I VOSTRI VERI NEMICI? I "VOSTRI" RAPPRESENTANTI, I "VOSTRI" MILITARI E F.d.O., I "VOSTRI" MEDICI, I "VOSTRI" INSEGNANTI, I "VOSTRI" AMICI/CHE?, I "VOSTRI" "DATORI" DI LAVORO??? IL PESCE PUZZA DALLA TESTA E SOLO UNA GUERRA DI LIBERAZIONE PUO' RIPULIRLO.

 

Reclaim The Net 

Da:hello@reclaimthenet.org

Annulla iscrizione

A:pinc.palin@yahoo.com

gio 1 ago alle ore 21:18

Reclaim The Net accepts no invasive advertising and is kept going by those who directly support. If you support free speech, the eradication of cancel culture, and restoring privacy and civil liberties, please become a supporter today. Supporters also get extra content, tutorials, and guides. Thank you. SUPPORTERS The Biased Hidden Kingmaker of Google News In a world increasingly mediated by algorithmic systems, understanding the forces that shape our news consumption is critical. Today we look at Google News, analyze the implications of the platform's substantial influence on public opinion and media visibility, and look at findings about how it, through its algorithmic might, potentially sways political narratives. Become a supporter here. Get the post here. Become a Supporter ONLINE DIGITAL ID Senate Passes Kids' "Safety" Bills Despite Privacy, Digital ID, and Censorship Concerns Two bills combined - the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) - have passed in the US Senate in a 91-3 vote, and will now be considered by the House. Criticism of the bills focuses mainly on the likelihood that, if and when they become law, they will help expand online digital ID verification, as well as around issues like censorship (removal and blocking of content). Related: The 2024 Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda The effort to make KOSA and COPA 2.0 happen was spearheaded by a parent group that was pushing lawmakers and tech companies' executives to move in this direction, and their main demand was to enact new rules that would prevent cyberbullying and other harms. And now the main sponsors, senators Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, and Republican Marsha Blackburn are trying to dispel these concerns, suggesting these are not "speech bills" and do not (directly) impose age verification. Further defending the bills, they say that the legislation does not mandate that internet platforms start collecting even more user data, and reject the notion it is invasive of people's privacy. But the problem is that although technically true, this interpretation of the bills' impact is ultimately incorrect, as some of their provisions do encourage censorship, facilitate the introduction of digital ID for age verification, and leave the door open for mass collection of online users' data - under specific circumstances - and end ending anonymity online. The bills are hailed by supporters as "landmark" legislation that is the first to focus on protecting children on the internet in the last 20 years, with some lawmakers in the Senate, like majority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, describing the result of the vote as "a momentous day." But digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is describing KOSA in particular as "a terrible idea" and is, instead of positive sloganeering about protecting the children, delving deeper into what the bills in fact seek to mandate or pave the way for. The EFF is convinced that they should never become law and is urging citizens to take action to stop Congress from adopting KOSA. The overall criticism is that long-existing problems plaguing youths - such as mental disorders, drug, alcohol, and tobacco abuse, etc., should not be linked to the internet as if these issues weren't present before. EFF believes that the bill is in fact designed to "punish bad internet speech," and makes a point prior to the House vote - appearing to warn about possible politicization - that once it becomes law, it will be out of the hands of the members of Congress to implement it. Instead, the task would be entrusted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which EFF makes sure to note is "majority-controlled by the president's party." The group said that lawmakers supporting KOSA have chosen to ignore that "the vast majority of speech that KOSA affects is constitutionally protected in the US, which is why there is a long list of reasons that KOSA is unconstitutional." KOSA - although stating that platforms are not required to implement age verification - is seen by opponents as paving the way for expansion of this controversial policy, as it wants FTC, FCC, and the Secretary of Commerce to study "options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level." Censorship-wise, it allows the FTC to investigate and sue sites that are branded as serving content “harmful” to children. And unlike the previous versions which covered only certain platforms, guided by the number of users, revenue, etc., the bill now appears to cover all platforms, which, unless the wording is changed, would be a fairly drastic provision. When it comes to privacy and data collection, despite claims to the contrary, platforms will be able to collect or buy data on people with the goal of estimating a user's age. According to Senator Blumenthal, this happens "if an online platform already knows that a user is underage." How a platform might know that aside, the senator adds, "then it has to provide the safety and privacy protections required by the legislation -the platform cannot bury its head in the sand when it knows a user is underage." "Online platforms often already request a date of birth from new users, either for advertising and profiling the user or for compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Online platforms also frequently collect or purchase substantial amounts of other data to understand more about their users," Blumenthal has said. AS for COPPA 2.0, it also indirectly pushes for more age verification thanks to the new restrictions on the collection of data from minors. And while the bill doesn't mandate age verification - platforms that want to collect data or target ads will have to verify the users' age. One way to abuse this provision for censorship is the same as what has been happening with the first iteration of COPPA - put creators in a position (say, through specific platform rules) to mark content as safe for children, which means it becomes restricted, and demonetized (stripped of ads). Reclaim The Net needs your help 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. Make a one-time donation "DISINFORMATION" CENSORSHIP EU Regulators Seek to Formalize "Disinformation Code" Under Censorship Law 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." BIG TECH STATE Missouri AG Andrew Bailey Advocates for Tech-State Separation Criticizes, Big Tech Censorship Influence 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. A WIN FOR FREE SPEECH Disinformation Board Chief Sued Fox News For Alleging She Was Pro-Censorship. A Judge Agreed With Fox News. 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. Reclaim The Net is funded by the community. Keep us going and get extra benefits by becoming a supporter today. Thank you. Become a Supporter Thanks for reading, Reclaim The Net

You can unsubscribe at any time. 86-90 Paul Street London London EC2A 4NE United Kingdom

---