PRESS RELEASEAmnesia Atmica NYC Opens in Times Square this May – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Times Square Arts Presents ZERO NUKES, a Large-Scale Sculpture by Artist Pedro Reyes and Call to Action to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

New York, NY May 10, 2022 This May, Times Square Arts presents Amnesia Atmica NYC, a public exposition centered around artist Pedro Reyess ZERO NUKES, a 30-foot-tall inflatable sculpture that will function as a beacon to bring experts, political leaders, and engaged citizens together to address nuclear threat. On view in Times Square from May 17 May 24, 2022, the sculpture will serve as a central platform for a series of public programs and events designed to spotlight the voices of activists, artists, scientists, and community organizations in the anti-nuclear field, and drive conversations around non-proliferation and disarmament. Amnesia Atmica is curated by Pedro Alonzo, who specializes in ambitious artworks in public spaces.

ZERO NUKES is the centerpiece of Amnesia Atmica, commissioned by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which focuses on three main areasnuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologiesand equips the public, policymakers, and scientists with the information needed to reduce man-made threats to our existence. ZERO NUKES focuses on the zero as a graphic, visual, and conceptual element common to all languages. The structure stands as a symbol of global unity for a single non-controversial cause: to avoid the destruction of life on earth.

We commissioned Pedro Reyes to create an artwork that engages with the growing threat of nuclear conflict. Amnesia Atmica is his response, says Rachel Bronson, President and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Events in Ukraine are a stark reminder that nuclear weapons continue to threaten humanity on a daily basis. ZERO NUKES is Pedros latest contribution to this collection.

Amnesia Atmica holds a topical urgency and warning as nuclear weapons states around the world are investing in ways that are making these weapons more rather than less usable. The project will feature a two-day expo on May 19 and 20 showcasing artists, organizers, and organizations offering hands-on activities, a VR experience, information booths, and merchandise to engage the hundreds of thousands of visitors who pass through Times Square weekly. Public programs will be led by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and will include experts from organizations in the field, such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a global coalition focused on mobilizing civil society around the world to support the specific objective of prohibiting and eliminating nuclear weapons; The Tank, a Manhattan-based non-profit arts presenter and producer serving emerging artists; Games of Change, an organization that supports using games for social change; Global Zero an international movement dedicated to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; and Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group dedicated to solving the worlds most pressing problems.

There is no better public platform than Times Square to host a diversity of viewpoints and in turn, open minds and encourage a better understanding of the complexities around the most pressing issues of our day, says Tom Harris, Times Square Alliance President.

Times Square has a rich cultural history as an epicenter of protest and a platform that elevates a chorus of voices of our era, says Times Square Arts Director Jean Cooney. We are thrilled to turn this platform over to a range of artists confronting the most important topics of our times, such as Pedro Reyes and the issue of nuclear disarmament.

Times Square Arts will unveil Pedro Reyes ZERO NUKES, on Tuesday, May 17th at 1:30pm. If you are interested in covering or attending the unveiling, please email Ali Rigo ([emailprotected]).

Download a copy of this press release here.

PUBLIC PROGRAMMING

Public Unveiling, Tuesday May 17th at 1:30pm (Duffy Square)

1:30pm Remarks from Times Square Alliance

1:45pm Remarks from Mitchie Takeuchi, Producer The Vow From Hiroshima, Not Just A Survivor Film LLC. Mitchie will share her experiences as a second-generation Hiroshima survivor, her father having served the Red Cross in Hiroshima before and after the bombing.

1:50pm Beatrice Finn, who received the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of ICAN, will speak about the immediacy of nuclear threats. ICAN NYC will be part of the Mobilization Expo, hosted by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Thursday and Friday to share what New Yorkers can do.

1:55pm Remarks from Pedro Reyes, artist of Zero Nukes

2:00pm Adjourn; Performance produced by The Tank

Mobilization ExpoPartner organizations dedicated to reducing nuclear weapons will host information sessions, public displays, and hands-on activities to encourage public engagement and mobilization. Participating organizations include: B(L)OOM; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; Das Bombe; Games for Change; Global Zeros Bomb Squad; Horizon 2045; ICAN; NYCAN; PATH Collective; Reverse the Trend; #StopInvestingInDestruction; Union of Concerned Scientists; among others.

Expo Schedule:Thursday, May 19, 12pm-8pmFriday, May 20, 12pm-8pm

ZERO NUKES: Performance SeriesZERO NUKES is a series of anti-nuclear performances curated and produced by Meghan Finn, Artistic Director of The Tank, a Manhattan-based non-profit arts presenter and producer serving emerging artists. The series is part of The Tanks outdoor series, Open Air Tank. Emerging artists will perform storytelling, hip hop and spoken word in Times Square beneath the mushroom cloud. Musical performers include Miriam Pultro, Questa Music, Elyse Durand, Baba Israel and Grace Galu of Soul Inscribed, Sarah Cagianese of Frances Rose, and Doll Parts. Performance and spoken word artists include Gabriel G Torres, Paige Cowen, David Trevor Lawson, Kev Berry, Carol Maz, Ben Firke, Emma Gomez, and Hunter Gause.

Performance Schedule:Tuesday, May 17, 2-4 pm- following the unveilingWednesday, May 18, 2-4pmThursday, May 19, 2-4pmFriday, May 20, 2-4pmMonday, May 23, 2-4pm

Artists Against the BombA collection of urgent messages calling for universal nuclear disarmament. The campaign is an international effort by artists, writers and activists who, through words and pictures, call for a reduction of the worlds nuclear weapons down to zero. The effort is designed to support disarmament organizations across the globe.

StockpileA new participatory work by Pedro Reyes where 12,075 rocket shaped balloonsequivalent to the total estimated number of global nuclear weaponswill be handed out to the public throughout the event. The balloons are a limited edition artwork that will be given to participants upon posting an image of ZERO NUKES on social media with the hashtags #ZERONUKES and #AmnesiaAtmica or upon following a participating organization such as the Bulletin.

