The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Black Lives Matter
- Boca Chica Texas
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Chess Engines
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Donald Trump
- Elon Musk
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Fake News
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Life Extension
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- National Vanguard
- New Utopia
- Online Casino
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Proud Boys
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: February 2, 2021
Posted: February 2, 2021 at 8:07 pm
Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer of Twitter, testifies remotely as Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., looks at his iPad during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Photo By Bill Clark/Pool/Sipa USA via Reuters
In the aftermath of the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, crackdowns on certain social-media accounts and apps involved in the violence have further fueled a debate over reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely protects online platforms from liability for their users content, and other policy options. The conversation about the role of private companies in regulating speech has quickly become a transatlantic oneas well as a test for how free and open societies should best approach a free and open internet. So how exactly can Europes experiences with regulating online speech and content inform the debate in the United States? And what should solutions look like in the United States? Were offering a series of perspectives. Below, the Europe Centers Distinguished Fellow Frances Burwell offers her perspective. Read Europe Center Nonresident Senior Fellow Kenneth Propps perspective here.
The decisions by Facebook and Twitter to suspend former US President Donald Trump and thousands of other accounts following the riots at the US Capitol have been criticized by some as trampling on free speech and by others as too little too late. But the real question is why two private companies have been the key decision-makers in this situation. Rather than relying on CEOs Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, the US governmentespecially Congress and the courtsshould make clear what type of speech is acceptable online and what type of speech is not.
After the events of January 6, Congress will certainly take on reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Actthe 1996 law that allows online platforms, including social-media companies, to escape liability for content posted by their users. When Congress does look at the act, it should not just focus on the companies and their responsibilities. Legislators should take a good, hard look in the mirror. They must provide the guidelines that are central to reducing violent extremist content online: rules on acceptable versus forbidden online speech.
For all Americans, free speech is a sacred right. But social media has demonstrated a tendency to proliferate and magnify the most hate-filled and conspiracy-based speech at breathtaking speed, with serious consequences for the countrys democratic future. Companies have responded by establishing their own user guidelines and policing content as they each see fit. Legally, they are free to do this, since the First Amendment applies to government restrictions on speech. But many users regard Facebook and Twitter as essential avenues of communication in the digital age that should not be censored. Should we continue to rely on such an ad-hoc system, based on private-sector interests, to restrain especially violent speech? Or is it time to have a serious debate about how the United States as a nation should define and police the most egregious speech online?
As US lawmakers take on this issue, they might usefully draw some lessons from the experience of European governments in regulating content online. The European Union (EU) is without doubt the regulatory superpower of the digital world. Germany and other EU member states have imposed significant obligations on online platforms in terms of monitoring and removing certain content. In some cases, platforms must remove content within twenty-four hours of notification, sometimes less, or face significant fines. For several years, the major social-media companies (including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) have participated in a voluntary EU Code of Conduct, pledging to remove content deemed illegal hate speech after being notified of its existence on their platforms. A 2019 review showed that 90 percent of the notifications were reviewed within twenty-four hours and 71 percent of the material was removed.
This system is about to get even tougher: A proposed EU Digital Services Act will impose significant reporting requirements on companies regarding content removal and, for some platforms, intrusive inspections designed to change how algorithms recommend certain content. In the wake of the Capitol riots, some European politicians urged the United States to adopt similar rules constraining social media.
Such a content-moderation system is only possible, however, if based on a clear definition of unlawful speechand establishing that definition is not a job for corporations, but for elected representatives. Today in the United States, only a few categories of online speech are prohibited, among them terrorist content and child pornography. Other illegal speech includes incitement of imminent lawless and violent action and threats to the US president or vice presidentboth of which Trump may have violated during his speech to supporters before they headed to the Capitol. For the most part, decisions about what is not protected as free speech have been made in the court system, and thus each exemption applies in very specific and limited circumstances. Incitement to lawless and violent action may be protected, for example, if the action is not imminent.
In contrast, many European governments have long defined certain categories of illegal speech, many of which pre-date the online world. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to deny that the Holocaust happened. As in the United States, terrorist content and child pornography are illegal, although European attitudes vary widely toward what is considered obscenity in the United States. Central to European regulation is the idea of illegal hate speech, defined in EU law as the public incitement to violence or hatred directed to groups or individuals on the basis of certain characteristics, including race, color, religion, descent, and national or ethnic origin. While this rule does not prohibit racist caricatures of specific groups or individuals, it does ban calls for violence or other injury. Prohibitions on such hate speech have been enforced not only online, but in magazines, on television, and even in nightclub acts.
If Congress seeks to reduce the liability protections of platforms for user-generated content, it will need to be specific about the nature of proscribed content. Unless that content is clearly defined, companies will simply seek to protect themselves by establishing guidelines that allow only the safest, most mundane material. Any restrictions on online speech should be very limitedperhaps adopting a concept similar to Europes public incitement to violence or hatred or dropping the requirement that the dangerous incitement in question be imminent. Aside from the constitutional considerations, authoritarian governments around the world will see anything but modest limitations as an opportunity to legitimize their own moves to restrict online speech.
While the EU experience offers some useful lessons, even very strict content-moderation rules will not solve the entire problem. The EUs definition of illegal hate speech does not address the spread of conspiracy theories and fake news, for example, both of which are detrimental to US and European democracies and which can be found not only online but also in traditional media outlets. And the regulation of larger platforms often pushes hate speech to the wilder reaches of the internet and smaller, more ephemeral platforms.
US President Joe Biden has called for a Summit of Democracies during 2021, with disinformation on the agenda. The United States and Europe should use this meeting to compare their approaches to the dangers some online content presents to our democracies and to work with other democracies to find a common way forward. As a first step, Congress and the Biden administration must consider how best to safeguard US democracy from incitements to violence and hate.
Frances G. Burwell is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and a senior director at McLarty Associates.
Tue, Dec 15, 2020
A hearing on the consequences of the European Court of Justices invalidation of the EU-US Privacy Shield illuminated the deepening transatlantic divide over data transfers, and it highlighted the early challenge the subject looks to pose for President-elect Joe Bidens administration, which is eager to repair US-EU relations.
New AtlanticistbyKenneth Propp
Posted: at 8:07 pm
EFF Civil Liberties Director David Greene delivered the following as a keynote address on March 6, 2020, at the Media Law and Policy in the Digital Age: Global Challenges and Opportunities symposium hosted by Indiana University's Center for International Media Law and Policy Studies and its Barbara Restle Press Law Project.
A few years ago, I was summoned to the office of an eminent TV journalist, one of those people commonly described as the dean of . . . something. He wanted me to come by, he said, because he had an idea to run by me. So I went.
After the small talk we both had suffered the same back injury! he ran his idea by me. This is a paraphrase: We should bring back the Fairness Doctrine. And not just for broadcast news, but for all media, especially the Internet. Looking back, I think it made us better journalists. He was planning a conference and wanted this to be a major discussion point. In my memory, my jaw dropped cartoonishly all the way to the floor.
The Fairness Doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission rule that imposed fair reporting requirements on radio and television broadcasters. By broadcasters, I, and the FCC, mean those entities that have a license to broadcast over a certain over-the-air frequency, as opposed to cable or satellite or now streaming services. Its the stuff you get for free if you just plug in a TV or radio with an antenna. The Fairness Doctrine had many facets. But the main one required broadcasters to devote time to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and then to air contrasting views as well. In some circumstances this could require the broadcaster to provide reply time to any person. The rule was in effect from 1949 until 1987. Ill talk more about it a little later.
As I said, I was taken aback by this eminent journalists suggestion. Ive been a First Amendment lawyer for 20+ years and have worked with and on behalf of journalists and news organizations for much of that time. During all that time, without exception, journalists considered the fairness doctrine to be a serious infringement on editorial discretion and freedom of the press in general. How could this person who I knew to be a champion of a free press want to revive it, and apply it to all news media?
So I responded that it was a terrible idea and probably unconstitutional. Needless to say, I was not invited to participate in his conference.
