Internal Twitter messages show employees targeting Libs of TikTok …

Leaked internal messages between Twitter employees on the business messaging channel Slack showed them bragging about "successfully" deplatforming former President Donald Trump and debating about permanently banning conservative influencer Libs of TikTok.

Libs of TikTok, the Twitter account dedicated to reposting videos and events from left-wing activists, has been suspended from Twitter three times and is now facing a potential permanent ban according to the leaked internal Twitter chats.

The Twitter employees, who appear to be far-left activists based off of their internal discourse, said that Libs of TikTok should be permanently banned for encouraging violence against marginalized community membersa common accusation expelled by far-left activists.

"This has been escalating for months...but our expectations out of twitter are so low right now that the devil himself is having to squat to get to their level," a Twitter employee said on Slack.

"Like I don't get how this account, which exists solely to generate targeted violence at marginalized people, continues to be allowed to post," they added.

Employees furthered their debate about deplatforming Libs of TikTok but questioned if the decision would reveal the company's bias against conservative users.

"But if we deplatform this account we might erode trust in our platform from users who already think we're irredeemably biased against conservatives," an employee stated.

Another employee then responded to the discussion bragging about how Twitter "successfully" deplatformed former president Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol in 2021.

"I mean we successfully deplatformed Trump - I don't think deplatforming Libs of TikTok is going to cause a mass exodus but I guess it may not be in our 'fiduciary' interest to enact a ban on a high profile account right now...," another employee said in regards to the potential buyout from Space X and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Employees say that Libs of TikTok, who frequently exposes inappropriate behavior from within the LGBTQ community through using their own videos, is trying to enact genocide against the trans community.

"Trans people are being targeted for genocidal violence during pride month," an employee wrote.

Another employee responded and said, "I despise and despair the activity that is currently flourishing on our platform and empowering white supremacists /fascists to act with impunity in conducting harmful emotional and physical violence on trans folx and the broader LGBTQ+ community."

The internal chats were first published by Libs of TikTok on Substack Monday night where they stated that they confirmed the identities and employment of all individuals in the group message before redacting their names and photos.

The discussion for a potential ban came mere hours after Media Matters employees took to Twitter to say the Libs of TikTok account was going to be responsible for the death of LGBTQ+ individuals. Ari Drennen, the LGBTQ Program Director for Media Matters posted a series of tweets attacking Libs of TikTok account and the woman who runs it, Chaya Raichik. "Chaya Raichik of Libs of Tik Tok is going to get someone killed," Drennen said.

Drennen accompanied the post with news of a Drag Queen Story Hour being protested in San Francisco. Drennen didn't stop there and claimed Libs of TikTok is "hard at [work] making sure that far right militias have their next target."

"This right-wing lady is inciting violence," added Drennen in her Twitter rant. Drennen has also retweeted and amplified other journalists calling Libs of TikToks actions "terrorism," and claiming that the content posted by the account is "trying to spark a genocide."

Media Matters has written four hit pieces on Libs of TikTok in recent months but has ramped up its efforts to get the account nuked by attempting to pin the account to acts of harassment and violence, despite Libs of TikTok only reposting content and provided limited, if any, commentary.

Following today's onslaught from Drennen and others, Libs of TikTok reported receiving death threats en masse, including one individual saying they sent a pipe bomb to Libs of TikTok for "supporting nazi bigots," and "please kill yourself at your earliest convenience."

On Wednesday, the Libs of TikTok's Twitter account was suspended after activists mass-reported a tweet thread with a series of drag queen events involving children. Last month, the Libs of TikTok Instagram account was suspended but reinstated after an appeal. Libs of TikTok is permanently banned from TikTok.

This is far from the first time major media outlets have rallied against the account. In April, Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz doxxed the owner of Libs of TikTok, claiming she could have been a foreign actor. Lorenz also harassed and showed up at the home of the owner of Libs of TikTok before dropping the piece.

Many users have been trying to reach Elon Musk about the potential ban, as Musk previously admitted the suspension of the Babylon Bee was a motivating factor in his decision to buy Twitter. The CEO of the Babylon Bee, Seth Dillon, has been a staunch supporter of Libs of TikTok and pushing back against the hits from Media Matters in a series of tweets.

Originally posted here:

Internal Twitter messages show employees targeting Libs of TikTok ...

Leaked internal messages show Twitter employees debating whether to ban us

Conservative Twitter accounts are dropping like flies. Just today, Allie Stuckey was locked out for hateful conduct. Her crime? She criticized Fox News for celebrating a childs gender transition. There was nothing hateful about her tweet. She wasnt harassing anyone. She certainly didnt call for violence. She merely dissented.

Thats all it takes.

Project Veritas recently exposed Twitters bias with undercover video of an employee admitting they censor conservatives. But we really didnt need hidden camera footage. Their bias is blatant. Itd take effort to not see it.

Weve experienced our share of it firsthand. It started in April when we got two back-to-back suspensions. Following those suspensions, the Left was emboldened. Knowing I wanted to remain anonymous, they went on a mission to expose me in the hopes of intimidating me into silence. This culminated with my being doxxed by Taylor Lorenz at the Washington Post.

Instagram got on the censorship wagon as well. They mistakenly disabled our account and reinstated it after realizing their error. Linktree suspended us, too.

We received our third Twitter suspension just last week for posting fliers of pride events. I had created a mega drag thread which documented the sharp rise in drag events for kids. Its a disturbing trend; the Left has become obsessed with ensuring your 4-year-old has access to men dressed as women while dancing provocatively for cash. The fact that I was noticingand drawing attention to how widespread this trend really isseemed to trigger the Left. Big accounts on Twitter started calling for my suspension while labeling me a domestic terrorist.

The below Slack conversation between Twitter employees occurred today against this backdrop, and echoes some of the charges leveled at us by far left activists. It was shared with us by a Twitter employee, who wishes to remain anonymous. We verified the names and images of the employees before we obscured them.

There are a few tweeps (thats what Twitter employees call themselves) involved in this exchange. As you can see, theyre weighing the pros and cons of banning us. One of them expresses concern that a ban will only validate the charge that Twitter is biased against conservatives.

The reference to Trumps successful deplatforming is interesting. He was permanently banned for incitement to violence the same charge the Left hopes will stick to us.

Concern is then raised about fiduciary duties, but an ultra-woke tweep fires back: How dare you bring up fiduciary duties while trans people are literally being wiped off the face of the earth! Like a good little ally, the rebuked tweep apologizes and promises to do better in the future.

Perhaps most remarkable is how they parrot the same lines we hear from far-left activists. Theres no debate about whether were actually terrorists, bent on exterminating the entire LGBT community. In their view, thats just a given. They believe right along with the extremist activists that we exist solely to generate targeted violence at marginalized people. The only thing theyre willing to debate is what should be done about us. Do they take us out now for engaging in targeted genocidal violence, or wait for a more opportune time?

But again, you dont need leaked messages to know just how biased and agenda-driven these people are. The messages only confirm what we already see with our own eyes every day.

Continued here:

Leaked internal messages show Twitter employees debating whether to ban us

Trump Appeals Dismissal Of Preposterous Suit Against Twitter For Tortious Deplatforming – Above the Law

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Donald Trump has said that he and Twitter are never, never, never getting back together. He insists that hes perfectly happy to bleat into the ether on his own website, while occasionally truthing on his knock-off Truth Social platform. And yet, hes suing Twitter demanding to have his account reinstated, and has gone so far as to file an appeal after US District Judge James Donato unceremoniously dropkicked his idiotic lawsuit last month.

The theory of Trumps Twitter LOLsuit and its giggling siblings filed against Meta and YouTube is that the social media platforms were acting as government agents when they nixed his accounts. His lawyers actually argued with a straight face that the tech companies were conscripted into government service after Democrats threatened to ditch Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (It never gets any less insane, no matter how many times you type it.)

Never mind that conservatives like Senator Josh Hawley have been among the loudest critics of the law which immunizes internet platforms for user-generated content. Now is not the time to get hung up on the fact that Trump himself vetoed the $740 million National Defense Authorization Act in 2020 because Congress refused to nuke Section 230. Thats neither here nor there! Trump insisted that the tech companies were so terrified of Rep. Adam Schiff that they swung into action to censor conservatives, and that this constitutes a grievous violation of his First Amendment rights.

In the event, Judge Donato was singularly unimpressed with the argument, and, frankly with the lawyering, too. Here he is marveling that a federal practitioner can be unaware that the Twiqbal standard requiring that the facts alleged must be actually plausible applies to all federal civil cases.

Plaintiffs make the odd assertion that these pleading standards apply only in antitrust conspiracy actions. Dkt. No. 145 at 6 n.7. Twombly and Iqbal expressed no such limitation, and their standards have been applied to a myriad of Rule 12(b)(6) motions in non-antitrust actions in every federal district and circuit court. A scant minute of online research makes this abundantly clear.

But Trump isnt going to take this lying down! Today he noticed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the dismissal of his case. Those activist liberal judges cant cancel culture Donald Trump! The mans got rubes to fleece with claims that hes raising cash for his legal defense, and hes not letting some trial judge from the land of fruit and nuts get in his way.

Next stop San Francisco, and then its on to SCOTUS. Shit, you can get five justices to bite on anything these days, right?

Trump v. Twitter [Docket via Court Listener]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

See more here:

Trump Appeals Dismissal Of Preposterous Suit Against Twitter For Tortious Deplatforming - Above the Law

Study suggests identity advancement plays a key role in the downplaying of Trump’s unethical behaviors – PsyPost

Donald Trumps presidency included many transgressive behaviors which were rationalized by his followers. A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology explores the roles of group prototypicality and identity advancement in how supporters downplayed and accepted Trumps harmful behaviors.

People in political leadership have a lot of power and have the potential to greatly affect the social, economic, and social state of the country and even the entire world. When leaders partake in transgressive behavior that violates social, moral, or legal norms, the consequences can be grave. Unfortunately, leaders like Donald Trump can maintain support from their base despite their harmful behaviors.