Stockpile Schedule: Daily Handout, 4pm

Virtual Reality: On the Morning You Wake (to the end of the world)Games for Change will showcase On the Morning You Wake (to the End of the World), a virtual reality experience that uses innovative documentary storytelling and virtual production techniques to viscerally recreate the lived experiences of people of Hawaii, who, for 38 minutes, had to react during a false alert in January 2018. Learn more about the project here.

On the Morning You Wake (to the End of the World) Schedule:

Time: 12pm-8pm, May 19 and 20

Address:1560 Broadway, Suite 901New York, NY 10036Due to construction, entrance at 165 W. 46th Street

Take ActionThe project will consist of a QR code leading to information that guides the public in how to get involved, including clear ideas on how to take action, reach your representative, and find organizations to follow. Join local and international efforts to reduce nuclear dangers, discuss current events with experts, connect with various education and advocacy organizations, and post your concerns to social media. You can even cast your vote to share what time you think it should be on the Bulletins iconic Doomsday Clock. Also, feel free to tag and follow Times Square Arts Instagram account (@tsqarts) to get involved.

Merchandise KioskThe kiosk operated by public art ambassadors will feature an assortment of information as well as merchandise available for the public to buy such as shirts, hats, and buttons. The graphics on the kiosk designed by Pedro Reyes will prominently display the ZERO NUKES imagery. Any net proceeds will go towards traveling the cloud in support of other disarmament-based events.

Frieze New York Art FairAmnesia Atmica will be presented in collaboration with Frieze New York from May 18-22. Frieze will feature two booths dedicated to Amnesia Atmica, one designated for a historical archive featuring contributions to the disarmament movement by artists and activists in the 20th century; and the other an installation of imagery and merchandise from the ZERO NUKES campaign. One of the two booths will also feature Pedro Reyes limited edition interactive artwork Stockpile.

ABOUT AMNESIA ATMICAAmnesia Atmica opened in Mexico City in 2020 to raise public awareness, revitalize the once vibrant anti-nuclear community, and most importantly, put pressure on political leaders, policymakers, and global citizens by informing them of the consequences of inaction. It included an early version of ZERO NUKES, a locally curated dance performance, and presentations by leading dignitaries. The artist aims to draw attention to the issues of nuclear threat and the failure of experts and leaders to contain it. The title, Amnesia Atmica, urges visitors to not forget or ignore the global issues at hand and engage first-hand with solutions-oriented thinking and strategies. Inspiration for Amnesia Atmica was sparked at an incubator created by N Square, a network of innovators committed to ending the nuclear threat.

It is exactly because of what we are confronting around the world today that I created this piece. Im hoping to provide an invitation for people who want to get engaged, learn from others, connect and create a safer future. Im trying to provide a megaphone for the disparate voices committed to abolishing nuclear weapons. Im trying to provide answers for those asking what can I do?, says Pedro Reyes.

Artists like Pedro Reyes can play an important role in revitalizing the disarmament community. While ZERO NUKES sends a clear multilingual message in support of the disarmament movement, Amnesia Atmica is a symbol of the consequences of inaction, says curator Pedro Alonzo.

Reyes has garnered international acclaim for large-scale projects that explore current social and political issues, through the use of mediums like sculpture, performance, video, and activism. His work tends to investigate the power of individual and collective organization to incite change through communication, creativity, happiness, and humor, making Times Square an ideal locale for his project, as an epicenter of both protest and kitsch. New York City was also the center of the 1982 Rally for Nuclear Disarmament, making a return to the city generations later a fitting representation of the timelessness of nuclear instability.

Reyes is working with experts in the nuclear realm on the project, including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, among others.

Supporters of the project include the Bancel Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, N Square, Abakanowicz Arts and Culture Charitable Foundation, David Rockefeller Fund, The Prospect Hill Foundation, Lisa Tung and Spencer Glendon, Miner / Nagy Family.

ABOUT PEDRO REYESReyes (b. 1972, Mexico City) lives and works in Mexico City. He has won international attention for large-scale projects that address current social and political issues. Through a varied practice utilizing sculpture, performance, video, and activism, Reyes explores the power of individual and collective organization to incite change through communication, creativity, happiness, and humor.He studied architecture at the Ibero-American University in Mexico City. Solo exhibitions have been held with Museum Tinguely, Basel, Switzerland (2020); SCAD, Georgia, USA (2019); Creative Time, New York, USA (2016); Dallas Contemporary, TX, USA (2016); La Tallera, Cuernavaca, Mexico (2016); Hammer Museum, Los Angeles, CA, USA (2015); ICA, Miami, FL, USA (2014); The Power Plant, Toronto, Canada (2014); Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA (2011); Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY, USA (2011); CCA Kitakyushu, Japan (2009); Bass Museum, Miami, FL, USA (2008;) and San Francisco Art Institute, CA, USA (2008). Reyes has participated in group exhibitions at the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art, Kanazawa, Japan (2015); The National Museum of XXI Century Arts (MAXXI), Rome (2015); Beijing Biennale, China (2014); Whitechapel Gallery, London, UK (2013); dOCUMENTA (13), Kassel, Germany (2012); Liverpool Biennial, UK (2012); Gwangju Biennial, South Korea (2012); Lyon Biennale, France (2009); and the 50th Venice Biennale, Italy (2003). In Fall 2016, Reyes served as the inaugural Dasha Zhukova Distinguished Visiting Artist at MIT Center for Art, Science & Technology (CAST) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