Unfortunately, this was not an aberration. Ive seen it repeated in different forms ever since: news media advocates calling for regulation that would have until recently been seen as heretical to our established conceptions of a free press.
The cause, of course, is social mediaand Internet platformsand Big Tech.
But its not that the advent and popularity of social media has adjusted our free press priorities. Rather, social media and the Internet in general has changed the business of news reporting. Legacy new media, especially print, are largely suffering financially, especially at the regional and local levels. And when they see certain social media companies Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Snapchat thriving, they reach out for ways to fight these intruders. To look for ways to level the playing field.
I completely understand the frustration that motivates this. I also fear a country with diminished or no local or regional reporting. Ive seen that there is so much less money now to fund public records requests and court access litigation. Indeed, these lawsuits now often fall to nonprofit organizations like EFF. I subscribe to home delivery of two newspapers and a bunch of magazines.
But its a huge mistake to let this despair lead us to a path of abandoning or weakening important free press principles and open the door to the regulation of journalism. Especially when, as I will discuss toward the end of this talk, abandoning these principles wont actually help.
So my job here today is to convince you that the news media, all facets of it, from news gatherers and reporters to those who simply provide platforms for others to publish to those who simply suggest news reading to others, must stick together and remain unified champions of a free press. To do otherwise is far too dangerous, especially in the anti-press climate cultivated by the sitting Executive branch.
Over the past few years, Ive noticed at least three formerly taboo regulatory threats being given some life by those who are otherwise free press champions.
Ive already mentioned the Fairness Doctrine. So Ill start there. As I said earlier, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present contrasting views of any public controversy. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rule in 1969 in a case called Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, on the basis that the FCC was merely requiring the broadcaster to momentarily and occasionally share the license that the FCC had granted it. The Court stated, though, that it would reconsider that decision if it became clear that the doctrine was restraining speech (that is, that broadcasters were choosing to avoid discussing public controversies rather than being forced to present both sides of them).
Five years later, the Supreme Court made clear that a similar rule could not be imposed on newspapers. In that case, Miami Herald Co v. Tornillo, the Court struck down a Florida right of reply law that required any newspaper that endorsed a candidate in an election to offer all opponents equal and equally prominent space in the newspaper to respond. The Court explained that such an intrusion into the editorial freedom of a newspaper was per se a violation of the First Amendment. And then in 1996, in ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court, in a different context, ruled that the Internet would be treated like print media for the purposes of the First Amendment, not broadcast.
The FCC revoked the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (although it formally remained on the books until 2011) after a few lower courts questioned its continuing validity and amid great unpopularity among Republicans in Congress. There are occasional Congressional or FCC-initiated attempts to bring it back many blame it for the advent of seemingly partisan news broadcasts like Fox News, even though the rule never applied to cable television but none have been successful.
To bring back the Fairness Doctrine and then apply it to all media would mark a serious incursion on First Amendment rights.
Ive seen a similar flip with respect to professional ethics, specifically news media advocates urging the legal codification of their voluntary industry ethical standards, embodied in the ethical codes created by professional societies like the Society of Professional Journalists and the Radio and Television News Directors Association, and the National Press Photographers, etc. This typically takes the form of calling for conditioning legal protections for online news production, distribution, aggregation, or recommendation services on following these ethical standards. Like, for example, saying that Wikileaks should be subject to the Espionage Act, because it does not follow such practices, while "ethical journalists" must be exempted from it.
These codes have always been very intentionally voluntary guidelines and not law for several good reasons.
First, ethics are inherently flexible principles that dont easily lend themselves to absolute rules, tend to be fact-intensive in application, and can vary greatly depending on number of legitimate and worthy priorities. They are generally an ill fit for the bright lines we insist on for laws that limit speech.
Second, free press advocates have been rightfully concerned that transforming journalism's ethical codes to legal standards will only lead to vastly increased legal liability for journalists. This could happen both directly -- by the codes be written into laws -- and indirectly -- by the codes becoming the "standard of care" against which judges would assess negligence. "Negligence," that is, the failure to act reasonably, is a common basis for tort liability. It is typically assessed with reference to a standard of care, that is, the care a reasonable person would have exercised. Were ethical codes to become the standard of care, journalists could bear legal liability any time they failed to follow an ethical rule, and, even worse, have to defend a lawsuit every time their compliance with an ethics rule was even a question. And they would then be held to a higher standard than non-journalists who would only need to act as a "reasonable person," instead of as a "professional journalist."
Third, and perhaps most basically, this would be direct governmental regulation of the press, something antithetical to our free speech principles.
These all remain correct and relevant, and it remains a bad idea to give professional ethical codes the force of law or condition other legal protections on adherence to them.
The third flip Ive seen, and this is probably the most common one, is a sudden embrace of republication liability. Republication liability is the idea that you are legally responsible for all statements that you republish even if you accurately quote the original speaker and attribute the statement to them. To have my students truly understand the implications of this rule, that is, to scare them, I liketo discuss two examples.
In one case, Little v. Consolidated Publishing, (Ala App 2010), a reporter attended a city council meeting. Her reporting on the meeting included an accurate quotation of a city council member, Spain, who at the meeting repeated rumors that one of his rival council members, Little, was in a personal relationship with a city contractor and thus pushed for her hiring, a move that was now being questioned. The article included another statement from Spain in which he said that if the rumors about Little were untrue, they would be very unfair to Little. The article also included Littles denial. Nevertheless, Little sued the newspaper for defamation. The court rejected the argument that the publication was true since the rumor was in fact circulating at the time. The court explained that publication of libelous matter, although purporting to be spoken by a third person, does not protect the publisher, who is liable for what he publishes, and that it did not matter if in the same article the newspaper had decried the rumor as false.
In another case, Martin v. Wilson Publishing (RI 1985), a newspaper published an article about a real estate developer buying up historic properties in a small village. The article was generally supportive of the development and investment in the village, but explained that some residents were less than enthusiastic about the developers plans and doubted his good intentions. The article then stated that some residents stretch available facts when they imagine Mr. Martin is connected with the 1974 rash of fires in the village. Local fire official feel that certain local kids did it for kicks. And the article further expressed doubts about the claims of arson. The developer sued, and the court found that the newspaper could be liable for this republication even though the rumors did in fact exist and even though the newspaper had reported that it believed they were false.
The republication liability rule apparently dates back to old English common law, the foundation of almost all US tort law. Originally it seems to have been a defense to accurately attribute the statement to the original speaker. But attribution hasnt helped a reporter since at least 1824, when English courts adopted the present rule, and it quickly was adopted by US courts.
In my twenty or so years of teaching this stuff, republication liability is by far the most counter-intuitive thing I teach. Students commonly refuse to believe its true. It leads to absurd results. Countless journalists ignore it and hope they dont get sued.
And it gets worse, or at least more complicated. Since at least 1837 (the earliest English case I could find), republication liability has been imposed not just on those who utter or put someone elses libelous words in print, but also to those who are merely conduits for libel reaching the audience. The 1837 case, Day v. Bream, imposed liability on a courier who delivered a box of handbills that allegedly contained libelous statements in them, unless he could prove that he did not know, and should not have known, of the contents of the box. Early cases similarly impose knowledge-based liability on newsstands, libraries, and booksellers. The American version of this knowledge-based distributor liability is most commonly associated with the U.S. Supreme Courts 1959 decision in Smith v. California, which found that a bookseller could not be convicted of peddling obscene material unless it could be proven that the bookseller knew of the obscene contents of the book. Outside of criminal law, US courts imposed liability on distributors who simply should have known that they were distributing actionable content.
Given this, there developed two subcategories of republication liability: distributor liability for those like booksellers, newsstands, and couriers who merely served as passive conduits for others speech; and publisher liability for those who engaged with the other persons speech in some way, whether by editing it, modifying it, affirmatively endorsing it, or including it as part of larger original reporting. For the former, group, the passive distributors, there could be no liability unless they knew, or should have known, of the libelous material. For the latter group, the publishers, they were treated the same as the original speakers whom they quoted. Because one was treated a bit better if they were a passive distributor, the law actually disincentivized editing, curation, or reviewing content for any reason, and thus, some believed, encouraged bad journalism.
Historically, free press advocates have thus steadfastly resisted any expansion of republication liability. Indeed, they have jumped at any opportunity to limit it.
So why is this changing now?
It all started way back in the 1990s, when courts started to apply republication liability to early online communications services, bulletin boards, chat rooms, and even email forwarding. A New York Court found that the online subscription service, Prodigy, which had created a bulletin board called "Money Talk" for its users to share financial tips, was the publisher of an allegedly defamatory statement about the investment banking firm Stratton Oakmont (later immortalized in The Wolf of Wall Street) even though the comment was solely authored by a Prodigy user, and not edited by Prodigy. The court found that Prodigy was nevertheless a publisher, and not merely a distributor, because it (1) maintained community guidelines for users of its bulletin boards, (2) enforced the guidelines by selecting leaders for each bulletin board, and (3) used software to screen all posts for offensive content. This decision was in contrast to a previous decision, Cubby v. Compuserve, in which distributor liability was applied to Compuserve because it lacked any editorial involvement. (Compuserve had created a news forum but contracted out the creation of content to a contractor which then engaged a subcontractor, Rumorville.)
These holding gave rise to three major concerns about applying these print-world rules to online publication:
In order to address these concerns, Congress enacted 47 USC 230, which essentially gets rid of republication liability (both publisher and distributor liability) for much third-party speech. (There were two big exceptions: user speech that infringes intellectual property rights and user speech that violates federal criminal law.) Members of Congress acted on concerns that the unmanageable threat of liability would thwart the growth and wide adoption of the Internet and the development of new communications technologies within it. And those worried about sexual content wanted to remove all disincentives to remove content when an intermediary wanted to do so.
Section 230 has always been a bit controversial, and has been firmly in the crosshairs of regulators angry about all things online these days. Im not going to use more time here to go over those various attacks on the law. The point I want to make is that in the past few years, legacy news media advocates have joined the throngs blaming Section 230 for pretty much everything they see as wrong with the Internet that is, pretty much anything they dont like about Facebook is because of Section 230. That is, the loss of advertising dollars that used to sustain newspapers.
Again, this is remarkable to me, because as I said, the press has always hated republication liability and sought to chip away at it. But it is now supporting efforts to chip away at some of the protections that are in place. Justa few months ago, the News Media Alliance, as part of convening on Section 230 called by Attorney General Barr, called for reforming of the immunity as part of a larger overhaul of the news media landscape. And this is important the Section 230 protections apply to the new media when it publishes non-original content online, like reader comments, op-eds, or advertisements. Indeed, as I wrote a few months back, one of the most widely successful applications of Section 230 is to the online version of legacy news media. And Section 230 also protects individual users when the forward email or maintain a community website. Its not a Tech Companyimmunity; its auserimmunity.
Moreover, its largely assumed that online intermediaries, that is, those who transmit the speech of others, dont want to screen that speech for misinformation or other harmful speech. While it is true that some services adhere to an unmoderated pipeline model, its more the case, especially with the big services like Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, etc., that services very much want to moderate content, but that monitoring and evaluating speech at the appropriate scale is impossible to do well. The vast majority of decisions are highly contextual close calls. This impossibility is exactly why Congress passed Section 230 faced with liability for making the wrong decision and republishing actionable speech, these intermediaries will err on the side of censorship. And that brand of censorship inevitably has greater impact on already marginalized speakers.
Each of these examples of abandonment of traditional free press principles are motivated by the same desire: to level the playing field between traditional news media and online services. That is, the news media now see their ethical and professional norms and legal burdens as giving them a market disadvantage against their competitors for advertising dollars, namely Facebook and Google. And they see the imposition of their norms and legal obligations on these competitors as a matter of fundamental fairness. They in effect want to make good journalism a legal requirement.
Thats astounding. Free press advocates have historically recognized the need to support legal challenges aimed at bad journalism tabloids like the National Enquirer because they rightfully recognized that those who seek to weaken legal protections target the lowest hanging fruit. And even if you look to defamation law as an example where good journalism gives you some legal advantage, free press advocates have rightfully argued that even if they can prove in court that their journalistic practices were solid, to do so is very expensive and the prospect of doing so exerts a powerful chill on reporting.
And it is really dangerous to hand government the power to reward what it believes to be good journalism and punish what it believes to be the bad. Just imagine the havoc ourlast press-demeaning administration would wreak with such power. As it is, wehave seen press libel suits by President Trump and Devin Nunes, and offhand threats to pull the nonexistent licenses of cable broadcasters.
We should be calling for more protections for speakers, writers, and their platforms now, not fewer. I understand that unlike the fairness doctrine or ethics codes, legacy news media advocates arent now claiming to love republication liability. Rather, they are saying, if we are burdened by it, then they should be too. But still, wouldnt it be better to level the playing field, as it were, be removing republication liability from everyone, rather than placing the nonsensical and counterproductive legal requirement on everyone?
As I said above, I understand this perceived unfairness and I am very concerned about the economic instability of our news media ecosystem. But I am also concerned about abandoning free press principles in the false hope that in doing so, we will reclaim some of that stability.
AndI dont think it will help. I dont see a connection between the imposition of journalistic norms as legal requirements and the financial disruption to the news media marketplace. That is, I doubt that elevating good journalism to the force of law would help stabilize the market place.
There is no historic correlation between advertising income and quality of journalism. That is, advertisers dont and never have rewarded newspapers with advertising because of their journalistic prowess. Rather, newspapers used to have a functional monopoly over certain types of advertising. If an advertiser wanted an ad to reach most persons houses, they could either use direct mail or newspapers. Newspapers were especially effective for classified advertising, but also for car sales and other full-spread ads and inserts. Newspapers stalwart sections of highly marketable news sports, entertainment, national news in effect supported local and investigative journalism that standing alone might not have been a draw for either readers of advertisers.
But seemingly overnight, Craigslist gutted the classified advertising market. Its not because Craigslist was a more righteous platform to advertise, its because a continuously updating online platform with either targeted or broader reach to which any person with an Internet connection can almost instantly add is just a far better way of advertising for such things.
In many ways, and certainly for certain populations, the type of online advertising offered by Facebook and Google is simply a better deal for advertisers. They are not deceiving advertisers into thinking they are good journalists, and advertisers dont really care (nor do I) whether an online service is considered a publisher or a platform. Its a legally and practically irrelevant distinction. They just want effective advertising.
The hope, I think, is that enshrining good journalism into the law will either drive their advertising competitors out of business or burden them with costs that will make them less hugely profitable. At a minimum, it will just make us feel like the system is more fair. But none of that drives advertising dollars back to legacy news media.
(Ill acknowledge one exception Section 230 means that online services can accept certain ads that print publishers could not ones that are deceptive or misleading or discriminatory. But this is not a significant source of revenue.)
Moreover, the Internet is not just Facebook and Google, or a few other other large and rich sites. It represents a huge number and variety of communications platforms, from the very very local to the very global. And many of them are not hugely profitable. Many of them serve vital human rights functions,from connecting diaspora communities, to coordinating human rights reporting, to undermining communications bans in oppressive regimes. These are the sites and services that are threatened by the costs the good journalism legal standards would impose. Those with lots of money, the very sites these efforts actually target, are the very ones that have the financial wherewithal to absorb them.
The non-economic reason for giving good journalism the force of law is more compelling to me, though not ultimately availing. Ellen Goodman in her recently published paper for the Knight First Amendment Institute writes of the policy need to re-introduce friction into digital journalism in order to restore the optimal signal to noise ratio, signal being information that is truthful and supportive of democratic discourse; noise being that which misinforms and undermines discursive potential. Journalism norms boost the signal and diminish the noise. Digital delivery of information is relatively frictionless, resulting in less filtering of noise. So, the argument goes, the imposition of good journalism norms inserts productive friction into digital media.
I see the appeal to this and I understand the goals. Nevertheless, I would look to other methods, as outlined by Goodman to introduce friction built-in delays or limits on virality (such as what WhatsApp self-imposed)rather than placing in governments hands the setting and enforcement of journalistic norms, which is essentially government control of reporting itself.
