Mediaboss Marketing

Beware of politicians bearing reforms. Since the Trojans first wheeled awooden horseinto their fortified city, many are leery about "gifts" that may be heavily laden with dangers. That is true with the Trojan horse legislation just offered by Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharPhotos of the Week: State of the Union, Ukraine vigil and Batman Democrats press top pharmaceutical representative on price increases The damnable religious inklings of the Big Tech libertarian MORE (D-Minn.). In the name of "reforming" the internet and bringing tech monopolies to heel, Klobuchar has penned a "Nudge Act" that would expand corporate censorship and speech controls.

Even the name is designed to be non-threatening. After all, who could oppose an act titled "Nudging Users to Drive Good Experiences on Social Media"? It isenough to garnerthe support of Sen. Cynthia LummisCynthia Marie LummisSenate conservatives threaten to hold up government funding over vaccine mandate Three senators endorse Timken in Ohio GOP Senate primary Russia fight shows off tensions between McConnell, pro-Trump wing MORE (R-Wyo.). The act, however, is less of a nudge and more of a shove toward approved content and choices.

For years, PresidentJoe BidenandDemocratic membersof Congresshave pushed for greater and greater censorship on the internet and on social media. Liberals have found awinning strategy in using corporate censorshipto circumvent constitutional limits on governmental speech controls. Senators like Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)warnedsocial media companies that they would not tolerate any backsliding or retrenching by failing to take action against dangerous disinformation, and demanded robust content modification to block disfavored views on subjects ranging from climate control to elections to the pandemic.

The Nudge Act is arguably the most insidious of these efforts. Under the Act, Congress would enlist the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) to recommend sweeping design changes to Big Tech platforms like Facebook, Instagram and YouTube to reduce the harms of algorithmic amplification and social media addiction.

The Act is a masterpiece of doublespeak. It refers to developing content-agnostic interventions that would ultimately be enforced by a commission. That sounds great; after all, many of us have called for years for areturn to content neutrality on social mediawhere sites function more as communication platforms, similar to telephone companies. However, that is clearly not the intent of the bills sponsors, who see it as a weapon against "misinformation." That wasmade clear by Klobuchar herself: "For too long, tech companies have said Trust us, weve got this. But we know that social media platforms have repeatedly put profits over people, with algorithms pushing dangerous content that hooks users and spreads misinformation.

Liberal groups like Public Knowledge which support the bill also openly discuss its real purpose, declaring that it will halt the promotion of misinformation" anddevelop new avenues"to reduce the spread of misinformation. Klobuchar has repeated such descriptionsin support of the bill.

How is combatting "misinformation" content-neutral? The answer will be imposed by a new commission that can declare a sites failure to take appropriate measures as constituting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. That would create a glacial chilling effect on these companies, which will err on the side of censorship. After all, Democrats have maintained for years that "misinformation" is simply false and not really a matter a partisan content discrimination.With Nudge, Klobuchar seems to be making her own Trust us, weve got this" pledge to fellow Democrats.

The key term used in the Act is "algorithmic amplification." Klobuchar makes clear the intent to use algorithms to stop "pushing dangerous content." Democrats in Congress have argued for years that these companies need to protect citizens from bad choices by using beneficent algorithms to guide us to healthier" viewing and reading habits.

The most extreme effort wasa letter from Democratic membersto pressure companies like AT&T to reconsider whether viewers should be allowed to watch Fox News and other networks. It does not matter that Fox News is the most popular news cable station and even hasa greater percentage of Democratic viewers than CNN.(For the record, I appear as a legal analyst on Fox). The members insistedthatnot all TV news sources are the same and called on these companies to protect viewers from dissemination of false viewpoints.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenOn The Money Job growth booms in February Overnight Health Care Presented by Alexion Manchin pitch sparks Democratic exasperation Equilibrium/Sustainability: Alaska's Iditarod racers to sled through rain as climate warms MORE (D-Mass.) hascalled for these companies to protect citizens from poor reading choicesby tweaking algorithms to steer them away from disfavored views. It is the free-speech version of therejected "Big Gulp" laws. Warren wants companies to amplify true books on issues like climate change and direct searches away from misleading books.

