Mediaboss Marketing

Do social media and big tech companies have too much power when it comes to blocking political candidates from using their platforms? According to abill backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, the answer to that question is "yes," a position that has prompted no small amount of debate among state lawmakers.

If passed, the bill would impose a daily $100,000 fine on social media platforms for de-platforming statewide candidates and a daily $10,000 fine for all other Florida candidates.

The bill also attempts to provide equal access for news organizations and political candidates to reach users free from manipulation by algorithms and give users the power to opt out of algorithms.

House Speaker Chris Sprowls, a supporter of the legislation, also spoke out about the bill during the news conference, saying how it would let Florida take back the virtual public square as a place where information and ideas can flow freely.

However, not all House members agree.

Were going to pass something that we have very strong reason to think is unconstitutional, Rep. Joe Geller, D-Aventura, said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing. Ultimately, were probably going to lose, and the people who are going to pay are really not us sitting at these tables; its going to be the taxpayers.

The main concern if the bill is passed is that it could infringe on companies right to free speech by regulating the content they publish, possibly violating the First Amendment.

However, the bills primary sponsor, Commerce Committee Chair Blaise Ingoglia, says that the bill would do more good than harm.

The bill, which the House Appropriations Committee cleared by a 19-8 vote, is now being reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee.

Never miss a story with the daily Govtech Today Newsletter.

Subscribe

Original post:
Florida Big Tech Censorship Bill Takes Another Step Forward - Government Technology

Rose McGowan is accusing Twitter of trying to censor her after the social media giant suspended her account for what it said was a violation of itsnon-consensual nudity policy in a tweet slamming Vice President Harris and former President Clinton,Fox New reports.

"What are you so afraid of Jack Dorsey, a little freedom of speech?" McGowan said a video response shared by RT.com Tuesday in which she calls out the Twitter CEO for her suspension from his social media platform. "I know Twitter is trying to silence me, and I know a lot of powerful Democrats are behind it."

Activist, author, and artist Rose McGowan has had her Twitter account suspended, over a tweet she posted about Jeffrey Epstein and President Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonNew York Democrat calls on White House to reverse 'old school' marijuana policy while admitting own past use Bill Clinton on Georgia's new voting restrictions: 'An attack on our democracy' Harris hails child tax credit during interview with Bill Clinton MORE pic.twitter.com/V2NmM9ZQld

The activist andactor had taken to Twitter to condemn Harris prior to the vice president's appearance atthe Clinton Global Initiative summit for a speaking engagement focused on women empowerment last week.Clinton, she pointed out, has been accused of sexual misconduct.

"This is obscene@KamalaHarris," McGowan tweeted at Harrison March 25, a day before the event, according to Fox News. "You speaking with Bill Clinton about empowering women & girls is disgusting. Have you no soul? Have you no ethics? Ask him about being on an island of human trafficking victims 27 times. You are showing us exactly who you are."

The tweet referenced a claim from former Clinton confidant Doug Band, whoalleged in December that he had visited Jeffrey Epstein's "pedophile" island in 2003. Clinton has denied ever stepping foot on the island.

McGowan was suspended from Twitter over themessage, which featured a realistic piece of artwork byBritish artist Alison Jackson depictingClinton receiving a massage from an unknown woman.The social media site flagged the tweet as being a violation of itsnon-consensual nudity policy, Fox New reports.

"Let me speak," McGowan concluded her video retort. "I am more dangerous if you silence me."

McGowan is one of the women who accuseddisgracedHollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault.

Here is the original post:
Rose McGowan accuses Twitter of censorship over Clinton tweet | TheHill - The Hill

By Dom Serafini

The late U.S. president Ronald Reagan used to tell and retell a joke about an American bragging to a Russian about the fact that he could pay a visit to him at the White House, and banging his fists on his table, tell him, Mr. President I dont like the way youre running our country. The Russian answered that he too can go to the Kremlin and tell Mikhail Gorbachev, Mr. President, I dont like the way Reagan is running his country.

The point of the joke is that in Russia then and now there is no liberty, no democracy, and no freedom of speech.

Indeed, Americans and Europeans alike like to think that they live in states where freedom of the press and freedom of expression are observed. On the other hand, Russians, Chinese people, and Iranians, just to name a few, live under dictatorships, otherwise called authoritarian states, with no freedom of the press, of liberty, or of expression.

While people in democratic states think they enjoy free press, those in authoritarian states know that their media is controlled, and thus, those who can, tend to follow the media imported (mostly illegally) from democratic states, believing that it is fair and balanced. At least this is what happened years ago. Today, however, people in authoritarian states are starting to believe that even the so-called free press is biased, full of fake news, and most importantly, censored and full of propaganda (read advertising) that determines elections and public policies.

Trying to look impartially at various forms of censorship we can identify five forms of widely used censorship: State Censorship, Corporate Censorship, Social Censorship, Privacy Laws, and Libel Laws.

State Censorship is what is practiced in countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and the like. In these states, censorship takes different forms, like direct and indirect media ownership, and various strategies such as restricting news and conditioning news. It even extends to film, theater, and text messaging. In China, for example, a department of the Chinese Communist Party (one of the countrys multiple censorship organs) employs two million people to monitor and censor content.

In democracies, censorship takes different forms, but at all levels it begins with self-censorship and denying access, keeping in mind that, by definition, an editor cannot be impartial.

