Since you’re reading this, we hope you find Reclaim The Net useful. Today, we could use your help. We depend on supporters (averaging $15), but fewer than 0.2% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $5, (or the equivalent in your currency) you would help keep Reclaim The Net thriving for years. You don’t have to become a regular supporter; you can make a one-time donation. Please take a minute to keep Reclaim The Net going. Thank you.
|
"DISINFORMATION" CENSORSHIP |
 |
In the wake of the EU elections, those at the helm of the bloc are working to make the already contentious Digital Services Act (DSA) - which critics say is a sweeping censorship law - even more controversial.
Namely, EU regulators now want to make what was previously a set of "voluntary" guidelines implemented by online platforms - the Code of Practice on Disinformation - a formal part of the DSA.
This is the stance taken by the Digital Services Board, which just issued a report that now wants that "voluntary code" to be "swiftly converted" so that it becomes subject to the DSA. The Board consists of coordinators from the EU's nation-states.
The report said their demand to bring the Code under the DSA umbrella is supported by the EU Commission (EC).
In 2022, the Code was initially joined by 34 signatories, while this number is currently 44. Among them are Adobe, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Twitch, and TikTok, but also several journalist and research groups, "fact-checking" groups, and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA).
When it was announced, the EU said the Code represented a "strengthened" version of the one from 2018, and noted that it was the result of EC's guidance issued in 2021.
Even before this latest initiative, it was unclear to what degree the rules were "voluntary" in practice, given that on many occasions top EU bureaucrats did not hide that, especially when it comes to online platforms, it was there to make sure they "self-regulate" - or the EU would do it for them.
If the Code is included in the DSA, it will mean that is exactly what has happened.
"In view of the important added value of the Code regarding mitigating systemic risks, the Commission considers a swift conversion of the Code as crucial, with the aim to finish this process in the coming months," the report said.
The text of the 2022 Code states that its purpose is to, among other things, create scrutiny of ad placements, which includes demonetization of "disinformation" and "cooperation with relevant players"; the "integrity of services" section forks into "common understanding of impermissible manipulative behavior" and "transparency obligations for AI systems."
The Code further seeks to "empower" both users and the research community. The first category was to expect signatories to focus on "enhanced media literacy" and, "better equipping users to identify misinformation," as well as "functionality to flag harmful false and/or misleading information."
Meanwhile, researchers were supposed to be provided with the signatories' data, for the purpose of "researching disinformation." |
 |
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wants First Amendment free speech protections to be bolstered and believes that the separation of Tech and State ( creating a "wall of separation" between them) is in order.
This is to make sure government censorship is efficiently prevented going forward, he suggested.
Bailey sat down with journalist Tim Pool, and went through a litany of other issues plaguing political and social democratic processes, most clearly visible in what critics of the current White House consider to be the government colluding with social media companies to suppress lawful speech.
Bailey spoke about the Missouri v. Biden case (which reached the Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri) to say that "government coerced censorship" has already been proven, and now that the case has been referred back to a lower court, the discovery process can be used to fully expose what the state AG called, "that vast Censorship Enterprise."
Regarding the much contested on both sides of the aisle (but for different reasons) Section 230 of the CDA, Bailey agreed with the host that it should not continue in the current form, since platforms are protected for hosting third-party content - and then allowed to freely censor that content.
But the collusion with the government demonstrated in stark terms why Section 230 should be reformed so that it's "just a shield" for platforms, without also putting the "sword" of censorship in their hands, the interlocutors agreed.
The issue of social media and internet services becoming so widespread they are arguably the most powerful influence on people's choices - from shopping to politics - means they qualify as the public square.
And on that square, culture can be "fundamentally reshaped," Bailey said. Platforms banning "misgendering speech" was mentioned as an example.
And back to Section 230, but this time with regards to Wikipedia. Here, the Missouri AG doesn't believe immunity from the rules should extended to Wikipedia.
This is because whatever is published on Wikipedia is not clearly marked as written by users (such as on social platforms) - this is only visible in the source of a webpage.
"The byline is, 'from Wikipedia'," Pool remarked.
"They look like a publisher," Bailey said, alleging that Section 230 was not designed to protect those. |
 |
America's attempt to set up what critics called the "Ministry of Truth" failed miserably last year when the Disinformation Governance Board was quickly set up as an advisory to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - and then quickly dissolved, under massive public pushback.
The Board's head was Nina Jankowicz, whose role some of those same critics, among politicians and media among them, summed up as "misinformation czar."
Let's say that this is a kind way of saying, "censorship czar." But, reporting to this effect still personally offended Jankowicz enough to file a defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
And now, a federal judge has dismissed that suit.
We obtained a copy of the order for you here.
Jankowicz stated in the filing that Fox was making false claims about her intent to censor Americans, denying also that she "wanted to give verified Twitter users, including herself, the power to edit others tweets," or that she was actually fired (rather than resigning).
The reason she had to leave the Board, Jankowicz asserted, was the "harassment" she endured because Fox published reports that contained those claims.
US District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Colm Connolly, however, dismissed these three arguments. Jankowicz cited 37 statements heard on Fox, but the judge said 36 of them were about the Board in general, not her in particular.
And the one instance that could be construed to refer to Jankowicz (her picture was used to illustrate a report about the Board) doesn't count, either.
The Fox report said the Board was "dedicated to working with the special media giants for the purpose of policing information."
The judge decided to express himself plainly: "The statement is not defamatory because it is not false."
And he didn't stop there: "The Board was formed precisely to police information and to work with non governmental actors," Connolly wrote.
The fact that the Board was to "coordinate" with private companies to tackle what they identified as "misinformation", is an objective that Connolly said is "fairly characterized as a form of censorship."
As for the claim that Fox lied regarding the Twitter controversy, the ruling reads: "The complaint itself quotes Jankowicz confirming in a Zoom session that she endorsed the notion of having 'verified' individuals edit the content of others' tweets."
Fox commented on this outcome by saying they were satisfied that the court supported the First Amendment, while Jankowicz told her GoFundMe supporters, who are raising funds for her legal fees, that she would appeal.
The case is just one episode in the legal battles raging in the US, that fall into the broader category of "supercontroversy" that is the the Big Government-Big Tech collusion. |
|
Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net
|
|
|
|
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento