedly inciting the violent riots that took place at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, a move that the tech giants havent taken with other world leaders, such as Irans Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has called for violence against Israel.

Even without access to their internal practices, Bovard said there is ample evidence that Big Tech platforms engage in viewpoint bias. Given the de facto level of control these companies exert over access to information and the public conversation, she said the regime of censorship exercised by social-media giants represents a threat to a free society and even to religious peoples ability to witness in the public square. When other peoples viewpoints are taken away, our ability to evangelize is limited; our ability to persuade is nonexistent, said Bovard, a Catholic.

Although companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google are privately owned, Bovard contended government intervention is justified for two reasons. One, she said Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a measure that provides social-media services with immunity from civil liabilities from content posted to their platform, is tantamount to a subsidy, making these companies privileged First Amendment actors in a way that movie studios, newspapers and other publishers cant be without repercussions.

More importantly, Bovard suggested, these private companies ability to influence the wider conversation represents a legitimate public concern.

So it is totally appropriate for the government to step in and say, No, Big Tech, you dont get to decide how we live together. You dont get to decide what information we can access. That is what we [as a society] decide. Bovard added that government intervention in such a scenario is perfectly consistent with the conservative understanding that government has a legitimate, albeit limited, role to play in conserving free society.

In terms of remedies, Bovard and other Catholics, like former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, expressed concern about repealing Section 230 protections outright, suggesting it might give a government controlled by progressives unprecedented power to censor conservative speech online.

Instead, she recommended greater enforcement of federal antitrust laws, which prohibit predatory industry monopolies, a designation she believes fairly applies to Big Tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter, especially with the recent suppression of alternative platform Parler from the marketplace.

We dont give amnesty for other lawbreakers, said Bovard. Why do we give amnesty for Big Tech? Theyre breaking the law.

Enforcing antitrust laws against Big Tech wouldnt necessarily mean forcibly breaking up the companies concerned. Bovard said the government could also pursue behavioral remedies, which would limit Big Tech companies abilities to use their enormous financial resources to limit competition in the marketplace. An example of one behavior that could be checked would be Googles ability to pay exorbitant amounts of money to make itself the primary default search engine on phone and web browsers, effectively boxing out the competition.

Questions of Big Tech oversight are expected to come up before Congress this session, with considerable bipartisan support for the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act. Another proposal, the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Act of 2021, would offer far more sweeping reform of U.S. antitrust law.

For some Catholics, the escalation of potential Big Tech censorship of conservative religious viewpoints is not only unsurprising; its an indication that Catholics should look elsewhere for platforms to share their views.

Register blogger Matthew Archbold, who also blogs at CreativeMinorityReport.com, said Catholics made a mistake by abandoning blogs for social-media platforms over the past decade. Recent difficulties with social-media platforms may be the catalyst for a return to blogs, which he contended are a more human and less impulsive way of communicating on the internet.

Im not saying we should log out from Facebook or Twitter completely, Archbold recently wrote for the Register. But I also think blogging your well-reasoned thoughts or sharing your real-life experiences is far better than hot takes. A blog post can go in depth whereas a tweet is so limited. Bovard, however, said such retreats could become a ghettoization of Christian witness and says that Catholics should be proclaiming the truths in the Gospel very loudly and wherever we can.

As religious people, we have just as much of a right to the public square as everyone else, she said. And in America, the greatest country in the world that was founded on pluralism and freedom of expression and freedom of religion, that is something that we should fight for.

For his part, Olson of Catholic World Report took a both/and approach. While some Catholics might have a particular calling to be engaged in social media as an apostolate, he said this isnt necessarily a requirement of everyone. Additionally, he urged Catholics who do feel called to engage on social-media platforms to consider the potential spiritual costs not only political and social ones and suggested that others should be exploring creative ways of doing our own thing.

Jetty at Saintly Heart pointed to the irony of social-media giants essentially deplatforming the saints by limiting her business outreach, given that social networks tend to promote all sorts of secular lifestyles with little in the way of restriction. She said her desire to provide a more compelling example to young people today is one of the primary reasons she started Saintly Heart. And because of that, she said shell continue to market on Facebook and Instagram, to the extent that shes able.

Our kids need good role models, she said. They need to learn about the faith younger, because theyre learning a lot about life on social media, and its not a great place for them.

Read the original here:
Catholics in the Crosshairs of Big Tech?: Recent Cluster of Cases of De Facto Online Censorship Raises Concerns - National Catholic Register

Australias proposed law to make tech giants pay for the news articles shared on their networks has Google and Facebook doing a good cop/bad cop routine.

Facebook is playing hardball with Aussie publishers and lawmakers. It has blocked news publishers content.

Google is pursuing a hand-shake and back-slap approach. The search engine behemoth has been cutting deals with news outfits.

The ruckus Down Under provides a lesson for Washington about the tech giants response to a crackdown.

As a way of rebalancing the economic disparities between thriving Big Tech companies and struggling news outlets, the Australian law will compel internet companies to pay news organizations. An arbitration panel would serve as a safety net of sorts to prevent the Big Tech players from making take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums in the negotiations.

Google contends the law requires it to pay for clicks by users and has attempted to head off the coming law. The company negotiated deals with Rupert Murdochs News Corp. and Seven West Media. The financial details of the deals were not made public.

Facebook reacted by restricting all news links and all posts from news outlets in Australia. The company also prevented the sharing of news links from Australian publications by anyone anywhere.

The proposed law fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content, William Easton, Facebook Australia & New Zealand managing director, wrote on the companys blog. It has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with a law that ignores the realities of this relationship or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia. With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter.

Mr. Easton argued that Facebooks situation is fundamentally different from Google because Facebook users voluntarily post content on the platform whereas Googles indexing of the internet via its search engine is more inextricably intertwined with the news.

In America, conservative critics of Big Tech who howled when former President Trump was banished from social media platforms in January are now crying we told you so at the affected news organizations, both the Aussies now and their American brethren in a potential similar future dispute.

Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor said he wished news organizations that sought to boot contrarian points-of-view from the internet would now lock arms with conservative critics against Big Tech companies following Facebooks lead but he is not holding his breath.

Conservatives have been warning of Big Tech censorship for years. The press didnt just ignore us, they encouraged it. Now, they get silenced, too, Mr. Gainor said. Maybe this will convince journalists that Big Tech is too powerful and that free speech is worth fighting for. Unfortunately, I doubt it. The American press wants special protection for them and only them.

Facebook and Googles respective reactions to the Australian law to preemptively prevent the distribution of news and to alternatively work to address the laws anticipated confines is being closely watched by Americans seeking to curb Big Techs power.

Facebook announced plans last week to limit the distribution of political content to U.S. users and previously told The Washington Times that news publishers would not be exempt from the restrictions.

Mike Davis, founder of the conservative Internet Accountability Project, said Facebooks actions in Australia showed why U.S. lawmakers should strip Big Techs legal-liability protections.

In an outrageous, mobster-like response, Facebook is extorting Australia to change its law by canceling its news, Mr. Davis said. This is yet another egregious example of Big Tech monopolists, like Facebook, abusing their massive power and further demonstrates why governments around the world must enforce their antitrust laws and end government coddling, like Section 230 immunity.

Congress has been eyeing changes to the liability protections for content that users post online. The protection is enshrined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.The Australian proposal and Big Techs reaction to it provoked outrage around the globe.

Timothy Berners-Lee, a British computer scientist widely recognized as the World Wide Webs inventor, told Australian lawmakers that he fears the new law could render the internet unworkable.

Specifically, I am concerned that that code risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online, said Mr. Berners-Lee to a Senate committee in Australia scrutinizing the bill.

Google regional managing director Melanie Silva told the same Senate committee that she is most concerned with the proposal requiring payments for links and snippets.

The concept of paying a very small group of website or content creators for appearing purely in our organic search results sets a dangerous precedent for us that presents an unmanageable risk from a product and business-model point of view, Ms. Silva said to the committee.

Some Australian news publishers say Google misrepresented the laws intent.

Dan Stinton, managing director of Guardian Australia and New Zealand, which is negotiating a licensing deal through Googles News Showcase, said Google is not just paying for links and snippets within search but the entire benefit that Google receives from engagement with users utilizing its search.

Google has been prosecuting an argument that theyre being asked to pay for links in Search and that is not the case, Mr. Stinton said.

Theyre not stealing published content, but I do believe they are using their market power to preference their own businesses to the detriment of publishers and thats not right, he said.

This article was based in part on wire-service reports.

Read the rest here:
Big Tech censorship spreads to press in Australia; U.S. conservatives crow - Washington Times

Seven Seas Entertainment has apologized to fans for taking a heavy-handed editorial approach towards Classroom of the Elite and Mushoku Tensei: Jobless Reincarnation after it was discovered that the independent manga publisher had heavily censored both respective series.

Related: Atelier Ryza 2 Developer Does Not See Overseas Censorship As Something Necessarily Bad

Seven Seas censorship regarding these two titles first came to widespread attention last month when, following the release of the Classroom of the Elite light novels seventh volume, fans noticed that massive amounts of text had been completely omitted from the books English language release.

According to a number of comparisons between the official English release and a fan-translation of the books original Japanese text, provided by /u/veritasss11 on the /r/ClassroomOfTheElite subreddit, Seven Seas censorship saw numerous instances of text being outright removed from the light novel.

In one scene, wherein Kei Karuizawa recounts the relentless bullying she endured during her middle school years, Seven Seas removed nearly two paragraphs of text in which the heroine spoke to the fear and distress the schoolyard abuse had sparked within her.

Official Seven Seas Translation:

I was freezing. Icy water dripped from my hair. Theyd dumped water over me four times now. My uniform was soaked right through; even my underwear was wet. But my chilled body didnt scare me. It was the ice in my heart that did.

Come on. That is enough, Karuizawa. Make things easier on yourself. Theres no need to suffer any further, Ryuuen sneered.

Fan Translation (removed text in bold):

It chilled me down to my core.

The chill of the water dripping from my hair. Theyve dumped water on me four times now. Not only my uniform but even my underwear are soaking wet now. But its not the fact that my bodys trembling from the cold that terrifies me.

Its the cold that grips my heart.

A darkness deep and dark enough to make you resent the world reared its head.

Why am I being bullied? Those feelings gradually changed.

Why am I even alive?

What did I do wrong?

I began to blame myself. My heart thats frozen over started eating away at my body.

The scars that run deep began to ache again.

Hey, save yourself already, Karuizawa. Theres no need to suffer any more than this. In front of me, Ryuuen laughed while pressuring me for a confession.

Related: Love Hina Mangaka Warns About A Future Where Japanese Works Are Regulated By Foreign Standards

Shortly after the changes to Classroom of the Elite were brought to light, fans of Mushoku Tensei: Jobless Reincarnation found that Seven Seas entertainment had made similar omissions to the text of the series first two volumes.

As reported on the /r/Mushokutensei subreddit and personally confirmed by Anime News Network, these changes included a scene which depicted the protagonist Rudeus groping and attempting to pull off the panties of a sleeping girl [being] replaced with him trying to pull her shirt over her stomach to prevent her from catching a cold and several instances wherein the company completely removed references to rape.

Another notable change from volume 1 involved removing references to rape. When Lilia described her past sexual history with Paul to Rudeus in chapter 9, he mentally referred to Pauls actions as rape and adultery. This was changed in English to cheater and womanizer, wrote Anime News Network. In another section earlier in the same chapter, Lilia recalls an incident where Paul snuck into her bedroom at night for sex, describing the initial act as forced. The reference to force was removed in the English version.

In response to these changes being brought to light, Seven Seas issued a statement to Anime News Network apologizing for their heavy-handed editorial approach in certain portions of the text regarding Classroom of the Elite, announcing a re-edited release of the series seventh volume, and noting that they are currently re-evaluating our editorial choices concerning Mushoku Tensei.

The localization process, especially with novels, involves multiple stages of editing after we receive the raw translation, said Seven Seas. The process of creating smooth and readable English language prose often involves condensing or rearranging text, so line-by-line translation comparisons are not always 1:1.

Related: No Game No Life Light Novel Volumes Banned from Australia by Government Classification Board

Seven Seas goal is to provide accurate translations that reflect the authors intent, yet at the same time, we pride ourselves on providing polished English versions that are commercially viable and enjoyable to read, they continued. Our accomplished editors, many of whom are critically acclaimed writers as well as diehard manga and light novel fans, are tasked with carefully threading the needle and balancing word-for-word accuracy with fluidity.

The publisher added, In most cases, we are quite pleased with the results, and are confident that our translations stack up with our competitors translations and other professional prose novels in English.

That said, the localization process is always a judgement call. In the case of Classroom of the Elite Vol. 7, fans rightly drew our attention to a heavy-handed editorial approach in certain portions of the text, Seven Seas admitted. We appreciate this criticism and have taken it to heart. As a result, we have now re-edited the book and will release a new version shortly (both digital and print) that strikes a more carefully considered balance. As for Mushoku Tensei, we are currently re-evaluating our editorial choices, and will be making necessary adjustments on some volumes soon.

We thank fans for their invaluable feedback, the company concluded. Localization is not a science; it is an art form. We will continue to refine our in-house editorial standards to ensure that our localizations remain faithful, yet artful.

Related: Australia Bans Import of Hentai And Other Adult Anime Products from Japan!

Following Seven Seas official statement, Mushoku Tensei translators Alyssa Niioka and Paul Cuneo took to their personal Twitter accounts to clarify that the aforementioned changes to the series were made without their knowledge.

For what its worth, I was completely blindsided by the changes to the MT LN, wrote Niioka. I knew about volume 2s issue and was under the impression it was a layout issue, not an editorial change. It seems that was not the case.

