EducationAcademic freedom within British universities could be in danger as academics with right-leaning or pro-Brexit views feel they have to censor what they teach, research and discuss, a report has warned.

Monday, 3rd August 2020, 7:30 am

The Policy Exchange think-tank argues that higher education institutions and government must do much more to ensure that all lawful speech is protected on university campuses.

The paper, entitled Academic freedom in the UK, suggests there is a structural discriminatory effect against the minority of academics at British universities who identify as being on the right politically.

Hostile or just uncomfortable attitudes signal to those subject to such discrimination that they should conceal their views and narrow their research questions to conform to prevailing norms, if they wish to progress and enjoy a positive workplace experience, it warns.

A YouGov poll, of 820 both current and former academics, found more than one in seven said there was a hostile climate towards people with their political beliefs in their department but the figure is higher among those who identify as being right-leaning, or among those who voted to leave the EU.

Just over half of respondents said they would feel comfortable sitting with a colleague who is a Leave supporter at lunch, in a meeting or in the staff room.

Meanwhile, more than a third said they would feel comfortable sitting with a colleague who opposes admitting transwomen to womens refuge centres.

But more than four in five said they believed academics who were pro-Remain would feel comfortable expressing their views to colleagues, the poll found.

The report suggests that right-leaning academics are more likely to choose to self-censor compared with colleagues who are centrists or on the left.

Some pro-Leave social sciences and humanities academics said they had refrained from publishing or airing views in research and teaching for fear of consequences to their careers, according to the think-tank paper.

It warns: The challenge today is that a serious threat to academic freedom may now, in addition, arise from within universities.

This internal threat derives from the way that some in the university-both students and faculty members-relate to others on campus, being willing to penalise them on the basis of their perceived or actual political views.

In a foreword to the report, Ruth Smeeth, former Labour MP and chief executive of Index on Censorship, says: It does the country no good if our educators, our academics, our scholars and most importantly our students feel that they cant speak or engage without fear of retribution.

The report calls on the UK government to make it explicit in law that universities have a direct duty to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech.

See more here:

Free speech risk as university staff feel need to censor pro-Brexit views - The Scotsman

The recent high-profile departures at theNew York Timesof editorial page editor James Bennet andopinionwriter Bari Weiss have left some on the business side of the news industry scratching their heads.Both exited amid ideological turmoil that Weissdetailedin a letter of resignationtothe Timesspublisher A.G. Sulzberger, describing the hostile work environment she endured at the hands of fellow editors and staffers. They were wholly intolerant, she said, of her role as acentrist at the paper. Bennet, said Weiss, had led the effort after President Trumps election in 2016 to bring in voices that would not otherwise appear in theTimes.

But what of Sulzberger, whose prime duty is toNew York Timesshareholders and therefore to the papers bottom line? How does the top executive justify alienating swathes ofTimes customers and potentialsubscriberswho may be sympathetic to, or even merely curious about, ideas beyond what Weiss described as our 4,000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world?

Theoverlookedtruth is that there is considerable financial incentive for theTimesto limit the scope of discussion.This business angle may foretell what to expect from theTimesgoing forward.

Its a product of how the business of news has evolved in recent years. Advertising revenue has been hurtling downhill for some time and the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated that decline. In the first quarter of this year, the Timess ad revenue fell 15.2 percent year-over year. In May,theTimesannouncedthat it expects advertising revenue in the second quarter to fall even more dramatically, bybetween 50 and 55 percent.

And yet the companys stock price continues to climb. It is now priced in the $46per sharerange. Its all time high of $52per share, set in 2002, is within reach. This steady climb marks a remarkable recovery from a low of about $4per sharein 2009.

These strong numbers are a product of theTimesssuccessful digital subscription business, which hasgrownrapidlyin recent years. Last year, the publisher announced the goal of reaching 10 million subscribers by the end of 2025. In February the paper announced it had hit the halfway mark a year early. In the first quarter of this year theTimes added an impressive 587,000 new digital subscribers, bringing its total subscriber base to more than six million, some 85 percent of which are online-only.

In the past, when advertising was the main driver of revenue, the goal was to reach the widest possible audience. Now, though, the business model demands the paper focus on catering to a narrow but passionate segment of the readership base. Thatsegmentincreasingly accounts for the bulk of theTimess income and it prefers a narrow, left-wing editorial line.

A 2017 study of datafrom hundreds of major media sites conducted by Piano, a leading provider of metered paywalls for the news industry,foundthat for most media outlets the bulk of digital subscription revenue isdriven by a small percentage between 2 and 12 percent of readers. Piano calls them super-fans, super-users, direct and dedicated, the invested, and loyalists.

Being able to serve and monetize this relatively small part of the audience now makes all the difference between success and failure,the study concludes.

WhiletheTimessloyal subscriber base grows, its overall readership is growing even faster.The rapid increase in subscriber numbers means that, if anything, an even smaller percentage of the audience is driving the bulk of the revenue, says Mark Thompson, CEO of theTimes.

This relatively small base of loyalists, who are so fundamental to theTimess business model, stand largely on the left of the political spectrum.

TheTimess public editor, Liz Spayd,addressedthe questionof the papers political leanings in a 2016 column. She was unsuccessful in uncovering the official proprietary numbers on the ideological breakdown of theTimess subscriber base, butnotedthat on most days, conservatives occupy just a few back-row seats in this giant liberal echo chamber.

Should the paper write off conservatives and make a hard play for the left and perhaps center left, Spayd asked, or has that already happened?

Spaydnotesa 2014 Pew Research surveywhich found that 65 percent ofTimesreadersleaned to the left, and only 12 percent leaned to the right. Considering the heightened polarization in media today, its likely that those numbers now skew even further left, and that the loyalist subscribers are drawn from that audience. Spayd was on to something.Herjob at theTimeswas subsequently eliminated.

The phenomenon of leftward drift and loyalists came starkly to light after President Trumps election in 2016, which triggered a new surge in subscriptions. In 2017, Times executive editor Dean Baquet acknowledged in a CNN interview the impact Trump has on revenue. Every time he tweets, it drives subscriptions wildly, Baquet said. In 2018, the Financial Times reportedthat theTimeswas still riding the high of the so-called Trump Bump.

***Get a digital subscription toThe Spectator.Try a month free, then just $3.99 a month***

The President often belittles the paper as the failingNew York Times. The Timesoften returns fire.TheVox columnistJeff Guodescribed this approachas a great way to pile even more liberals onto the Timess subscriber bandwagon.

In recent years Thompsonhastried to push back against the contention that subscriptions are driven by opposition to Trump, citing diversification among subscribers geographically and also in terms of race and ethnicity. But he has provided no evidence of any political diversification.

Inherresignation letter,Bari Weissconfirms that stories arechosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences.Sulzbergers apparent comfort with the departures of Weiss and Bennet affirms why this is the case.FortheNew York Times, what Weisscallsself-censorship has been good for business. As long as the stock price and paid subscriber numbers keep rising, expect that newspapers ideological transformation to proceed apace.

Dovid Efune is editor-in-chief and CEO of theAlgemeiner, the international Jewish newspaper.

See original here:

How the New York Times profits from self-censorship - The Spectator USA

Welcome to Adventure(s) Time's 125th installment, a look at animated heroes of the past. This week, we're revisiting what has to be the most accurate retelling of Spider-Man's origin, though it happened to appear in an unexpected place. And if you have any suggestions for the future, let me hear them. Just contact me on Twitter.

Spider-Man and His Amazing Friendsdidn't have much of a life after its airing, but it tends to be fondly remembered by fans of the era. The series featured character designs from John Romita and other comics artists, replicating much of the look of an early '80s Marvel comic. The kid-friendly premise had Spider-Man joined by Firestar and Iceman as his crimefighting pals (an attempt by the network to cribSuper Friends' success) who share a secret crime lab inside Aunt May's home. The menaces aren't terribly menacing, and the show's no more dangerous than anything else on Saturday morning of the era.