Aside from what I see as the democratic threat to the government adoption, and thus co-option, of good journalism norms, there are also serious practical concerns.
And this is mostly because whereas a newspaper delivers almost only news, Internet media are typically far more diverse. Most Internet sites are multi-purpose: they may serve news and political advocacy. They may include journalists who have the luxury of attaching their own names to articles and who have the resources to fact-check and lawyers to vet stories. But they may also include political dissidents who must remain pseudonymous,or dissident news organizations whose reporting is otherwise blocked in a country, or independent journalists,or community organizers.Or just the average Internet user sharing information with friends. Were good journalism to become the law, these speakers may lose their audiences. I dont think we want an Internet shrunk down to manageable scale, where user created content is limited so that it is as manageable as the letters to the editor page.
So, in closing, I urge us all to stay steadfast to our traditional distaste for government regulation of journalistic practice. Good journalism is certainly an ideal. It is an admirable quality to urge any media outlet to adopt and follow. The norms are important and should continue to be taught, not merely to avoid legal liability, but because they serve an important democratic function. But they are not law and should not be.
See the article here:
The Old Media and the New Must Work Together to Preserve Free Speech Values - EFF
Posted: at 8:06 pm
The poet Richard Brautigan said that one day we would all be watched over by "machines of loving grace". It was a nice sentiment at the time. But I surmise Brautigan might have done a quick 180 if he was alive today. He would see how intelligent machines in general and AI in particular were being semi-weaponized or otherwise appropriated for purposes of a new kind of social engineering. He would also likely note how this process is usually positioned as something "good for humanity" in vague ways that never seem to be fully explained.
As both a technologist and a journalist, I find it very difficult to think of transhumanism and what I'll call the New Eugenics as anything less than deeply and literally dehumanizing.
The hits, as they say, just keep on coming. Recently I ran across an article advising recent college graduates looking for jobs that they had better be prepared to have their facial expressions scanned and evaluated by artificial intelligence programs during and after interviews.
An article in the publication "Higher Ed" warned that: "Getting a job increasingly requires going through an interview on an AI platformIf the proprietary technology [used to ] to evaluate the recordings concludes that a candidate does well in matching the demeanor, enthusiasm, facial expressions or word choice of current employees of the company, it recommends the candidate for the next round. If the candidate is judged by the software to be out of step, that candidate is not likely to move on."
If this were happening in China, of course, it would be much less surprising. You don't have to be a Harvard-trained psychiatrist to see that this kind of technology is violating some very basic human boundaries: how we think and feel and our innermost and private thoughts. And you don't have to be a political scientist to see that totalitarian societies are in the business of breaking down these boundaries for purposes of social and political control.
Facial recognition has already been implemented by some law enforcement agencies. Other technology being used for social control starts out in the corporate world and then migrates. Given the melding of corporate and government power that's taken place in the U.S. over the last few decades, what's impermissible in government now can get fully implemented in the corporate world and then in the course of time bleeds over to government use via outsourcing and other mechanisms. It's a nifty little shell game. This was the case with the overt collection of certain types of data on citizens which was expressly forbidden by federal law. The way around it was to have corporations to do the dirty work and then turn around and sell the data to various government entities. Will we see the same thing happen with artificial intelligence and its ability to pry into our lives in unprecedented ways?
There is a kind of quasi-worship of technology as a force majeure in humanity's evolution that puts AI at the center of human existence. This line of thinking is now linked to the principles of transhumanism, a set of values and goals being pushed by Silicon Valley elites. This warped vision of techno-utopianism assures us that sophisticated computers are inherently superior to humans. Implicit in this view is the notion that intelligence (and one kind of intelligence at that) is the most important quality in the vast array of attributes that are the essential qualities of our collective humanity and longstanding cultural legacies.
The corporate PR frontage for these "breakthroughs" is always the same: they will only be used for the highest purposes like getting rid of plastics in the oceans. But still the question remains: who will control or regulate the use of these man-made creatures?
The most hardcore transhumanists believe that our role is simply to step aside and assist in the creation of new life forms made possible by hooking up human brains to computers and the Internet, what they consider to be an evolutionary quantum leap. Unfortunately, people in powerful corporate positions like Ray Kurzweil, Google's Director of Engineering, and Elon Musk, founder of Neuralink, actually believe in these convoluted superhero mythologies. This line of thinking is also beginning to creep into the mainstream thanks to the corporate-driven hype put forth by powerful Silicon Valley companies who are pushing these ideas for profit and to maintain technology's ineluctable "more, better, faster" momentum.
The transhumanist agenda is a runaway freight train, barely mentioned in the mainstream media, but threatening to run over us all. In related "mad science" offshoot, scientists have succeeded in creating the first biological computer-based hybrids called Xenobotswhich the New York Times describes as "programmable organisms" that "live for only about a week". The corporate PR frontage for these "breakthroughs" is always the same: they will only be used for the highest purposes like getting rid of plastics in the oceans. But still the question remains: who will control or regulate the use of these man-made creatures?In the brave new world of building machines that can think and evolve on their own because they combine AI programming with biological programming, we have to ask where all this is headed. If machines are being used to evaluate us for job interviews, then why won't they be eventually used as police officers or judges? (In fact, Singapore is now using robotic dogs to police parks for Covid-related social distancing.)
As both a technologist and a journalist, I find it very difficult to think of transhumanism and what I'll call the New Eugenics as anything less than deeply and literally dehumanizing. In the aftermath of WWII, eugenics used to be widely reviled when Nazi scientists experimented with and so highly valued it. Now it's lauded as cutting edge.There are two ugly flies in this ointment. The first is the question of who directs and controls the AI machines being built. You can make a safe bet that it won't be you, your friends, or your neighbors but rather technocratic elites. The second is the fact that programmers, and their masters, the corporate Lords of Tech, are the least likely candidates to come up with the necessary wisdom to imbue AI with the deeper human qualities necessary to make it anything more than a force used for social and political control in conjunction with mass surveillance and other tools.
Another consideration is: how does politics fit into this picture? In the middle ages, one of the great power shifts that took place was from medieval rulers to the church. In the age of the enlightenment, another shift took place: from the church to the modern state. Now we are experiencing yet another great transition: a shift of power from state and federal political systems to corporations and, by extension, to the global elites that are increasingly exerting great influence on both, the 1 percenters that Bernie Sanders frequently refers to.
When considering the use of any new technology, the question should be asked: who does it ultimately serve? And to what extent are ordinary citizens allowed to express their approval or disapproval of the complex technological regimes being created that we all end up involuntarily depending upon?
These trends have political implications because they have happened in tandem with the neoliberal sleight of hand that began with President Reagan. Gradually anti-democratic policy changes over a period of decades allowed elites to begin the process of transferring public funds to private coffers. This was done under the neoliberal smokescreen of widely touted but socially hollow benefits such as privatization, outsourcing, and deregulation bolstered by nostrums such as "Government must get out of the way to let innovation thrive."
Behind the scenes, the use of advanced technology has played a strong role in enabling this transition but it did so out of the public's watchful eye. Now, it seems abundantly clear that technologies such as 5G, machine learning, and AI will continue to be leveraged by technocratic elites for the purposes of social engineering and economic gain. As Yuval Harari, one of transhumanism's most vocal proponents has stated: "Whoever controls these algorithms will be the real government."
If AI is allowed to begin making decisions that affect our everyday lives in the realms of work, play and business, it's important to be aware of who this technology serves: technologically sophisticated elites. We have been hearing promises for some time about how better advanced computer technology was going to revolutionize our lives by changing just about every aspect of them for the better. But the reality on the ground seems to be quite different than what was advertised. Yes, there are many areas where it can be argued that the use of computer and Internet technology has improved the quality of life. But there are just as many others where it has failed miserably. Healthcare is just one example. Here misguided legislation combined with an obsession with insurance company-mandated data gathering has created massive info-bureaucracies where doctors and nurses spend far too much time feeding patient data into a huge information databases where it often seems to languish. Nurses and other medical professionals have long complained that too much of their time is spent on data gathering and not enough time focusing on healthcare itself and real patient needs.
