Mediaboss Marketing

Austin, TX, September 24, 2021 Two trade associations, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), filed a lawsuit in a federal district court to strike down provisions of a new Texas law, passed in the Texas legislature as House Bill (HB) 20.

HB 20, which will become effective later this year unless enjoined by the court, requires increased transparency from major social media platforms and prohibits them from censoring users.

NetChoice and the CCIA, whose members include big tech companies such as Facebook and Google, contend that the regulations on the social media platforms are a violation of the businesses First Amendment rights to curate the content hosted on their sites.

Allowing HB 20 to take effect will inflict significant harm on Texans by threatening the safety of users, creators, and businesses that use these websites to reach audiences in a family-friendly way, said the president and CEO of NetChoice, Steve DelBianco, in a press release. No American should ever be forced to navigate through harmful and offensive images, videos and posts.

The lawsuit says that the big tech members of NetChoice and CCIA currently prohibit all sorts of speech that they deem harmful or objectionable or against their policies, including medical misinformation, hate speech and slurs (spanning the spectrum from race and religion to veteran status), glorification of violence and animal abuse, and impersonation, lies, and misinformation more broadly.

Though users must agree to such oversight by the platforms in the fine print of their terms of service, advocates of banning social media censorship argue that the regulation of hate speech without any clear standard of what constitutes it is dangerous.

An example of that counter-argument can be found in an amicus brief for another lawsuit from NetChoice against a similar Florida law, which was filed on behalf of the satirical website The Babylon Bee and its non-satirical sister-site Not the Bee.

The brief states, [I]n Twitters judgment, a politicians biologically correct statement that [a] man has no womb or eggs is hate speech, but a college professors profoundly racist statement, I block white people because [t]here is nothing white people can say and do that is creative, profound, and intimidating, is valuable discourse deserving to remain on the platform.

As of the publication of this article, the latter tweet remains uncensored on Twitter.

It appears that in Twitters judgment, biology is hate, but unadorned racismat least of a certain varietyis not, it remarks.

Proponents of the Texas law also argue that checks on social media platforms are necessary because those methods of communication have become a powerful aspect of modern discourse where the freedom of speech for individuals should not be stifled.

Twitter, Facebook and other massive platforms arent just any private companies, wrote Greg Abbott in a recent op-ed published in the Washington Post. They are our modern-day public square, and effectively control the channels we use for discourse.

Abbott and other supporters say the law doesnt interfere with the platforms ability to block criminal activity on their sites, or to remove content that incites violence or is illegal or obscene, but is necessary to shield everyday Texans from censorship despite the vast protections federal law has given to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

That law explicitly protects online platforms to be able to censor content that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Unlike the Florida law, which could allow individuals to sue for monetary damages from the platform, lawmakers say that the Texas proposal threads a needle through Section 230 by only allowing the individual to sue to stop the censorship and costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys fees.

But when a similar proposal to HB 20 was being debated earlier this year, DelBianco appeared to testify against it and argued that Section 230 wont matter, but rather that the courts would ultimately strike it down on the basis of the First Amendment.

Whether the freedom of companies to censor what they please or whether individuals freedom of speech should be protected even on social media is a legal debate that will likely not go away anytime soon in the digital age, but now that ball is in the courts.

Read the original here:
Big Tech Sues Texas Over New Law Targeting Social Media Censorship - The Texan

Getty Images

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are fighting back against a new Texas "censorship" law. Trade groups representing the social media giants have sued the state of Texas over the law, arguing that it restricts the First Amendment rights of the companies in question.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed HB20 into law earlier in September. The law targets social media companies with 50 million users or more and prevents them from banning or blocking users based on their viewpoints. It also allows residents of Texas to sue the companies to reinstate their accounts. Supporters of the law say it will protect Texans "from wrongful censorship on social media platforms."

Catch up on the biggest news stories in minutes. Delivered on weekdays.

The suit, filed Wednesday in US District Court for the Western District of Texas, claims the law itself is violating the First Amendment rights of the companies in question and that the government has no right to prevent these companies "from exercising editorial discretion over content those platforms disseminate on their own privately owned websites and applications."

According to the complaint, the law would prohibit social media companies and content companies like YouTube from being able to remove disinformation and harmful content. They'd need to present it on the same footing as posts that don't violate the rules of the platforms.