ABOUT PEDRO ALONZOPedro Alonzo is a Boston-based independent curator. He is currently an Adjunct Curator at Dallas Contemporary. Since 2006 he has specialized in producing exhibitions that transcend the boundaries of museum walls and spill out into the urban landscape, addressing audiences beyond the traditional museum public. In 2017 he formalized his practice by establishing A&C. At the ICA Boston, he curated Shepard Faireys 20-year survey, Supply, and Demand. For the MCA San Diego, he organized the group exhibition Viva la Revolucin: A Dialogue with the Urban Landscape, which featured site-specific works inside the museum and throughout downtown San Diego. In 2015 Alonzo began to develop exhibitions designed to engage the public, starting with a citywide exhibition in Philadelphia, Open Source: Engaging Audiences in Public Space, followed by working with JR to place a gigantic image of a Mexican child named Kikito, overlooking the US/Mxico border wall in Tecate. Since 2016 Alonzo has worked with The Trustees, Massachusettss largest conservation and preservation non-profit, to launch and curate the organizations first Art and the Landscape initiative, resulting in site-specific commissions created by the artists: Sam Durant (2016), Jeppe Hein (2016), Alicja Kwade (2018), and Doug Aitken (2019). In 2019, Pedro Alonzo worked with Now + There as guest curator for Oscar Tuazons Growth Rings and in 2020 for Jose Dvilas To Each Era Its Art. To Art, Its Freedom. for Central Wharf Park in Boston. The most recent project he developed at Dallas Contemporary was a major exhibition that brought together rarely seen works by Japanese artist Yoshitomo Nara.

ABOUT THE BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTSThe Bulletin equips the public, policy makers and scientists with the information needed to reduce man-made threats to our existence. At its core, it is a media organization, publishing a free-access website and a bimonthly magazine. But it is much more. The Bulletins website, iconic Doomsday Clock, and regular events draw attention to three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. What connects these is a driving belief that because humans created them, we can control them. The Bulletin is an independent, nonprofit 501 c (3) organization founded by Manhattan Project scientists nearly 75 years ago. It gathers the most informed and influential thought leaders tracking man-made threats and brings innovative thinking to a global audience. The Bulletin applies intellectual rigor to the conversation and does not shrink from alarming truths.

The Bulletins iconic Doomsday Clock uses the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. It is currently set at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest its ever been to midnight. The Clock is set every year by the Bulletins Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 11 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the worlds vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologies.

ABOUT TIMES SQUARE ARTSTimes Square Arts, the public art program of the Times Square Alliance, collaborates with contemporary artists and cultural institutions to experiment and engage with one of the worlds most iconic urban places. Through the Squares electronic billboards, public plazas, vacant areas and popular venues, and the Alliances own online landscape, Times Square Arts invites leading contemporary creators, such as Mel Chin, Tracey Emin, Jeffrey Gibson, Ryan McGinley, Yoko Ono, and Kehinde Wiley, to help the public see Times Square in new ways. Times Square has always been a place of risk, innovation and creativity, and the Arts Program ensures these qualities remain central to the districts unique identity.

CONNECT WITH AMNESIA ATOMICA@tsqarts@zeronukes@_pedro_reyes_ @bulletinoftheatomicscientists@trucatriche #ZeroNukes

PRESS CONTACTSAli RigoSenior Account Executive, Cultural Counsel[emailprotected]

Lauren GagnonAccount Coordinator, Cultural Counsel[emailprotected]

Download a copy of this press release here.

Read more:
PRESS RELEASEAmnesia Atmica NYC Opens in Times Square this May - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Censorship-free web browser launches for conservatives with an emphasis on free speech – Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE TUSK, a censorship-free web browser for conservatives with an emphasis on free speech, launched on Tuesday, allowing users to "browse right" on the internet.

TUSK founder and Virtual World Computing CEO Jeff Bermant feels "most popular browsers and search engines are inherently left-leaning and biased" and he wanted to create a place where conservatives can see what like-minded people are saying.

"TUSK was developed with the idea of free speech, because if you go to other browsers and you go to their news feeds, you'll find that its center left or it's left and you weren't getting the full story," Bermant told Fox News Digital.

LEVIN: THE NEW YORK TIMES 'WORSE THAN FAKE NEWS'

Bermant, who was inspired by the work of high-profile conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, believes that right-leaning news organizations werent easy to find through popular search engines that millions of Americans rely on. TUSK is a private browser intended to bring free speech and provide conservative information that Bermant created after Levin called for conservatives to fight back against what he calls American Marxists.

"One of the things I have a talent of is knowing how to build browsers We built a news feed that is basically a conservative news feed and we built what you would call the links or the tiles. Instead of populating them with some brands you might want to buy, we populated them with conservative sites," Bermant said. "You know, tech, or the web, is basically controlled by liberals."

Because of liberals controlling tech, Bermant believes many conservative news organizations are buried and hard to find using traditional search engines such as Google. "There wasnt an easy place to go," he said.

NEW YORK TIMES SCOLDED FOR HANDLING OF HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY

Bermant feels TUSK can help change the web-browsing experience for conservatives.

"Its really needed because otherwise you dont really realize that youre being censored," he said. "Youre not seeing the news that you want."

Bermant said many conservative websites get placed on the third or fourth page of results when a user is searching for something on traditional search engines, even if the article is exactly what they were looking for.

"As the scientists know who built the web, you wont go to that page," he said.

Unlike other search engines, TUSK doesnt monitor users, collect data to sell for profit or create profiles.

"We want to respect your privacy," Bermant said, noting that a portion of proceeds from sponsored ads will go to veterans groups.

"Most popular browsers and search engines are inherently left-leaning and biased," according to TUSKs founder. (bernardbodo)

While TUSK targets conservatives and provides easy access to right-leaning information, users can also find liberal news organizations on the search engine if they want to simply by pushing a few buttons.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We're all about free speech," Bermant said. "We want you to see what the other side is saying we built this for free speech because we felt that basically Americans are being censored in their browsers, in their search engines."

TUSK is available for download for mobile and desktop devices by visiting the App store or tuskbrowser.com.

Fox News' Matthew Wall contributed to this report.

See the original post here:

Censorship-free web browser launches for conservatives with an emphasis on free speech - Fox News

Ohio bill would allow users to sue Facebook, Twitter over censorship – NBC4 WCMH-TV

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) One year after YouTube removed from its site a video in which an Ohio attorney touted lies about COVID-19, eight Republicans approved a bill to counter what they called Big Techs suppression of free speech.

In an 8-4 vote Thursday, the Civil Justice Committee approved House Bill 441 to prohibit social media platforms from censoring expression based on a users viewpoint not including speech thats already deemed illegal under federal law, like harassment or shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The bill joins an increasingly national discourse concerned with the uptick in social media sites deplatforming or restricting users ranging from the permanent suspension of former President Donald Trumps Twitter account due to incitement of violence to removing individual Facebook posts promoting Holocaust denial conspiracies.

By preventing Big Tech companies from continuing to engage in viewpoint discrimination, we hope to protect the free exchange of ideas and information in Ohio, Rep. Scott Wiggam (R-Wooster) said in his testimony before the Civil Justice Committee.

While the bill does not equip the state with the power to enforce the censorship ban, it does allow individual Ohioans to file a civil suit against social media companies with more than 50 million U.S. users that block, remove or restrict them from using their site.

Bill co-sponsors Wiggam and Rep. Al Cutrona (R-Canfield) did not respond to requests for comment.

Since January 2020, Twitter has challenged nearly 12 million accounts, suspended more than 8,000 and removed nearly 84,000 posts the social media giant said constituted potentially harmful and misleading information about the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Twitters Transparency Center.

A Fremont attorney who testified against Gov. Mike DeWines COVID-19 shutdown orders before a House committee in 2021 was also the victim of what Wiggam called a government-induced attempt to regulate speech.

A video recording of Thomas Renz was removed from YouTube after the platform determined his speech violated their terms of service by spreading COVID-19 misinformation including a debunked claim that no Ohioans under the age of 19 died from the virus, according to the Associated Press.

Big Tech companies have censored individuals in response to suggestions and pressures from government officials and so have censored Americans on behalf of the government, Wiggam said in his written testimony.

Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio who testified against HB 441, said its unlikely the legislation would survive a legal battle in court.

Unlike government agencies or public entities, social media platforms are private actors and thus arent required to abide by free speech protections under the First Amendment, he said.

These are private entities; they make the decisions whether they have a policy or not, Daniels said. They make these decisions ultimately as to what they want to host or entertain or have on their social media sites.

Ohio itself, Daniels said, could be found in violation of the First Amendment if HB 441 is enacted, as governments are prohibited from compelling speech in other words, forcing an individual or company like Facebook to support or broadcast certain expressions.

Mandating a social media platform to maintain certain content on its site, Daniels said, would be the similar to the government dictating what a newspaper can print or requiring an anti-abortion group to spread messaging supporting a persons right to an abortion.

The idea that the government can do this with private entities would essentially mean all bets are off government controls speech thats out there and will force you to say whatever the government thinks is appropriate, Daniels said.

HB 441 also doesnt clarify what type of action is deemed viewpoint discrimination by social media companies, Daniels said, creating a murky, ambiguous body of law that could open the door for the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits.

It doesnt have to be political speech. It can be for some reason, you know, Facebook wants to remove your cupcake recipe, he said. Everybody agrees they shouldnt be doing something like that thats unfair and not what the people need or want. But again, its their website. Its their social media company.

Cutrona, however, contended that social media platforms act as common carriers like the U.S. Postal Service, phone companies and public transportation that are responsible for the transmission of goods via services open to the general public.

Commons carriers are required to operate with neutrality, which Daniels said explains the fact that the post office cant refuse to deliver a National Rifle Association newsletter because it disagrees with the NRAs speech. And Amtrak, he said, generally does not concern itself with a passengers political views.

These services are affected with a public interest, are public accommodations, are central public forums for public debate, and have enjoyed governmental support in the U.S., Cutrona said in his written testimony. As such, Ohio is well within its rights to stop Big Tech from censoring users based on their viewpoint.

But Daniels said social media giants dont operate or advertise themselves as common carriers, as they obviously exercise control over speech, enforcing myriad speech-related rules within their terms of service.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a similar bill into law allowing residents to sue social media companies over speech violations only to be served with a preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement by a federal judge in June 2021.

The legislation now at issue was an effort to rein in social-media providers deemed too large and too liberal. Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest, the Florida judge wrote in his injunction order.

A Texas bill restricting a social media companys ability to regulate users speech was also hit with a preliminary injunction by a federal judge in December 2021.

The judge said the enacted legislation would radically upset the ways in which social media platforms operate by stifling their ability to maintain safe, useful, and enjoyable sites for users.

Content moderation and curation will benefit users and the public by reducing harmful content and providing a safe, useful service, the federal Texas judge wrote in his injunction order.

Despite Daniels certainty that HB 441 will witness a similar fate in court, hes convinced the bills sponsors are using the legislation as a bully pulpitto garner the publics attention toward the issue.

Even the threat of introducing a law, the threat of having a bill out there and passing it into law those types of things they hope, essentially, will cause social media companies to change what they are doing.

Read more:

Ohio bill would allow users to sue Facebook, Twitter over censorship - NBC4 WCMH-TV

Biden ‘Disinformation’ Panel Gives Ammo to Case on Big Tech Censorship – Daily Signal

The Biden administrations formation of a disinformation board has sparked momentum for two states to sue the U.S. government, alleging pressure and collusion with Big Tech corporations to censor political content that challenges the government line.

If we wouldve tried to bring this lawsuit two or three months ago, I think they wouldve laughed us out of court, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry told The Daily Signal in a phone interview about the new Disinformation Governance Board inside the Department of Homeland Security.

People are really starting to raise their eyebrows and its mostly because of this disinformation branch, Landry said. In other words, the government and Big Tech have become basically brazen in the face of the American people, saying, We are going to give you the information that we deem you need.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt joined Louisianas Landry last week in filing a federal lawsuit that alleges top-ranking government officials worked with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to censor free speech and truthful information regarding COVID-19, election reforms, and other matters.

The two states lawsuit names President Joe Biden, White House medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Nina Jankowicz, director of the Disinformation Governance Board, among other administration officials.

When the government strong-arms, or basically forces, a company to do something that it would be unconstitutional for them to do, then basically what happens is that those companies then become an arm of the government, Landry told The Daily Signal.

Among the points in the 86-page complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, are:

Fauci is both the chief medical adviser to the president and the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The lawsuit by Louisiana and Missouri names as defendants Biden, Jankowicz, Psaki, Murthy, and Fauci as well as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas; Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra; and Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

As alleged further herein, Defendants have coerced, threatened, and pressured social-media platforms to censor disfavored speakers and viewpoints by using threats of adverse government action, the two states lawsuit says, adding:

As alleged further herein, as a result of such threats, defendants are now directly colluding with social-media platforms to censor disfavored speakers and viewpoints, including by pressuring them to censor certain content and speakers, and flagging disfavored content and speakers for censorship. These actions violate the First Amendment.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges action in excess of statutory authority and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act by both HHS and DHS officials.

Landry said the lawsuit would focus on both public information but also explore nonpublic information.

Whats amazing is theyve been pretty brazen. What Psaki has done, Jen has gone out there and said it, basically, that theyve worked with some of the Big Tech companies in order to censor the information, Landry said, adding:

Were going to use the public statements in order to go after the discovery of exactly what youre looking at. I cant wait. I cannot wait to lift the hood of that vehicle and see whats underneath it. I can tell you, itll be extremely interesting. And again, the interesting part is that all of the information and the communication between the government and Big Tech is certainly a matter of, it should be a matter of, public record.

Americans regularly use social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, now ubiquitous in society, to discuss topics such as public health, Missouris Schmitt said in a formal statement.

In direct contravention to the First Amendment and freedom of speech, Schmitt said, the Biden administration has been engaged in a pernicious campaign to both pressure social media giants to censor and suppress speech and work directly with those platforms to achieve that censorship in a misguided and Orwellian campaign against misinformation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.com, and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Continued here:

Biden 'Disinformation' Panel Gives Ammo to Case on Big Tech Censorship - Daily Signal

Was Censorship the Greatest COVID Threat to Freedom? – Reason

The Infodemic: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free, by Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney, Columbia Global Reports, 192 pages, $16

"We're not just fighting an epidemic," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, declared at the Munich Security Conference on February 15, 2020. "We're fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus and is just as dangerous."

Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney expand on that concept inThe Infodemic: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free. Since Simon is a former executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, where Mahoney currently serves as executive director, it is not surprising that they see state efforts to suppress inconvenient information as part of the problem that Tedros described.

That makes sense, since authoritarian governments in countries such as China and Russia contributed to the "infodemic" by censoring, discrediting, and intimidating journalists and other observers who tried to tell the truth about COVID-19. Meanwhile, these governments promoted their own version of reality, in which the pandemic's impact was less serious and the political response to it was more effective.

But folding censorship into the "infodemic" creates an inescapable tension, since democrats as well as autocrats were frequently tempted to address "fake news" about the pandemic through state pressure, if not outright coercion. The Biden administration, for instance, demanded that social media platforms suppress COVID-19 "misinformation," which it defined to include statements that it deemed "misleading" even if they were arguably or verifiably true.

The problem of defining misinformation is evident from the debate about face masks as a safeguard against COVID-19. After initially dismissing the value of general masking, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided it was "the most important, powerful public health tool we have." More recently, the CDC has acknowledged that commonly used cloth masks provide little protection, largely agreeing with critics whose statements on the subject had previously triggered banishment from platforms such as YouTube.

Simon and Mahoney make it clear that they do not favor state speech controls. But their concerns about the ways governments used the pandemic as an excuse to expand their powers are curiously limited. While they view censorship as beyond the pale, they are inclined to see other restrictions on freedomeven sweeping impositions such as stay-at-home orders and mass business closuresas justified by the public health emergency.

The authors try to reconcile this apparent contradiction by invoking Isaiah Berlin's distinction between "negative" liberty (freedom from government restraint) and "positive" liberty (self-realization or self-determination). Simon and Mahoney define positive liberty as "the ability to shape the destiny of [one's] own society and live by its laws," which is simultaneously narrower than Berlin's concept, more explicitly collectivist, and more clearly at odds with negative liberty. As they see it, your "ability" to obey democratically enacted laws advances positive liberty even when you view those laws as oppressive.

"The legitimacy of a government's efforts to restrict negative liberty is derived from the existence of positive liberty, as expressed through the consent of the governed," Simon and Mahoney say. "The right to speak, to listen, to express and exchange ideas, to communicate closely held beliefs, to criticize authorities, to demand accountability: these are the broad range of activities enabled by positive liberty."

That's a confusing way to describe freedom of expression, which at bottom is a kind of negative liberty: freedom from prior restraint and from punishment for reporting information or expressing opinions that the government views as dangerous. For example, Simon and Mahoney describe the experience of the independent Chinese journalist Chen Qiushi, who was arrested because of his reporting from Wuhana classic violation of negative liberty.

Restrictions on negative liberty, "even severe ones such as lockdowns, are legitimized through the existence of positive liberty," Simon and Mahoney write, because "the people impacted are able to express their views" and "ultimately if they so wish to compel the government to change course." In other words, as long as citizens have an opportunity to choose, criticize, and change their leaders, it is not inherently problematic to force them to follow public health edicts they view as unnecessary, unscientific, or draconian.

If you oppose censorship as a violation of negative liberty, by contrast, you do not value freedom of expression merely because it is useful around election time or when people are trying to decide what safeguards make sense in response to an airborne virus. And while you probably will agree that such a situation can justify government intervention, since disease carriers pose a potentially deadly threat to others, you may still object to specific policies on the grounds that they unjustifiably restrict other rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, or freedom to earn a living.

Simon and Mahoney suggest that such rights can be vindicated through the democratic process. But that solution is plainly inadequate, since a majority may support policies that oppress a minority. In any case, COVID-19 control measures in democratic countries were not necessarily supported by popular majorities. For the most part, they were not even imposed by legislative majorities; they were instead the work of executive-branch officials such as governors, presidents, and prime ministers.

Voters might eventually have a chance to express their displeasure at such decrees. In New Jersey, for example, Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy was dismayed by his surprisingly narrow reelection victory last fall, which motivated him to relax his pandemic-related restrictions. Republican Glenn Youngkin's upset victory in Virginia's gubernatorial election likewise was seen partly as an expression of frustration with COVID-19 policiesin particular, a statewide mandate forcing students in K12 schools to wear masks.

But between elections, citizens outraged by such edicts have little recourse unless they can persuade legislators to assert control, as happened in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, or obtain relief from the courts, as happened with pandemic-inspired restrictions on abortion and religious gatherings. Those interventions acknowledged the threat that government officials pose to civil liberties when they claim the authority to exercise extraordinary powers in response to open-ended emergencies they themselves declare.

Simon and Mahoney seem mostly blind to that danger, except when it comes to censorship and especially invasive kinds of COVID-related surveillance. They note the "untold hardship" caused by India's lockdown, which left migrant workers stranded without any means to support themselves or their families. But they think the main problem was that the policy was implemented too suddenly, not that it went too far.

"The nationwide lockdown was an unprecedented restriction on the liberty that Indian citizens enjoy in a democracy," Simon and Mahoney concede. "But it had a public health rationale, and many citizens, including health experts, believed it was warranted."

While they give Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi a pass on his most dramatic and consequential response to the pandemic, Simon and Mahoney fault him for his "harsh reprisals" against journalists who questioned his policies. In addition to direct intimidation, Modi "relied on an army of online trolls who amplified his criticism of individual journalists, attacking them in the most personal and vile ways." In that respect, Simon and Mahoney say, Modi resembled Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and U.S. President Donald Trump, "democratic populists" who minimized the seriousness of the pandemic, promoted misinformation, and viewed criticism as an intolerable affront.

In Trump's case, portraying "online trolls" as minions taking their orders from him is misleading, since he often seemed to take his cues from them instead. Trump's reluctance to promote vaccination while he was in office can be explained by his fear that it would anger his supportersa realistic worry, given the hostile reaction he later received when he bragged about the vaccines his administration had expedited. And Trump initially supported lockdowns before declaring, presumably based on his reading of his base, that it was time to lift them.

If we imagine a polity where anti-vaxxers are in the majority, the already problematic idea that pandemic responses are validated by the democratic process becomes even harder to defend. And if the "infodemic" is mostly a spontaneous phenomenon, demands that governments do more to address it invite repressive responses similar to the ones that Simon and Mahoney rightly decry. The alternativecorrecting misinformation by citing the evidence that contradicts itis hardly a magic bullet. But at least it offers an opportunity to persuade people, which is how arguments are supposed to be resolved in a free society.

Go here to see the original:

Was Censorship the Greatest COVID Threat to Freedom? - Reason

On Censorship and Disinformation – LA Progressive

The best way to combat disinformation is with more and better information. Censorship isnt the answer.

The Biden administration has reached a different conclusion, creating a Disinformation Governance Board under the Department of Homeland Security. This board is headed by Nina Jankowicz, an unelected official and an apparent partisan hack. One example: she dismissed the infamous Hunter Biden laptop story as a fairy tale involving a laptop repair shop; its now been confirmed that Hunters laptop was real, and so too was that repair shop.

Democrats, of course, dont have exclusive rights to censorship. Republicans always seem to be calling for books to be banned or education to be policed. But the real problem is much larger than partisan hackery and bickering. Efforts at censorship are all around us, couched as a way of protecting us from harmful lies and other forms of disinformation. Yet, as the comedian Jimmy Dore points out, the government isnt that concerned about protecting you from lies; it is, however, deeply concerned with denying you access to certain truths, truths that undermine governmental authority and the dominant narrative.

As a retired U.S. military officer and as a historian, the most insidious lies and disinformation Ive encountered have come from the government. Consider the lies revealed by Daniel Ellsberg and his leak of the Pentagon Papers. Consider the war crimes revealed by Chelsea Manning, aided by Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Consider the lies revealed in the recent Afghan War Papers. Consider the lies about the presence of WMD in Iraq, lies that were used to justify the disastrous Iraq War. The government, in short, is a center of lies and disinformation, which is precisely why we need an adversarial media, one that is willing to ferret out truth. Instead, were being offered a governmental Ministry of Truth in the form of a Disinformation Governance Board.

All things being equal, a democratic society thrives best when speech is as free as possible, trusting in the people to sort fact from fiction, and sound theories from blatant propaganda. And theres the rub: trusting in the people. Because the government doesnt trust us (remember Hillary Clintons comment about all those irredeemable deplorables), even as the government is often at pains to mislead and misinform us. As maverick journalist I.F. Izzy Stone said, all governments lie. Its truly nonsensical, then, to allow the government to police what is true and what is disinformation.

But dont we need some censorship in the name of safety or security or mental health or whatever? Sorry: censorship is rarely about safety, and it most certainly doesnt serve the needs of the vulnerable. Instead, it serves the needs of the powerful, those who already possess the loudest megaphones in the public square.