When considering the use of any new technology, the question should be asked: who does it ultimately serve? And to what extent are ordinary citizens allowed to express their approval or disapproval of the complex technological regimes being created that we all end up involuntarily depending upon? In a second "Gilded Age" where the power of billionaires and elites over our lives is now being widely questioned, what do we do about their ability to radically and undemocratically alter the landscape of our daily lives using the almighty algorithm?
Posted: at 8:06 pm
Into The Darkness, a new indie VR game from Cosmos Games, promises a compelling story involving transhumanism in the near future merged with exciting VR action-adventure gameplay that uses a Boneworks-like physics system.
Announced this week, the game will be available for PC VR in late 2021, developed by Vietnamese studio Cosmos Games and published by GameBoom VR and PlayWay.
The game takes place in a dystopian sci-fi setting where humans are trying to move consciousness into machines in order to live forever. Heres a summary of the story from Cosmos Games:
Humanity is trying to achieve immortality by transferring consciousness to machines. Transhumanism, however, is a dangerous path, and a poorly conducted experiment can end in a tragedy. As agent Frank, you are sent to one of the research facilities with which contact has been interrupted, and the previous agents never returned. Navigate through environments, solve the puzzle, engage the enemy to find out the dark secret behind the experiments.
You can sneak an early look at the games visuals and gameplay in the announcement trailer embedded above.
As you can see from the trailer, Into The Darkness is looking to implement a comprehensive physics system that works similarly to pioneers in the field like Boneworks. All of the objects have weight and physics that react in a manner consistent with the real world. Towards the end of the trailer, theres even a glance at a Half-Life: Alyx-style glove system that lets you force pull items toward you.
Into The Darkness will launch for PC VR in Q2 of this year, available on Steam for Oculus Rift, Valve Index (including finger tracking support), HTC Vive, and Windows Mixed Reality headsets.
Posted: at 8:06 pm
One of the most popular subgenres of '80s movies was the buddy cop film.Two partners are thrown together, bicker and clash, learn to trust each other, and finally become a formidable team. Audiences couldn't seem to get enough of all the wisecracks, shoot-outs, and car chases in Beverly Hills Cop(1984), Lethal Weapon (1987),Red Heat (1988), Dragnet(1987), Stakeout (1987), Tango and Cash (1989),and many others.
RoboCop both follows and subverts the formula. Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) gets transferred from his cushy uptown station to the urban hell of Old Detroit. He partners with the veteran Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), who is initially put off by Murphy's cockiness standard buddy cop stuff.RoboCop departs from the formula by making one of the partners female. Another major difference is that Murphy is shot to death on their first day of work together. Lewis disappears for a stretch while Murphy's consciousness is implanted into RoboCop, but once she recognizes him, they reunite to take down the bad guys that killed him.
Buddy cop movies of the era had little use for female characters, who served as background to the bromance between the male partners. Lewis' competence and professionalism as a police officer, as well as the fact that she is never sexualized or made into a love interest, is one of the many ways that RoboCop was forward-looking while still embracing '80s conventions.
Read more from the original source:
Why RoboCop Is The Sci-Fi Film Most Representative Of The 1980s - Looper
Posted: at 8:05 pm
Post Views: 416
The human body requires a balanced diet consisting mainly of five components- proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals. You can acquire these nutrients through natural sources like fruits, vegetables, meat, pulses, etc. However, if you suffer from certain deficiencies, these natural sources cannot fulfill your nutritional requirements.
To fulfill your needs, you must consume food supplements such as protein powder, vitamin supplements, fish oil, creatine supplements, BCAAs (Branch Chain Amino Acids), etc. But, you must consult a healthcare professional or your family doctor to know which do you need. These nutritive add-ons are easily available in the market and do not always require a prescription. It is still better to seek a professionals opinion purchasing these dietary supplements such as Simply Nutrients.
Here are the five most important food supplements you need to overcome a deficiency and maintain your overall health and fitness.
Protein powder is one of the most important, and sought-after dietary supplements in the market. Protein is an essential macronutrient of your body. It forms the various organs and tissues in your body, such as muscles, hair, bone, skin, etc. Along with this, it also plays a critical role in providing energy and oxygen to the various parts of your body. Despite being an important and necessary nutrient, a massive chunk of the world population lack protein.
They undergo strenuous workouts regularly without getting adequate protein intake. For such people, protein supplements such as Whey protein is beneficial. This supplement digests quickly contains all the required amino acids, reduces fat intake, develops lean muscle mass, and stimulates faster muscle recovery.
Fish oil tablets are essential food supplements and great sources of fatty acids, particularly Omega-3 fatty acids. This nutrient has a long list of health benefits, and if you have a history of heart disease, you need this supplement. Fish oil reduces the risk of cardiovascular or heart diseases, reduces the number of triglycerides (excess food turning into fat), prevents the formation of plaque in your arteries, and substantially reduces the chance of sudden cardiac arrests.
Vitamins are another set of important nutrients required by your body in smaller quantities. They are the essential nutrients that perform critical functions such as metabolism, digestion, healing wounds, maintain bone consistency, and stimulate our immune system. Vitamin deficiencies are the most common type of nutritional deficiencies observed among people, leading to anemia, rickets, scurvy, etc.
To prevent or overcome these deficiencies, you need multivitamins sold by various companies such as Simply Nutrients. These multivitamins lower the chances of chronic ailments,
Creatine is an important compound present in your body that provides you with energy and helps your muscles function better. It also plays a key role in recycling the ATP present and helping your muscles recover faster during rigorous exercise.
Moreover, the compound improves muscle strength and increases lean muscle mass in your body. Hence, if you get exhausted faster, creatine supplements shall prove helpful for you. These nutritive add-ons supply you with extra energy, allow you to work harder, and encourage healthy and consistent muscle growth.
Amino acids are the individual components that link together in a particular sequence to form a specific protein. In simple terms, they are the building blocks of a protein. Out of all the amino acids that exist, only 20 of them are essential for your body, and your body cannot make these.
The essential amino acids can be acquired by consuming food or dietary supplements. However, it may get difficult to obtain all amino acids in the required quantities from the food itself. Hence, you must opt for BCAA supplements that shall fulfill your body requirements.
These supplements reduce physical and mental exhaustion, increase lean muscle mass growth, encourage muscle growth, increase body strength, and help you recover faster from fatigue. Such supplements are easily manufactured by various companies and are available in the market.
Your body required regular exercise, adequate rest, proper hygiene, and a balanced diet. A balanced diet must contain proper quantities of nutrients like proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, fats, and minerals. You can get these nutrients from various plant and animal sources. However, in many cases, these sources arent enough to fulfill your dietary requirements.
For that, dietary supplements have become a necessity. Particular necessary supplements include protein, multivitamins, creatine, fish oil, and BCAAs. These supplements are readily available in the market and manufactured by companies like Simply Nutrients and many more.
Read the original:
Caliper Foods Unveils Results of Landmark Colorado State University CBD Study – The First Human Clinical Study Measuring and Comparing the Absorption…
Posted: at 8:05 pm
Pharmacokinetics (PK)isthe scienceof how bioactivesdiffuse throughthe body, and it reveals the difference between what we consume and what we absorb (vs. what we excrete), as well the rate and efficiency of absorption. PK studies are critical to understanding the efficacy of any bioactive compound, including CBD, since a bioactive's effect is a function of its presence. In other words, you can't feelwhat you don't absorb. PK studies provide the scientific foundation for claims such as "fast acting," "long lasting," and "superior bioavailability."
To date, when CBD product manufacturers have claimed fast action or superior absorption, they have generally based those claims to the extent they've predicated them at all on mouse studies or analogies to non-cannabinoid bioactives (often curcumin). Caliper's study represents the first human clinical substantiation of such claims, as well as the first to do so using commercially available products and an IRB-approved study design. Moreover, with the CBD industry generally mired in fraud and mistrust enabled by the prominent absence of Food & Drug Administration (FDA) oversight or enforcement over the past four years, this study is unique in its academic integrity. Although Caliper provided funding for the study, Colorado State University exercised complete and independent authority over the collection, analysis, and publication of these results.
Conducted by CSU researchers and published in a special issue of the medical journal Pharmaceuticals entitled Cannabidiol: Advances in Therapeutic Applications and Future Perspectives, the study compared the pharmacokinetic profiles of three proprietary soluble CBD formats Caliper Powder, Caliper Quillaia-based Liquid Concentrate, and Caliper Gum Arabic-based Liquid Concentrate against two control formats: oil-based CBD tincture and unemulsified CBD isolate, which together power the majority of available consumer CBD products in use today. The blinded, randomized, crossover study design involved 15 healthy men and women, ages 21-62, each consuming 30 mg of CBD in each product format. Participants provided venous blood samples prior to ingestion, and then at regular intervals over the ensuing four hours. Blood analysis revealed that all of Caliper's product formats were absorbed significantly faster than either control:
"Caliper's mission is to make consistent, convenient, and useful CBD products that feature rapid uptake and superior bioavailability and we back it all up with rigorous clinical research. This study validates that mission," said NicoleMaione, general manager of Caliper Consumer. "The CBD industry has unfortunately invested far more money into the promotion ofunfoundedmarketing claims than into the research requiredto substantiate those claims. Calipercares about the process as much as the data, and we want to move this industry forward by developing clinically-substantiated CBD-infused products that meet their label claims."
"It's incumbent upon our company, our industry, and, above all, our regulatory agencies to ensure that consumer products meet the promises made on their labels. That's why we invested heavily in a well-designed clinical study with a credible academic partner and supported its publication in an open access, peer-reviewed journal," said Jolene Jacobs, general manager of Caliper Ingredients. "We didn't conduct this study on mice in a lab. We used real people and real products, and the results provide real-world support for our product claims. The fact that different product formats exhibited different absorption profiles demonstrates why brands need to base their claims on empirical data rather than empty buzzwords like 'nano' when talking about fast action or improved absorption."
Caliper has expendedconsiderable time and energy battling charlatanism inthe CBD marketplace, including lobbying the FDA and Congress to demonstrate their concern for consumers by regulating the ongoing, widespread production and sale of consumer products infused with CBD and other hemp-derived cannabinoids. Caliper has taken the lead in pushing FDA to hold cannabinoid manufacturers to the same baseline standards for labeling accuracy, good manufacturing practices, and claims substantiation that non-CBD food & supplement manufacturers have operated under for decades.
"In their well-meaning search for better data and real world evidence, the FDA has unfortunately opted for delaying the regulatory process time and again in the alleged pursuit of enacting perfect regulation in the future over the necessity of enacting basicregulation today. The regulatory delay has, and will continue to, endanger consumers," said Justin Singer, CEO of Caliper Foods. "We agree that real world evidence is important, which is why we've long urged the FDA to impose the same labeling and manufacturing requirements on hemp product manufacturers as they do on other foods and supplements. You can't trust consumer reports of CBD usage unless you can trust the veracity of the labels on the products. As the FDA has amply demonstrated, label fraud is rampant in the CBD industry. At the same time, good manufacturing practices the bedrock of modern food safety policy remain unenforced, unmonitored, and unheeded by the FDA. Meanwhile, in the more than 24 months since Congress legalized the widespread production of hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoids, the FDA hasn't lifted so much as a finger to enact basic consumer protections against fraud and unsafe manufacturing practices for consumer products. The consuming public deserves better."
"More than 20 million Americans use CBD daily, and trends show that number continuing to rise," says Dr. Christopher Bell from Colorado State University. "But there is so little we understand about CBD and how everything from product format to individual physiology can affect circulating blood concentrations over time. The industry simply lacks basic scientific research and substantiation. We partnered with Caliper because they share our drive to better understand CBD and its effects on the human body, which was why testing with humans and publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal was essential."
About CaliperFoodsFounded in 2014, Caliper Foods is a functional foods company with deep expertise in the processing, manufacture, and commercialization of cannabinoid-infused food, beverage, and supplement products. Built on the idea that cannabinoids represent a new category of functional ingredients, Caliper Foods' operations encompass two distinct business units:
Both business lines utilize common manufacturing practices, formulations, and quality systems designed to meet the standards of the nation's largest CPG brands and retailers. We also invest heavily in published, peer-reviewed research with independent university partners to clinically validate the superior pharmacokinetic properties of our branded ingredients and consumer products alike. For more information, please visit http://www.caliperfoods.com.
SOURCE Caliper Foods
See the rest here:
Posted: at 8:05 pm
Named for its green edges, the green-lipped mussel also known as the New Zealand mussel is a shellfish native to New Zealand.
It has been claimed to have medicinal properties and thus become popular as a supplement.
The mussel contains several anti-inflammatory compounds claimed to treat inflammatory conditions, including asthma and arthritis.
This article explains everything you need to know about green-lipped mussel supplements, including their potential benefits, forms, and safety.
The green-lipped mussel is a staple food of the indigenous Mori people of New Zealands coasts.
Interest in the mussels potential health benefits began in the early 1970s and stemmed from the observation that Mori people had a lower incidence of arthritis than people who lived inland (1).
It was later determined that the mussels were a rich source of anti-inflammatory omega-3 fatty acids, especially eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (2, 3, 4).
Furthermore, researchers have identified other types of fatty acids from the mussels. They may also possess anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting enzymes and proteins that produce inflammation and pain (5, 6, 7).
Similarly, green lipped-mussels contain chondroitin sulfate, a component of connective tissues like joints and bones that may reduce inflammation in the same way (8).
In addition to these anti-inflammatory nutrients, the mussels are a good source of zinc and an excellent source of iron, selenium, and several B-vitamins (9).
Green-lipped mussels contain anti-inflammatory nutrients, such as omega-3 fatty acids and chondroitin sulfate. They also contain several key vitamins and minerals.
Green-lipped mussel extracts have been studied for various inflammatory conditions, namely asthma and different forms of arthritis.
Asthma is a chronic inflammatory condition that affects your lungs and can make breathing difficult.
By helping reduce inflammation in the lungs airways, green-lipped mussels may benefit people with asthma.
In one study, researchers gave people with asthma either 400 mg of green-lipid mussel extract or a placebo every day for 3 weeks before having them try the opposite treatment for another 3 weeks (10).
Compared to the placebo, the extract led to significant reductions in airway inflammation and asthma symptoms.
Another 8-week study in people with asthma found that a similar extract containing 400 mg of the mussel reduced asthma symptom frequency and airway inflammation when taken daily, compared with a placebo (11).
While these results are promising, more research is needed.
Arthritis, which is characterized by painful swelling and stiffness in one or more of your joints, results from chronic inflammation.
The most common types of arthritis are osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Due to its anti-inflammatory properties, green-lipped mussel extract has been claimed to reduce joint inflammation, helping relieve arthritis symptoms.
However, one review concluded that limited evidence exists to support the use of green-lipped mussel extract for RA or OA, especially when compared with other nutrition supplements like glucosamine and chondroitin, which have more scientific backing (12, 13).
In contrast, another review of four randomized clinical trials concluded that green-lipped mussel extract improved joint stiffness and pain in people with OA (14).
However, these findings cant be attributed to the extract alone, as people in each of the studies were also taking pain-relieving medications.
The studies were also of poor quality and influenced by biases that could have altered the results.
Additional trials have been conducted in the last few years, but they have either demonstrated inconsistent findings or were of low quality (15, 16).
Therefore, the effectiveness of green-lipped mussels for relieving arthritis symptoms remains weak based on the current research.
The current research remains limited or fails to support the use of green-lipped mussels supplements for asthma or arthritis.
Beyond asthma and arthritis, green-lipped mussel extracts have been studied for their potential benefits in athletes, as well as children with mental disorders.
Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) is characterized by muscle soreness and stiffness that occurs 2448 hours after an intense or unfamiliar workout and can last for several days (17).
Several factors are thought to contribute to DOMS, one of which is muscle damage incurred from a workout that causes an inflammatory response (18).