HB20 "would unconstitutionally require platforms like YouTube and Facebook to disseminate, for example, pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, foreign government disinformation and medical misinformation," the suit states. "In fact, legislators rejected amendments that would explicitly allow platforms to exclude vaccine misinformation, terrorist content, and Holocaust denial."

A federal judge blocked a similar law from taking effect in Florida, claiming that the legislation on the whole was "viewpoint-based."

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube did not immediately respond to CNET's request for comment.

Excerpt from:
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube push back against Texas 'censorship' bill - CNET

Last week, Amazon.com prohibited ads on its website promoting the bestselling book BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution, a deep-dive into Black Lives Matter (BLM) organizations and their agenda to tear down Americas institutions and replace them with their version of a Marxist Utopia.

When The Heritage Foundation attempted to place ads to promote Heritage Senior Fellow Mike Gonzalezs BLM expos, Amazon said that the ad we created didnt comply with its Creative Acceptance Policies because it contains book/s or content that is not allowed. Content that revolves around controversial or highly debated social topics is not permitted.

Using that absurd standard, one of the worlds largest booksellers apparently wouldnt allow ads for the biggest bestseller in historythe Biblea book that stirs incredible debate and is considered controversial by those who dont believe it. Nor could anyone advertise books pro or con about federal spending, welfare, climate change, abortion, or COVID-19, for that matter.

Mr. Gonzalezs book is critically important to the debates were having in America today over racial issues, the teaching of American history, and our American identity. The book delves deeply into the backgrounds of the BLM leaders, showing them to be avowed Marxists who say they want to dismantle our Constitution, our social institutions, and our very way of life. They use social media to spread their message and organize not just marches and sit-ins but riots that have been exceedingly destructive, violent, and even deadly.

>>>Amazons Senseless Bid To Bury My Expos of Black Lives Matter

Americans deserve to know the difference between genuinely saying black lives matter and the radical Marxists behind the Black Lives Matter organizations who want to overturn society and sow deep divisions among the American people.

Thats why Heritage appealed Amazons decision and issued a forceful public statement in response. Amazon subsequently reversed its decision and will allow the paid promotion of the book to move forward.

An Amazon spokesperson said that the original decision to ban the promotion resulted from human error, not an automated decision by a computer or algorithm. While I appreciate the reversal of such an egregious decision, this incident is consistent with the trend of Big Tech companies to suppress conservative speech they disagree with.

The fact that this was the result of human error further demonstrates the need for Big Tech companies to establish clear and consistent rules and policies and then implement them fairly across the board. Private companies certainly have the right to pick and choose what products are advertised and sold on their platforms. But too often, these companies have vague and very subjective rules. They inconsistently enforce those rules to censor viewpoints they disagree with, and they lack genuine recourse for users who are suspended from their platforms and services.

Although Amazon reversed its decision, it apparently has the no controversial or highly debated social topics standard in writing that one of its employees was enforcing.

This episode is a reminder that while sometimes Big Tech can be pressured to respond in some instances of content suppression, there are many more instances where those without resources or a large enough public profile simply have to live with the arbitrary decisions made by these companies.

And its not just censorship. Some companies are prohibiting conservatives from using their digital services like banking, digital payments, email delivery, and online fundraising when their only sin is to have a political viewpoint that differs from the generally leftist viewpoint of Big Tech.

Thats why researchers at The Heritage Foundations Center for Technology Policy continue to recommend legislative and regulatory solutions to ensure that these companies are held accountable when they unfairly suppress speech or deny services. While respecting the private property rights of such companies, Heritage has put forward solutions to limit the nearly unchecked power of Big Tech and make them more accountable to the American people.

>>>When Government Demands Social Media Censorship, Americans of All Political Beliefs Lose

Those solutions include targeted reforms of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives these companies certain legal protections when hosting user-published content on their platforms. Other solutions include organizing grassroots efforts to push for transparency from tech companies and ultimately encouraging the creation of alternative tech products and services that dont discriminate.

Examples of Big Tech censorship are inescapable and irrefutable. Sometimes they are brazen and outright; other times, they are dressed up in vague platitudes about objectionable content. But the outcome is still the samevoices that these left-leaning companies dont agree with are deemed unacceptable and are silenced.

Big Techs influence over everyday American life continues to grow. We must establish clear standards for how these companies behaveand mechanisms to hold them accountable when they dont.