Some liberal think tanks admit it is not clear that such manipulation of information will help, yet they still appear all-in on trying.Brookings Institution declared:"Even though cause and effect are hard to discern in social media, it is undeniable that algorithms contribute to hate speech and other information disorder on social media.

If the Senate truly wanted content neutrality, it would not requirea new army of internet apparatchiks. It would condition the continued immunity protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act on removing "content modification" and amplification programs. Instead, it seeks to place content under the oversight of a commission while reaffirming the need to stop, in Klobuchars words, the spread of misinformation.

There are aspects of the law that are positive, like the study of social media addiction and requirements for greater transparency from these companies. However, Congress is adept at the art of Trojan-horse legislation, and it is hard to argue against "studying" issues and recommending changes. Yet, this bill is designed to create a new system of content review and revision. It isviewed by the industryas designed "to slow down how misinformation or other harmful content spreads on social media.

A governmental regulation combatting misinformation likely would be unconstitutional. However, the obvious desire is for these companies to self-regulate and avoid any problems through the "robust content modification" demanded by Democrats. Moreover, it is not clear how courts would react to circuit-breaker tactics that limit or slow the dissemination of information, though this also could "neutrally" slow all stories of public importance from going viral.

Despite the unrelenting campaign against free speech in Congress, there remain political and constitutional barriers that have proven insurmountable thus far.In this case, the crack troops hidden within Klobuchars wooden horse are expected to be thestaffof the NAS and the FTC, who could cloak content modification in pseudo-scientific terms. They would be assisted by an increasingly anti-free speech media and academia, including the World Health Organizations chief whorecently supported censorshipto combat "the infodemic."

Before this Trojan Horse is wheeled into our own lives, Americans should consider whats inside the Nudge Act.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.Follow him on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Read the original:
Tech Trojan Horse: How the Senate is poised to codify censorship of social media | TheHill - The Hill

Twitter will comply with European Union sanctions on Russian state-controlled media, meaning content from suchpublishers will be withheld for users in EU member states, a Twitter spokesperson said Wednesday.

The European Union (EU) sanctions will legally require us to withhold certain content in EU member states, and we intend to comply, the spokesperson said.

Outside of the EU, the platform said it will continue to focus on de-amplifying this type of state-affiliated media.

We continue to advocate for a free and open internet, particularly in times of crisis, the spokesperson said.

The update from Twitter comes after the EU said it would ban Russian state-controlled media outlets as the country continues to push forward with its invasion into Ukraine.

Other tech companies, including Facebook and YouTube, have taken similar steps to restrict access to Russian state media.

Twitters announcement that it will comply with the EU sanctions comes after the companysaid earlier this week that it would add labels to individual tweets sharinglinks to Russian state media content.

Continue reading here:
Twitter to comply with EU sanctions on Russian state-controlled media | TheHill - The Hill

Oaktree will be able to take control of Inter away from Suning in 2024 if the Nerazzurri owners are unable to pay back their loan as well as the interest on it, according to a report in the Italian media today.

As has been reported by FCInter1908, the comments made at the Business of Football Summit organised by the Financial Times yesterday have reignited the rumours around Oaktrees possible ownership of Inter in the future.

The investors gave Inter a loan which must be rapid by 2024. It also will have to have the interest on it repaid. If Suning cannot do that, Oaktree could take control of the club, as Elliot Management did with AC Milan.

Goldman Sachs has not stopped looking for fresh investment for Inter which would help the club repay the loan to Oaktree.

Oaktrees representative said that a full acquisition of the club cannot be ruled out but is not in their immediate plans.

Go here to read the rest:
Oaktree Will Take Control Of Inter If Suning Cannot Repay Their Loan In 2024, Italian Media Report - SempreInter.com

**UPDATED WITH ADDITIONAL FIVE QUESTIONS AT THE BOTTOM, MARCH 2, 2022**

By Samuel M. Hickey and Monica Montgomery

As the world watches Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine, nuclear issues and the risk of escalation are abuzz in the news and on social media. We have received myriad questions about the nuclear implications of this crisis and wanted to share answers to some of the most common questions.