While studies have failed to find any improvement in DOMS from a commercial extract of green-lipped mussels in well-trained athletes, 400 mg of the extract taken for 11 weeks reduced pain sensations in lesser-trained individuals (19, 20).
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common childhood disorder that causes trouble paying attention and organizing tasks and activities (21).
The causes of ADHD remain largely unknown, but genetics are thought to play a significant role (22).
And while more research is necessary, ADHD has also been associated with inflammation (23).
One study in children ages 6 to 14 with ADHD symptoms showed significant improvements in attention and learning ability following 8 but not 14 weeks of supplementation with a commercial extract containing 150200 mg of green-lipped mussels (24).
Because this is the only trial to date investigating the effects of a green-lipped mussel extract on ADHD symptoms, more research is necessary.
Green-lipped mussel extracts may benefit other inflammatory conditions like DOMS and ADHD in children, but more research is needed.
Green-lipped mussel extracts can be found in oil or powder form and should be easy to find online or at your local health store.
While less common, you can also find gels and creams that claim to ease joint pain and muscle soreness when applied to the skin.
Most of the studies examining the anti-inflammatory properties of green-lipped mussels have used an oil extract.
Interestingly, research indicates EPA may be better absorbed from powdered forms than from oil extracts (25).
In either case, if youre looking to try a green-lipped mussel supplement, ensure that it was produced using methods that retain the mussels natural nutrient profile.
One example is freeze-drying, which removes water at low temperatures, providing product stability and nutrient retention.
Also, look for reputable supplement companies that undergo third-party testing to ensure product quality and safety.
Several forms of green-lipped mussel supplements exist, including powders, pills, creams, and gels. Regardless of the form, ensure it was produced in a way that preserves the mussels nutrients.
As green-lipped mussels are a type of shellfish, you should avoid these supplements if you have a shellfish allergy or intolerance.
You should also avoid the supplements if youre pregnant or lactating due to a lack of safety information (1).
Outside of these populations, some adverse side effects have been noted with green-lipped mussel supplements.
For example, early studies reported liver inflammation associated with a brand of supplements that contained toxins produced by the mussel (1).
Other reported adverse effects linked with green-lipped mussel supplements include fluid retention, nausea, and upset stomach (1).
That said, more recent studies have failed to find serious adverse side effects associated with supplements containing the mussel (15, 16).
Finally, green-lipped mussel supplements may negatively interact with or enhance the side effects of certain medications, such as blood thinners and anti-inflammatory medications like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
Keep these things in mind before trying a green-lipped mussel supplement, or talk with your doctor if youre unsure whether this supplement is safe for you.
A few negative side effects have been linked to green-lipped mussel supplements, which should be considered before trying them.
Green-lipped mussels are native to New Zealand, where theyre a staple food in the diets of the indigenous Mori people.
Theyre also popular as a supplement, as the mussels contain various anti-inflammatory nutrients, including omega-3 fatty acids and chondroitin sulfate. They also contain several vitamins and minerals.
However, only sparse and inconsistent evidence supports the use of green-lipped mussel supplements for inflammatory conditions like asthma, arthritis, DOMS, or ADHD in children.
Before trying a green-lipped mussel supplement, make sure it was produced using a method like freeze-drying, and consult your healthcare provider about the potential risk of negative side effects.
Diet and fitness experts debunk 10 glaring weight loss myths that could be sabotaging your goals – Insider – Insider
Posted: at 8:05 pm
From extreme juice cleanses to supposed miracle supplements, some folks seem willing to try just about anything to lose weight. However, experts say many of these fast-track methods are based on myths, since weight loss is the result of consistently taking in fewer calories than you expend over time and making smart dietary choices.
According to Artur Viana, MD, clinical director of the Metabolic Health & Weight Loss Program at Yale Medicine, one of the most popular weight loss myths is that all you have to do is exercise more and you'll lose weight.
"Exercise is fundamental to a healthy lifestyle, weight loss, and weight maintenance, but it has to come with a change in diet as well," Viana says.
Below, experts in diet and exercise debunk some of the most common misconceptions about weight loss.
Your body doesn't metabolize all foods the same way. And how quickly you digest something can affect insulin levels, blood sugar spikes, and fat storage.
For example, compare 100 calories worth of cake to 100 calories of carrots. The calorie amount is the same, however, the cake is made with refined carbohydrates whereas carrots contain more fiber and nutrients.
This difference is important because your body digests the cake more quickly. This floods your system with glucose, spiking blood sugar and insulin levels in the process, which can promote fat storage.
Carrots, by contrast, are digested more slowly which means less glucose in your blood. This helps to maintain healthy blood sugar levels and it can also keep you fuller, longer, which may prevent overeating.
So, while 100 calories worth of cake and 100 calories worth of carrots provide the same energy output, one is clearly superior for weight management over the other, says exercise physiologist Joel Seedman, PhD.
Viana also says processed foods don't send the same satiety signals to your brain as whole foods do, meaning you're more likely to overeat and thus, gain weight.
Research suggests that it's what you eat and how much that matters, not necessarily what time you eat.
What the research says: A large 2016 study found no link between eating dinner past 8 p.m. and weight gain in children. However, a 2008 study revealed that people who ate between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. consumed roughly 500 more calories per day and gained more weight than those who only ate during daytime hours. However, other research has shown that mealtime may affect glucose intolerance and reduce fat utilization, especially if you're habitually eating a late dinner.
The takeaway is that eating at night may make you gain weight if it causes you to go over your daily calorie budget, says Andres Ayesta, MS, a registered dietitian and certified strength and conditioning coach.
Carbohydrates are often billed as the enemy when it comes to weight loss, but a 2018 study revealed that adults who followed a low-carb diet lost the same amount of weight, on average, as those who followed a low-fat diet.
Not all carbs are created equal, though. Whole grains pack more fiber than refined carbs, meaning they're metabolized more slowly and don't cause big insulin surges.
In fact, a 2017 study found that people who ate a diet with enough whole grains to meet the recommended dietary allowance for fiber burned 100 more calories per day, in part due to a slight increase in their resting metabolic rate, when compared to people who ate refined grains with little fiber.
Ayesta says that fat contains more calories per gram than protein and carbohydrates, which means fat is much easier to overconsume.
However, a 2019 review revealed that the Mediterranean diet which entails getting about 35% to 40% of your calories from heart-healthy fats may prevent increases in weight and waist circumference in non-obese individuals.
Researchers noted that a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil, for example, can decrease total body weight and BMI.
A 2016 study revealed that people without Celiac disease are buying gluten-free products because they believe they're a "healthier option."
In reality, "many processed gluten-free products are actually more calorie-dense than their gluten-containing counterparts because they may contain more fat and sugar," says Viana.
A 2017 review found that overall, gluten-free foods had more saturated fat, sugar, and salt, and less protein and fiber than regular foods. Specifically, gluten-free bread and flour products tended to contain high fat and sugar in comparison to their gluten-containing counterparts.
When it comes to weight loss, eating breakfast is a mixed bag. Some research indicates it can help with weight loss while other research suggests the opposite. For example, a 2018 review found no strong evidence to support the idea that eating breakfast helps you to lose weight.
Viana says the only case in which eating a large breakfast might be beneficial is if it helps you to eat fewer calories later in the day.
According to Harvard Medical School, a 155-pound person burns roughly 372 calories while running an average 10-minute-per-mile pace for 30 minutes, and about 112 calories lifting weights for the same amount of time.
Even though cardio workouts may burn more calories in the moment than strength training, at least one small study has shown that you may burn more calories in the hours after lifting weights, because your metabolism may stay elevated longer.
Seedman says that when it comes to losing weight, the ideal exercise regimen includes a combination of both cardio and resistance training.
Studies have shown that many exercisers resort to "compensatory behaviors" after working out that offset the calories they expend. For example, a 2009 study of postmenopausal women, who were either overweight or obese, revealed that participants seemed to increase their food intake after working out on a treadmill or exercise bike, either because they felt hungrier or because they thought they burned off a lot of calories.