Then there is the so-called Corporate Censorship, where corporate owners of media control the news by selecting those who report it, by establishing an editorial line (e.g., progressive or conservative), and by limiting access to only those who reflect their values. Corporate Censorship tends to take guidance from governments, especially with regard to foreign policies. The most recent examples come from the Iraqi War, the Syrian War, and the bias towards authoritarian states. Corporate Censorship is a topic widely discussed in academia and explained in books such as Puerto Rican scholar Giannina Braschs United States of Banana. In addition, in the U.S., the First Amendment protects against censorship from the government, but does not protect against Corporate Censorship or from non-public outrages, like hate speech.

Social Censorship is now emerging in established democracies, which is enforced by the sarcastically called Political Correct Police Force, and complemented by advocates of Cancel Culture. Left-leaning influential groups have the power to fire people, embarrass noncompliant individuals, and discredit those who deviate from the sanctioned school of thought.

Additionally, in countries like Italy, for example, censorship is widely applied by threating libel suits, which could threaten the survival of small publications. Italy is also unique because most professional journalists are licensed by the state. Plus, like in authoritarian states, defamation is a criminal offense in Italy. (In the U.S., its a civil issue.)

In China, defamation is used to prosecute people for having slandered the people of China, by expressing views not in accordance with the government mandates.

Finally, democracies especially those in Western Europe have strict privacy laws, which tend to protect the rich and powerful, who have lots to hide from the public.

Illustration by Bill Kerr licensed underCC BY-SA 2.0.

Please follow and like us:

Read more:
The Age of Censorship VideoAge International - videoageinternational.net

YouTube has rejected a proposal from within the company to remove a video by successful Los Angeles rapper YG, which features lyrics about targeting Asian neighbourhoods for robbery.

Employees had requested the 2014 track, Meet the Flockers, be removed, following the 16 March shooting in Atlanta that killed eight people, six of them Asian women, as well as a wider wave of anti-Asian hate crime in the US.

The track begins with the lines: First, you find a house and scope it out / find a Chinese neighbourhood, cause they dont believe in bank accounts.

In an internal email reported by Bloomberg, two executives wrote: Our hate speech policy prohibits content promoting violence or hatred against protected groups, for attributes like race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and expression In this case, this video receives an EDSA [Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic] exception as a musical performance.

The executives, anonymised by Bloomberg on security grounds, said they find this video to be highly offensive and understand it is painful for many to watch especially given the ongoing violence against the Asian community, but wanted to avoid setting a precedent that may lead to us having to remove a lot of other music on YouTube.

YG, who has scored five US Top 10 albums since 2014, has not commented on the decision.

The track has previously been criticised by Jane Kim, a San Francisco politician who called for it to be banned in 2016.

See original here:
YouTube rejects internal request to censor rapper YG over robbery lyrics - The Guardian

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed a bill on Tuesday that sought to limit perceived censorship by social media companies like Facebook and Twitter.

Senate Bill 228, which narrowly passed during this years legislative general session, would have required social media companies to provide clear information about the social corporations moderation practices and created an opportunity for a Utah account holder to appeal certain moderation practices that the social media corporation employs on a Utah account holders account or post, according to a summary of the bill.

What this does is it deals with free speech. I think our free speech rights have been infringed by some large tech folks and I think thats a problem, Republican Spanish Fork Sen. Mike McKell, the bills sponsor, told lawmakers on March 1. And I think what weve got is a good bill to create a process to create transparency; thats what this bill does.

In a press release, the governors office said Cox had vetoed the bill, his first veto since taking office in January, due to technical issues with the legislation and after speaking with legislative leadership.

The press release noted that censorship by tech companies is a serious concern and that the veto will not hinder nor prevent Utah from finding the right policy solution.

The sponsors of this bill have raised valid questions about the impact social media platforms can have on public discourse and debate, Cox said. Our country continues to grapple with very real and novel issues around freedom of speech, the rights of private companies and the toxic divisiveness caused by these new forms of connection, information and communication. While I have serious concerns about the bill, I appreciate the willingness of the bills sponsors to continue to seek a better solution.

Lawmakers considered the bill following cries at the national level of liberal bias among social media company executives and censorship of conservative posts and accounts.

Not very many things infuriate me more than to see blatant censorship, especially when its one-sided, Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, told his colleagues on Feb. 26 while speaking in support of the bill. And I can cite 10 examples from the last six months.

But other state lawmakers said the bill raised questions of constitutionality, including Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake City, who said he had real concerns and believed social media platforms should be able to make the same editorial judgments as newspapers, TV stations and other forms of media.

They make that decision, Davis said. And these (social) media companies are no different, I dont believe, than our general media is.

Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, said the bill is completely unenforceable and has no parameters.

I dont understand how this is actually going to work, said Riebe. So unless we can enforce something, I really dont think we should be passing laws.

S.B. 228 passed 21-6 in the Senate on March 1 and 39-35 in the House on March 4.

In the press release, McKell said he intends to open a new bill on May 5 to address the censorship issues.

Censorship practices are un-American and likely unconstitutional, he said. In Utah, we defend the right to freely express opinions and views, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

The Spanish Fork senator continued, The outcome of S.B. 228 is not ideal; however, the issue of free speech and online censorship remains a priority and policy will continue to be refined throughout the interim.

Connor Richards covers government, the environment and south Utah County for the Daily Herald. He can be reached at crichards@heraldextra.com and 801-344-2599.

Originally posted here:
Utah governor vetoes bill limiting perceived social media censorship - Daily Herald