Previous research supports this and shows leniency from their followers. This study seeks to further this research by understanding the roles of identity advancement and group prototypicality in this leniency.

Identity advancement refers to the belief that a politician stands up for Americans, acts as a champion for Americans, promotes the interests of Americans, and has the best interests of Americans at heart. Group prototypicality, on the other hand, refers to the belief that a politician represents what is characteristic of Americans, is typical of Americans, and stands for what Americans have in common.

Researcher Ben Davies and his colleagues utilized a longitudinal study that employed 3 waves. Wave 1 occurred a week before the 2020 election, wave 2 occurred 2 days after the initial wave, and wave 3 occurred the day after Joe Bidens inauguration. Wave 1 included 200 Republicans, wave 2 retained 175 participants, and wave 3 retained 102 participants. Wave 1 assessed initial perceptions of Trump, demographics, prototypicality, and identity advancement. Wave 2 assessed the perceived ethicalness of transgressive behavior when committed by Trump or not committed by Trump. Wave 3 assessed prototypicality and identity advancement following Trump leaving office and being replaced by Biden.

Results showed that Republicans downplayed Trumps unethical behavior, but this was related to his identity advancement and not related to his group prototypicality. Trump losing the election did not increase his followers beliefs that he behaved unethically or decrease their perception of his group prototypicality or identity advancement. Additionally, participants did perceive Trumps behavior as less unethical than the same behaviors in a neutral subject. This was significant for all 3 behaviors studied including nepotism, sharing of false information, and abuse of power.

The extent to which group members downplay the transgressive behavior of their leader has worrying implications for leadership, the researchers said. Ultimately, it appears that devout followers are willing to explain away even the most serious breaches of law and morality by their leaders. As the US Capitol riots illustrate, the rationalization of a leaders transgressive behavior and continued support for them can culminate in serious attacks on democracy and social order.

This study made important progress in understanding how base followers justify and interpret transgressive behavior. Despite this, it has limitations. This study focuses solely on Donald Trump, a very controversial politician. Arguably, there has never been a more divisive president in the United States. These results would potentially not generalize using a different politician. Additionally, very salient events occurred between waves 2 and 3, including the Capitol riots and attempt to overturn the election, which is difficult to control for.

As well as addressing these limitations, future studies should also explore how to mitigate the support of transgressive leaders, and how their behavior can be reframed in a way that minimizes its downplaying among supporters, the researchers said. One potential avenue is to explore how de-platforming such transgressive leaders limits their ability to reframe their behavior in a desired light.

The study, Donald Trump and the rationalization of transgressive behavior: The role of group prototypicality and identity advancement, was authored by Ben Davies, Carola Leicht, and Dominic Abrams.

Link:

Study suggests identity advancement plays a key role in the downplaying of Trump's unethical behaviors - PsyPost

Loud music and take-out alcohol. Here are all the new Florida laws going into effect – WKMG News 6 & ClickOrlando

Starting July 1, the Sunshine State will have new laws that could affect a host of different issues from what Floridians learn in school to how loudly they can play music in their vehicles.

HB 1557 - Parental Rights in Education AKA Dont Say Gay bill

This law will require district school boards to notify students parents of involvement in critical decisions affecting the students mental, emotional or physical well-being.

The law also prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels and for school districts to notify parents of healthcare services.

For more information, visit.

[RELATED: Heres what Floridas Stop WOKE law could mean for your childs education]

Ad

HB 5001 - General Appropriation Act

The bill will provide a minimum wage increase to state employees and law enforcement while also providing tax suspensions on gas, diapers and school supplies.

It will also provide money for buildings and other improvements in state agencies.

For more information, visit.

HB 577 - Tenant Safety, Miyas Law

This law will require the apartment operators to provide tenants with a reasonable notice for repairs in dwelling units.

It will also enforce stricter background checks and the use of master keys.

For more information, visit.

[TRENDING: Florida expands Bright Futures scholarship eligibility. Heres whats new | No smoking on the beach? Daytona Beach Shores considers ban | Become a News 6 Insider (its free!)]

Ad

Florida statue 316.3045 - Loud Music in Vehicles

This law will allow law enforcement officers to give tickets to drivers playing music too loudly in their cars.

Drivers will be unable to play music from a vehicle that is at a distance of 25 feet or more.

The law will also allow officers to ticket drivers for playing music too loudly in areas around churches, schools or hospitals.

For more information, visit.

HB 5 - Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality AKA 15 Weeks Abortion Ban

This law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the fetus is past 15 weeks, rendering late-term abortion services illegal.

The law provides some exceptions in cases of rape, incest or human trafficking.

Ad

For more information, visit.

HB 1421 - School Safety

This law requires school to create a plan to reunify families in case of school evacuations and to have law enforcement officers ready to respond to emergencies like school shootings and to be present in shooting drills.

It also will require schools to provide annual incident reports that are easily digestible to readers.

Lastly, it also requires school officers to take mental health intervention training and school districts to train its staff in youth mental health awareness.

For more information, visit.

HB 105 - Regulation of Smoking by Counties and Municipalities

The Florida Clean Indoor Air Act will regulate vaping and tobacco smoking in public places in Florida.

Ad

The laws goal is to protect the public from the health hazards of secondhand tobacco smoke.

Smoking will be restricted in public beaches and parks. The law will also allow school districts to regulate smoking on school property and local governments to restrict the use of vapes.

For more information, visit.

SB 1054 - Financial Literacy Instruction in Public Schools

This law requires that students starting in grade 9 must earn one-half credit in personal financial literacy and money management to receive their high school diplomas.

For more information, visit.

HB 7065 - Child Welfare

This law will create programs to provide guidance and resources for fathers to inspire them to have positive involvement with their children.

Ad

It will also provide mentorship for fatherless children and funding to help children in the foster care and juvenile justice system.

Lastly, this bill declares the month of June as Responsible Fatherhood Month.

For more information, visit.

HB 7 - Individual Freedom

This law prohibits the indoctrination of students in systematic racism or to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles of individual freedom.

According to this law, the principles of individual freedoms mean that all individuals are equal before the law and have inalienable rights.

This bill also restricts how race-related instruction in workplace.

For more information, visit.

HB 7061 - Taxation

This law will provide tax reliefs for back-to-school season, recreation and disaster preparedness.

Ad

It will also give a tax breaks to companies who hire interns and create affordable housing.

HB 7061 will provide tax credit to companies that give to charities providing counseling for families.

For more information, visit.

SB 7072 - Social Media Platforms

This law will prohibit a social media platform from de-platforming a candidate for political office or journalistic enterprise.

The Florida Elections Commission is going to fine media platforms $250,000 per day for suspending the accounts of candidates for statewide office and $25,000 per day for any other candidate.

For more information, visit.

SB 1890 - Campaign Financing

This law puts a $3,000 contribution limit on political committees.

Ad

It also prohibits a candidate from donating surplus campaign funds to a charitable organization in which he or she is employed.

For more information, visit.

HB 7045 - School Choice

This law expands the eligibility for K-12 scholarships for students to attend private schools.

This will allow students with disabilities to have scholarships that will allow them to choose public or private schools.

Also, it will allow low-income students to attend schools that their parents otherwise could not afford.

Lastly, it also expands program eligibility to include students who are dependents of a member of the U.S. Armed Forces and adopted children.

For more information, visit.

HB 529 - Moments of Silence in Public Schools

Ad

This law will require a moment of silence to be set aside for students during the first-period classroom in all grades.

It will require teachers to set aside two minutes daily in which students may not interfere with other students participation.

For more information, visit.

HB 5 - Civic Education Curriculum

This law requires the Department of Education to develop or approve an integrated civic education curriculum for grades K - 12.

The curriculum should help students development of civic responsibility and knowledge, according to the legislation.

For more information, visit.

HB 233 - Postsecondary Education

This law prohibits the State Board of Education from shielding students, staff or faculty from certain speech.

Ad

It will require the Board of Education to perform annual surveys on freedom and viewpoint diversity.

For more information, visit.

SB 1028 - Education

This law creates the Fairness in Womens Sports Act, which provides female athletes with opportunities to demonstrate their skills when participating in athletic endeavors.

The bill specifies athletic teams or sports designated for females, women or girls may not be open to students of the male sex. Officials will take a students biological sex as established on their birth certificate as their actual sex when considering who should participate in the athletic events.

For more information, visit.

SB 88 - Farming Operations

This law protects reasonable agricultural activities conducted on farm land from inconvenient lawsuits.

Ad

It will protect farm operations including, but not limited to, noise, smoke, odors, dust, fumes, particle emissions or vibration.

For more information, visit.

SB 148 - Beverage Law

This law allows certain food service establishments to sell or deliver alcoholic beverages off-location under certain circumstances.

It will allow customers to take alcohol out of the restaurant and it will revised the requirements for the sale of alcoholic beverages by certain vendors.

For more information, visit.

Originally posted here:

Loud music and take-out alcohol. Here are all the new Florida laws going into effect - WKMG News 6 & ClickOrlando

The brewing fight to keep abortion info online – The Verge

Yesterday, the Supreme Court voted to uphold a Mississippi abortion ban and overturn Roe v. Wade, ending abortion access in some states and triggering impending bans in others. The decision wont end abortion in America, but in many places it will move the procedure underground and, based on recent history, online.

Understandably, abortion advocates have focused on surveillance issues in the immediate aftermath of the ruling, concerned about states using online records for criminal prosecutions. But theres also a fight brewing over how and where advocates will be able to share abortion information online. If a procedure is illegal, then states could claim content enabling that procedure is illegal too raising thorny questions for platforms and activists alike.

Abortion bans in states like Texas already have provisions to penalize people seen as aiding and abetting the procedure, and some anti-abortion activists are pushing to define this as simply describing how to self-manage an abortion. As The Appeal noted earlier this week, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has proposed model legislation that would prohibit offering instructions over the telephone, the internet, or any other medium of communication or hosting or maintaining a website, or providing internet service, that encourages or facilitates efforts to obtain an illegal abortion.

The language seems aimed at sites like Plan C, which offers detailed information about obtaining misoprostol and mifepristone for self-managed abortion. Many news outlets, including Verge sister site The Cut, have also published detailed information about the subject. Broad terms like hosting would even seemingly let states go after internet infrastructure providers that support sites like Plan C or social networks that they use to spread information.

Civil liberties advocates assert that this would be unconstitutional. This kind of legislation raises serious First Amendment concerns, said Knight First Amendment Institute executive director Jameel Jaffer. We intend to consider challenging any legislation that uses todays Supreme Court decision as a justification for new limitations on protected speech, or new forms of surveillance.

Motivated prosecutors may still try to punish outlets that share information, arguing that the material is specifically intended to help others break the law, and drag them into expensive and protracted legal cases even if they ultimately prevail. Explaining what abortion is, where you can get one, advocating for a persons right or ability to get an abortion all these things are general truthful information that cannot be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment, says ACLU counsel Jennifer Granick. The risk is that prosecutors will take those private conversations where people are exchanging information and try to cast those as criminal encounters. And that will be something that were going to probably end up having to fight.

Activists and health care providers have an incentive to fight these battles but the digital platforms they use might not. Opponents of legal abortion could threaten any company involved in hosting speech with lawsuits if they allow abortion-related communications. Potential targets range from social networks like Facebook, where its easy to connect with people seeking abortions, to infrastructure providers like content delivery networks (CDNs), which provide critical logistical support for independent websites.

Right now, platforms have an easy answer to threats: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 shields apps and websites from being considered the publisher or speaker of user-generated content, protecting them from liability over hosting it. Unlike a First Amendment defense, it doesnt require fighting over whether the content in question is illegal, reducing the legal burden of lawsuits. The thing about Section 230 is you dont have to demonstrate that its First Amendment protected speech, which can take a long, long time sometimes in litigation, says Granick. Theres an exception for conduct that violates federal criminal law, but not violations of state laws like the current abortion bans.

Still, Section 230 has become increasingly unpopular among Republicans and Democrats alike. Federal bills like the EARN IT Act and the SAFE TECH Act have proposed chipping away at its protections, while Texas and Florida have passed laws on the premise that Section 230 shouldnt stop states from implementing their own content moderation laws. In 2018, then-President Donald Trump signed FOSTA-SESTA, which removed protections for material related to sex work, with support from both parties.

Critics of Section 230 have cited real cases of sites (usually not the typical Big Tech targets) using it to avoid responsibility for encouraging nonconsensual pornography or defamatory lies. Many proposals for fixing this, however, contain broad carveouts that could be exploited to make learning about abortion harder even if thats not the goal.

Research suggests FOSTA-SESTA led to a mass deplatforming of sex workers online, whether or not they were directly posting illegal content, and the ripple effects made it harder to operate services like online sex education. Further weakening the law could have similar chilling effects on abortion information too, with sites deciding to err on the side of caution rather than risk legal liability.

Sometimes people say, well, whats the problem? says Granick of Section 230 carveouts. For instance, if we have an exception for federal crimes, why shouldnt we also have an exception to allow liability for state crimes? And this is like Exhibit A in why we dont want to open up liability to state criminal provisions.

Fight for the Future director Evan Greer says the death of Roe adds dangerous side effects to current proposals. Even well-intentioned changes to Section 230, like those proposed in the SAFE TECH Act or Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act, could unleash a wave of lawsuits from anti-abortion activists (who are already lawyered up, litigious, and highly motivated to get content about abortion access scrubbed from the internet), says Greer. Companies could respond by minimizing their risk, resulting in anything from crowdfunding sites banning abortion access funds to online social spaces shutting down people who try to arrange travel and logistics for cross-state abortions.

Weakening Section 230 would be a disaster in a post-Roe environment, Greer continues.

There are good reasons to be wary of organizing abortion access on major platforms, like leaving a data trail that could be used by police in prosecutions. But overzealous bans would just make finding health information harder. For lawmakers who have backed keeping abortion accessible, thats a risk any future Section 230 reform will have to reckon with.

See the original post here:

The brewing fight to keep abortion info online - The Verge

Yes, Elon, There is a Better Way. – International Policy Digest

Free speech and social good are not mutually exclusive, so why treat them that way? As a society, we must protect, with every fiber of our being, free speech and expression in all of its forms, while creating and fostering an environment of social good.

In the U.S., we have done it before across all media: print and digital media, broadcast, radio, and the like.

Now, we must accomplish the same with online social media platforms.

Call it the next generation social media ecosystem a more advanced version of social media for all people, businesses, and nonprofits, with a focus on free speech and expression, as well as on civil discourse; respectful and thoughtful engagement, and honest, open and inclusive interaction. This is the societal imperative of our time.

It should be an easy task, but with the country ever so divided, it is seemingly unattainable.

We are at a crossroads in our society, one which impacts the freedoms and well-being of billions of users of social media worldwide. It impacts billions of us because of the very nature, breadth, reach, and power of social media.

Is the answer to develop a social media platform based upon fundamental principles of free speech and free expression, with appropriate content moderation policies and legal limitations, including constitutional protections, that apply to other forms of communication?

Or, should speech and expression on social media platforms, in the first instance, be limited and inhibited based on the edicts of one or the few who have no particular interest in preserving freedom of speech and expression? By those who would rather allow only those voices and content that conform to their thinking by canceling, labeling, harassing, coercing, deplatforming, banning, and stifling diverse opinions and points of view. By those who would be the sole arbiters of truth, misinformation, and disinformation. And, if they dont get you in the first instance, rest assured that the online community of bots, haters and naysayers will.

This is the current state of social media.

It seems quite clear that the former approach is optimal, while the latter approach may be causing significant division in our society. Unfortunately, the latter also puts us on a negative trajectory an unsustainable slippery slope, with a chilling effect that is undermining the freedoms that we all have. No one, regardless of political or philosophical leaning, should want this. It is contrary to the first principles of the U.S. and can be easily manipulated by the one or the few who have the ability to dictate and control speech and expression against the rest of us.

Who knows who will be in those positions tomorrow?

As noted by Stanford Law Professor, Nathaniel Persily, in a recent article Platform Power, Online Speech, and the Search for New Constitutional Categories, because entities such as Twitter are private organizations, they dont have to respect the First Amendment and the community standards of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube would be unconstitutional if they were enacted by a government.

The public debate about social media platforms has become one that pits more freedom of speech and expression vs less.

Unfortunately, more restriction and limitation makes social media more unconstitutional.

Its been a few weeks since Elon Musk, the worlds richest person, announced his planned acquisition of Twitter. During that time the sharp knives have come out in many different circles.

The gist? Twitter and other social media platforms should be less free, with speech and expression monitored, surveilled, and censored.

Those apparently quite unhappy over the transaction include: Twitter employees, government officials, social media generally, and certain nonprofit organizations.

In a recent letter signed by a number of prominent nonprofit organizations, it was noted that the takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety. The letter, which was made public and disseminated across many traditional and social media outlets, went on to state that under Musks management, Twitter risks becoming a cesspool of misinformationpolluting our information ecosystem. Specifically addressing businesses and advertisers on Twitter, the letter also warned that your brand risks association with a platform amplifying hate, extremism, misinformation and conspiracy theories.

These statements made in response to the stated intention to infuse more freedom of speech and expression into Twitter are mystifying and represent the irony of ironies. The very people and organizations who are clamoring for a clamp down on free speech and expression on social media are the very people and organizations who enjoy those freedoms every day.

Most can agree that we have a social media problem that requires leadership and invention to solve, as another industry titan has recently stated. Solutions and alternatives exist.

Any effort to transform Twitter will be an uphill battle there are enemies within and without the company who want it only their way, or the highway. Is this diversity? Is this equity? Is this inclusion? I think not. They do not appreciate the gifts of liberty and freedom that they enjoy and they do not understand that those gifts apply to all.

We should all wish Elon Musk great success in his endeavor. Can it be done? With all of his ability, wealth, and success, together with his objective of reinventing Twitter as a freer public town square, we are confident that it can. But, it can be done better.

In addition to what may be planned for Twitter, as an alternative, there is a better way a healthier and more meaningful social media platform with a higher purpose, integrating free speech and social good in a positive environment for all users.

Social media should have a greater purpose, providing an objective platform for free, inclusive, honest, open, diverse, and substantive engagement and interaction among all users people, businesses, and nonprofits globally. Such a social media platform exists.

ImpactWayv has recently launched a disruptive and transformational social [impact] media and technology platform that was designed for this very moment. ImpactWayv unites people, businesses, and nonprofits for social good in an environment that prioritizes free speech and free expression.

We have developed a social media platform that is crucial in todays society built on freedom, civil debate and engagement, and social impact. Yes, a freer, healthier, and more meaningful social media platform.

If you're interested in writing for International Policy Digest - please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org

Follow this link:

Yes, Elon, There is a Better Way. - International Policy Digest

Crypto Is An Invaluable Tool In The Fight Against Financial Oppression – – FinanceFeeds

Crypto has proven itself to be much more than just a hot investment. Indeed, some say its poised to play a critical role in the future of finance

Money, as we know it, has evolved from its earliest form of clay tablets and precious metals to coins and banknotes and most recently, digital bank balances. So, will crypto become the next progression in the history of money?

There are reasons to think it wont. Governments across the world have plenty of motives to want to defend the status quo, which ensures state-backed institutions have a complete monopoly on everything that makes the economy go round namely printing money. Yet, crypto has several characteristics that have so far prevented governments from keeping a lid on it.

Crypto promises to put economic control back into the hands of the masses because it is built on an open, global network that doesnt recognize any national borders. With crypto, people can transact on a shared network in the same way they can communicate with people anywhere in the world on the internet. Better still, these networks are beyond the control of national governments and have so far proven impossible to shut down. This principle was designed by Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto and is designed to create more open markets and promote financial freedom for all crypto users.

Prior to the invention of crypto, financial freedom was limited to the trust people have in their governments and respect for the rule of law. Crypto makes it possible for anyone to grow their wealth without worrying about the intervention and seizure of their assets by third parties such as a bank or the government.

Another benefit of crypto is smart contracts. Previously, contractual agreements were governed by laws, which meant people couldnt always be confident that the courts would enforce them. With smart contracts, agreements are no longer enforced by courts but by the blockchain.

Furthermore, crypto is anonymous. It doesnt matter if its Bitcoin or Ethereum or Fantom or Avalanche or some other network. Crypto doesnt give a damn whether youre white or Black, Hispanic or Asian. It doesnt care about your gender, your religion, or your political views. That compares to the existing financial system, which in some countries is inherently biased towards people of certain creeds and dispositions. With crypto, all anyone needs is a smartphone and an internet connection and they can download a mobile wallet and get paid in tokens, buy them and sell them, participate in decentralized finance, and more.

A final characteristic of crypto is its mobility, a key component of economic freedom. Users can send any amount of Bitcoin to anyone, anywhere in the world, and they can fly from San Francisco to Tel Aviv with millions of dollars worth of funds without having to inform anyone or declare anything. As a result, crypto significantly reduces the barriers to emigration, boosting economic freedom.

The economic freedom promoted by crypto has given cause for concern. In the wake of Russias invasion of Ukraine, some observers have suggested crypto could give Vladimir Putins government a way to mitigate international sanctions. Others have warned that criminals are undoubtedly using cryptocurrency to launder the proceeds of crime or fund terrorism around the world.

Those fears may be grounded in truth, however, it could be a price worth paying for the freedom from financial and political repression, surveillance, and deplatforming that crypto also enables.

The unique characteristics of crypto mean that it is, to all intents and purposes, resistant to censorship. That means the government cannot control or monitor peoples financial activity or prevent them from accessing their funds as they can in the traditional banking system.

A good example of this occurred in Nigeria in 2020, when protests erupted against the government in its largest city, Lagos. The population was protesting against the illegal actions of a police force known as the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), which became infamous for police brutality. The government attempted to clamp down on the protests by suspending the bank accounts of key leaders in the movement. However, they immediately turned to cryptocurrency, in particular Bitcoin, to raise funds to sustain their movement, which ultimately caused the government to disband SARS.

The event was no flash in the pan. Usage of Bitcoin in Nigeria and other African nations has grown rapidly as an alternative to the traditional day-to-day banking system. Thats because anyone can use Bitcoin, and its transaction fees are minimal compared to the charges people face for using traditional systems.

Nigerias Central Bank has been far from enthusiastic about the populations embrace of cryptocurrency and in early 2021 issued a ban on banks and financial institutions dealing with digital money. However, Nigerias young and tech-savvy quickly found a way around the ban, using peer-to-peer trading services to buy cryptocurrencies and cash out without using traditional banks. In May, Nigerias Securities and Exchange Commission did an about-turn, publishing a set of regulations around digital assets in an effort to find a middle ground between an outright ban and the unregulated use of crypto.

The experience of Nigeria is not unique. In Belarus for instance, President Alexander Lukashenko also tried to use the monetary and banking system to silence his critics following disputed elections in 2020. Protestors flooded the streets of Minsk and other cities following Lukashenkos apparent win, and leaders soon found their bank accounts were frozen. Yet they continued raising funds for their protests with crypto, with one fund called BYSOL reportedly netting over $2 million worth of donations in a month.

Crypto has value beyond funding protest movements though. It can also serve as a replacement for cash, which is seen as an essential ingredient of financial freedom because it allows for anonymous transactions away from state surveillance. Unfortunately, cash is in terminal decline in many parts of the world. In China, for example, the government has pressed its citizens to replace cash and use digital apps for their day-to-day payments instead. While such apps may offer more convenience, they also give the government much greater control over peoples finances, and the ability to cut off someones access to payments, credit, and savings for any reason.

In the world of decentralized finance, this kind of financial deplatforming of government critics becomes impossible. With new cryptocurrencies such as Verse, the utility token of the Bitcoin.com ecosystem, anyone can access a full ecosystem of decentralized finance services that are beyond the control of any government entity.

Bitcoin.com provides users with a non-custodial multi-coin wallet that only they can access, meaning no one can freeze or seize their crypto assets. Users of Bitcoin.coms ecosystem of products and services will not only earn Verse tokens for doing so but also unlock various rewards and DeFi services.

For example, holders of Verse can provide liquidity to the Verse DEX, a decentralized exchange, in return for earning a share of the trading fees on that platform. They can also stake Verse tokens for rewards, and access other services that allow them to lend and borrow cryptocurrency. In other words, Verse and Bitcoin.com provide access to a comprehensive, alternative banking system that no government can control.

Crypto ecosystems have already thrived where theres a need. Take Venezuela, where thousands of merchants began using the Dash cryptocurrency in the wake of hyperinflation that rendered the national currency, the Bolivar, virtually worthless. Its a similar story in Afghanistan today. Since the Taliban swept to power last year, the country has been almost completely cut off from the international banking system. As a result, many Afghans have turned to crypto to send and receive money from abroad and also for their everyday transactions.

The takeaway from all of this is that crypto can and will play a fundamental role in enabling greater economic freedom all over the world. With crypto, people have an alternative to the traditional banking system thats immune to political oppression. It has shown it can help to build better-functioning economies in countries with runaway inflation, making it easier for people to transact, protect their wealth and perhaps even emigrate to a better life.

Read the original here:

Crypto Is An Invaluable Tool In The Fight Against Financial Oppression - - FinanceFeeds

Law’s Jessie Hill discussed the legality of social media "deplatforming" – The Daily | Case Western Reserve University

ArchivesArchivesSelect Month May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011

Interested in participating in a research study? Looking for an upcoming event in your department?

Check out what's happening on campus and post your own event or news on the community bulletin board

Follow this link:

Law's Jessie Hill discussed the legality of social media "deplatforming" - The Daily | Case Western Reserve University

Court Dropkicks Trump Twitter LOLsuit For THAT’S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS – Above the Law

The first of Donald Trumps tech LOLsuits ran aground on Friday afternoon when US District Judge James Donato tossed the former presidents complaint against Twitter for tortious deplatforming.

Last July, Trump waltzed into federal court in Florida and paid the clerk $402 to file a fundraising ploy cum lawsuit alleging that Twitter violated his First Amendment rights by deleting his account in 2020 the day after the Capitol Riot. The theory was that Twitter became an agent of the government because Rep. Adam Schiff said COVID misinformation is bad, and the platform cracked down on COVID misinformation. Ipso facto propter hoc Twitter became the government, Jack Dorsey was acting as president, and we are now living in the Parag Agrawal administration. (Dear God, its almost time for President Musk!)

Then Trump and his team of legal eagles, led by John Coale, a retired tort lawyer married to Greta van Susteren, plus a handful of guys from a personal injury and real estate firm in Connecticut and local counsel hailing from a commercial litigation firm in Coral Gables, plunked down another $804 to sue Facebook and YouTube on exactly the same batcrap theory.

The problem, aside from the fact that none of these cases had any nexus to Florida, was that the tech platforms terms of service (TOS) all specify that any litigation will take place in California using California law, resulting in them getting yeeted out of Florida post haste. It also doomed Trumps attempt to recover under the Sunshine States consumer protection statute, according to Judge Donatos ruling.

But the case was probably DOA anyway, resting as it did on the bizarre argument that Twitter was acting as an agent of the federal government when it booted Trump off its platform. Never mind that it happened immediately after he justified the Capitol Riot as things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long, and told the rioters that he loved them and they were very special

Or as the court put it, Plaintiffs are not starting from a position of strength.

Nor are they starting from a position of procedural competency re 12(b)(6) motions. Who knew that Twiqbals requirement that the facts alleged must be actually plausible applies to all federal civil cases?

Plaintiffs make the odd assertion that these pleading standards apply only in antitrust conspiracy actions. Dkt. No. 145 at 6 n.7. Twombly and Iqbal expressed no such limitation, and their standards have been applied to a myriad of Rule 12(b)(6) motions in non-antitrust actions in every federal district and circuit court. A scant minute of online research makes this abundantly clear.

OUCH.

Democratic lawmakers support reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes websites for third-party generated content. Trump pointed to this as proof that Twitter was functioning as a state actor when it booted him offline, on the theory that this language was somehow coercive. But the court deemed this not enough for pleading purposes, because, again, Twiqbal requires plausible factual allegations, not just the latest 4chan conspiracy theory.

The amended complaint merely offers a grab-bag of allegations to the effect that some Democratic members of Congress wanted Mr. Trump, and the views he espoused, to be banned from Twitter because such content and views were contrary to those legislators preferred points of view. See, e.g., AC 53, 55, 60, 61. But the comments of a handful of elected officials are a far cry from a rule of decision for which the State is responsible. Legislators are perfectly free to express opinions without being deemed the official voice of the State.

Republican lawmakers have clamored for outright repeal of the law, and Trump himself vetoed the 2020 defense budget because it did not axe Section 230 in its entirety. And not for nothing, but this dumb lawsuit literally asked the court to declare Section 230 unconstitutional.

Also the court was singularly unimpressed with the precedents cited to support the claim that companies become government agents if they do something a member of congress happens to like.

These cases, which are the centerpieces of plaintiffs state action argument, are strikingly different from the allegations in the amended complaint, Judge Donato noted dryly.

But other than that, youre doing great, sweetie!

Twitters TOS, which Trump agreed to, requires that all suits be litigated under California law. This wiped out not just the Florida consumer protection count, but also the claim under the states Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which was anyway already enjoined for being a hilariously unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Having made short work of every one of Trumps preposterous claims, the court granted three weeks to amend the complaint, but with the caveat that no further f*ckery will be tolerated: The amended complaint may not add any new claims or defendants without express prior leave of Court. Plaintiffs are advised that further opportunities to amend are not likely to be granted.

One Trump tech LOLsuit down, two to go.

Trump v. Twitter [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Read more here:

Court Dropkicks Trump Twitter LOLsuit For THAT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS - Above the Law