Read more here:
Big Tech's Conservative Censorship Inescapable and Irrefutable - Heritage.org

I have never met Samuel, the gay Kenyan protagonist of the acclaimed documentary I Am Samuel. But I feel as if I know him. Not only does filmmaker Peter Murimis quiet, steady, honest portrayal of Samuels daily life create a sense of intimacy and familiarity, but Samuel is the kind of person you know.

Because in spite of laws criminalizing their relationships, discrimination, and the threat of violence, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Kenya are ordinary people living ordinary lives. They work as construction workers, like Samuel; as hawkers (street vendors), nurses, accountants, and lawyers. If they live in Nairobi, like Samuel, they visit their families in shags (Nairobian slang for rural places of origin), and find both commonality and difference with rural relatives, who struggle to understand aspects of their urbanized lives. If they find love, a community of friends and often family members celebrates and supports them. Life isnt easy when your government officially designates you a second-class citizen, but daily routines, challenges, and small joys remain, all of which are documented as part of Samuels life in Murimis film.

On September 23, Kenyas Film Censorship Board (KFCB) slapped a ban on I Am Samuel, claiming the film contravenes Kenyan values. Which values? During my years living in Kenya, the values I saw in action every day included care and kindness, tolerance, and openness to difference. Kenya is diverse in every way: geographically, ethnically, religiously, and, yes, in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity. For over a decade, LGBT people have publicly staked out their place within Kenyas vibrant social fabric, challenging discrimination and claiming their rights.

KFCB may want to silence them with flimsy claims that reduce Samuel and his partner Alexs rich relationship to a same sex marriage agenda. It will not succeed; censorship rarely does. Like the lesbian-themed film Rafiki, banned by KFCB in 2018, Samuel's story will be seen by Kenyans who will make up their own minds. In trying to force on the blinders to deny LGBT peoples existence and rights, KFCB is on the wrong side of history.

View post:
Kenya Censors Another Gay-Themed Film - Human Rights Watch

Blizzards ongoing censorship of seemingly inappropriate World of Warcraft content in response to the lawsuit against the company is overshadowing what some players really want An end to toxicity in WoW.

In the wake of the lawsuit against Activision Blizzard for fostering a pervasive frat boy culture within the workplace, the company has actively set about removing explicit content from their games.

Overwatch will see the hero formerly known as Jesse McCree receive a new name in future updates, whileDiablo 2 Resurrected also saw the gladiator-esque Amazons exotic beauty erased to a point where fans claimed she looked like legendary actor Willem Defoe.

World of Warcraft has also had heavily sexualized images toned down, but a lot of WoW fans arent interested in the removal of offensive in-game content: theyd rather Blizzard actively dealt with the ongoing toxicity issues instead.

Please be aware that this article contains a discussion regarding suicide and mental health issues.

While Blizzard has expressed at the upcoming WoW Shadowlands update, Patch 9.1.5, will look to clamp down on rulebreakers and bad behaviour, a large section of the games community want the issue solved now.

Blizzard should do something about toxic player behavior instead of censoring paintings and turning them into fruit bowls, writes one Reddit user, referring to the decision to change an in-game artwork of a semi-clad woman into a collection of pears. Being told to kill myself over a mistake or a petty disagreement is not okay at all.

They go on to slam the devs for censoring /spit and some half-naked portraits but not punishing players for this awful s**t.

Ultimately, they conclude that even posting about the issue ended with their Reddit DMs being flooded with messages telling them to take their own life, proving that this is a real problem.

Blizzard should do something about toxic player behaviour instead of censoring paintings and turning them into fruit bowls, because being told to kill myself over a mistake or a petty disagreement is not okay at all. Its incredibly hurtful. from wow

A whole host of players have jumped in to support the original poster. One writes: Prioritize the game and the community over profit and youll see a huge difference in the quality of player.

It has nothing to do with banning 100% of toxic players, another states. It has everything to do with setting rules and f**king enforcing them.

Hopefully Patch 9.1.5 will bring the ban hammer down on those who are choosing to insult and abuse others, however only time will tell what punishment will be introduced for toxic players. Either way, its clear players want a new punishment system implemented soon.

If you are experiencingsuicidalthoughts, or know anyone that is, and you would like to talk to someone, please reach out and call theSuicidePrevention Helpline 1-800-273-8255 (USA), the Samaritans 116-123 (UK), or Lifeline 13-11-14 (AUS).

Read the original post:
WoW players urge Blizzard to combat toxicity instead of censoring game content - Dexerto