We will update this page as new questions and information arise, and you can submit questions to be answered by tweeting at @nukes_of_hazard or via this short survey.

The risk of a nuclear war remains low at this moment. Right now, the direct fighting is limited to Russian and Ukrainian forces. Ukraine does not have nuclear capabilities, nor is it a NATO ally or part of the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

While Russia does possess a vast nuclear arsenal, it is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has, however, made explicit threats of nuclear use in an attempt to deter Western nations from coming to the aid of Ukraine. Whats more, this conflict borders several NATO allies who benefit from the U.S. nuclear umbrella, providing an all too real reminder that, in the fog of war, an accident or miscalculation could escalate and draw nuclear powers into conflict with one another.

The risk of escalation that could lead to a nuclear war in Europe is real and cannot be understated. This moment shows that a war between Russia and NATO including the United States is not inconceivable, but a frighteningly real possibility. While this risk is still extremely low, it is not zero.

Yes. In his speech full of baseless claims and false pretexts for invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted that todays Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states with a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. He said, In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.

This threat is extremely provocative and concerning. It flies in the face of Russian statements going back to the Cold War and as recently as January 2022 that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Further, it demonstrates the myth that nuclear deterrence is an instrument of peace and stability and instead highlights how nuclear weapon states use their arsenals as a shield to carry out conventional aggression or proxy wars.

Three days after this speech, Putin put his nuclear forces in a special regime of combat duty. A great deal of uncertainty surrounds what exactly this posture entails as it is unprecedented, but experts speculate that it at least includes shifting the command and control structure into high alert. However, according to Russian nuclear weapons scholar Pavel Podvig, it is not something that suggests that Russia is preparing itself to strike first, though.

No, Ukraine has never actually possessed its own nuclear weapons arsenal. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Soviet strategic bombers and associated bombs and tactical nuclear weapons that were still under Moscows command and control were left on Ukraines territory. Ukraine did not have the ability to use the weapons nor the facilities to store and maintain them, but, given enough time, Ukraine likely could have reverse engineered the weapons, although at great expense.

Instead, Ukraine then used the Soviet nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip in negotiations for economic aid and security assurances that ultimately led to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum with Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. In that agreement, Russia and the other signatories pledged to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, which Russia violated in 2014 and now again.

If Ukraine had retained the nuclear weapons, it would have paid a steep price, in terms of the economic and security aid and diplomatic support that Western nations have provided over the years. To say that Ukraine could be the country it is today but with nuclear weapons is false, but it is also true that Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine has done serious damage to the credibility of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Ukraine made the responsible and only rational decision to repatriate Soviet nuclear weapons for its own self-interest and collective security.

The danger is small. Chernobyl is inside of a large exclusion zone meaning the space is uninhabited and its distance from major population centers would mitigate the consequences of a second nuclear accident.

Still, there are two potential areas of concern.

The first is the shelling of the nuclear reactor that melted down back in 1986, the worst nuclear accident in history. However, in November 2016, the worlds largest movable metal structure was slid over Chernobyls nuclear power plant to contain further radiation leaks. It is reported that the containment structure is secure against tornadoes and covers gaps in the initial sarcophagus. The second is the disturbance and dispersion of radiation in the ground. After Russia occupied Chernobyl, higher radiation measurements were taken; likely due to Russian trucks and tanks kicking up radiation in the ground. However, the UNs nuclear watchdog (the IAEA) confirmed that higher radiation measurements do not pose any danger to the public. It is unlikely that Russia would intentionally target any reactors.

On Sunday, February 27, a referendum in Belarus an effective Russian dependency approved a new constitution that would remove current language guaranteeing its neutrality and non-nuclear status, and therefore allow Russia to station its nuclear weapons on Belarus territory.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said, if you (the West) transfer nuclear weapons to Poland or Lithuania, to our borders, then I will turn to Putin to return the nuclear weapons that I gave away without any conditions. Similar to Ukraine, Belarus inherited nuclear weapons following the breakup of the Soviet Union, but transferred all of them to Russia and codified its nuclear-free status under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

It remains to be seen whether Russian nuclear weapons will in fact be deployed to Belarus, particularly in light of the fact that NATO has indicated no plan to move any nuclear assets. Russia doing so would come with enormous implications for European security, as Russian nuclear forces in Belarus would not have a deterrent role that is already filled by strategic forces but would be there only to threaten Europe with destruction.