The idea behind small, frequent meals is that it helps better control hunger and keeps your metabolism up throughout the day for easier weight loss. However, in practice, this isn't what happens, according to scientific research.
For example, a 2007 study examined two groups of people who consumed an equal number of calories per day: one that ate three meals with no snacks, and another that ate three meals and three snacks. By the end of the year-long experiment, researchers found no difference in weight loss between the two groups.
According to Seedman, meal size and frequency is a matter of figuring out which approach best fits your lifestyle and helps you to stay within your daily calorie budget.
While a juice cleanse may result in short-term weight loss, Viana says that's due to a severe calorie deficit one that's not realistic to uphold for more than a few days at most. Once you re-introduce solid foods, you're likely to regain any weight that was lost.
Ayesta also points out that you're mostly losing water weight with this strategy because drinking so much juice can cause you to urinate more often.
Dietary supplements aren't regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the FDA says that many of them do not live up to their weight-loss promises and may even contain dangerous hidden ingredients, such as chemicals contained in blood pressure medications and antidepressants.
Moreover, a 2004 review found no convincing evidence that dietary supplements help with weight loss.
Ayesta and Viana say that many of the persistent weight-loss myths stem from social media, the ever-changing realm of nutrition science, as well as the $71 billion weight loss industry, which is continually churning out new products to remain competitive.
The bottom line? If a weight-loss method sounds too easy or too good to be true, it probably is.
Weight loss is "a journey that requires patience, education, and consistency to yield sustainable results," says Ayesta. "People don't have to follow strict rules and eliminate entire food groups simply to accomplish weight loss."
Rather than taking extreme measures, Viana advises focusing on sticking to an exercise regimen that includes both cardio and resistance training, and maintaining a diverse diet that emphasizes whole foods over processed ones.
Lastly, Ayesta says it's important to keep in mind that diets only work when they restrict calories, but the only way to keep that weight off is to make sure your dietary changes are sustainable over the long term.
See the article here:
Quantum Computing Market worth $1,765 million by 2026 – Exclusive Report by MarketsandMarkets – PRNewswire
Posted: at 8:04 pm
CHICAGO, Feb. 2, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- According to the new market research report "Quantum Computing Marketwith COVID-19 impact by Offering (Systems and Services), Deployment (On Premises and Cloud Based), Application, Technology, End-use Industry and Region - Global Forecast to 2026", published by MarketsandMarkets, the market is expected to grow from USD 472 million in 2021 to USD 1,765 million by 2026, at a CAGR of 30.2%. The early adoption of quantum computing in the banking and finance sector is expected to fuel the growth of the market globally. Other key factors contributing to the growth of the quantum computing market include rising investments by governments of different countries to carry out research and development activities related to quantum computing technology. Several companies are focusing on the adoption of QCaaS post-COVID-19. This, in turn, is expected to contribute to the growth of the quantum computing market. However, stability and error correction issues is expected to restrain the growth of the market.
Ask for PDF Brochure: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/pdfdownloadNew.asp?id=144888301
Services segment is attributed to hold the largest share of the Quantum Computing market
The growth of services segment can be attributed to the increasing number of startups across the world that are investing in research and development activities related to quantum computing technology. This technology is used in optimization, simulation, and machine learning applications, thereby leading to optimum utilization costs and highly efficient operations in various end-use industries.
Cloud based deployment to witness the highest growth in Quantum Computing market in coming years
With the development of highly powerful systems, the demand for cloud-based deployment of quantum computing systems and services is expected to increase. This, in turn, is expected to result in a significant revenue source for service providers, with users paying for access to noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) systems that can solve real-world problems. The limited lifespan of rapidly advancing quantum computing systems also favors cloud service providers. The flexibility of access offered to users is another factor fueling the adoption of cloud-based deployment of quantum computing systems and services. For the foreseeable future, quantum computers are expected not to be portable. Cloud can provide users with access to different devices and simulators from their laptops.
Optimization accounted for a major share of the overall Quantum Computing market
Optimization is the largest application for quantum computing and accounted for a major share of the overall Quantum Computing market. Companies such as D-Wave Systems, Cambridge Quantum Computing, QC Ware, and 1QB Information Technologies are developing quantum computing systems for optimization applications. Networked Quantum Information Technologies Hub (NQIT) is expanding to incorporate optimization solutions for resolving problems faced by the practical applications of quantum computing technology.
Trapped ions segment to witness highest CAGR of Quantum Computing market during the forecast period
The trapped ions segment of the market is projected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period as quantum computing systems based on trapped ions offer more stability and better connectivity than quantum computing systems based on other technologies. IonQ, Alpine Quantum Technologies, and Honeywell are a few companies that use trapped ions technology in their quantum computing systems.
Browsein-depth TOC on"Quantum Computing Market"
111 Tables 51 Figures199 Pages
Inquiry Before Buying: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Enquiry_Before_BuyingNew.asp?id=144888301
Banking and finance is attributed to hold major share of Quantum Computing market during the forecast period
In the banking and finance end-use industry, quantum computing is used for risk modeling and trading applications. It is also used to detect the market instabilities by identifying stock market risks and optimize the trading trajectories, portfolios, and asset pricing and hedging. As the financial sector is difficult to understand; the quantum computing approach is expected to help users understand the complexities of the banking and finance end-use industry. Moreover, it can help traders by suggesting them solutions to overcome financial challenges.
APAC to witness highest growth of Quantum Computing market during the forecast period
APAC region is a leading hub for several industries, including healthcare and pharmaceuticals, banking and finance, and chemicals. Countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea are the leading manufacturers of consumer electronics, including smartphones, laptops, and gaming consoles, in APAC. There is a requirement to resolve complications in optimization, simulation, and machine learning applications across these industries. The large-scale development witnessed by emerging economies of APAC and the increased use of advanced technologies in the manufacturing sector are contributing to the development of large and medium enterprises in the region. This, in turn, is fueling the demand for quantum computing services and systems in APAC.
In APAC, the investments look promising, as most countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea have successfully contained the virus compared with the US and European countries. China is easing the restrictions placed on factory lockdowns and worker movement. Despite being the epicenter of COVID-19, China has maintained its dominant position as a global network leader.
The Quantum Computing market was dominated by International Business Machines (US), D-Wave Systems (Canada), Microsoft (US), Amazon (US), and Rigetti Computing (US).
Deep Learning Marketby Offering (Hardware, Software, and Services), Application (Image Recognition, Signal Recognition, Data Mining), End-User Industry (Security, Marketing, Healthcare, Fintech, Automotive, Law), and Geography - Global Forecast to 2023
MarketsandMarkets provides quantified B2B research on 30,000 high growth niche opportunities/threats which will impact 70% to 80% of worldwide companies' revenues. Currently servicing 7500 customers worldwide including 80% of global Fortune 1000 companies as clients. Almost 75,000 top officers across eight industries worldwide approach MarketsandMarkets for their painpoints around revenues decisions.
Our 850 fulltime analyst and SMEs at MarketsandMarkets are tracking global high growth markets following the "Growth Engagement Model GEM". The GEM aims at proactive collaboration with the clients to identify new opportunities, identify most important customers, write "Attack, avoid and defend" strategies, identify sources of incremental revenues for both the company and its competitors. MarketsandMarkets now coming up with 1,500 MicroQuadrants (Positioning top players across leaders, emerging companies, innovators, strategic players) annually in high growth emerging segments. MarketsandMarkets is determined to benefit more than 10,000 companies this year for their revenue planning and help them take their innovations/disruptions early to the market by providing them research ahead of the curve.
MarketsandMarkets' flagship competitive intelligence and market research platform, "Knowledge Store" connects over 200,000 markets and entire value chains for deeper understanding of the unmet insights along with market sizing and forecasts of niche markets.
Mr. Aashish MehraMarketsandMarkets INC.630 Dundee RoadSuite 430Northbrook, IL 60062USA: +1-888-600-6441Email: [emailprotected] Research Insight : https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/quantum-computing-market.aspVisit Our Web Site: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com Content Source: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/quantum-computing.asp
Continue reading here: