Mediaboss Marketing

When Twitter decided briefly last fall to block users from posting links to an article about Joseph R. Biden Jr.s son Hunter, it prompted a conservative outcry that Big Tech was improperly aiding Mr. Bidens presidential campaign.

So terrible, President Donald J. Trump said of the move to limit the visibility of a New York Post article. Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, said Twitter and Facebook were censoring core political speech. The Republican National Committee filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Twitter of using its corporate resources to benefit the Biden campaign.

Now the commission, which oversees election laws, has dismissed those allegations, according to a document obtained by The New York Times, ruling in Twitters favor in a decision that is likely to set a precedent for future cases involving social media sites and federal campaigns.

The election commission determined that Twitters actions regarding the Hunter Biden article had been undertaken for a valid commercial reason, not a political purpose, and were thus allowable.

And in a second case involving a social media platform, the commission used the same reasoning to side with Snapchat and reject a complaint from the Trump campaign. The campaign had argued that the company provided an improper gift to Mr. Biden by rejecting Mr. Trump from its Discover platform in the summer of 2020, according to another commission document.

The election commissions twin rulings, which were made last month behind closed doors and are set to become public soon, protect the flexibility of social media and tech giants like Twitter, Facebook, Google and Snapchat to control what is shared on their platforms regarding federal elections.

Republicans have increasingly been at odds with the nations biggest technology and social media companies, accusing them of giving Democrats an undue advantage on their platforms. Mr. Trump, who was ousted from Twitter and Facebook early this year, has been among the loudest critics of the two companies and even announced a lawsuit against them and Google.

The suppression of the article about Hunter Biden at the height of the presidential race last year was a particular flashpoint for Republicans and Big Tech. But there were other episodes, including Snapchats decision to stop featuring Mr. Trump on one of its platforms.

The Federal Election Commission said in both cases that the companies had acted in their own commercial interests, according to the factual and legal analysis provided to the parties involved. The commission also said that Twitter had followed existing policies related to hacked materials.

The rulings appear to provide social media companies additional protections for making decisions on moderating content related to elections as long as such choices are in service of a companys commercial interests. Federal election law is decades old and is broadly outdated, so decisions by the election commission serve as influential guideposts.

Campaign finance law does not account for the post-broadcast world and puts few restrictions on the behavior of social media firms, said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a law professor at Stetson University. There is a real mismatch between our federal campaign finance laws and how campaigns are run.

Still, the Republican National Committees complaint stretched the boundaries of campaign finance law, she added. The choice to delete or suppress certain content on the platform is ultimately going to be viewed through the lens of the First Amendment, Ms. Torres-Spelliscy said. I dont think that type of content moderation by the big platforms is going to raise a campaign finance issue.

Some Republicans are seeking to take a broader cudgel to the big internet companies, aiming to repeal a provision of communications law that shields them from liability for what users post.

In the case of the Hunter Biden article, Twitter reversed course within a day of its decision to block distribution of the piece, and its chief executive, Jack Dorsey, has called the initial move a mistake.

The Federal Election Commissions official vote on the case the commission is split equally between three Democratic-aligned commissioners and three Republicans is not yet public, nor are any additional statements written by commissioners. Such statements often accompany the closure of cases and can provide further insight into the commissions reasoning.

In addition to rejecting the R.N.C. complaint, the commission dismissed other allegations that Twitter had violated election laws by shadow banning Republican users (or appearing to limit the visibility of their posts without providing an explanation); suppressing other anti-Biden content; and labeling Mr. Trumps tweets with warnings about their accuracy. The commission rejected those accusations, writing that they were vague, speculative and unsupported by the available information.

Twitter and Snapchat declined to comment.

Emma Vaughn, an R.N.C. spokeswoman, said the committee was weighing its options for appealing this disappointing decision from the F.E.C. Liz Harrington, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said on Tuesday that Big Tech is corrupt and accused it of interfering in the 2020 election to protect Mr. Biden.

Twitter would go on to permanently bar Mr. Trump from its platform entirely in January, citing the risk of further incitement of violence after the attack on the Capitol by his supporters as Congress voted to certify the 2020 election.

Out of office, Mr. Trump has sued Facebook, Twitter and Google, arguing that a provision of the Communications Decency Act known as Section 230, which limits internet companies liability for what is posted on their networks, is unconstitutional.

Legal experts have given little credence to Mr. Trumps suit, the news of which the former president immediately used as a fund-raising tactic.

Section 230 has been a regular target of lawmakers who want to crack down on Silicon Valley companies. While in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order intended to chip away at the protections offered by Section 230, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers have proposed repealing or modifying the provision.

But technology companies and free speech advocates have vocally defended it, arguing that Section 230 has been crucial for the growth of the internet. If the measure were repealed, it would stifle free speech and bury social media companies in legal bills, the companies have said.

Twitter initially said that it had prevented linking to the Hunter Biden article because of its existing policies against distributing hacked materials and private information. The article, which focused on the Bidens Ukrainian ties, involved correspondence that The Post suggested had been found on Hunter Bidens laptop.

But Mr. Dorsey, Twitters chief executive, acknowledged in October that blocking links with zero context as to why had been unacceptable.

Soon after, Twitter said that it was changing its policy on hacked materials and would allow similar content to be posted, including a label to provide context about the source of the information.

Republicans said the damage was done and set a poor precedent.

This censorship manifestly will influence the presidential election, Senator Hawley wrote in a letter to the F.E.C. last year after Twitter blocked the article and Facebook said it was reducing its distribution of the piece.

The commission documents reveal one reason that Twitter had been especially suspicious of the Hunter Biden article. The companys head of site integrity, according to the commission, said Twitter had received official warnings throughout 2020 from federal law enforcement that malign state actors might hack and release materials associated with political campaigns and that Hunter Biden might be a target of one such operation.

The election commission said it found no information that Twitter coordinated its decisions with the Biden campaign. In a sworn declaration, Twitters head of U.S. public policy said she was unaware of any contacts with the Biden team before the company made its decisions, according to the commission document.

Adav Noti, a senior director at the Campaign Legal Center, said that he supported the rulings but that he had concerns about the election commissions use of what he called the commercial rationale, because it was overbroad.

It encompasses almost everything for-profit corporations do, Mr. Noti said.

Read the original post:
Under G.O.P. Pressure, Tech Giants Are Empowered by Election Agency - The New York Times

A steady stream of Orange residents and college students filed into Argyros Forum at Chapman University Tuesday to cast their ballots on the last day of voting for the gubernatorial recall election, one of dozens of sites in Orange County to which voters flocked.

Editors Note: This dispatch is part of the Voice of OC Youth Media program, working with student journalists to cover public policy issues across Orange County. If you would like to submit your own student media project related to Orange County civics or if you have any response to this work, contact Digital Editor Sonya Quick atsquick@voiceofoc.org.

The fate of Gov. Gavin Newsom, the 40th governor of California, is in the hands of the Golden State residents. Fred Smoller, a Chapman political science professor, attributed Newsoms response to the pandemic as the catalyst behind this recall election. Newsom is only the second governor in California to face a recall.

Some people are upset about the overreach of Newsoms aggressive shutdowns, Smoller said.

While some who voted at Chapman on Election Day were not enthused about Newsoms actions as governor, opinions on whether he needs to be replaced were divided.

I voted for Newsom to stay. I dont love the way that he has handled COVID-19, but more restrictions are better than none, said Chapman junior Audrey Fish.

Others said that Newsom had his chance to better California and failed.

Newsom hasnt been doing a good job with COVID-19, and the homelessness issue is out of control. He has had time to fix this, but he has not, said Orange resident Casey Crosby.

Some who voted in person said they felt it was a more accessible, secure way to cast their ballot. Nearly 825,000 Orange County residents opted to vote by mail, according to data provided by the OC Registrar of Voters.

I was actually expecting more people to be here, said Orange resident Chanel Martinez, I voted in person so that way I know my vote will be counted, for security reasons.

Professor Smoller said he feels confident that Newsom will hold on to his position despite what he believes will be a high Republican turnout for in-person voting.

Republicans will dominate in-person voting, but there just arent enough of them to undermine Democrats mail-in ballots, Smoller said. The state is 2-1 Democrats.

The polls closed at 8 p.m.

Continue reading here:
Chapman University Vote Center Sees Steady Turnout on Election Day With Voters Divided on The Governors Fate - Voice of OC

Progressives want Justice Stephen Breyer to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake. Elizabeth Gillis/NPR hide caption

Progressives want Justice Stephen Breyer to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has said he will retire on his own terms amid calls from progressives for him to step down from the court so President Biden can name a younger liberal to take his place.

"I'm only going to say that I'm not going to go beyond what I previously said on the subject, and that is that I do not believe I should stay on the Supreme Court, or want to stay on the Supreme Court, until I die," he told NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg in an interview in Boston to promote his book, The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics. "And when exactly I should retire, or will retire, has many complex parts to it. I think I'm aware of most of them, and I am, and will consider them."

Breyer's remarks, while not a surprise he hired four clerks in July for the court's next term are likely to anger progressive activists who believe that the 83-year-old justice should make way for a younger nominee who holds his and their values and views. They want him to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake.

Progressives fear a replay of the situation following the death in September 2020 of 87-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which allowed President Donald Trump to nominate and for the Republican-controlled Senate to quickly confirm Amy Coney Barrett, giving conservatives a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg didn't step down in 2014 when both the presidency and the Senate were in the hands of Democrats.

But Breyer said being in the court's minority didn't deter him because "about half of our opinions, almost half, are almost always unanimous."

"I see it as trying to decide this case and trying to decide the next case," he said. "And we might be the greatest of friends ... and allies beyond belief on Case 1, and Case 2, we might be on absolute opposite sides."

But an NPR analysis of the court's last term found that the justices swerved to the right, even by the standards of the traditionally conservative Roberts court. While there was unanimity on statutory matters, the justices split along ideological lines in the high-profile politically charged cases such as voting rights.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, but a justice can decide to retire at any time. Progressives had hoped to push Breyer in that direction. One group, Demand Justice, even sent a billboard truck driving around the Supreme Court building in April with the message: "Breyer, retire. It's time for a Black woman Supreme Court justice," a reference to the president's vow to nominate a Black woman to the court.

The campaign to push for Breyer's retirement has not gained momentum in the Senate, which votes on judicial nominations. Only a handful of Democrats have suggested they would like to see Breyer, who was nominated to the court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, retire of his own accord.

The White House has said that Biden's view is that retirement decisions are up to justices themselves.

Link:
Justice Breyer Says He Will Retire When He Thinks The Time Is Right - NPR

Twitter is considering a range of new features designed to provide more protection and control for users, giving you more capacity to manage your in-app interactions and protect your content, in order to avoid being held to account for outdated views that you may have shared.

As reported by Bloomberg, Twitter is considering the new additions to help users feel more open in the app, without fear of judgment and criticism.

Among features being considered, according to Bloombergs report, are:

Which is the real focus of all of these updates Twitter wants to give users more options to feel free and open in how they share and engage on the platform, without fear of being torn down by Twitter mobs or having their old comments come back to haunt them, which may cause people to hold back on posting tweets and engaging in the comments.

Because that can be a problem. As weve seen with various high-profile cases, your past, ill-advised tweets can come back to haunt you, and can be used against you, particularly if you end up taking on a prominent, public-facing role.

Film director James Gunn, for example, lost his job as director of the Guardians of the Galaxy sequels back in 2018 after his old tweeted remarks were re-surfaced, while just recently, newly appointed Jeopardy host Mike Richards was fired after offensive remarks hed made in the past were discovered, make his position untenable.

The short, sharp nature of Twitter, aligned with real-time response, can be perfect for those off-the-cuff, in-the-moment replies and comments, but cases like these highlight the dangers of such, and that could make more people more hesitant to share in the app, which could be limiting further tweet engagement.

Thats why Twitter tried out ephemeral Fleets as a less binding way to share your thoughts in the app, and a timed auto-delete option for your tweets would also align with this.

Along a similar line, Twitter has also added a new Safety Mode option this week, which aims to offer a level of protection from tweet pile-ons and Cancel Culture, which can also cause people to be more hesitant about sharing their thoughts in the app.

Essentially, Twitter wants users to comment and engage as much as possible, and elements like these are an impediment to that, which is why it's now exploring new ways to help users feel more free in what they tweet, while also giving people more ways to avoid the more negative elements, and ending up unwitting targets of abuse and scorn in the app.

Will that work?

Certainly archiving tweets makes sense though there is always the Wayback Machine and other resources that will help online sleuths uncover old comments, if they really want to look.

But it could provide another level of assurance for users, and a better sense of freedom because yes, some of the dumb things we tweeted in years past will be just that; dumb, ill-informed opinions that weve now moved past, as part of our evolution and education, which really should be commended, rather than used as a bat to beat you with.

This is especially true for younger people, whove grown up online, and have gone through their upbringing with social media as an outlet. People are going to have posted stupid things, which, in retrospect, theyll wish that they hadnt.

An auto-archive option would definitely provide benefit in this respect, while more controls over who follows and mentions you, and removing Liked tweets from view, also seem like potentially helpful, beneficial considerations.

Read the original:
Twitter's Testing a Range of New Control Options, Including Auto-Archiving Old Tweets and Hiding Likes - Social Media Today

A sign of Chinese ride-hailing service Didi is seen on its headquarters in Beijing, China July 5, 2021. REUTERS/Tingshu Wang/File Photo

BEIJING, Sept 4 (Reuters) - China's ride hailing giant Didi Global Inc (DIDI.N) said on Saturday that media reports that the Beijing city government is coordinating companies to invest in it are not correct.

"Didi is currently actively and fully cooperating with cybersecurity probe, foreign media reports that Beijing city government is coordinating companies to invest in it are incorrect," it said on Weibo.

Bloomberg News reported on Friday, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter, that China's capital city was considering taking Didi under state control and had proposed that government-run firms invest in it. read more

Under the preliminary proposal, some Beijing-based companies including Shouqi Group, part of the state-owned Beijing Tourism Group, would acquire a stake in Didi, Bloomberg reported.

Beijing-based Didi faces a cybersecurity investigation by Chinese authorities after its New York initial public offering in June. Chinese authorities have stepped up their regulation of technology firms in the past year to improve market competition, data handling and their treatment of employees. read more

Didi is controlled by the management team of co-founder Will Cheng and President Jean Liu. SoftBank Group Corp (9984.T), Uber Technologies Inc (UBER.N) and Alibaba (9988.HK) are among investors in the company.

Reporting by Yilei Sun and David Stanway; Editing by William Mallard

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Originally posted here:
Didi denies reports that Beijing city is coordinating companies to invest in it - Reuters