Monthly Archives: July 2021

The Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust complaint against Facebook on Dec. 9, 2020. The core of this complaint charged that Facebook used its market power to monopolize the social networking market and to charge excessively high rates to advertisers. On June 28, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg dismissed the complaint. He gave the FTC 30 days to attempt to amend the complaint and refile it. A bipartisan group of Senators and Congresspersons has now urged the FTC to refile the suit. The FTC should ignore the politicians and refrain from refiling the suit.

If, somehow, the FTC were to refile and win the lawsuit it would be socially counterproductive. The most intense complaints about Facebook center on content management, not on market monopolization and high ad rates to advertisers. This matters a lot because the remedy that the FTC was seeking in the antitrust complaint divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp would likely make the successor companies worse at dealing with the content management challenges, including former President TrumpDonald TrumpTexas family arrested for role in Capitol riot Poll: McAuliffe holds 2-point lead over Youngkin in Virginia governor's race On The Money: Inflation spike puts Biden on defensive | Senate Democrats hit spending speed bumps | Larry Summers huddles with WH team MOREs access.

Many people, left, center, and right, are angry with Facebook. This anger, often quite justified, stems from Facebooks sometimes bungled approach to content management over the past decade. These failures include Facebook being manipulated for bad ends. Facebooks failure to catch the Myanmar militarys use of fake accounts to hunt down and capture pro democracy dissidents, and to stoke demand for ethnic cleansing appalled many people. Facebooks failure to catch foreign governments use of fake accounts to spread lies and manipulate our politics and rend our social fabric also angers many. Philippine President Rodrigo Dutertes dreadful misuse of Facebook in the Philippines was a total failure of management. Others are livid over the Cambridge Analytica debacle. And, of course, both left and right are dreadfully unhappy with Facebooks approach to domestic political discussion. Everyone is unhappy.

Why will breaking up Facebook likely make things worse? In short, because content control can be done better by one large company than several smaller ones. Content management on a giant platform needs to be done partly by computer, using artificial intelligence and natural language processing to find problems. These techniques scale up beautifully. The more instances of questionable content that an AI algorithm gets to face and evaluate, the better its judgment will be in the future. Think of Google and its search algorithms; the principle is the same. In addition, because hate speech and manipulation are strongly rooted in local culture, finding the problems also requires real people who are fluent in language and culture. The management of such units also scales up.

At present, Facebook says that it uses a combination of employees and outside companies that provide the linguistic and cultural expertise needed to find troublesome content. This is extremely expensive, and Facebook will probably need to spend much more than it currently does. In addition, competitive pressures will likely reduce budgets for security for data. Further, a large company, with roots in many countries, will likely have the resources to resist political pressures engendered by an unhappy right-wing or left-wing part of the government and its supporters. For all these reasons, several small companies will likely do a worse job with content moderation than will one big one.

But doesnt one big company also have pressures to allow only conforming, middle-of-the-road posts and discussions? No. If the one, big company is advertiser-supported and has many channels, it has incentives to provide something for everyone. That is Facebook. They have incentives to provide opportunities for everyone, left, right and center, to participate on Facebook, regardless of Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergBeyond Trump's flimsy lawsuits, there's a proper path for regulating social media The FTC's plan to break up Facebook will only worsen free speech concerns The Hill's Morning Report: Afghanistan's future now up to Afghans, Biden says MOREs personal politics.

What should be done? Do the antitrust laws demand that the FTC refile this counterproductive complaint against Facebook? No. The circumstances of the original complaint a razor thin majority to file the complaint during the lame duck period of a presidential administration raise serious suspicions about the complaints quality. Reading the dismissed complaint confirms that it was, in fact, quite weak. In short, the FTC was seeking to redo the decisions it made years ago to allow Facebook to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp, based mainly on documents and theories that were available when they gave Facebook permission. That just will not do.