One episode, however, pushed the bounds of what the censors would allow. And surprisingly featured a stylish anime look that blends well with the traditional Western superhero aesthetic. Debuting onOct. 2, 1982, is "Along Came Spidey," from writer Don Glut and director Don Jurwich. The anime styling of the episode is evident from the opening and almost as prevalent as the billboard advertising a Daily Bugle expos on Spider-Man from none other than Stan Lee himself.

RELATED:Amazing Spider-Man Teases a New Spider-Team Led by Miles Morales

The opening sequence has the Shocker, in his television debut, escaping prison and immediately attempting a robbery. Spider-Man and his allies confront him, but in the process, innocent bystander Aunt May spots Spider-Man, of whom she is afraid, and is injured. It's a jarring sequence, as this is a reality where people are rarely injured or face true danger. Having this happen to Aunt May of all characters gives the episode a gravity the other episodes lack.

While visiting the unconscious May in the hospital, Peter expresses his guilt to Iceman and Firestar. After confessing to thoughts ofgiving up being Spider-Man, he's asked why he became the hero in the first place. And this leads us to the obligatory origin flashback. However, in this case Spider-Man's origin is actually a dark parable about the consequences of abused power. How exactly will it fit in the sanitized reality of heavily censored kids' TV?

Well, with barely any changes, as it turns out. And this isn't a quick thirty second detour. The sequence takes up a chunk of the episode. Writer Don Glut has revealed NBCdid not want Uncle Ben's death included in the origin, but Stan Lee"stuck to his guns" and demanded it be part of the episode. When adapting the origin fromAmazing Fantasy#15, Glut essentially goes panel to panel, telling the story as diehard comics fans know it.

RELATED:Spider-Man: Peter Parker's Brand New Day Is Officially DONE

We have ostracized nerd Peter Parker enduring Flash Thompson's bullying, getting rejected by a dark-haired girl named Sally, and attending a science exhibit, where he's bitten by a radioactive spider. This is followed by a montage of him discovering his powers (including the bit with the kid who spots him climbing a building), then calling out wrestler Crusher Hogan in an amateur wrestling match. After gaining celebrity as a costumed performer, Peter allows a thief to pass him by. And, as we all know, this thief will later have an encounter with Peter's beloved uncle.

Clearly, this is written by someone with great affection for the original tale. A writer who, earlier that year, adapted the same story for the concurrentSpider-Manseries airing in syndication! That version of the story, however, had a brainwashed Aunt May in the framing sequence, attempting to kill Spider-Man.

Glut doesn't shy away from presenting the newly powerful Spider-Man as an arrogant jerk, one who bears responsibility for his Uncle Ben's death. And the animation from Toei is dark, moody, and perfect for the sequence. The censors do step in, however, and have the characters always stop just short of outright saying Ben has died. Still, it's clear to even a small child what's happened.

RELATED:Yes, Marvel Did Consider Stripping Miles Morales of the Spider-Man Name

Telling the story reaffirms Peter's dedication to helping others, so the team reunites to haltthe Shocker's crime spree.Afterdestroying the belt that grants Shocker his powers, they return to visit May in the hospital, where she's making a fast recovery. She's even forced to acknowledge that she might've been wrong about Spider-Man all of this time, which is the opposite realization she had in Glut'sother Spidey origin story from that year. In "Arsenic and Aunt May" we're teased with the idea of May going soft on Spider-Man, only to learn she despises her nephew's alter ego even more.

The second season ofAmazing Friendsonly featured three episodes. The economics of the shortened season enabled the production to have legendary Japanese studio Toei animate the episodes, making them the best looking shows on Saturday morning at the time. Toei even snuck in a cameo from Gatchaman's Joe in his familiar No. 2 t-shirt during Peter's wrestling match. However, Toei does seem to have some issues with animated Spider-Man's chest emblem at times, and it's so small it's barely visible in some scenes.