But doesnt someone like Donald Trump deserve to be censored because he spreads disinformation? Which is the bigger problem: Trump or censorship? I happen to think Trump is a divisive con man, but it was a bad precedent for Twitter to have banned him from tweeting. The bigger problem wasnt Trumps tweets but the medias obsessive coverage of them in pursuit of ratings. The way to combat a blowhard like Trump is to ignore him, and to correct him when needed. To combat his lies with the truth. We dont need a governmental Ministry of Truth to police the tweets of a former president. Not when the government is often the biggest liar.

The solution isnt censorship but an active, engaged, and informed citizenry, assisted by a fourth estate, the press, that is truly independent and adversarial to power. But the weakening of education in America, combined with a fourth estate that is deeply compromised by the powerful and often in bed with the government, means that these democratic checks on power are less and less effective. Hence calls for quick yet dangerous solutions like censorship, where the censors (governmental boards, private corporations) are opaque and almost completely unaccountable to the people.

Unless your goal is to give the already powerful a monopoly on speech, censorship is not the answer.

CrossPosted from Bracing Views.

Go here to see the original:
On Censorship and Disinformation - LA Progressive

Open-Source Code a Marginal Problem, Managing It the Key Challenge: Report – TechNewsWorld

Businesses using open-source code which is embedded in a large majority of enterprise-grade software need a full-scale inventory of its existence. That is missing in many corporate IT records.

Without a detailed accounting of open-source code running within their software, companies have no way to monitor software policies, licenses, vulnerabilities, and versions. That means IT departments are clueless about the overall health of the open-source components they use.

At issue is that many enterprises are sure they do not use open source, so they do not have to worry about keeping security patches and code upgrades current. That misconception usually results in network breaches leading to malware and ransomware attacks.

The 2022 Synopsys Open Source Security and Risk Analysis (OSSRA) Report released last month showed an all-time high in open source code running in software. The problem of using open source has been growing consistently year after year.

Open-source code is prevalent in software packages from business applications to network and server processes. Unless enterprises make a concerted effort to catalog and monitor how their organizations use open-source snippets, even known vulnerabilities go unattended.

Fixing the problems the report highlights is a question of ownership, according to Tim Mackey, principal security strategist at Synopsys SIG.

The results suggest a tacit realization that the software powering businesses might not be under their managers control. It also signals that the open-source code in commercial products may not meet the standards to which they hold their own teams accountable.

Given the OSSRA source data comes from technical due-diligence efforts related to mergers and acquisitions activity, and not a survey, the OSSRA report is a reflection of the current state of software usage and not the opinion of what it might be, Mackey told LinuxInsider.

The 2022 OSSRA report audited anonymized findings from over 2,400 commercial codebases across 17 industries. The summary results in this graphic are a wake-up call to corporate IT overseers.

Source: 2022 Open Source Security and Risk Analysis Report (Credit: Synopsys)

The report serves as a crisis warning, especially in light of the ongoing impact of the Log4J vulnerability that appeared late last year.

Of the 2,400 commercial codebases across 17 industries, 2,097 contained security and operational risk assessments. The growth in the number of codebases Synopsys audited is 64 percent larger than last years. Much of that increase resulted from mergers and acquisitions throughout 2021.

The security threats resulting from Log4j were a significant reason President Biden late last year pushed his Executive Order on Cybersecurity, noted Mackey.

It was also key for the OSSRA report to motivate corporate chief information security officers, vice presidents of engineering, and chief technical officers to analyze their open-source software usage and see how well the OSSRA data maps to their own processes and governance.

The OSSRA report has consistently highlighted that the problem with open source is not within the open-source code itself, but in how people use it, he added. Freely downloadable code is wonderful for the pocketbook, but that does not mean it can be managed using the same processes as you might find for commercial software.

A key tenet of the OSSRA report is that risks can stem from unmanaged use of open source. The difference is significant between a lack of open-source management and the fact that open source itself is not the problem, the report concludes.

Open source now is the foundation of commercial software, noted researchers. It is found in 97 percent of commercial software. Despite its universal use, the misperception that open source is somehow inherently dangerous persists.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Unlike Microsoft and Apple products, where software vendors can proactively push updates and patches to known users, open-source has no such vendor to handle risk management issues, observed Mackey.

Existing patch management solutions are often geared toward an update model, he added. Software that is freely downloadable means the software producer does not know who its customers are or even if they are using the software they downloaded.

The patching process and its assumptions get lost when people focus on topics like Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) being a silver bullet for open-source management, according to Mackey. Fixing the problem requires going beyond SBOM.

SBOM is simply a tool to improve processes that were designed for a different type of software consumption, he said. In addition, industries need to focus on identifying and monitoring open-source components in the commercial software they use. That is what has to happen to correct what the OSSRA report indicates are problems, said Mackey.

Using obsolete open-source components requires companies to adopt a process for monitoring when their components become out-of-date. But it is not just explicitly declaring dependencies or selecting approved suppliers. Mackey sees the problem as more deeply rooted in the supply chain.

The Log4Shell experience is a perfect example of a foundational component that few knew existed. But once Log4j became front of mind due to the impact of the Log4Shell vulnerability, [it] forced teams to rush and figure out how to best manage it, he pointed out.

That is the solution enterprise users of commercial software must do. Inventory the existence of open-source components. Then establish and execute monitoring and patching and updating.

Whatever processes those teams used to successfully manage their Log4j experience at scale should be applied to other components. In other words, use the Log4j experience to build a more scalable solution for your organization, urged Mackey.

Follow this link:

Open-Source Code a Marginal Problem, Managing It the Key Challenge: Report - TechNewsWorld

GM Partners With Red Hat on Open-Source Linux Operating System – CNET

Most current vehicle operating systems -- the software your car or truck's systems run on -- are based on relatively closed-off, proprietary software packages from businesses such as Research In Motion (the company behind BlackBerry), Tier 1 supplier Continental and Google. GM is looking to change that through a partnership with software firm Red Hat.