No. In the week leading up to Russias invasion of Ukraine, Putin said Ukraine aspires to acquire nuclear weapons and it is only a matter of time as Ukraine has laid the groundwork for this since the Soviet era and Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated these allegations on March 1.

All of these claims are absurd. This is simply the latest pretext in Putins web of conspiracy theories to excuse his illegal and unprovoked invasion. Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons nor any other weapons of mass destruction, is not actively seeking them from allies, nor does it have the domestic technological means to develop nuclear weapons. Ukraine sealed off this pathway in the 1990s (see above). Ukrainian nuclear power facilities are subject to the full scope of IAEA safeguards, and there is no way Kyiv could so much as start down the pathway without the world knowing.

Talks are on hiatus.

In June 2021, Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin met in Geneva and released a joint statement on strategic stability, outlining a path forward for nuclear arms control and risk reduction. Several working groups were established that met over the following months to develop a baseline understanding and to facilitate dialogue on security concerns. The most recent round of talks convened in January 2022 to discuss Russias military buildup on the Ukrainian border and Russian proposals for security guarantees.

After Putins invasion of Ukraine, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman confirmed that, at this stage, I see no reason for a Strategic Stability Dialogue. A rupture in relations now, however, does not reduce the need for a dialogue on nuclear risks once tensions have decreased. In fact, Russias threats to withdraw from the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and conduct nuclear strikes only heighten the need to determine explicit rules of the road ahead.

Putin is using his nuclear weapons as a shield to perpetrate a conventional invasion by keeping those who want to come to Ukraines aid at bay. Russias international isolation is a consequence of Putins reckless invasion of Ukraine, but eventually, the parties must come back to the table. Nuclear blackmail cannot be used to establish precedents like a sphere of influence, and the way to achieve sustainable guarantees is through hard-nosed diplomacy.

Yes. The United States currently maintains an estimated 100 tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons at six NATO air bases in Italy, Turkey, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, for use by U.S. and allied aircraft. The weapons are not armed or deployed on aircraft, but instead are kept in underground vaults and the codes to arm them remain in American hands.

The weapons are a part of the U.S. pledge to support the collective defense of allied NATO nations with its own armed forces and, critically, nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons have been deployed in Europe since the mid-1950s and reached an all-time peak of 7,300 during the height of Cold War tensions in 1971. Although these weapons have minimal effect on U.S. deterrence, they are seen as vital evidence of U.S. commitment to collective security by many allies.

Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on March 1, have long criticized the United States deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe as a violation of the NPT. In the negotiations preceding the invasion of Ukraine in December 2021, Russia included the removal of U.S. deployed nuclear weapons in Europe on their list of proposed security guarantees, to which the United States responded that it was prepared to discuss this disagreement.

No. Ukraine is not part of NATO, so the United States is not treaty-bound to intervene militarily on Ukraines behalf and does not guarantee to use the U.S. nuclear deterrent to defend Ukraine. The United States does maintain positive security assurances with its NATO allies, in that it promises to come to the aid of one of them, even possibly with the use of nuclear weapons, if they are attacked.

With that in mind, U.S. nuclear deterrence was never on the line in Ukraine, so Putins invasion, though abhorrent and illegal, did not somehow crack or subvert the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Likewise, it is false to suggest that if the United States had more nuclear weapons, either in Europe or at home, then Putin would have been deterred from invading Ukraine. Both the United States and Russia currently have enough nuclear weapons to inflict catastrophic harm, so more nuclear weapons would be irrelevant to the United States ability to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Excerpt from:
Nuclear Issues in the Ukraine Crisis - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

As the war in Ukraine began, Russia added to the disinformation conversation with their propaganda machine.

Despite platforms like Twitter and Instagrams guidelines indicating the absolute ban on false and misleading information, Kremlin-backed media users continued to post on social media.

