Mediaboss Marketing

PARISFrench President Emmanuel Macron called for international regulation to curb the spread of ideological extremism in Western democracies, chiding tech companies and political correctness for allowing it to flourish.

Speaking to a group of reporters inside the lyse Palace, Mr. Macron said the storming of the U.S. Capitol was a sign of the Wests failure to rein in social media platforms, allowing them to become incubators of hate, moral relativism and conspiracy theories.

The French leader chided tech companieswithout naming themfor giving former President Donald Trump a platform to spread hate for years before taking action. Twitter Inc. banned Mr. Trumps personal account in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, citing the risk of further incitement of violence. Facebook Inc. announced a temporary suspension of Mr. Trump after the riot before extending that action indefinitely.

All those who allowed President Trump to succeed waited until they were entirely sure that he had no power left to then wrap themselves in dignity and now say Lets take away his whistle, Mr. Macron said. Why didnt they shut down his accounts before all this happened?

Mr. Macron said governments had delegated too much authority to tech companies by expecting them to act as stewards for Western democracy. This is an issue for real international regulation, Mr. Macron said.

Go here to read the rest:
Frances Macron Calls for Regulation of Social Media to Stem Threat to Democracy - The Wall Street Journal

US President Joe Biden prepares to sign a series of executive orders at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office just hours after his inauguration on January 20, 2021. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Caricatured by Republicans as Sleepy Joe, the new president has started his term with an impressive sprint, issuing a record number of executive orders. In his first 10 days in office, Biden has signed 24 executive orders. Thats eight more than the combined total the last five presidents signed in the same period (Donald Trump signed six, Barack Obama five, George W. Bush two, Bill Clinton two and George H.W. Bush one).

To be sure, as Trump got used to the presidency, he became a confident and prolific user of executive orders, signing 208 (as against Obamas 276 executive orders in a presidency that was twice as long as Trumps). Many of Bidens executive orders are directly aimed at rescinding Trumps commands. In office, though, Mr. Biden has been moving at a blistering pace, The Economist notes. Within hours of being sworn in, he had recommitted America to the Paris climate accord; restored ties with the World Health Organization; lifted a ban on travelers to America from several Muslim-majority countries; promised to protect from deportation dreamers, brought to America illegally as children; extended temporary freezes on household evictions and federal student-loan payments; mandated mask-wearing in airports, public transport and in federal buildings; and halted construction of the US-Mexico border wall.

The New York Times finds this blistering pace much too fast. In an editorial, the newspaper enjoined, Ease Up on the Executive Action, Joe. According to the Times, executive orders are a blunt and limited instrument, lacking the force and greater permanency of congressionally passed laws. After all, it would just take another Republican president to put back in place Trump measures Biden had overturned.

A polarized, narrowly divided Congress may offer Mr. Biden little choice but to employ executive actions or see his entire agenda held hostage, the Times editors admitted.

These directives, however, are a flawed substitute for legislation. They are intended to provide guidance to the government and need to work within the discretion granted the executive by existing law or the Constitution. They do not create new lawthough executive orders carry the force of lawand they are not meant to serve as an end run around the will of Congress. By design, such actions are more limited in what they can achieve than legislation, and presidents who overreach invite intervention by the courts. MORE FROM Jeet Heer

The Times editorial board even has the gall to use the Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to America as children, as a weapon in its polemical onslaught against executive orders. The newspaper frets about Dreamers living in a nightmarish limbo due to the whiplash of changing executive orders from Obama to Trump to Biden. But this creates an equivalence between those trying to protect the Dreamers and those trying to deport them. In truth, the nightmare limbo was created by two forces: Republicans in Congress, unwilling to enact immigration reforms, and Trump, trying to leverage the Dreamers in order to coerce funding for his border wall. Leaving out this fact serves as an apologia for the GOP.

This editorial is a prime example of the Times vulnerability to myopic Mugwumpism, a tendency to focus on small-bore political process while ignoring the actual power dynamics that drive politics. The Mugwumpslate-19th century reformersfixated on civil service reform as a panacea for all that ailed America, ignoring battles over Reconstruction and the civil rights of formerly enslaved people.