Please understand those were editorial choices, and I was not included in that process, Niioka added. I didnt learn about these changes until all of you did. Many translators turn in their scripts and dont see the final product until its published.

If it wasnt already clear enough, my policy on translation is to translate faithfully regardless of whether I agree with the content itself, Niioka concluded. I think it should be for the readers to decide how they feel about it.

In the same vein, Cuneo stated that FWIW I view it as my job as a translator to convey the authors intent as best I can, warts and all. But as freelancers and one person in a multi-step process we often dont have that much control over the end result.

I do feel editing should be a two-way process, with translators looped in to help keep that connection to the original text / intent as solid as possible, he added. Ill try to advocate for process changes with my clients toward that goal.

What do you make of Seven Seas statement? Let us know your thoughts on social media or in the comments down below!

(Visited 30 times, 30 visits today)

See the original post:
Seven Seas Admits To Heavy-Handed Censorship of Classroom of the Elite and Mushoku Tensei: Jobless Reincarnation - Bounding Into Comics

To the editor:

A couple of weeks ago, I told you that I was anxiously and eagerly working on legislation to protect Iowans from big tech censorship. Wait no longer. The legislation is here!

On Thursday I held a press conference with a number of my fellow Republican Senate colleagues to announce that we have filed SF402 to protect Iowans from liberal executives in the Silicon Valley who are censoring your speech! Proudly, we have a total of 30 senators sponsoring this incredibly important piece of legislation.

Our nation was built on the ability of Americans to freely express their views, political or otherwise! Yet today the public square of the 21st century is being controlled by a small number of elitists who believe they are the arbiters of truth and are dictating what content you can see and hear.

Iowa is in a unique position in that these big tech companies have or will invest billions of dollars in constructing data centers in our state. From Altoona to Council Bluffs to Waukee, big tech is here in a very huge way. These tech companies have or will reap hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives, including property tax abatements, tax credits and even exemption from paying tax on their energy consumption.

Unfortunately, under U.S. Code Section 230, big tech has been shielded from civil liability for their feckless censorship. This law preempts states from enacting measures that will allow our citizens in Iowa to file civil liability suits against these companies.

To further protect Iowans despite this unfortunate limitation, they will now have the ability to take action. With SF402 we will make big tech pay for their censorship.

SF402 establishes a mechanism whereby Iowa citizens will have their complaints investigated and heard before a court of law. Upon a finding that constitutionally protected speech was likely violated, the big tech companies will forfeit hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, incentives and credits.

I feel so passionate about this legislation that I will personally shepherd this bill through the Senate. SF402 will receive a subcommittee very soon, and a companion bill has been filed in the house as a study bill in the Judiciary Committee by Chairman Steve Holt.

Big tech will be forced to choose: Either respect Iowans rights to express their views and thoughts, or forego these rich tax breaks. I have already begun the process in reaching out to colleagues in other states to introduce similar legislation. I am optimistic this type of legislation will be introduced in numerous states!

Sen. Jake ChapmanAdel

State Sen. Jake Chapman represents Iowas Senate District 10. He can be reached at 515-650-3942.

Read the original:
Letter to the editor: Chapman draws bead on big tech - theperrynews.com

Anti-discrimination law already on the books could spell trouble for tech companies that engage in political censorship.

In an exclusive article published by Mind Matters News, political scientist John West explains how far-reaching the Seattle law is and examines the dramatic impact it could have on Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple, among other tech giants.

As West explains, the law would seem to provide a clear ground for legal action against tech companies that reject apps, ban films, censor books, or deny advertising or other services based on the political viewpoint of the material being rejected.

West points out that "a person doesn't necessarily have to live in Seattle or even Washington State in order to file legal action under the law."

For tech companies headquartered in Seattle like Amazon, the Seattle law potentially allows any customer or business from any state to bring legal action against Amazon for discrimination based on political ideology. According to an attorney cited in West's article, remedies under the law include "injunctive relief, orders requiring affirmative action, and punitive damages."

"The Seattle anti-discrimination law packs a punch," writes West. "Damages requested under the law could be severe."

For tech companies with offices in Seattle but not headquartered there, legal liability would be more limited, but lawsuits could likely still be brought. West explains how in his article.

"It remains to be seen whether anyone will actually use Seattle's fair contracting ordinance to take on big tech censorship," writes West. "But if they do, Seattle could soon become ground zero in the battle against big tech."

West is Vice President of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and the former chair of the Department of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University. He holds a PhD in Government from Claremont Graduate University and is an author and filmmaker.

SOURCE Discovery Institute

Discovery Institute

View post:
Seattle Law Could Spell Big Trouble for Amazon, Facebook, and Other Big Tech Companies If They Engage in Political Censorship - PRNewswire