In May 2020, Twitter began to add warnings to posts containing information about COVID-19. The company released a statement on their website stating, You may not use Twitters services to share false or misleading information about COVID-19 which may lead to harm.

The warnings came following the spread of COVID-19 misinformation from former President Donald Trump and some senators and house members.

After the Jan. 6 insurrection in 2021, former President Trump was removed from Twitter, and his official account was censured as well. Many other platforms followed and permanently suspended Trump and began working toward new information policies.

Despite the suspension of these accounts, the damage had already occurred. Trumps legion of misinformation spread like wildfire, and thousands of users post misinformation about COVID-19 and other topics daily.

Twitter and other platforms have a hard time combating these issues because of the idea of free speech. Legally, users do not have a right to free speech on private social media platforms. Even though the law is on the medias side, misinformation and fraud continue to spread.

On Feb. 24, Vladimir Putin announced a special military operation in Ukraine. Shortly after, multiple missile strikes occurred across the country. This invasion caused thousands of Ukrainian citizens to flee toward Poland and other surrounding countries.

Now more than ever, Ukraine is in dire need of the world knowing what Russia is concocting, but the media still holds multiple errors.

Russian state-affiliated Twitter accounts continue to post misleading biased information after Twitter promised they would prohibit Kremlin-sided advertising.

One major account, RT News, is controlled by the Russian government and posts updates on Putin and the recent activity in Ukraine. The account has over 3 million followers, and users frequently interact with posts. A post made on Feb. 28 showed a video of a Ukrainian residential building, which the Russian media claimed Ukraine had shelled. Later, multiple media outlets confirmed Russia had shelled the neighborhood.

Accounts from TikTok have made revenue from the creator fund off of old videos and films from video games, reposting a piece from Arma 3, a realistic-based war game. The post has been shared over 12 thousand times from TikTok and has crossed over to Twitter and a Spanish news broadcast. Because this video has gained traction, many are falsely informed of the fighting tactics and methods in Ukraine.

Another large account, Sputnik, posts misleading information in the form of journalism, not only leading on the citizens of Russia but also harming perspectives of factual journalism and media. Twitter allows posts to be made from this account saying West carrying out massive propaganda to portray Russia as enemy.

A video of a man jumping from a plane in tactical gear has been reposted on TikTok to depict the war in Ukraine, but was found to be from an Instagram video made in 2015. The TikTok video was posted across multiple accounts, raking in over 200 thousand views and 12 thousand shares.

Russias long history of propaganda bled into its conflict in Ukraine. Putin released two pre-recorded videos on television on Feb. 21 and Feb. 24.

The first video was a long-winded rant on the genocide Ukrainians were enforcing upon Russian speakers in the country. In the second video, Putin makes his case for a war on the West. Both were filled with lies that sought to bring people to Russias side and create a propaganda storm across the world.

Twitter allowed for this to happen by missing clips of the video posted in which Putin calls Ukrainians Neo-Nazis and Oligarchic. These clips began to spread and caused #DestroyNato and #DestroyUkraine to trend on Twitter. Once these videos were shared, many impressionable users viewed skewed parts of a war cry. The Russo-Ukraine conflict is already hard for many to understand, so throwing in clips of a notorious leader calling out Nazis doesnt help any cause but Russias.

Twitter has recently added multiple new sources to combat misinformation. They began to do what is called data dumps, which are the release of misinformation found across the platform including the tweeters information in large data sets. But one crucial data point missing is who views the tweets.

Without this crucial part of the puzzle, Twitters viewer algorithm cannot be changed to block misinformation from at-risk viewers.

If Twitter and other social media sites want to continue to say they are actively disputing misinformation, they need to do more than ban large, official accounts. In a platform as large and open as Twitter, one single tweet can account for thousands of pieces of propaganda.

The International Rescue Committee allocates donations to help provide food, medical care and emergency supplies to refugee families in countries like Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. If inclined, please donate to help Ukrainians with the fight against Russia.

Edited by Sarah Rubinstein | srubinstein@themaneater.com

See original here:
Propaganda in the age of no-nonsense Twitter - The Maneater