In a like manner, a persnickety focus on the limits of executive orders makes sense only if one ignores the much larger battles around American democracy. Earlier this month, Donald Trump egged on a mob to attack Congress in order to thwart the process of even installing Biden as president. Trump and many other Republican elected officials did everything in their power to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Bidens win. To this day, some, like South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, refuse to admit that Biden won a free and fair election.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

In the context of having his legitimacy called into question, it is crucial for Biden to assert his authority as quickly as possible so that the nation can see he is in fact the president. Biden took a number of decisive early moves to make visible his executive authority, notably firing the National Labor Relations Boards general counsel, Peter Robb, a Trump-era holdover who refused a request to resign. Undoing some of Trumps worst executive orders was also a way for Biden to make clear that he is president.

Bidens use of executive orders helps bolster democracy in several crucial ways. First, it shows that elections have consequencesand that the 81 million Americans who helped Biden win the White House deserve to have their views imprinted on government. Secondly, going after Trumps executive orders quickly and with the same process Trump used helps show how transitory Trumps legacy is. Thirdly, the orders make Bidens authority visible in a way that defies Republican efforts to delegitimize his presidency.

The one part of the Times editorial that has value is the argument that Biden should in the future work with Congress. But executive orders and congressional action are not mutually exclusive. Congress works slowly and will take time not just passing laws but also reasserting the oversight role that Trump thwarted. Theres nothing incompatible about an early push on executive orders to clean up Trumps mess and fostering a healthier relationship with Congress.

But working with Congress doesnt necessarily mean the bipartisan outreach that the Times recommends. Biden and congressional Democrats show every sign of pushing ahead with an ambitious stimulus agenda, even if it means stepping on the toes of Republicans. As Politico reports, Democrats are vowing to move forward on a new stimulus package as soon as next week, with or without Republicans. Though Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have not officially said they plan to pursue a party-line approach through budget reconciliation, many Democrats now believe thats the only way forward.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

Reconciliation wont give the Democrats everything they want. Any efforts at legislating outside the budget will require either overturning the filibuster or getting the support of 10 or more Senate Republicans. Both paths are uncertain and perhaps foredoomed.

Still, the early turn to reconciliation shows that congressional Democrats arent being sidelined. They are ready to work with Biden. On some significant issues, like the second impeachment of Donald Trump, congressional Democrats have forged a path independent of the president.

Bidens executive orders arent a threat to democracy. Rather, they spring from an energized Democratic Party that is helping to revitalize American democracy and make it functional again.

Continue reading here:
Bidens Executive Orders Are Essential to Restoring Democracy - The Nation

This week on a news channel, I saw a clip that showed a now-retiring Tom Brokaw with a couple of veterans on the 50th anniversary of D-Day. They were revisiting Omaha Beach, where they had been part of the first wave. When Brokaw asked why they were there on that day, one said, "Because our country needed us."

Compare what these members of "The Greatest Generation'' did, with the despicable acts we witnessed Jan. 6. Seventy-seven years ago, America had a bunch of guys willing to put themselves into harm's way, and sometimes even lay down their own lives for their country, while on Jan. 6 we had 800 people (many of them vets, I might add) were trying to rip out our government's heart by attempting to violently nullify an election.

So far our Constitution has stood strong. That's good news for sure, but I would point out to those who are OK with this insurrection: You can't be on both sides of this. These allegations of voter fraud are just that, allegations. They are not evidence of fraud. Our elections and our peaceful transfer of power are what makes us who we are, and if our elections are ever ended or decided by anyone other than "We the People," this democracy experiment of ours will have failed.

As Ben Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention, he was asked if we had a republic or a monarchy? He offered this observation: "You have a republic. If you can keep it.

I never thought I'd live to see an attempt to steal our democracy, but somehow, after 234 years, Franklin's quote is still relevant.

Tom Osowski, Minto, N.D.

Read more here:
Letter: Insurrection was an assault on democracy - Grand Forks Herald

This past year of pandemic misery and Trumpist autocracy magnified the effects of the epistemic coup, revealing the murderous potential of antisocial media long before Jan. 6. Will the growing recognition of this other coup and its threats to democratic societies finally force us to reckon with the inconvenient truth that has loomed over the last two decades? We may have democracy, or we may have surveillance society, but we cannot have both. A democratic surveillance society is an existential and political impossibility. Make no mistake: This is the fight for the soul of our information civilization.

Welcome to the third decade.

The public tragedy of Sept. 11 dramatically shifted the focus in Washington from debates over federal privacy legislation to a mania for total information awareness, turning Silicon Valleys innovative surveillance practices into objects of intense interest. As Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School, observed, the intelligence community would have to rely on private enterprise to collect and generate information for it, in order to reach beyond constitutional, legal, or regulatory constraints, controversies that are central today. By 2013, the CIAs chief technology officer outlined the agencys mission to collect everything and hang on to it forever, acknowledging the internet companies, including Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Fitbit and telecom companies, for making it possible. The revolutionary roots of surveillance capitalism are planted in this unwritten political doctrine of surveillance exceptionalism, bypassing democratic oversight, and essentially granting the new internet companies a license to steal human experience and render it as proprietary data.

Young entrepreneurs without any democratic mandate landed a windfall of infinite information and unaccountable power. Googles founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, exercised absolute control over the production, organization and presentation of the worlds information. Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg has had absolute control over what would become a primary means of global communication and news consumption, along with all the information concealed in its networks. The groups membership grew, and a swelling population of global users proceeded unaware of what just happened.

The license to steal came with a price, binding the executives to the continued patronage of elected officials and regulators as well as the sustained ignorance, or at least learned resignation, of users. The doctrine was, after all, a political doctrine, and its defense would require a future of political maneuvering, appeasement, engagement and investment.

Google led the way with what would become one of the worlds richest lobbying machines.In 2018 nearly half the Senate received contributions from Facebook, Google and Amazon, and the companies continue to set spending records.

Most significant, surveillance exceptionalism has meant that the United States and many other liberal democracies chose surveillance over democracy as the guiding principle of social order. With this forfeit, democratic governments crippled their ability to sustain the trust of their people, intensifying the rationale for surveillance.

To understand the economics of epistemic chaos, its important to know that surveillance capitalisms operations have no formal interest in facts. All data is welcomed as equivalent, though not all of it is equal. Extraction operations proceed with the discipline of the Cyclops, voraciously consuming everything it can see and radically indifferent to meaning, facts and truth.

Visit link:
Opinion | Facebook and the Surveillance Society: The Other Coup - The New York Times

Local winners have been announced in the 2020 VFW Voice of Democracy Contest sponsored by Westby Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 8021. The theme of this years competition was Is this the country our Founding Fathers envisioned? The contest was open to all students in grades 9 through 12 including home-schooled students.

This is a national contest, where the national winner receives a $30,000 college scholarship. There is a total of $153,000 in college scholarships awarded annually to state and national winners. Over 190 Westby High School students entered the contest.

Eighth place was won by Jaylin Holte, a 12th-grader and daughter of Kathy Pieper and Justin Holte of Westby. Jaylin won $15.

Is this the country our Founding Fathers envisioned?

Is the country the Founders envisioned? The answer to that question is very divided, but ultimately, no, it isnt what they envisioned. The country has changed so much over time, and even though almost everything is different, the way people are treated and how America is run could use improvement. The Founding Fathers had a much different vision of America than it is today because our country isnt equal, we involve ourselves into other countries problems when we dont need to, and the wealthy control the government today.

The Founding Fathers wanted America to be a country of freedom and a place where people were treated equally, but at that time America was anything but that. We had slavery and women were treated as inferiors. Some may argue that over the last few centuries we have created a country they envisioned because we abolished slavery and we gave women equal rights, but at the same time we arent equal. Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested. Once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted, and once convicted, they are more likely to experience lengthy prison sentences, note the activists at Dosomething.org. We say that everyone is treated equally, but we still have police brutality and we still have people who live in poverty who dont receive the same opportunities as those who live in wealthy cities. In 2018, 40 million Americans were dependent on food stamps. The intended American Dream is out of reach for so many today. The number of US citizens suffering would horrify the Founding Fathers.

See the original post:
Voice of Democracy: Is this the country our Founding Fathers envisioned? by Jaylin Holte - The Westby Times