GM confirmed Tuesday that Red Hat, an IBM subsidiary, will lead the development of a new, open-source Linux-based operating system that will underpin the Ultifi initiative, a cloud-based customer service platform GM announced in 2021. GM's Ultifi platform will oversee everything from future infotainment operations and battery management to the way the company's cars communicate with other vehicles, smart infrastructure and even homes.

What makes Red Hat's software special compared to the alternatives on the market? Well, a few things, but chiefly, Red Hat'scontinuous functional safety certification system. An automotive software developer has to go through a number of safety certification processes to ensure that not only is its software reliable and robust, it's also appropriately resistant to cyber attacks and similar threats. Safety certification is expensive, time-consuming and it's carried out repeatedly for every major change or update. Red Hat's system streamlines that process through another partnership with a company called Exida, which handles the certification.

"General Motors is now a platform company and working with Red Hat is a critical element in advancing our Ultifi software development," said Scott Miller, GM vice president of software-defined vehicle and operating system, in a statement. "Incorporating the company's expertise in open source solutions and enterprise networks will pay dividends as we aim to provide the most developer-friendly software platform in the industry. With Red Hat's operating system as a core enabler of Ultifi's capabilities, the opportunity for innovation becomes limitless."

What does this mean for someone who buys an Ultifi-equipped GM vehicle such as the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq electric SUV in the future? It means much more frequent over-the-air software updates, which can enable new features or address bugs on a more timely basis. It also means the variety of apps and features could expand greatly thanks to a more developer-friendly platform, especially since GM plans to open up its software to "authorized third-party developers who meet strict security, safety and privacy standards." In short, the new platform sounds pretty cool.

Now playing: Watch this: GM introduces its new customer service platform, Ultifi

3:51

Read the original here:

GM Partners With Red Hat on Open-Source Linux Operating System - CNET

It’s not easy getting an open-source company off the ground, Appwrite wants to help – ZDNet

Launching an open-source company isn't easy. Even the biggest pure-play open-source company, Red Hat, got its humble start in founding CEO Bob Young's wife's sewing closet. More recently, when Appwrite, a Backend as a Service (BaaS) business, CEO and founder Eldad Fux literally had "his back to the wall." Luckily for him, Fux obtained seed funding at the last minute.

By April 2022, Appwrite has gotten $27 million in funding. Looking ahead, the open-source Backend-as-a-Service (BaaS) platform for web, mobile, and flutterdevelopers with its integrated REST APIs future looks bright. With 27 full-time Appwriters and a community of over 150,000 developers, Appwrite may become a major developer success story.

That's great, but there was a lot of terror along the way. So, Fux has decided that he needs to give back to the open-source community.

The company is doing this with the "Appwrite OSS Fund." The idea behind the fund is to support open-source developers and their projects.

Here's how it works:

Now, this is not millions. You won't be launching a company with this funding. And, it certainly doesn't address the fundamental problem of early-stage open-source project funding. But, if you have an idea and you need just enough cash to get your show on the road, this may be exactly what you need.

See also

See the original post here:

It's not easy getting an open-source company off the ground, Appwrite wants to help - ZDNet

Kubernetes taps Sigstore to thwart open-source software supply chain attacks – ZDNet

Container orchestrator Kubernetes will now include cryptographically signed certificates, using the Sigstore project created last year by the Linux Foundation, Google, Red Hat and Purdue University, in a bid to protect against supply chain attacks.

The Sigstore certificates are being used in the just-released Kubernetes version 1.24 and all future releases.

According to founding Sigstore developer Dan Lorenc, a former member of Google's open-source security team, the use of Sigstore certificates allows Kubernetes users to verify the authenticity and integrity of the distribution they're using by "giving users the ability to verify signatures and have greater confidence in the origin of each and every deployed Kubernetes binary, source code bundle and container image."

It's one step forward for open-source software development in the battle against software supply chain attacks.

SEE: The Emotet botnet is back, and it has some new tricks to spread malware

The Linux Foundation announced the Sigstore project in March 2021. The new Alpha-Omega open-source supply chain security project, which is backed by Google and Microsoft, also uses Sigstore certificates. Google's open-source security team announced the Sigstore-related project Cosign in May 2021 to simplify signing and verifying container images, as well as the Rekor 'tamper resistant' ledger, which lets software maintainers build systems to record signed metadata to an "immutable record".

According to Lorenc, the Kubernetes release team's adoption of Sigstore is part of its work on Supply Chain Levels for Software Artifacts, or SLSA a framework developed by Google for internally protecting its software supply chain that's now a three-level specification being shaped by Google, Intel, the Linux Foundation and others. Kubernetes 1.23 achieved SLSA Level 1 compliance in version 1.23.

"Sigstore was a key project in achieving SLSA level 2 status and getting a headstart towards achieving SLSA level 3 compliance, which the Kubernetes community expects to reach this August," says Lorenc.

Lorenc tells ZDNet that Kubernetes' adoption of Sigstore is a major step forward for the project because it has about 5.6 million users. The Sigstore project is also approaching Python developers with a new tool for signing Python packages, as well as major package repositories such as Maven Central and RubyGems.

Kubernetes serves as critical focal points to help draw attention, take a large amount of work, and has an outsized impact on the entire supply chain, he says.

These efforts coincide with new projects like the new Package Analysis Project, an initiative by Google and the the Linux Foundation's Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) to identify malicious packages for popular languages such as Python and JavaScript.

Malicious packages are regularly uploaded to popular repositories despite best efforts, with sometimes devastating consequences for users, according to Google.

Read more from the original source:

Kubernetes taps Sigstore to thwart open-source software supply chain attacks - ZDNet