The legislature evidenced GOP priorities, such as siding with Trump after being censored for incitement of violence when a mob of his supporters assaulted the U.S Capitol.

SB 12, authored by Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, died during the regular session but is expected to be brought back by Abbott to his special session. This bill would ultimately prohibit online platforms from censoring expressed views by social media users.

Republicans have been claiming for years that big tech companies and social media platforms have been intolerant with their conservative views, pushing for bills to avoid any type of censorship whatsoever.

But the law does not seem to consider this a solution, as a federal judge on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction against Floridas new social media law in this regard.

Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest. said District Court Judge Robert Hinkle.

NetChoices president, Steve DelBianco, supported the judges ruling saying that the order allowed the platforms to keep their users safe from the worst content posted by irresponsible users.

On deplatforming bills, Antigone Davis, Global Head of Safety in California-headquartered Facebook Inc said they will continue advocating for internet rules that protect free expression while allowing platforms like Facebook to remove harmful content.

This type of legislation would make children and other vulnerable communities less safe by making it harder for us to remove content like pornography, hate speech, bullying, self-harm images and sexualized photos of minors said Davis on SB 12.

Governor Abbott however, believes it is a move to target Republicans and censor their personal views.

There is a dangerous movement that is spreading across the country to try to silence conservative ideas, religious beliefs, Abbott said.

And as Republican insist they are being forced to silence and social media companies keep insisting they only apply regulatory measures on speech that incites violence or illegal acts, experts like Kate Huddleston, from ACLU of Texas, say SB 12 is a waste of time and resources.

Federal law already prohibits holding social media platforms liable as the publisher of content provided by others, Huddleston said.

View post:

Deplatforming Bills are Dying, Proving to be Political Stunts and not Solutions - Reform Austin

By Sam Wambugu

In January this year, the world was outraged to see the American democracy shaken when a rowdy mob invaded the Capitol baying for the blood of leaders in Congress and government.

Many people point an accusing finger at then-President Donald Trump for fanning the flames of dissent, which boiled over on January 6. Subsequently, Mr Trump was banished by several social media outlets. His curated content and profile were removed.

Although social media had expelled other people before President Trump, his removal from several social media platforms was the most notable. His eviction from social media sites led to an explosion of the use of the term deplatform a verb meaning to deny someone or an institution the ability to post on social media. Thus, it is simply an eviction from the platform.

Eviction from social media occurs when its owners deem the posted content unacceptable and going against the terms of service of the platform. The evicted person or institution is regarded dangerous to the society.

Deplatforming can also include removing cloud infrastructure providers, domain name providers, and other web-related services from the unwanted group. It may also involve not just banning the user or discontinuing his services, but also removing any existing content the user previously created on the site or service.

Deplatforming people is meant to cut their ability to communicate with the public using social media tools. But do they lose that ability? The public is divided on this issue. Some raise ethical concerns. They see deplatforming as a ploy to curtail free speech. Others see it as an effective strategy to reduce hate speech and calls for violence on social media.

Whether deplatforming reduces the level of hate speech is an issue up for debate. However, people who are deplatformed often become more popular because the announcement to expel them and erase their content causes curiosity, leading to more online searches for their name.

Also, people who are deplatformed are likely to go underground and sign up anew with pseudo names and perpetuate their agenda covertly or use their surrogate to spread their beliefs. For example, people sympathetic to a deplatformed group could build their hosting infrastructure and use it to drive out content.

Monitoring social media is a tough farm to plough. Attempts to monitor people or institutions is a digital version of the hide-and-seek game, with the social media surveillance apparatus chasing ghost profiles.

Unlike traditional media such as radio and television governed by rules and regulations, social media cannot strictly be monitored, and offenders quickly nabbed and punished.

And laws are difficult to enforce for the billions of people on the internet, some of whom have sophisticated tools to evade online traps laid for them.

This leaves countries in a conundrum damned if they deplatform. Damned if they dont.

---------------------------------------

SamWambungu is an Inforrmatician[emailprotected]Twitter: #Samwambugu2

Continued here:

Kicking dissent out of social media: Does it hurt or help? - The Citizen

Researchers at the intelligence firm Logically said Tuesday that they have identified an influential figure in the QAnon conspiracy community who pushed dangerous narratives about coronavirus and child trafficking.

In a new report, researchers linked the Twitter handle qthewakeup to Jeremy J.J. Sicotte, a documentary filmmaker.

The account amassed over 140,000 followers on Twitter before being banned during one of the platforms sweeps of QAnon-related accounts last year.

Sicotte denied taking part in the account when reached for comment by Logically. The Hill was unable to reach Sicotte.

Qthewakeup played an influential role in spreading the false theory that Wayfair was selling trafficked children along with expensive furniture and was identified among a key cluster of accounts pushing the Plandemic conspiracy that coronavirus is a creation of governments aiming to complete authoritarian takeovers.

Accounts associated with qthewakeup also developed significant followings on Instagram and YouTube before being removed over the last year.

A qthewakeup channel that uses similar branding to the former Twitter account is active on the messaging service Telegram, but has less than 1,500 subscribers.

Researchers at Logically said they hope that unmasking qthewakeup will reducethe account's influence and dissuade it from boosting dangerous theories.

In cases where accounts evade deplatforming or rebrand, theres value in taking away that anonymity, especially when it's being weaponized to push harmful information, lead investigator Nick Backovic told The Hill.

In some cases [anonymity] means they straight-up can lie about their identity, he continued. In other cases, because they are shielded from accountability it allows them to post stuff that is more daring, more extremist and that makes the harmful content more dangerous.

Researchers said they initially were investigating the Twitter account because of inconsistencies in the type of content it was posting but quickly found links to prominent QAnon figure Jordan Sather, who said in posts that the person running qthewakeup was a male friend who helped him film "Above Majestic," a 2018 documentary with heavy conspiracy themes.

Logically found that the accounts handle was jjfromjupiter when it was created in 2009, which researchers said appears to be a reference to Sicottes band at the time. Sicotte is a graduate of the BerkleeCollege of Music.

Researchers said that analyzing interactions with the account ultimately led them to Sicotte. They were able to verify that the Twitter account was registered to a phone number and email belonging to Sicotte.

Sicotte told Logically that Sather had used his information for the account. Sather saidhe made the account, but declined to explain the earlier activity on it when contacted by Logically. He had said in a video on his Rumble channel this year that he would be starting a podcast soon with a friend who ran qthewakeup.

The Hill reached out to Sather for further comment.

Thereport comes as many segments of the conspiracy community have moved away from QAnon branding. The shadowy figure known as Q, who alleged that former President TrumpDonald TrumpChinese apps could face subpoenas, bans under Biden executive order: report Kim says North Korea needs to be 'prepared' for 'confrontation' with US Ex-Colorado GOP chair accused of stealing more than 0K from pro-Trump PAC MORE was working to expose a global network of Democratic elites and media figures trafficking children, has not posted on the image boards they crafted the theory on for several months.

While some of the most clearly QAnon elements have faded, the broader anti-institutionalist and anti-democracy movement borne out of the theory appears to be growing in strength and following.

Previous unmaskings of QAnon influencers have led to changes, researchers say.

After a Logically investigation revealed the identity of the individual behind QMap, a heavily trafficked site that compiled Qs posts, the website was taken down.

Sicotte most recently produced a film about hospice care called Death Is But a Dream that was released earlier this year.

See original here:

Researchers say they have unmasked a major QAnon influencer | TheHill - The Hill

Seeking refuge from assault of fireworksJust where does the law (state or local) stand on fireworks?It would seem that this year we will be subjected to an entire three-day weekend of noise that is nothing to celebrate for many households.The explosions in the dark can be very traumatic for people with PTSD from various experiences and for many pets who are terrorized by the sound and concussions.I have a dog who needs tranquilizers, which I hate to subject him to, to cope with the sensory assault.Calls to the local police about the nuisance are pointless, since they obviously cant be everywhere and if they do come to quiet things they take no definitive action and the show resumes as soon as theyre out of sight.Id take my animals away for peace and quiet, but frankly dont know where Id find sanctuary from the celebration.From experience, I know theres no talking to neighbors who think that personal displays are their right.If anyone can offer answers or suggest a place of relative refuge Id like to hear them.William SheehanRotterdam

The working class needs its own partyIt is unlikely that further significant legislation will pass before the 2022 elections.Even so, Biden has shown with these infrastructure and climate plans that Democrats will continue to compromise with themselves to diminish the positive impact of any legislation that does pass.This failure to seize the moment during the pandemic and recession to pass bold legislation to improve the lives and livelihoods of the working-class majority will enable heavy Democrat losses in 2022 and guarantee an obstructionist Republican Congress for the remaining two years.In sum, Bidens presidency is over.Many are responsible for this failure, especially the Democrats themselves: determined to serve their corporate masters and thus continually snatch political defeat from the jaws of victory.The entire progressive apparatus is also culpable for uncritically supporting a conservative and capitalist politician (Biden) and party (Democrats).Progressives made no demands before wholesale endorsing and campaigning for him.They also browbeat anyone who had principled politics and refused to go along with this Trump-Biden false choice.Electoral deplatforming of the Greens and an utterly feckless Democrat administration was the result.In this, progressives did more to defeat the Left than to defeat Trump.Numerous organizations perpetrated this shameful farce nationally, but some local culprits include DSA, Citizen Action, All of Us, and VOCAL-NY. Stop wasting your time and resources on Democrats and on any pusillanimous organizations like these that support Democrats.Working-class people must build their own organizations and their own political party now to advance their class interests.Samuel RoseSchenectady

Online lettersCommenters to online letters who fail to follow rules against name-calling, profanity, threats, libel or other inappropriate language will have their comments removed and their commenting privileges withdrawn.

To report inappropriate online comments, email Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney at[emailprotected]

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

See more here:

Letters to the Editor Thursday, June 17 - The Daily Gazette

Though they would have you believe otherwise, traditional social media platforms remain fertile grounds for right-wing ideasand misinformation. Conservatives complain of censorship and deplatforming, but often from the very platforms they say are biased against them: Provocateurs like Ben Shapiro and Sean Hannity consistently dominate Facebook. MAGA lawmakers like Ted Cruz and Marjorie Taylor Greene have all but replaced governing with tweeting. And there has been a great deal of reporting on the role YouTube has played in amplifying alt-right extremist content. Republicans can cry about anti-conservative bias on social media, but the tech companies they love to hate have been an important part of their project over the last decade.

Still, it is true that these digital spaces have changed in recent months. Donald Trump was kicked off Twitter and suspended from Facebook after instigating a deadly riot on Capitol Hill and has basically been reduced to blogging to give voice to his every stray thought. The companies have shown a little more assertiveness in rooting out conspiratorial content. And, at least for a time, Apple, Google, and Amazon iced Parler, the free speech social media app many Trump supporters had defected to. Claims of anti-conservative deplatforming are overstated, but the right is beginning to find that at least some standards are finally being enforced on traditional sites.

Enter Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance. Increasingly influential figures in the MAGA universe, the pair recently made significant investments in Rumble, according to the Wall Street Journal, giving a further boost to the video-sharing platform that is becoming a home for many on the right. This will be a major play against Big Tech, Rumble Chief Executive Chris Pavlovski told the Journal of the reported investments. Rumble did not say how much money Thiel and Vance had pumped into the insurgent YouTube alternative. But the involvement of prominent figures on the MAGA right could bestow a level of Trumpworld legitimacy on the Toronto-based company, which a Wired investigation this month found to be a prolific promoter of misinformation and toxic content.

Thiel, who is still on the board at Facebook, has been parlaying his status as Silicon Valleys biggest Trump supporter into a role as a Republican megadonor, seemingly interested in playing a part in the GOPs push to take back the House and Senate in 2022. Vance, the venture capitalist who came to the public consciousness with the memoir Hillbilly Elegy, may soon be a key component of that project, with Thiel providing financial support for the authors potential Senate bid in Ohio. Having previously capitalized on Trumps rise by purporting to be a kind of window into the disaffected white working class for out-of-touch elites blindsided by the 2016 election, Vance has more recently capitalized on the kind of online trolling that helped fuel the former presidents political movement. Vances style is a bit more measured, but it seems designed to produce the same effect: Piss off the libs, delight the right, and ride the ill-gotten relevance to power.

Thiels position on Facebook and Vances shit-stirring on Twitter would seem to undercut conservatives claims that those more established platforms have become inhospitable. But the conservatives pumping money into Rumble could allow a real alternative to grow, in a way that support from the likes of Donald Trump Jr. and Dan Bongino cant. At the very least, it could allow two ambitious up-and-comers in MAGA politics to boost their reputations as right-wing power-players.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

How the University of Iowa Became Ground Zero for the Cancel Culture Wars Inside the New York Posts Bogus-Story Blowup The Mothers of 15 Black Men Killed by Police Remember Their Losses I Cant Abandon My Name: The Sacklers and Me This Secretive Government Unit Is Saving American Lives Around the World Trumps Inner Circle Is Terrified the Feds Are Coming for Them Next Why Gavin Newsom Is Thrilled About Caitlyn Jenners Run for Governor Can Cable News Pass the Post-Trump Test? From the Archive: The Life Breonna Taylor Lived, in the Words of Her Mother Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now.

More:

Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance Are Propping Up a Right-Wing YouTube Alternative - Vanity Fair

A federal judge today told Shiva Ayyadurai he would dip into a court fund to help pay for a prominent downtown lawyer to bring some sense to Ayyadurai's legal case against Secretary of State William Galvin's office and, possibly, Twitter, which as of today involves claims that the state and a national association of elections officials built a coast-to-coast racketeering effort in which Twitter acts as "the executioner" to dispense with online criticism of the state's sinister machinations by deplatforming people like him.

US District Court Judge Mark Wolf told Ayyadurai that he believes that the heart of the case is that Ayyadurai wants his Twitter account back and that a lawyer would help get the case to the core First Amendment and jurisdictional issues that Wolf sees as crucial to Ayyadurai's case.

When Ayyadurai first brought his case last October, he was seeking to overturn the Sept. 1 Republican primary, which he lost, alleging Galvin's office destroyed 1 million ballots, which the state has consistently derided as nonsense, largely because Ayyadurai claims the ballots were electronic copies, which the state says it does not even make. But the case now focuses on Twitter's decision in early February to deactivate his Twitter account for repeatedly claiming massive fraud by state elections officials.

People who bring civil lawsuits are not normally granted court-appointed and funded lawyers, but Wolf said he would make an exception for Ayyadurai because his case raises some crucial issues related to the First Amendment and the question of when a private company becomes, essentially, an agent of the state and so subject to the First Amendment, which normally does not apply to private companies.

In fact, Wolf said today, Ayyadurai's case raises issues that he could see becoming "a potential law-school exam in constitutional law."

As he said yesterday, Wolf said Ayyadurai may have made a case plausible enough to go to trial on whether complaints the state and the national association filed with Twitter in September when coupled with Twitter's decision to cut him off in February made Twitter into a "state actor" that unconstitutionally stomped on Ayyadurai's First Amendment rights.

Lawyers for the state, the association and Twitter - which Ayyadurai did not initially sue, but which he is now trying to get added to the suit - say Twitter ignored the September complaints and took action in February entirely on its own after determining Ayyadurai kept making illegitimate election-fraud claims in January, something that, as a private company, with its own First Amendment right to determine what goes on its platform, it is allowed to do.

Ayyadurai said he would agree to talk to Wolf's suggested lawyer, Howard Cooper of Todd & Weld, whom Wolf praised for his understanding of First Amendment issues. Wolf added that he had similarly appointed Cooper to represent Whitey Bulger in the 1990s, before he disappeared, and, more recently, an alleged MS-13 member rounded up after a series of teens were murdered in 2015 and 2016.

Wolf gave Ayyadurai until Thursday to formally agree to bringing on Cooper.

Wolf said he agreed to appoint counsel both because of the issues involved and because one of Ayyadurai's claims is that he brought the case by himself because he could not afford a lawyer after Twitter cut him off in January.

In fact, however, Ayyadurai's initial suit was filed Oct. 20 by a Plymouth lawyer, whom Ayyadurai fired a week later - long before Twitter disabled his account permanently.

At a hearing today, Ayyadurai went through a guide for election officials on how to deal with online misinformation, in part by pointing out ways to file complaints with Twitter. He seized on the fact that both the Galvin aide he's suing and the executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors, whom he is also suing are listed as contributors and said the guide proved how elections officials have turned Twitter into their mega-censoring tool.

A lawyer for the association, however, said the guide, in fact, shows the opposite, because one of its points is that, as a private company, Twitter is free to ignore complaints from election officials - which he and state lawyers said is exactly what Twitter did with their complaint about Ayyadurai last fall.

More:

Man who really wants his Twitter account back gets court-appointed lawyer to take on his increasingly convoluted conspiracy case against election...

The British government announced in May a new initiative aimed at protecting free speech on university campuses, a move that follows several high-profile instances of de-platforming and cancellation of controversial speakers and opinions. Predictably, the political left and right disagree, not only about the nature and scope of the threat, but whether it is even real. Mercifully, we are not likely to address this sort of problem in the United States through national legislation. But that doesnt mean that the same social forcespolarization and ideological partisanshipare not at work here.

America has attempted to meet the challenge by publishing diverse opinions, an approach we have formalized in a new editorial initiative, The Conversation. (The conversation we initiate in this issue centers on the future of Catholic theology.) The choice to showcase diverse viewpoints stems not only from the fact that ideological partisanship is this editor in chiefs well-known bugbear, but also that this has been Americas approach from the start. True to its name and to its character as a Catholic review, the editors wrote in our first editorial in 1909, America will be cosmopolitan not only in contents but also in spirit. Joseph A. OHare, S.J., the tenth editor in chief, put it this way: A Catholic journal of opinion should be reasonably catholic in the opinions it is willing to consider. Which is not to say that catholic means indiscriminate. It does mean, however, that we will publish views contrary to our own, as long as we think they deserve the attention of thoughtful Catholics.

Accordingly, over the last several years we have hosted a wide range of authors across our platforms. In the area of economics, for example, we have published capitalists, communitarians, social democrats, libertarians, even a communist. In the area of theology, just this month, America published an article by one Catholic bishop who argued that pro-choice politicians should not be admitted to Communionwe then published an article by a different Catholic bishop saying just the opposite. And in between, we published hundreds of your comments about this important question.

Americas answers to such questions, of course, are contained in our unsigned editorials. But offering you our corporate opinion is but one, relatively small part of what we do. Our main task is to host opinions, to expose you to a variety of individuals and groups, all within the broad spectrum of Catholic opinion.

That inclusive approach is not, admittedly, a widely popular choice. In the present polarized climate, voicing contrary opinions requires courage, which is sometimes described as speaking truth to power. But context counts for a lot here. The most powerful force in the public, ecclesial discourse isnt the secular media or the U.S. bishops, but the elite foot soldiers on social media and elsewhere who police the boundaries of ideological orthodoxy, both left and right, often with cynical, brute force.

It doesnt take a lot of courage, for example, for us to publish someone who is denouncing racism. Our audience wholeheartedly agrees. It doesnt take courage to publish an editorial criticizing the U.S. bishopsthey are not that popular to start with, ranking down there near lawyers in terms of popularity. What does take some courage is defending the bishops when we think theyre right. And it does take some courage to buck the prevailing establishment ethos on matters of human sexuality or economics. And it took courage for America to say, on the precious few occasions when it was true, that Donald Trump was right.

America should have the courage to pay less attention to the mob and more attention to you. Here, Pope Francis is showing us the way. The pope believes in God, but he dialogues with atheists; he believes in a communitarian approach to economics, but he meets with capitalists; he has spoken out against ideologies of gender, but he has known and met with transgender people. You should hold us to a standard that requires that kind of courage.

Some people say that this editorial approach is nothing but an idealists fantasy. But those who think that do not know you as I have come to know you. For nearly nine years, I have traveled the length and breadth of this country, meeting thousands of you. I trust you. I trust the education most of you received from the Society of Jesus. I know that you are not afraid of argument, not afraid of different viewpoints; that you are suspicious of dogmas not thought through to their consequences; that you value intelligence, diversity and charity.

For which I say: Thanks be to God.

Once again, welcome to the conversation.

View original post here:

We're going to publish things you disagree with. It's what a Catholic magazine should do. - America Magazine

The International Fact-Checking Network will premiere its new monthly conversation series, IFCN Talks, on Monday, Feb. 8. The monthly series of community conversations will allow members of both the public and the fact-checking community to learn and talk about some of the most prescient topics in the fight against mis- and disinformation. Its part of a larger effort by the IFCN to expand learning opportunities for fact-checkers, while also including the public in discussions previously sequestered in fact-checker-only events.

The monthly sessions will feature interviews with experts followed by a 30-minute question and answer session for the viewing audience. Mondays first session will look at the recent spate of social media deplatformings. IFCN Associate Director Cristina Tardguila will talk to misinformation researchers Lucas Graves and Francisco Brito Cruz about whether deplatforming has been a useful tactic in the fight against online falsehoods.

Graves is an associate professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and has been at the forefront of research on the global fact-checking movement for years. Brito Cruz is the director at InternetLab, in Brazil, and has a Ph.D. in Sociology of Law at the University of So Paulo.

IFCN Talks builds on the success of 2020s virtual Global Fact 7 conference. The virtual format, necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, allowed the IFCN to expand its annual conference from three days to five, and also brought together nearly three times as many speakers as the previous years conference 150 vs. 57.

Global Fact 7 was the first time members of the public were able to participate in the annual fact-checking conference. Viewers across the globe were treated to free workshops and discussions about such topics as how to fight health misinformation, new formats for disseminating fact-checks, and new research about the impacts of fact-checking and misinformation.

IFCN Talks is a direct result of that success.

To participate in Mondays session, click this link and sign up for the seminar on Zoom. Its free and it will surely be fun.

See the original post:

IFCN Talks: 'The Great Deplatforming' took place almost 1 month ago. What now? - Poynter

In the latest round of Big Tech censorship, social media app Parler fell victim. On Jan. 9, Google and Apple removed Parler from their app stores. At around the same time, numerous QAnon-associated accounts on platforms including Facebook and Twitter were also banned.

Parler was founded in 2018 and gained popularity as a promising right-wing alternative to Twitter when bigger tech platforms started banning users. After some time, Parler became a right-wing alternative to Twitter due to increasing censorship. The platform provided a place where many users could find like-minded people to discuss a variety of political or social topics.

It should be clear that the owners of Parler in no way advocate for having only right-wing politics on their platform. The company has stated previously that they would love for more liberal users to join the app. If left-wing users were to create accounts, then perhaps the app would never have received the label of being right-wing. With more left-wing users, Parler could very well become a bright alternative to Twitter for political discussion.

But as of today, conservatives dominate Parler's user base. This conservative base is not the entire reason the app was banned, but I have no doubt that if the app primarily consisted of mainstream Republicans and at least some form of moderate liberal base, Parler would still be on app stores. The problem is a lot of the more conspiratorial right-wing personalities have joined the app and tried to peddle their extremely troubling views.

Officially, Google claimed they removed Parler from their Play Store because the app failed to remove posts inciting violence. Apple gave a similar response. It seems Google and Apple have no place for incitement of violence on their platforms, and if this is indeed what they believe in as a company, then I respect that. However, in America we have an inherent respect for the value of free speech. Although Americans disagree with each other quite regularly, that does not mean they want their opposition censored or silenced. Google and Apple have every right to ban Parler, but freedom of speech should prevail, even when groups make statements that are wrong and hurtful.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg stated the Capitol riot was largely not organized on her platform. However, the left-wing group Media Matters decided to challenge the claim of Facebook having little to do with organizing for the Capitol riot in Washington, D.C. Media Matters found evidence that rioters organized trips to the capital on Facebook, showing Facebook did have some level of involvement in the events. Additionally, The Wall Street Journal found the groups section of the Facebook app has been hosting individuals who have been calling for violence long before the events at the Capitol. Even if Parler did indeed host very similar people who were involved with the terrible riot at the Capitol, should only Parler be banned?

With growing claims that rioters organized on Parler, the company has been working hard on communicating with authorities. Recently, Parler helped the FBI locate a suspect who had been stockpiling ammunition and threatened to kill an elected U.S. senator. Although this work with the FBI happened after Parler was banned, it is proof that Parler is willing to help authorities get criminals off of its platform. If working with the FBI is not a prime example of Parler going above and beyond to make sure its platform is in compliance with the government, then perhaps the Googles of the world should provide clear guidance that describes what proper moderation is.

I am sure there is a very good case to be made that some bad actors incited violence on Parler, and if these bad actors committed crimes, then they should definitely be prosecuted. If specific users are found to be committing a crime, then they should be punished. However, it is a giant burden to say Parler must moderate its platform, which was founded on free speech. Even if Parler fails in banning the proper bad actors, Parler must not be deplatformed.

I know from personal experience there are a lot of people who use Parler to simply communicate with other conservatives, and the use of the app to talk with like-minded people is okay. Even if Parler, Twitter or the others fail to moderate their platforms, they should not get banned. While Google and Apple reserve the right to ban from their app stores whomever they please, companies like Parler should not be punished when allowing less strict moderation.

Bryce Robinson is a business administration sophomore and opinion writer for The Battalion.

The rest is here:

The deplatforming of Parler | Opinion | thebatt.com - Texas A&M The Battalion

The suspended Twitter account of U.S. President Donald Trump (Photo Illustration by Justin ... [+] Sullivan/Getty Images)

Shortly after the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, a number of social media companies, starting with Twitter, kicked President Donald Trump off of their platforms. Following Twitter, Facebook banned Trump from its platforms including Instagram, and then other social media companies, including YouTube followed suit. Within a few days, Trump found himself with no digital means of getting his word out.

Of course he wasnt muted as President he could call a press conference any time he wished, and he could be confident that the media would attend. But like many politicians who had learned about the power of unfiltered access to the internet, Trump had grown used to being able to have his say whenever he wanted it. Now, through the actions of a couple of large companies, he couldnt get his word out in the way he wished.

This raised questions in many circles at the time, and those questions havent gone away in the time since. What are the implications of silencing a sitting President? Is it legal or ethical to shut off access to those platforms?

Deplatforming

To answer that question, the Georgetown University Law Center held a panel discussion with four of its top legal experts to examine the question of deplatforming a sitting President.

The first question, whether its legal for the companies to remove a sitting President from a publicly available social media platform such as Twitter or Facebook, was answered at the beginning of the panel discussion by moderator Hillary Brill, acting director of Georgetown Laws Institute for Technology Law and Policy. Brill noted the outcry by many when it happened that it was somehow a limitation on free speech, noting that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects free speech against limitations from the government, She noted that Twitter, Facebook and the other companies were private companies. There is no First Amendment issue regarding their actions to block the President from posting on their services.

"White-Gravenor Hall of the Georgetown University, Washington DC."

But that didnt mean there werent concerns. Professor Erin Carrol, who teaches on communications and technology and the press, said that she was concerned about the power of big tech and the lack of transparency. When you clear away disinformation, will there be truth behind it? she asked.

Unfortunately, there may not be. Carroll pointed that when Trump and his sympathizers were booted from the mainstream social media, they moved to other platforms, such as Telegram and Signal, which are message services where law enforcement has little access, and Gab, which makes little attempt to control the content of messages. Another social media site, Parler, initially benefitted as a sort of home away from home for refugees from Twitter, but sponsors didnt like its lack of moderation, and Amazon, which was hosting the service, refused to carry it. That effectively killed Parler.

Speech doesnt go away

Speech doesnt go away, Carroll said, it just finds other places.

According to Professor David Vladeck, the A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure at Georgetown Law and former head of the FTC Consumer Protection Bureau, much of the issue about removing someone such as Trump from a platform is rooted in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He said that Section 230 enables a lot of the problems. It gives very broad immunity for publishing harmful or defamatory information. He said that while he doubts that Section 230, which protects internet providers from liability for material that others post on their sites, will be repealed, he thinks its likely to be changed. He noted that former President Trumps desire to repeal that section was based in his lack of understanding of what it did. In effect, he said, it would have allowed much greater control over what he posted, rather than less.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies remotely during a hearing to discuss reforming Section 230 of the ... [+] Communications Decency Act (Photo by Greg Nash / POOL / AFP) (Photo by GREG NASH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

That then raised the question of just how online content should be controlled. Professor Anupam Chander, who teaches communications and technology law, suggested that changing Section 230 to bring more content moderation might not be a good thing. It could lead to a Disneyfied universe, he said. That would be one in which no negative information exists.

Transparency needed

Instead, Carroll said that whats needed is for the industry to adopt greater transparency in how it makes decisions. She said that when new rules, such as a revision of Section 230 are done, it needs to be done by people who understand it, and who understand the way online services such as Twitter and Facebook work.

How do we have policies that promote facts versus propaganda, Carroll asked. She suggested that there needs to be some accountability into who makes decisions such as deplatforming a President.

So far, however, there seems to be no obvious answer to the question about when or if to remove such a platform from the President (or anyone else for that matter). But it appeared clear that the first step should be to update current legislation to at least reflect how these services work, and to make sure that theres transparency/

Read this article:

Georgetown University Discusses The Great Deplatforming: Removing Trump From Social Media - Forbes