Monthly Archives: January 2021

January 07, 2021

The online revolution centered in California's Silicon Valley came to the rescue of democracy Wednesday by temporarily locking out President Trump from social media platforms.

When Trump refused to quickly condemn the riot he incited at the Capitol, and later offered only mealy-mouthed calls for calm that reiterated his big lie about the election being stolen, Twitter and Facebook acted on their own.

Twitter locked out the President for 12 hours. Facebook went further, making the ban indefinite, as did Snapchat. That did this to prevent Trump for possibly inciting further violence.

Unlike many, perhaps most countries, media is the United States is almost entirely in private hands. We don't have a public broadcaster like the BBC, an official newspaper like the People's Daily, or a state news agency like ITAR-TASS. It's entirely up to private American owners to decide how to cover the news.

A lot of politicians throughout the world hate independent, privately owned media because they can't control it. This is especially true of the new media types spawned by the creativity of Silicon Valley.

Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube and America's world-champion technology companies like Amazon, Google and Apple are increasingly under attack exactly because of such independence.

A number of states have filed antitrust suits, and Trump has been singularly fixated on removing Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. In fact, he vetoed the important annual defense bill because it didn't specifically include repeal of this unrelated law.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, the man who infamously raised his fist in support of the mob outside the Capitol before objecting to the certification of Joe Biden's victory, is also fixated on this section.

"For too long, Big Tech companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook have used their power to silence political speech from conservatives without any recourse for users. Section 230 has been stretched and rewritten by courts to give these companies outlandish power over speech without accountability," according to Hawley.

Why are they so fixated on this law? Because it gives ordinary Americans an easy way to make their thoughts and and concerns public. It turns every person with a computer or smartphone into an independent publisher. This really, really threatens politicians.

In authoritarian countries like China, the solution is simple: monitor everything and everyone though a "social credit system." But in the United States, the First Amendment and Section 230 prevent this.

The section states very simply that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It means that when you write a restaurant review, post a video, or tweet that Trump is a Facist, the online platform isn't responsible and can't be sued.

Now Trump, Hawley and other politicians, businesses aggrieved by bad reviews, and celebrities seeking to remove unflattering photos aren't going to go though a lot of effort to try to sue you. They'd rather sue the deep pockets: Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Google, Amazon and so on. Section 230 prevents that.

If there was no Section 230, your restaurant review would be subject to editing and your video would be taken down to avoid a lawsuit. And Trump's tweets from Wednesday telling his "very special" mob "I know your pain" would still be public to avoid any accusation of unfairness.

Social media companies came through for democracy on Wednesday by exercising their independence in the great tradition of American media independence. If we take away their speech protections, it's as bad as inviting the mob back into the Capitol.

Chris Jennewein is editor & publisher of Times of San Diego.

Times of San Diego is an independent online news site covering the San Diego metropolitan area. Our journalists report on politics, crime, business, sports, education, arts, the military and everyday life in San Diego. No subscription is required, and you can sign up for a free daily newsletter with a summary of the latest news.

Originally posted here:

Opinion: Amid The Capital Chaos, Big Tech Sought To Protect Democracy - Patch.com

It is also a terrible risk to allow the speech of elected politicians to be switched off at the whim of unregulated Big Tech, informed by their anonymous Policy Committees, unaccountable to society at large. In a sophisticated democracy, it should be a matter of concern that Jack Dorsey can intercede between voters and their leaders. For while the majority of us can agree that Trump has behaved appallingly this week, what happens next week? What happens when the people and causes we champion are deleted? If Mark Zuckerberg felt that a Priti Patel speech on immigration was a violation? Or that we may no longer hear from Bibi Netanyahu or Jeremy Corbyn? The issue is not whether you like what they say, it is whether you should be entitled to hear it in the first place.

Vijaya Gadde, Twitters Policy Lead, admitted to Joe Rogan that her decisions are based on trial and error. They are a mass of moral contradictions: a doctor banned for offending vegans but mouthpieces of the Chinese state remaining. There is no real accountability here, no guarantee of consistency or fairness that would follow from Twitter accepting it is a publisher. If inciting violence is the threshold test, it is impossible to see how the Ayatollah Khamenei remains on Twitter where he defends Holocaust denial and calls for the State of Israel to be eradicated. The same point applies to Antifa and Extinction Rebellion and others.