To distinguish between the flashbacks and today, Aunt May is given auburn colored hair and a more "youthful" voice during Spider-Man's origin. This does force the audience to question just how long ago Peter became Spider-Man, though, as May's apparently aged twenty years or more.

Accomplished voiceover actorJohn Stephenson voices the Shocker. You might not know his name, but his voice isfamous as thenarrator on Dragnet.

Network censors wouldn't allow any direct punches from Spider-Man, so the classic Steve Ditko image of Spidey decking the burglar is replaced with him webbing up Ben's murderer instead.

RELATED:Marvel Launches 'Heroes at Home' Webcomic Series

In a way, this episode is an unfair tease. Fans of the era were simply excited to see these characters on television. The lackluster animation and simplified plots were tolerated, considered a price that had to be paid for adapting the property. But what if the same approach to storytelling was brought to the adaptations? Fans witnessed this in the '90s, when FOX Kids loosened restrictions and allowed faithful adaptations ofBatmanandX-Mento air. It's a shame ten years had to pass before the promise of this episode could be fulfilled.

But, even then, the Marvel animated series of the '90s suffered from some flagrantly cheap overseas animation. Japanese studios like Toei were doing work within the budgets of Western productions in the early '80s, enabling an episode that looks this nice to air. (By the '90s, the majority of these jobs were going to cheaper operations in Korea.) If you want a taste of what an '80s style anime starring a classic Marvel hero could've been, this is as close as you'll get. Sure, there'sPryde of the X-Men, also animated by Toei, but that story's intentionally divorced from the complexity of the comics canon."Along Came Spidey" actuallyisSpider-Man's origin, directly from the comic!The majority ofAmazing Friendsdoesn't hold up to time, but this one is worth checking out on Disney Plus.

Hey, my latest paranormal novel Love is Dead(ly) is now on sale! Find out what happens when a cocky psychic finds himselftrapped in the afterlife with the ghosts he's been chasing!

KEEP READING:Spider-Man: Marvel Reveals the REAL Story Behind His Next Major Foe

Off the Air: The Adult Swim Show That's Frightening Conspiracy Theorists

Link:

Spider-Man: Toei Crafted One of the Best Adaptations of the Hero's Origin - Despite Censors - CBR - Comic Book Resources

SALT LAKE CITY Sen. Mike Lee used his new Parler account to tout the fight hes picking with Google, Facebook, Twitter and Squarespace over how each internet platform moderates content in general, and potentially targets conservative voices

Somehow, Im willing to be(t) this will get more likes and shares on Parer (sic) than it will on Facebook and Twitter combined. In any event, I picked a big fight today with Google, Facebook, and Twitter, Lee posted to his @SenMikeLee Parler account Thursday evening.

Parler has emerged as the social media darling of some conservative U.S. politicians and commentators, and Lee has even worked to pump up the platform by issuing an invitation to President Donald Trump to join the party. Ironically, that invitation was proffered on Twitter, where the president enjoys a follower list north of 80 million accounts.

Not surprisingly, Parler was not one of the addressees of Lees letter Thursday that instead went to the CEOs of Google, Facebook, Twitter and Squarespace.

Lee, who earlier this week announced the Senate antitrust committee he chairs will host a hearing focused on Google and its online advertising practices, said he is most concerned with company conduct he believes is based on political bias rather than consistent, across-the-board content policies.

I am specifically concerned about corporations wielding their power unilaterally to silence opinions they dislike, and thus warp the public debates their platforms present to the American people, Lee wrote. In recent years, conservative voices like The Federalist, PragerU, President Trump, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, Jr., churches, religious groups, Christian schools and others have found themselves deplatformed, demonetized or otherwise penalized for expressing their opinions.

Lees concerns mirror some lines of questioning that arose during a House antitrust hearing this week that featured the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google.

During that virtual hearing, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio reeled off a list of instances of purported censoring of, or content warnings issued to, conservative social media posters.

Jordan accused the group of tech executives of selectively censoring those expressing politically conservative opinions and cautioned them that If it doesnt end, there have to be consequences.

Lee issued his own admonishment of big tech companies and the power he says theyre using inappropriately.

I view your heavy-handed censorship as a sign of exactly the sort of degraded quality one expects from a monopolist, Lee wrote. In any other business you would never dream of treating your customers the way you treat those with views you dont like.

In another Parler post on Thursday evening, Utahs senior senator linked to a story posted by right-wing website Breitbart News claiming Google has been censoring the outlets content from search results since the 2016 election. Attached to the post was Lees comment, This is not ok, and it has to stop.

In his letter, Lee also called out tech leaders for their roles in taking down video content that circulated earlier this week that showed what was characterized as a press conference by a group calling itself Americas Frontline Doctors.

CNN reported that the video, which had not been viewed by the Deseret News, was published by Breitbart News and included a quote from a woman claiming to be a doctor who said This virus has a cure, its called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax, and You dont need masks, there is a cure.

Lee declined to take a position on the content of the video, but said he supported a social media arena of open dialogue.

While Im not in a position to endorse or refute any of the doctors comments, I believe that we should err on the side of encouraging more speech, not less, Lee wrote.

The heart of the letter goes to 11 questions seeking details of how each of the platforms manages content moderation in the stipulated areas of COVID-19; violent riots and how they are distinguished from peaceful protests; hate speech; protections of the unborn; misinformation; and terrorist influence.

The questions include how content standards are established, the scope of processes designed to screen moderators for bias, whether user consent about content moderation is appropriately established, if platforms coordinate with each other on content moderation and other issues.

Deseret News requests for comment via email and social media direct messaging to Google, Facebook, Twitter and Squarespace were not immediately responded to.

Read more here:

Lee says Google, Facebook and Twitter are censoring conservative voices - Deseret News

Peter Olson,Goonengerry

It is one thing to have social distancing, but it is another thing altogether, to unjustly inflict total media censorship, in the very mistaken belief, that doing so will save lives or prevent rioting: quite the opposite is the actual case.

The elimination of freedom of speech, under the pretext of protecting people from the new virus, is a clear sign of tyranny being imposed.If invaders had come to bring tyranny through a military invasion, thousands would fight for freedom, but when such tyranny comes in the disguise of public health, no one even notices.

The elimination of evidence-based, rational and reasonable dialogue, solely on the grounds it conflicts with the official government narrative, is not in the public interest. At the first sign of infection, democratic power was rapidly transferred from those elected, to unelected health professionals, who have substantial financial conflicts of interest: trillions of dollars are at stake in expensive drug treatments.

At the event 201 rehearsal of this pandemic (on YouTube), they said the government should suppress all conflicting views; that has now happened. We could have this medical tyranny for the next 20 years will we ever have freedom of speech again?

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week or maybe more we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.

Read the rest here:

Censorship and the pandemic - Echonetdaily

Sen. Mike Lee is dangling the possibility of breaking up what he says are monopolies by social media companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook for what he says is their heavy-handed censorship of conservatives including President Donald Trump.

I view your heavy-handed censorship as a sign of exactly the sort of degraded quality one expects from a monopolist, Lee wrote in a letter this week to leaders of the companies.

In any other business, you would never dream of treating your customers the way you treat those with views you dont like. That is, unless you know your customers have no other serious options.

Lees criticism has extra weight because he is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee, which oversees legislation about monopolies. He announced this week that he will hold a hearing on Sept. 15 on whether Google and other tech giants are stacking the deck in online advertising.

Lee asked the leaders of Google, Facebook, Twitter and Squarespace to answer numerous questions about how and why they moderate comments online and he attacked what he says is their warping of public debate by unfairly silencing many conservatives.

In recent years, conservative voices like The Federalist, PragerU, President Trump, Senator Marsha Blackburn, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump Jr., churches, religious schools, Christian groups and others have found themselves deplatformed, demonetized or otherwise penalized for expressing their opinions, Lee wrote.

He complained that Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube this week each censored video of licensed medical professionals discussing COVID-19.

They removed a video which President Trump had retweeted published by the right-wing Breitbart News that featured a group of people wearing white lab coats calling themselves Americas Frontline Doctors who made dubious claims, including that masks are not needed to fight COVID-19 and that studies saying hydroxychloroquine is ineffective are fake science.

Lee also complained that Squarespace shut down a website run by the same doctors.

While I am not in a position to endorse or refute any of the doctors comments, I believe that we should err on the side of encouraging more speech, not less, Lee wrote.

Fortunately we are not without recourse, Lee warned, adding that as tech companies acquire more competitors, Congress must ensure that our antitrust laws are properly enforced.

So he asked them several questions to account for your conduct and to provide transparency over how you police your platforms.

What content-moderation standards to you employ when you remove content from your platform, where the content does not violate state or federal laws?

If Centers for Disease Control guidance is the basis for removing content regarding COVID-19, is that standard applied consistently? For example, since the CDC says that it is safe for schools to open, do you remove content from your platform that opposes reopening schools?

What are the prerequisites for a content-moderator position at your company? Do you inquire about the political or other beliefs of a candidate before making a hiring decision?

How do you ensure that a content-moderation decision is not influenced by the personal beliefs or political views of the moderator?

Do you coordinate the removal of specific content with other online platforms or competitors?

See the article here:

Sen. Mike Lee scolds social media giants for 'heavy-handed censorship' of conservatives, including Trump - Salt Lake Tribune

By its own admission, Facebook has nearly 2.5 billion active users, so its clear that it serves the entire world, rather than just the US market.

Yet during a global crisis and turmoil such as the multi-month coronavirus pandemic the way it dishes out coronavirus disinformation censorship, Facebook went with imposing the rules of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on its users.

The CDCs position, for example, is that hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treatment of Covid-19 patients. Facebook and other social media giants dutifully follow this line, regardless of the fact that many countries are already officially using and recommending hydroxychloroquine as efficient medicine.

This could easily be seen as a case of digital imperialism, where these corporations give themselves the right to impose one countrys agencys rules onto the rest of the world. All the more so, since a recent study by Sermo a global social network for physicians shows what the rest of the world is up to, in a bid to cure Covid patients.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

This company, that says it is the largest healthcare data collection, carried out a 3-day poll with participation of 6,200 physicians from 30 countries, to, among other things, find out that hydroxychloroquine is one of the three most commonly prescribed treatments for the disease (33%). Only analgesics (56%) and the drug Azithromycin (41%) are used more frequently overall, the study has shown.

It might seem strange to Americans, where the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine has been relegated to a hoax and even a conspiracy theory by mainstream media and Big Tech, that there are countries in the world like Spain and Italy among the hardest hit initially, but that, according to the study, seem to be doing well in this second coronavirus wave where hydroxychloroquine is by far the most used anti-Covid drug (72% and 49% respectively).

And while in the US giant social media are taking down content promoting this medication as dangerous disinformation the drug is among the most commonly prescribed (in double digits percentage-wise) in Mexico, Canada, Germany, France, and Brazil.

Not only that, but hydroxychloroquine has been overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters): 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the US, and 13% in the UK.

See more here:

Facebook censors hydroxychloroquine praise, even in countries where its an official treatment - Reclaim The Net

Conservative politicians in the US are not giving up on trying to shift the overwhelmingly unfavorable climate against them, the tone of which is set by the most powerful tech companies as the key platforms where human interaction happens today.

While Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) has long been touted as the very reason that allowed early internet entrepreneurship to flourish mostly thanks to protecting companies from getting obliterated by lawsuits equating them with responsibility for what third-party content creators (i.e., users) published on there some argue that the power dynamics and motivations have changed so profoundly 24 years later that this legislation itself is urgently in need of at least an overhaul.

Beside allowing Big Tech to live out the ultimate capitalist from garage riches to trillion dollar business dream the CDA and particularly Section 230 with its safe harbor protection has in the process created what some see as veritable monsters.

A group of Republican members of US Congress just proposed a new legislation Stop the Censorship Act of 2020 aimed at stripping tech and social media giants of Section 230 protections but only where they remove lawful speech on their platform.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Online platforms should not have special immunity to censor competition and lawful political speech, said Rep. Gosar. The broad and undue immunity for content and user removal granted by Section 230 must be reined in by Congress. We cannot continue to subsidize, deputize, or blackmail Silicon Valley to decide what is or isnt an allowable conversation. Stop the Censorship Act of 2020 empowers users and limits Big Tech to the same rights and liabilities as everyone else.

Freedom of speech and market competition are two of the strongest pillars of American freedom. But Big Tech, has shown little regard for either. Congress must protect the values that make America great. said Rep. Banks.

Our country was founded on the free exchange of ideas and the ability of all Americans to speak freely, a principle that has allowed the Internet to thrive, said Rep. Collins. But in recent years, companies like Twitter and Google have used Section 230 as a shield while unlawfully abusing the First Amendment rights of their users. Its time we put an end to Big Techs unlawful censorship by rolling back their broad protections and promoting market competition, which is exactly what the Stop the Censorship Act of 2020 will do.

Freedom of speech is paramount to the fabric of America. No one should have the power to censor political speech, including Big Tech, said Rep. Gooden.

With a fairly striking choice of words that pretty much covers Big Techs status today, from various political and ideological angles i.e., being at once subsidized, deputized, or blackmailed allowing them, or forcing them to act as arbiters of allowed speech the proposed bills sponsors argue that this industry must be held up to the same scrutiny as everyone else.

However, those firmly opposed to any changes to Section 230 say those would in one fell swoop undermine the very foundation of the internet as we know it today. But what exactly is the internet as we know it today?

Evidence is strong that its an increasingly fragmented (at best) and explicitly censored, at worst, digital place.

So what is Section 230 really protecting here? Ghosts of former startups that have since taken over the world, only to toy with it as they please like their critics insist?

Now that this industry has indeed flourished beyond most peoples wildest dreams, and worst nightmares is it really so outrageous to suggest that legislation like Section 230, passed in 1996, needs to be adjusted to modern times and current real world circumstances?

Many seem to think so, but the idea that this will be an easy and unchallenged approach is a myth and were going to hear a lot more about it in coming months.

See more here:

New bill aims to punish tech companies that censor lawful speech - Reclaim The Net

Twitter is a very powerful social network, since in its immediacy, viralization capacity and the option to broadcast in real time it is basically the best tool there is to find out instantly what is happening anywhere in the world.

The problem is that its creators have recognized that they have not moderated it well enough, and Twitter is a well of trolls, embitters, flamers and others. Although the network tries to improve, and above all not to let itself be used.

In the face of the moment in which we live, and with events such as the upcoming elections for the President of the United States, Twitter does not want its platform to be used as a portal to promote harmful and dangerous behavior, and has announced the measure that from Tomorrow, July 30, he will block on his platform the links that lead to web pages that promote violence and hatred.

The truth is that the platform already had measures to ban tweets that promote hateful behavior and violence, but now it will also extend it to the content linked in the tweets. In this sense, the company will send a warning notice to users when they click on a link or block it from being tweeted, which says the following:

If we have blocked a link, you will see an error message when you try to include it in your tweet or direct message or in your profile. The message says: You cannot complete this action because Twitter or our partners identified this link as potentially harmful.

Twitter may block links whose content is related to:

-Malware

Phishing attempts

Spam links

As well as those who violate company rules, such as links that include

Terrorism and violent extremism

Child sexual exploitation

violence

hateful behavior

Private information

Pirated material

More:

Twitter will censor web links promoting violence and hatred - Somag News

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law on "Online Platforms and Market Power" in the Rayburn House office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on July 29, 2020.

Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

The House Judiciary Committee held an antitrust hearing on Wednesday with the CEOs of four of the largest U.S. technology companies Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google to determine whether they have grown too large (i.e., are "too successful"), and therefore, should be broken up.

Democrats on the Committee suggested that these companies' success threatens the free market and even democracy itself. Numerous Republicans raised concerns about their alleged political bias as well as their size.

Meanwhile, in China, the government is taking an opposite course. Instead of attacking its "national champions," China is showering them with government subsidies and discriminating against "would-be" competitors to great effect.

Ten years ago, nearly all of the top technology companies and start-ups in the world were American. Now, China has nine of the top 20 technology companies and four of the top 10 start-ups. And this trend appears likely to continue.

China recently passed the United States in the number of global patent applications and is on track to eclipse U.S. research and development spending in the next two years, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

As policymakers on the Right and Left increasingly proclaim the importance of out-innovating China in critical technologies, their comments during yesterday's hearing raise an important question which companies will they actually let play that role?

Ten years ago, nearly all of the top technology companies and start-ups in the world were American. Now, China has nine of the top 20 technology companies and four of the top 10 start-ups. And this trend appears likely to continue.

Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are not the only important U.S. technology companies, but they spend a disproportionate amount on research and development in key areas like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and robotics. They are also leaders on privacy and security technology, an area where China poses a particular threat, and they provide communication alternatives to less secure Chinese competitors. Mere search engines and social networks they are not.

Moreover, all four companies are uniquely American. They were built from the ground up by hard-working middle-class entrepreneurs, they revolutionized their industries, and they provide platforms to expand American influence and ideals like free speech around the world.

So rather than tear down our most innovative and most American of companies, let's build them up and others like them to stay ahead of China. How to begin?

First, let's stop attacking success to score political points. Policymakers should always question potential monopolistic behavior and make sure that a diversity of opinions are allowed to thrive online, but much of Big Tech's recent scrutiny appears populist in nature either intended to bolster "anti-corporate" credentials or to admonish the political views of their CEOs and employees.

The consequences of this "loose talk" is real it threatens American jobs at these companies, discourages other would-be risk-takers from setting out on new ventures, and provides cover for other countries to target U.S. business. After all, if U.S. policymakers are attacking Big Tech, why shouldn't their counterparts in China and Europe do the same? Instead of needlessly hurting our most innovative companies, let's champion their ingenuity and encourage others to replicate it.

Second, let's use the size of these companies and the unique skill sets of their workers to the government's advantage. Let's harness their cross-cutting strengths through public-private partnerships and joint R&D programs in critical technologies so the United States (and the U.S. military) remains the global leader. When policymakers consider their options for a modern U.S. industrial policy, working with and further strengthening these American champions is exactly what they should be doing.

Third, let's tread carefully when it comes to circumscribing the activities of these and other U.S. companies abroad. There are areas where our companies should not be permitted to engage, such as helping China improve its military capability. But one of the best ways for America to stay ahead of its global competition is for our companies to sell more in markets like China so they can spend more on innovation in the United States.

Fourth, let's forcefully back these companies against unfair practices abroad, whether it be unacceptable pressure from China to censor their activities or opportunistic targeting from France for tax revenue. Such pressure is very difficult for companies to combat alone, and they shouldn't be criticized for trying. Rather, the U.S. government should stand by their side and help them to compete fairly in these crucial markets, not encourage them to disengage.

Finally, as we continue to push back against the unfair practices of others, let's not emulate them ourselves. Censorship and higher taxes are not the way to create more Apples, Amazons, Facebooks, and Googles. And using anti-trust tools for political purposes a trick right out of the Chinese playbook will certainly not help win the defining global competition of our time.

Clete Willems is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council (2018-2019), and proudly represents innovative U.S. tech companies.

View post:

Op-ed: Censorship and higher taxes won't create more Apples, Amazons, Facebooks and Googles - CNBC