The FTC should drop this ill-considered antitrust complaint. Forcing Facebook to divest Instagram and WhatsApp will make content management worse, not better. It is time for the FTC to abandon its counterproductive strategy and refuse to refile the complaint. And we all need to continue to pressure Facebook to do a better job of content management.

Matthew L. Spitzer is Howard and Elizabeth Chapman Professor of Law and director of the Center for Law, Business, and Economics at Northwestern University.

Visit link:
The FTC's plan to break up Facebook will only worsen free speech concerns | TheHill - The Hill

In today's fast-paced news environment, it can be hard to keep up. For your weekend reading, we've startedin-case-you-missed-it compilations of some of the week's topUSA TODAY Opinionpieces.As always, thanks for reading, andfor your feedback.

USA TODAY Opinion editors

By Joe Trippi

"As citizens, we must join each other in a pro-democracy coalition that confronts the authoritarian movement in our midst at every turn. President Biden and those trying to govern must find compromise and common ground wherever they can to get things done, and we all must give them the room to do so. But there is no compromising with those who continue to fuel the authoritarian movement with lies."

By Dr. Scott E. Hadland

"Many of us list of prohibited substances including me, an addiction doctor found ourselves scratching our heads at the World Anti-Doping Agencys seemingly antiquated rules on cannabis. The Agency classifies substances as prohibited if they meet two of three criteria that the substance is performance-enhancing, is a health risk to the athlete, or violates the spirit of sport.' I assert that cannabis does not meet this definition."

By Christopher F. Rufo

"Next, this framework teaches students to think that they bear responsibility for and are the beneficiaries of historical crimes committed by individuals who shared the same skin color; consequently, they must atone for their white privilege." Critical race theorists in practice sometimes refer to this as "internalized racial superiority" within white people."

Get moreinsights from USA TODAY Opinion.Subscribe to our newsletter.

By Michael J. Stern

"Because an indictment triggers discovery obligations on the DAs part, Weisselberg will now have access to virtually all the evidence against him.I cannot count the number of times a defendant initially told me to shove my cooperation offer, yet ended up cooperating after seeing everything I was going to show to the jury that would decide his fate."

By Gretchen Carlson

"More than 60 million Americans are under the thumb of forced arbitration in their employment agreements, and over a third of American workers are bound by NDAs. They cannot tell their own truths; they cannot tell their own stories. Its time to remove the muzzles, not just to make people safer but to also create more productive, positive businesses. No one can be expected to do their best work in the presence of predators and their protectors."

By Paul Brandus

"Trump was astonishingly easy to grade. I gave him a 10 as in horrible in Moral Authority, Administrative Skills and International Relations. Others obviously had similar views. He finished rock bottom, the worst of the worst in the first two categories and 43rd (second-to-last) in International Relations.

By Suzette Hackney

"Leneal Lamont Frazier, 40, died Tuesday after his vehicle was struck by a squad car as police chased a robbery suspect, according to Minneapolis police spokesman John Elder. Police spotted a driver in a vehicle believed to have been stolen during a carjacking and linked to multiple robberies. The driver fled as officers attempted to make a traffic stop. As an officer pursued the suspect, he collided with Frazier's vehicle."

By The Editorial Board

"The Supreme Court could toss out qualified immunity but has repeatedly passed up that chance. In the past year, the court has taken a few baby steps to modify the doctrine, but it could take years for that to make a substantial difference. Fixing this travesty is a job for Congress, after lawmakers promised police reform in response to nationwide calls for change. The House passed a measure that among other changes would eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, but most Senate Republicans have sharply objected."

By Abigail Anthony

"A fundamental flaw in supporting speech limitations is the assumption that the arbiters who would impose restrictions share your precise evaluation of what should be limited. I challenge those willing to relinquish free speech to ask themselves whether they are comfortable with their political opponents legislating the regulations."

By Ben Crump

"Too often, Black life is treated as disposable, and those who threaten or end it face little or no consequence. How do we correct that? Changing hearts and minds is a lengthy, stubborn and often fruitless process. But the American justice system offers remedies criminal justice, which applies a punishment for taking a life, and civil justice, which attaches a monetary value for lost life. Of course, putting Chauvin behind bars for two decades doesnt equate to full justice. It doesnt give Floyd his life back. And no amount of money can make up for the loss of a human being. But both remedies are critical forms of accountability, and both can drive change."

By Connie Schultz

"Now that Joe Biden is president, a majority of U.S. Catholic bishops want to force a debate on whether he and other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be allowed to receive communion. The Vatican has warned against punishing support for a right, and Pope Francis recently preached that communion is not the reward of saints, but the bread of sinners.

See the original post:
Lincoln Project, campus speech, critical race theory, Trump Org. charges and other top columns - USA TODAY

Hate speech regulation is hard to get right. As media law specialist Steven Price has pointed out, the challenge for a democratic society lies in targeting the harm hate speech is claimed to do while not capturing other legitimate forms of speech too broadly.

Its true, the scope, enforcement and effectiveness of hate speech law must be calibrated carefully. But these are practical and mechanical questions about how hate speech laws might operate, not assertions that the harm in hate speech is something the law cannot regulate.

While I accept these practical difficulties exist, in my view the harm done by hate speech is clearly something the law should be concerned with. But we also cant ignore persistent scepticism about the appropriateness of using the law to regulate this kind of speech.

When the Race Relations Commissioner floated the possibility of hate speech reforms in 2017, ACT Party leader David Seymour argued there were already adequate laws controlling defamation or inciting violence:

Those things are already illegal. Anything further is actually censorship and we should be just as worried about the state starting to decide what is acceptable to say as we should be about people saying nasty things.

The insistence on a link to inciting violence being a prerequisite for curbing free speech has been repeated several times since the government announced its intention to reform hate speech law after the Christchurch mosque attacks.

Opposition Leader Judith Collins has promised the National Party will reverse any attempts Jacinda Arderns government makes to criminalise speech beyond the threshold of inciting violence.

Read more: NZ's hate speech proposals need more detail and wider debate before they become law

Similarly, when a division of Auckland Council cancelled a venue booking for controversial Canadian speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux in 2019, a spokesperson for the Free Speech Coalition said the organisation accepted genuine hate speech that incited violence or illegal activity should be blocked.

But curbing free debate under threat of disruption is neither desirable nor acceptable in a free and democratic society.

Not everyone who is sceptical about hate speech law reform takes this line. But it demands attention when the leaders of both major opposition parties and a significant lobby group insist a link to violence is required before hate speech regulation can be justified.

The problem with the argument, however, is that this isnt how we treat many other existing forms of speech regulation in New Zealand law.

Defamation, for example, addresses the harm to a persons reputation and the related effects this has on ones ability to interact with friends, family, colleagues and the wider world.

The harm to those social bonds caused by defamation is seen as sufficient justification in itself to allow for civil damages to be recovered. No link to violence at all is required.

Read more: The Christchurch commissions call to improve social cohesion is its hardest and most important recommendation

Similar protections exist under laws governing invasion of privacy. These allow people to be sued if they share private facts about another person in a highly offensive way.

The harm here is to the dignity and autonomy of the affected person. Again, no link to violence is required, even remotely.

One might argue these are civil wrongs and the proposed hate speech laws include criminal liability. But civil hate speech regulation is also proposed. Conversely, we already criminalise many kinds of speech with no link to physical violence.

Obtaining by deception and blackmail are two obvious examples. These focus on speech which, without threats of violence, causes a loss to the victim and/or a benefit to the offender.

No link to violence is required in fact, no financial loss is required. The core of the harm covered by these offences is to the autonomy of the victim, which has been compromised by blackmail or fraudulent statements.

More generally, a diffuse public interest is upheld by offences such as perjury, which deals with systemic harm to the administration of justice, and public order offences, which uphold our collective right to enjoy public spaces.

None of these requires a link to violence. Moreover, the interests being protected dignity, autonomy, collective public good are exactly the sorts of things influential legal theorists argue are protected by regulating hate speech.

Read more: Facebook's failure to pay attention to non-English languages is allowing hate speech to flourish

In my view, then, the argument that a link to violence is a precondition of hate speech regulation is wrong.

This is not to say there are no good arguments against the governments proposed reforms. This is hard to get right, and there are things that can and should be changed.

As Steven Price has also pointed out, the proposal is oddly equivocal about whether speech intended to cause hatred also has to cause (or be likely to cause) hatred in society.

As well, serious thought needs to be given to whether the the potential inclusion of every group protected from discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act is overly broad in the context of hate speech regulation.

We should focus on those very real concerns public submissions on the proposed legislation close August 6 rather than insist on a threshold for speech regulation that our legal tradition simply does not require.

Read the original post:
Why inciting violence should not be the only threshold for defining hate speech in New Zealand - The Conversation AU

None of those topics were on the agenda, except for a resolution that would update the mask policy. But the concerns brought forth reflected national conversations about racial awareness and free speech in the educational system.

Before the main business of the meeting, Brenda Hiniker expressed concerns about critical race theory. She said it's another form of discrimination.

"Critical race theory is very misleading," she said. "It talks about equity instead of equality. Equality is defined and supported by the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, supported in the 14th and 15th amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ... CRT creates reverse discrimination against the white population."

Hiniker also criticized the board for its April 27 decision regarding "government speech." At that time, the board passed a resolution designating several statements, such as "Black Lives Matter" and "Stop Asian Hate," as government-protected speech.

The resolution read, in part: "We believe in the importance of sharing a general message of acceptance and inclusion of historically underserved/marginalized individuals, which is consistent with the Districts legal obligation to provide a workplace and educational environment that is free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and other legally protected classes."

Wes Lund came to the podium with a number of Dr. Seuss books, in an apparent reference to the decision by the business that preserves the author's legacy to stop publishing six titles because of racist and insensitive imagery.

Lund spoke past the allotted time about what he described as a hostile environment for anyone who doesn't subscribe to a particular set of beliefs.

"I look across our community, across this room, and I see a tremendous polarization," he said. "Students and teachers, parents and community members are afraid to voice their true opinions in our schools for fear of docked grades, threats to job security, and retaliation against their students and businesses. A singular social political narrative is being pushed, and anyone who dares to question it or speak against it is being attacked and demonized."

He also mocked the hiring of the district's interim superintendent, Kent Pekel.

"Does everyone in the room realize that we have some 'deep state' characters right here in the room?" Lund asked the crowd, referring to Pekel's work with the Central Intelligence Agency earlier in his career. "I don't think everyone's aware of that, because when you hired this guy, you did it over Zoom meeting. You should have had the public vet this character to find out who exactly he is."

Board Chairwoman Jean Marvin banged her gavel in protest against Julie Kisgen-Reed, who came forward after the public comment period was closed. Kisgen-Reed spoke passionately against mask usage, though much of her initial comments were hard to hear as the commotion in the room rose.

The crowd didn't stop there.

When Marvin introduced the meeting, someone in the crowd suggested the board start with the Pledge of Allegiance. The crowd of at least 50 then recited the pledge themselves, followed by a round of applause.

As the crowd began to leave the room at the end of the meeting, someone suggested they say the Lord's Prayer. Many of them did, some with their arms raised in the air.

Neither Pekel nor the board responded to audience members during the meeting, but they provided comments afterward.

Pekel and Marvin said many of the implications expressed were incorrect. For example, both clarified that Rochester Public Schools does not teach critical race theory.

"This kind of misinformation is really disheartening," Marvin said.

Go here to read the rest:
Crowd protests 'government speech,' critical race theory at Rochester School Board meeting - Duluth News Tribune