Twitter is not a state broadcaster and is not obliged to broadcast anything. But what it should do is different from what it must. It should step back from censoring public figures, allowing sunlight to be the best disinfectant, especially in a democracy with speech restraints subject to the rule of law. To be a meaningful public space, social media should recognise that its power comes from enabling the public to interact with its leaders, not be hidden from them.

Follow this link:

It is not the job of Big Tech to decide whether we are allowed to hear from the likes of Donald Trump - Telegraph.co.uk

The world watched helplessly as the United States Capitol building was stormed and breached on Wednesday. Though the actual breach of the building lasted for a few hours, the shockwave continues to rip through the hearts of Americans everywhere. It was an event that will no doubt ring in our ears for generations to come.

The SOFREP team watched closely as the peaceful demonstration soured and scores of people ripped through the doors of the U.S. Capitol, spilling into the House, the Senate, and several offices throughout the building. Later that evening, as Congress worked to certify the results of the Electoral College vote, news spread that several people had died in the melee. At the time of writing, five Americans have died as a result of Wednesdays events including a 14-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force.

Our hearts go out to the loved ones of those who perished.

As the dust began to settle, we took to our keyboards, grasping at reasons, searching for answers. Meanwhile, the media pivoted and began using words like sedition, extremism, and even treason. Protesters were quickly relabelled rioters, then insurrectionists, and finally, domestic terrorists.

Then came the aftershock. The Trump administration began to fragment as calls for impeachment rang out. Insiders either ducked for political cover or did their best to condemn the violent action while keeping the ship afloat. The president was then unceremoniously removed from Twitter, and blocked by several big tech companies. Meanwhile, a source inside the Pentagon confirmed to SOFREP that several classified computers with access to the governments secret internal network, SIPRNet, had been stolen during the breach. Suspects have not been identified nor have the machines been recovered.

At the time of writing, the president is hunkered down in the White House while leading political leaders demand his removal from office saying that he is unfit, unhinged, and out of control.

Be sure to listen to our special Editors Round Table discussion about the Capitol breach on SOFREP Radio.

Read Next: Blood Spilled In the 'Shining City on a Hill'

But while American democracy dangled perilously, the USS Nimitz and its Carrier Strike Group commenced their stare down with Iran after initially having been ordered to return stateside for replenishment. The order reversal came after several Iranian threats and its hostile seizure of a Korean oil tanker in the Persian Gulf. Days later, Iran undertook a weapons test that showcased a new form of kamikaze drone.

Elsewhere, Israel launched a fresh salvo into Syria targeting several locations used to train and equip Iranian-backed militia forces including Hezbollah. Insurgents in Niger killed more than 100 civilians in two deadly attacks. French and Malian forces came under scrutiny when several outlets alleged that a joint airstrike killed scores of civilians on their way to a wedding. And U.S. forces in Somalia unleashed a series of strikes on al-Shabaab extremists, including one that targeted al-Shabaab leaders who were facilitating finance, weapons, fighters, and explosives.

As always, we tracked several stories from across the military this week: The body of an Army drill sergeant was discovered in her bullet-ridden vehicle on the side of a Texas highway. The legal team for Navy SEAL Tony DeDolph announced this week that he will plead guilty to the killing of Army Green Beret Logan Melgar. After seven decades, a 98-year-old WWII veteran received his promotion and medals for his service in the Pacific. Acting SecDef Chris Miller announced his appointees to the commission that will be responsible for renaming military bases bearing the names of Confederate generals. And the remains of 40 unidentified U.S. servicemembers were returned to Hawaii from the Philippines.

Whats in store for next week? None of us knows. But, as always, well be here to bring you the stories you wont find anywhere else with insights and analysis from people who have actually been there.

In the meantime,

Stay frosty

Want to get SOFREP on your phone? Download our free mobile app for Apple and Android devices. Subscribe to get access to our podcast, SOFREP Radio, our library of veteran-authored books, and our exclusive Team Room Forum.

Read more:

This Week on SOFREP: Chaos in the Capitol, Big Tech Bullying and a Stare Down with Iran - SOFREP

The first big tech event of the year, the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2021 is here. However, unlike the previous editions, this year we're going to see CES go virtual as a result of the ongoing Coronivirus-led pandemic.

As such, thousands, if not millions, will tune into the tech show starting today -- instead of thronging to Las Vegas every other year. Yet, despite the strange nature of the event in 2021, we expect not much to change. The major brands including Samsung, Sony, LG, Microsoft, and Intel are still scheduled to feature at the event this year in a similar capacity to how we've grown accustomed to seeing them every year.

As is the case with big tech events, a lot of key announcements have already been made ahead of the actual start of the event today. For the uninitiated, CES 2021 is being held between January 11-14 in 2020. However, the official days of the show were preceded by a number of pre-show events where companies such as Sony, Samsung and LG revealed details about the products they are putting up on display during CES 2021.

As we mentioned earlier, CES 2021 is all set to start today and will run till January 14. During the next few days, the tech show will see companies virtually host their fans during pre-decided slots.'

While a complete list of the events and briefings can be found at CES 2021's official website, there are a few important events we will list here. For users in India, the major attractions today include LG's event at 6:30pm IST followed by Samsung's event an hour later.

Tomorrow, the proceedings kick off early with Sony starting the show at 3:30am IST. After this, AMD, Nidia, Intel and Asus will all host their events starting at 9:30pm at an interval of one hour each. On January 13, the notable events will be Sony which starts at 12:15am IST and Microsoft and Asus. The former will begin at 7:30pm while the latter is sc heduled for 10:30pm IST. On Thursday, MSI is scheduled to host an event at 12:30am IST.

While CES 2021 promises to be a much simpler, and digital-only affair as opposed to the full-blown extravaganza in Las Vegas every year, we don't expect it to be less impressive when it comes to showcasing futuristic technologies.

The biggest announcements at the event will come from the television segment. Ahead of the event, LG has already unveiled the world's first Eyesafe-certified TV display at CES' preview event. The display is scheduled to be showcased at the tech event and is said to be in line with EyeSafe standards for low emissions of blue light without actually compromising on the colour performance.

Samsung is set to announce its Neo QLED and MicroLED TV models at its virtual event. The company claims that the TVs will offer better TV-viewing experiences with "improved contrast and better backlighting". Samsung also says that its new TVs will offer next-generation accessibility via features such as Sign Language Zoom and Multi-Output Audio.

Of the TVs to be showcased at the event, the Neo QLED will be the most interesting. It uses a combination of Quantum Mini LED and Quantum Matrix technology to improve the luminance of the TV to 12-bit with 4,096 steps.

Apart from this, Sony and LG are also scheduled to unveil 4K and 8K TVs which will bring with themselves futuristic technologies. Companies such as Asus, Microsoft and Intel are also scheduled to make big-ticket announcements at their events during CES 2021.

Here is the original post:

CES 2021 starts today: Here's a guide to the first big tech event of the year; from schedule to what you can expect - India Today

While Trump, Republicans, and right-wing media should carry much of the blame, tech companies must atone for their role in far-right radicalization and make bigger changes.

Dr. Julia R. DeCook is an Assistant Professor of Advocacy and Social Change in the School of Communication at Loyola University Chicago.

The attempted coup of January 6 and the subsequent fallout are a stark reminder of the miasma of far-right populism and extremism that has taken hold in the United States in the cult of Trumpism. Resulting in five deaths, the far-right mob that descended upon the Capitol are only a small taste of the kinds of violence that will continue in the coming months and years.

The election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris does not downplay the fact that more than 70 million eligible voters aimed to reelect Donald Trump and that 77 percent of those who voted for him believe that the election was rigged. Millions of new users joined alternative social media platforms like MeWe and Parler following the election, where speech that had been banned on Twitter and Facebook flourishes.

But in the midst of all of this uncertainty, we are seeing an inkling of a crisis of legitimacy among even the most fervent of Trumps supporters, particularly following Trumps recent speech where he effectively conceded. In December, Milo Yiannopoulos, whose career was ruined after being de-platformed from major social media sites, had a meltdown on Parler after the Supreme Court dismissed the Texas lawsuit that aimed to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Vowing to have vengeance and to dedicate the rest of his life to destroy the Republican party, Yiannopoulos lamented that he and others defended a selfish clown for nothing. Calling for a secession, Yiannopoulos and other Parler users advocate for a civil war or a Texit as a result of the election.

On Saturday, December 12, thousands of pro-Trump supporters including the Proud Boys descended on Washington, D.C., vandalizing four Black churches, stabbing four people, and resulting in 23 arrests. Notably, the December rally drew a larger amount of Proud Boys than previous rallies, perhaps due to the rise in the groups profile after Trumps famous stand back and stand by comments during the first presidential debate. The rally on January 6 that then turned into an attempted coup was bigger even still, and were only encouraged further by the dearth of conspiracy theories that swirled on these platforms.

All of this has made many researchers, journalists, and concerned citizens wonder where do we go from here? In the aftermath of the election, the far-right very well may latch on to this event in the hope that it will help to bring about a new era. More importantly, the insurrection that was incited by Donald Trump on January 6 is an example of what will become of QAnon, of the stop the steal conspiracy, and the influence of the doubt, suspicion, and skepticism that have become the hallmark affect of the polity, aided and abetted by a flourishing social media news ecosystem that pushes conspiracy theories and dangerous disinformation.

Moments like these require unrelenting truthtelling. We take pride in being reader-funded. If you like our work, support our journalism by joining our private community.

Social media platforms in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 U.S. presidential election finally started enacting actual measures in preventing the spread of dangerous disinformation, synthetic and manipulated content, and fake news. Facebook and Instagram just recently removed Donald Trump from its platforms until the end of his term, with Twitter going back and forth during the 48 hours following January 6 and eventually permabanning Trump on January 8.

Although commendable, one thing that has often been lacking in these policy changes is an acknowledgment of the platforms primary role in radicalization, in spreading disinformation, and their historical and continued role in these processes. These ideologies are not relegated to the seedy underbelly of the Internet, but are spreading and evolving on mainstream platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and now TikTok. A report released on December 8 noted that YouTube was a significant source of information for the Christchurch shooter, who admitted that he had been a more active user and consumer of YouTube than of 4chan and 8chan.

Despite massive changes and initiatives at these platforms to mitigate the spread of misinformation and false content, what the platforms seem to be unable to keep abreast of is how narratives evolve, how users navigate platform constraints, and how they overcome things like bans and censorship.

A professor of mine (Dr. Mary Emery) told me early on as a graduate student that information does not change behavior, and despite the best intentions of informing people that theyve engaged with misinformation or spread fake content, these alerts are insufficient in changing the infrastructure by which this information spreads. Moreover, making things more difficult, research has shown that attempting to correct facts can result in a backfire effect where corrections can actually increase or strengthen their beliefs. The attempt by Facebook and other major platforms to inform people when they have engaged with or shared misinformation may result in this similar pattern.

What these platforms really need to do is to break the infrastructure that allows for the creation and spread of this kind of content in the first place. Although we will never eliminate hate speech and misinformation (for they exist in our offline worlds, of which our online lives are a mirror of), what platforms can do is change the way that content is pushed into peoples feeds.

This may require a complete redesign of their product and business structure. Focusing only on content and content moderation misses the larger picture: what platforms need to contend with are the cultures of hate that they incubate and increase barriers to make their platforms inhospitable environments to hate speech and disinformation.

Banning content alone is insufficient in stopping the spread of conspiracy theories, fake news, hate speech, and dangerous content. What we saw on 6 January with a far-right mob attempting to incite a civil war and overthrow the American government complete with two pipe bombs should be a stark example that bans are not enough.

Dismantling the infrastructure that they rely on things like domain registrars, user accounts, existing networks, algorithms, and Cloudflare services that prevent DDoS attacks is the best way to mitigate online hate and disinformations power. Amazon Web Services took a good step in this direction by announcing they are taking Parler offline.

For platforms and legislative bodies, working with civil society groups particularly groups that are directed by people who are most often the targets of online hatred and treating online hate as a human and civil rights issue are steps that they can take in mitigating digital hate culture and disinformation.

We cannot wait for laws to catch up with our tech and we must demand more of these tech companies namely, like Dr. Joan Donovan writes, that they become more transparent, accountable, and socially beneficial. Rather, we must recognize that technology is a process, and not a product, and strategies for its moderation must also reflect this distinction.

This article is brought to you by the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right(CARR).Through their research, CARRintends to lead discussions on the development of radical right extremism around the world.

More here:

From Radicalization To Insurrection: A Reckoning For Big Tech - Rantt Media

The Telegraph

All adults to receive vaccine by autumn as jab hubs open doors Don't make us toughen lockdown rules, minister warns The tougher rules Boris Johnson could enforce to reduce infections NHS 'shaming' doctors for taking work in the private sector Public should stop looking for loopholes in coronavirus laws, say police Subscribe to The Telegraph for a month-long free trial Tens of millions of people will be immunised by the spring at over 2,700 vaccination sites across the UK, the Government has announced today. By the end of January, everyone in England will be within 10 miles of a vaccination site or, for a small number of highly rural areas, the vaccine will be brought to them via mobile teams, rapid plans to scale up the Covid-19 vaccine plan show. There will also be capacity to deliver at least two million vaccinations in England per week by the end of January and all residents and staff in over 10,000 care homes across the country will be offered a vaccine by the end of the month, the Government has said. Its taken a tremendous amount of hard work and dedication to make such an incredible start to this ambitious deployment programme," Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock said in response to the news. "Our vaccine deployment plan sets out exactly how we will harness these efforts to expand the programme quickly and safely." Follow the latest updates below.

Continued here:

Dan Bongino: Big tech are more powerful than the government - Yahoo News UK

Big techs decision to pull the plug on president Donald Trumps presence on their platforms, following his supporters attack on the US capital last week, has been seized on in Europe as proof if proof were needed that laws have not kept pace with tech market power and platform giants must face consequences over the content they amplify and monetize.

Writing in Politico, the European Commissions internal market commissioner, Thierry Breton, dubs the 6/1 strike at the heart of the US political establishment as social medias 9/11 moment aka, the day the whole world woke up to the real-world impact of unchecked online hate and lies.

Since then Trump has been booted from a number of digital services, and the conservative social media app Parler has also been ejected from the App Store and Google Play over a failure to moderate violent threats, after Trump supporters flocked to the app in the wake of Facebooks and Twitters crackdown.

At the time of writing, Parler is also poised to be booted by its hosting provider AWS, while Stripe has reportedly pulled the plug on Trumps ability to use its payment tools to fleece supporters. (Although when this reporter asked in November whether Trump was breaching its TOC by using its payment tools for his election defense fund Stripe ignored TechCrunchs emails)

If there was anyone out there who still doubted that online platforms have become systemic actors in our societies and democracies, last weeks events on Capitol Hill is their answer. What happens online doesnt just stay online: It has and even exacerbates consequences in real life too, Breton writes.

Last weeks insurrection marked the culminating point of years of hate speech, incitement to violence, disinformation and destabilization strategies that were allowed to spread without restraint over well-known social networks. The unrest in Washington is proof that a powerful yet unregulated digital space reminiscent of the Wild West has a profound impact on the very foundations of our modern democracies.

The Europe Commission proposed a major update to the rules for digital services and platform giants in December, when it laid out the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act saying its time to level the regulatory playing field by ensuing content and activity thats illegal offline is similarly sanctioned online.

The Commissions proposal also seeks to address the market power of tech giants with proposals for additional oversight and extra rules for the largest platforms that have the potential to cause the greatest societal harm.

Unsurprisingly, then, Breton has seized on the chaotic scenes in Washington to push this already-formed tech policy plan with his eye on a domestic audience of European governments and elected members of the European Parliament whose support is needed to pass the legislation and reboot the regions digital rules.

The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUSs loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing. It is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space, he warns.

These last few days have made it more obvious than ever that we cannot just stand by idly and rely on these platforms good will or artful interpretation of the law. We need to set the rules of the game and organize the digital space with clear rights, obligations and safeguards. We need to restore trust in the digital space. It is a matter of survival for our democracies in the 21st century.

The DSA will force social media to clean up its act on content and avoid the risk of arbitrary decision-making by giving platforms clear obligations and responsibilities to comply with these laws, granting public authorities more enforcement powers and ensuring that all users fundamental rights are safeguarded, Breton goes on to argue.

The commissioner also addresses US lawmakers directly calling for Europe and the US to join forces on Internet regulation and engage in talks aimed at establishing what he describes as globally coherent principles, suggesting the DSA as a starting point for discussions. So hes not wasting the opportunity of #MAGA-induced chaos to push a geopolitical agenda for EU tech policy too.

Last month the Commission signalled a desire to work with the incoming Biden administration on a common approach to tech governance, saying it hoped US counterparts would work with to shape global standards for technologies like AI and to force big tech to be more responsible, among other areas. And recent events in Washington do seem to be playing into that hand although it remains to be seen how the incoming Biden administration will approach regulating big tech.

The DSA, which has been carefully designed to answer all of the above considerations at the level of our Continent, can help pave the way for a new global approach to online platforms one that serves the general interest of our societies. By setting a standard and clarifying the rules, it has the potential to become a paramount democratic reform serving generations to come, Breton concludes.

Twitters decision to (finally) pull the plug on Trump also caught the eye of UK minister Matt Hancock, the former secretary of state for the digital brief (now the health secretary). Speaking to the BBC this weekend, he suggested the unilateral decision raises questions about how big tech is regulated that would result in consequences.

The scenes, clearly encouraged by President Trump the scenes at the Capitol were terrible and I was very sad to see that because American democracy is such a proud thing. But theres something else that has changed, which is that social media platforms are making editorial decisions now. Thats clear because theyre choosing who should and shouldnt have a voice on their platform, he told the Andrew Marr program.

The BBC reports that Hancock also told Sky News Twitters ban on Trump means social media platforms are taking editorial decisions which he said raises questions about their editorial judgements and the way that theyre regulated.

Hancocks remarks are noteworthy because back in 2018, during his time as digital minister, he said the government would legislate to introduce a statutory code of conduct on social media platforms forcing them to act against online abuse.

More than two years later, the UKs safety-focused plan to regulate the Internet is still yet to be put before parliament but late last year ministers committed to introducing an Online Safety Bill this year.

Under the plan, the UKs media regulator, Ofcom, will gain new powers to oversee tech platforms including the ability to levy fines for non-compliance with a safety-focused duty of care of up to 10% of a companys annual turnover.

The proposal covers a wide range of digital services, not just social media. Larger platforms are also slated to have the greatest responsibility for moderating content and activity. And at least in its current form the proposed law is intended to apply not just to content thats illegal under UK law but also the fuzzier category of harmful content.

Thats something the European Commission proposal has steered clear of with more subjective issues like disinformation set to be tackled via a beefed-up (but still voluntary) code of practice, instead of being baked into digital services legislation.So online speech looks set to be one area of looming regulatory divergence in Europe, with the UK now outside the bloc.

Last year, the government said larger social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Twitter are likely to need to assess the risk of legal content or activity on their services with a reasonably foreseeable risk of causing significant physical or psychologicalharm to adults under the forthcoming Online Safety Bill.

They will then need to make clear what type of legal but harmful content is acceptable on their platforms in their terms and conditions and enforce this transparently and consistently, it added, suggesting the UK will in fact legislate to force platforms to make editorial decisions.

The consequences Hancock thus suggests are coming for tech platforms look rather akin to the editorial decisions they have been making in recent days.

Albeit, the uncomfortable difference he seems to have been articulating is between tech platforms that have massive unilateral power to silence the US president at a stroke and at a point of their own choosing vs tech platforms being made to comply with a pre-defined rules-based order set by legislators and regulators.

Follow this link:

Europe seizes on social medias purging of Trump to bang the drum for regulation - TechCrunch