By Jared Evan

In a letter to Attorney General William Barr, Florida Rep Gaetz alleged that Zuckerberg made false statements to Congress about Facebooks content moderation during two hearings two years ago.

The letter said: On both occasions, members of Congress asked Mr. Zuckerberg about allegations that Facebook censored and suppressed content supportive of President Donald Trump and other conservatives. In his responses, Mr. Zuckerberg repeatedly and categorically denied any bias against conservative speech, persons, policies, or politics Mr. Zuckerberg also dismissed the suggestion that Facebook exercises any form of editorial manipulation.

The congressman continued: As a member of this body, I question Mr. Zuckerbergs veracity, and challenge his willingness to cooperate with our oversight authority, diverting congressional resources during time-sensitive investigations, and materially impeding our work, Gaetz, a House Judiciary Committee member, wrote. Such misrepresentations are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal and fraudulent.

Gatzs ammunition to this latest accusation against Facebook and Zuckerberg is a series of recent investigations from Project Veritas. He mentioned in the letter to Barr: recent reports from Project Veritas, featuring whistleblowers who worked as Facebooks content moderators, have shown ample evidence of Facebooks purported bias and manipulation against conservative speech.

Left leaning outlets like Business Insider were quick to besmirch Project Veritas and its founder. James Okeefe. Business Insider sloppily and biasedly wrote Project Veritas is a right-wing activist group that frequently traffics inmisinformationandpropaganda, in an effort to minimalize the impact of Gatz requests to AG Barr.

It is true that Project Veritas investigates subjects that conservatives would be interested in exposing, such as Planned Parenthood, Bernie Sanders staff members and Facebook bias. However, not a single investigation has ever been proven to be fraudulent. OKeefe carefully crafts investigations, staffs professional actors and sends them out undercover equip with recording devices to capture evidence on camera and audio. The goal is do destroy the credibility of Project Veritas, albeit with no proof.

Gatz expanded on the Project Veritas expose in the letter: according to the Veritas report and undercover footage, the adjudicators were outspoken about their political bias against Republicans, and actively chose to eliminate otherwise-allowable content from the platform and from public view simply due to its political orientation, Gaetz wrote to Barr.

This arbitrary and capricious behavior is not done in good faith and falls outside of the express intent of 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which affords Facebook liability protection as long as the platform moderates content in good faith.'

It is yet to se seen if Barr will take any action and look further into Gatz requests. This topic is nothing new to The Jewish voice, which has been tenaciously reporting on Facebook and social media censorship, and shadow banning since 2018.

In 2018, the first major banning of a conservative figure took place.

TJV reported in 2018 :

The permanent suspension of flamboyant and controversial, conservative political speaker, writer, and former Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos from Twitter was what many consider a watershed moment in social media censorship. Yiannopoulos had several million followers on Twitter and had used social media to build his name and career to his advantage. His local appearances at college campus bring giant protests from hard left protestors as evidently free speech is no longer acceptable at universities; but it was not any radical political viewpoints that got him banned from Twitter, no it was simply insulting actress and comedian Leslie Jones.

It is at this point; the floodgates were opened. Immensely popular radio host and owner of popular alternative news site Alex Jones was methodically removed from all social media. In 2018, YouTube began suspending his account, by mid-2019, Alex Jones was 100% removed from social media. The same happened to Jewish fire-brand right-wing personality Laura Loomer, removed from all social media. There have been countless others, outright banned. The more edgy sometimes conspiratorial social media personalities are outright banned, while something sneaky frequently happens to more straight forward news entities that lean conservative: the shadowban

Shadow-banning is a clever trick designed to drive traffic and impact down of conservative outlets. Breitbart, one of the most popular news sites in America, was an early victim of shadow-banning. When you are shadowbanned on Facebook, the induvial user who may be following Breitbart, will not see any updates from the outlet on their news feed. The user has to go directly to their favorite news outlets Facebook page to see their updates. Without knowing this, one can simply forget outlets like The Jewish Voice, Daily Caller or Breitbart still exist, as the updates to do not show up when one logs into Facebook. This is a sneaky way to cause damage to media outlets not favored by Silicon Valley.

The Jewish voice can attest to the impact of shadowbanning. Since 2018, TJV has seen our traffic coming from Facebook essentially vanish. According to Facebook statistics, which one receives when running a Facebook page for a company; we witnessed the clear pattern of our posts being shadowbanned. The average post went from on average 6-7 thousand viewers seeing the post, to on average 200-300 people per post. TJV did not lose large amounts of followers, but our exposure has dropped like a rock. Many people who follow The Jewish Voice, have pointed out to us, they no longer see us on their Facebook News Feed. Our Twitter interaction has slowed to a crawl as well.

I hope Mr Barr takes this seriously and looks into not only the outright banning of conservative media figures and outlets, but the shadow banning as well, which is sneaky, unfair and negatively effects our business The Jewish Voice publisher David Benhooren told me after learning about Gaetz efforts.

View original post here:

Rep. Matt Gaetz Says Zuckerberg Lied Under Oath About Facebook Conservative Censorship, calls on DOJ to Open Criminal Investigation - The Jewish Voice

LONDON (BLOOMBERG, REUTERS) - The UK imposed strict new limits on junk food advertising as ministers seek to control the country's growing obesity problem, which has also been identified as a factor in coronavirus deaths.

Under theBetter Health campaign unveiled on Monday (July 27), the government said it would tackle the obesity time bomb by banning advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salton television and online before 9.00pm. andending buy one get one free deals and putting calories on menus.

It wouldalso end buy-one-get-one-free promotions on sugary treats and require calorie labels on more products in stores as well as in restaurants.

It's starting a consultation on putting calorie counts on alcoholic beverages.

"Losing weight is hard, but with some small changes we can all feel fitter and healthier," Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a statement.

"If we all do our bit, we can reduce our health risks."

The curbs pile more pressure on food, retail, advertising and media industries already suffering from the economic lockdown imposed to control the coronavirus pandemic, with thousands of jobs under threat.

They're also a change of tack for Johnson, who's previously complained about "nanny state" meddling in the lives of ordinary people.

But the pandemic and his own brush with death in April persuaded him of the need to act on obesity.

In a video clip on Twitter, Johnson said: Ive always wanted to lose weight for ages and ages and like many people I struggle with my weight, I go up and down."

"But since I recovered from coronavirus I have been steadily building up my fitness.

Im at least a stone down, Im more than a stone down but when I went into ICU (intensive care) when I was really ill, I was way over weight ... and, you know, I was too fat, he said, adding that he hoped the new campaign was not excessively bossy or nannying.

Advertising trade body ISBA said it was deeply disappointed by the announcement, saying in an emailed statement that it will cost families more at the checkout, denies small businesses the targeted local online advertising on which they now rely, and risks jobs at a time when government has elsewhere shown them support.

Almost two-thirds of British adults are overweight and one in three children leave primary school weighing too much, the health department said.

Being too heavy also puts people at greater risk from coronavirus and places additional strain on the National Health Service.

See the article here:

UK fights obesity with ad bans, more calorie labels - The Straits Times

NEW YORK (AP) The sinister-sounding term shadow banning has been in play recently, mostly thanks to conservatives including President Donald Trump accusing Twitter and other technology companies of political bias.

Twitter SHADOW BANNING prominent Republicans. Not good. We will look into this discriminatory and illegal practice at once! Many complaints, the president tweeted on July 26. (His tweet was not accurate.)

Heres a look at shadow banning and why its now a political issue.

HISTORY OF SHADOW BANNING

Shadow bans started in the early days of online discussion groups and the tools used to police disruptive participants. Moderators could always just disable the accounts of spammers, harassers or those who were just too argumentative. But sometimes banned users came back with new accounts, prolonging the turmoil and creating a lengthy round of whack-a-mole.

So forums came up with an alternative punishment: the shadow ban. Instead of disabling the targets account entirely, shadow banning just seals the offending account in a hermetic bubble. The shadow-banned user can still post freely but no one else sees their messages.

At Reddit, shadow banning was long the only tool available to moderators. It shuts down spam and, in theory, lets internet trolls stew in their own juices until they get bored and drift away.

DOES TWITTER SHADOW BAN USERS?

Twitter says no, although some political conservatives remain unconvinced of that.

In May, Twitter outlined a new approach intended to reduce the impact of disruptive users, or trolls, by reading behavioral signals that tend to indicate when users are more interested in blowing up conversations than in contributing. For instance, Twitter will take note if users sign up for multiple accounts at the same time, or if they repeatedly tweet at or mention accounts that dont follow them.

While accounts flagged this way dont technically violate Twitter policy, the company now wants to protect the health of users online conversations. (That word is now a staple in the companys lexicon; CEO Jack Dorsey used health, healthy or unhealthy 31 times in prepared congressional testimony Tuesday.) So Twitter will reduce their visibility in certain ways, by displaying them less prominently in search results or conversation threads.

Thats not actually shadow banning, since these users and their tweets are still visible on Twitter in other ways. Dorsey said in his testimony that we do not shadowban anyone based on political ideology.

WHY PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT SHADOW BANS

Largely because Trump tweeted about them. And for that, we have Vice News to thank.

On July 25, Vice News published a story claiming that Twitter was limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results. In particular, it wrote, Twitter wasnt autosuggesting some names such as Ronna McDaniels, head of the Republican National Committee if you searched for them. Similarly prominent Democrats reportedly werent affected the same way.

Typing Bugs Bu in the Twitter search box, for instance, wouldnt autosuggest the account of a prominent cartoon rabbit. But you could still search for Bugs Bunnys tweets by typing in his full name. They would also turn up in your feed if you followed him. So the wascally wabbit would not be shadow banned.

But when Trump declared the issue an example of shadow banning, many followed along. Later that day, Twitters head of product, Kayvon Beykpour, acknowledged that the companys behavioral signal analysis was at fault , and said the company had fixed the issue.

In a blog post co-authored by Beykpour, Twitter said we do not shadowban. It said hundreds of thousands of accounts were affected, and that the problem wasnt limited to political accounts or specific geographies.

THE FUROR CONTINUES

Conservative complaints of shadow banning have been in play for a few years.

In a 2016 Breitbart article, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos wrote that Twitter was blacklisting politically inconvenient users, citing an unnamed individual inside the company. Project Veritas, a conservative group that produces sting videos intended to embarrass liberal organizations and media outfits, released a heavily edited video that purported to show Twitter engineers and officials describing shadow banning.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas cited the Project Veritas video in a January 17 hearing in which he grilled Twitter policy director Carlos Monje over the question of shadow banning.

Similar questions are likely to arise in a Wednesday congressional hearing at which Dorsey will be the sole witness.

Dorsey argued in his prepared testimony that it would make no sense to mute users based on politics. From a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the platform, he said.

Twitters most prominent user, after all, happens to be a Republican.

More:

AP Explains: What is shadow banning?

Unhealthy snacks will be banned at shop checkouts and junk food adverts will not be allowed on TV before 9pm, the prime minister is set to announce in bid to tackle the UK's obesity issue.

Boris Johnson has revealed already how his own brush with Covid-19, which saw him require intensive care in April, convinced him of the need to tackle Britains bulging waistlines.

On Monday, he will set out the details of the Better Health campaign as he looks to tackle the countrys obesity problem.#

ITV News Political Correspondent Paul Brand has more:

"Buy one, get one free" offers on fattening products are set to be outlawed in the raid on unhealthy eating and supermarkets will be banned from tempting shoppers with unhealthy snacks at checkouts and store entrances.

The rule changes come just one year after the prime minister said he was keep to end the "continuing creep of the nanny state", which he said "seems to me to clobber those who can least afford it".

Other changes include restaurants having to display the calories contained in items on menus and there will be a consultation into doing the same for any alcohol sold.

As part of the programme, the NHS weight loss services is to be expanded, while GPs will be encouraged to prescribe bike rides, with patients in pilot areas to be given access to bikes.

The plan comes as evidence has begun to mount linking excess weight with a higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus.

A Public Health England (PHE) study published on Saturday discovered that being classed as medically obese increased the risk of death from coronavirus by 40%.

In a video filmed by Number 10 and released on his Twitter account, Boris Johnson admitted he was too fat when he was struck down by coronavirus.

Nina Hossain hears from those in those in the industry on their reaction to the news:

Marking the launch of the obesity strategy, the prime minister said he struggled with his weight but had lost at least a stone.

Like many people I struggle with my weight, I go up and down, but since I recovered from coronavirus I have been steadily building up my fitness.

Mr Johnson, seen walking his dog Dilyn in the video, said: When I went in to ICU, when I was really ill, I was way overweight.

The PM added that by maintaining a healthy weight, you'll "protect your health", thereby "you'll protect the NHS".

The highly interventionist approach marks a U-turn for Mr Johnson, who until recently has been a vocal opponent of sin taxes and perceived nannying by the state.

After the prime minister's comments were put to Health Minister Helen Whately, she defended the policy banning buy one, get one free offers, saying "they don't help the people that you might suggest that they help".

"What the offers result in happening is people buying food that they didn't intend to buy, often food that they didn't need, spending more, and there's more wastage as a result."

Mr Johnson has agreed to a plan that he thinks can both save the NHS time and money and also could help reduce the number of Covid-19 deaths in a possible second wave of infections.

Two-thirds (63%) of UK adults are above a healthy weight, with 36% overweight and 28% obese, according to Government data.

One in three children aged 10 to 11 are overweight or obese, and children living with obesity are five times more likely to become obese adults.

Health Secretary Matthew Hancock said: Everyone knows how hard losing weight can be so we are taking bold action to help everyone who needs it.

When youre shopping for your family or out with friends, its only fair that you are given the right information about the food youre eating to help people to make good decisions.

To help support people we need to reduce unhelpful influences like promotions and adverts that affect what you buy and what you eat.

The government will introduce new laws to ban the advertising of food high in fat, sugar or salt on television and online before 9pm and ministers will also hold a consultation on whether the internet ban should apply at all times of day.

Analysis published by Cancer Research UK from September 2019 showed that almost half of all food adverts shown over the month on ITV1, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky One were for products high in fat, sugar and salt, rising to almost 60% during the 6pm to 9pm slot when childrens viewing peaks.

Further legislation will restrict the promotion of junk food, including buy one, get one free offers.

There will also be a ban on chocolate bars and sweets being placed in prominent locations in stores, such as at checkouts and entrances, while supermarket bosses will be encouraged to offer more discounts on fruit and vegetables.

The UK spends more on promotional products than any other European country, according to the Department of Health.

Calorie labelling measures will also require large restaurants, cafes and takeaways with more than 250 employees to add calorie labels to the food they sell and a consultation will be launched to determine whether similar guidance is required on alcohol.

Dr Alison Tedstone, chief nutritionist at Public Health England, which will lead the Better Health campaign, said: These plans are ambitious and rightly so.

Tackling obesity will help prevent serious illness and save lives.

The main reason we put on weight is because of what we eat and drink, but being more active is important too.

Making healthier choices easier and fairer for everyone, and ensuring the right support is there for those who need it, is critical in tackling obesity.

The Obesity Health Alliance, a coalition of more than 40 leading health organisations, medical royal colleges and campaign groups, praised the targeting of promotional offers.

The alliances lead, Caroline Cerny, said: We are delighted the Government has recognised the role that the relentless marketing and promotion of unhealthy food plays in driving ill-health.

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UKs chief executive, said: This is a landmark day for the nations health.

Being overweight or obese puts people at risk of many diseases, including 13 different types of cancer, and disproportionately affects people from poorer backgrounds so the plan will hugely help to level-up the country and build a healthier population.

However, not everyone was supportive of the plans.

Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds said that while the measures were "welcome" they are "long overdue".

He added more needs to be done to tackle the causes of poor health and obesity.

"There's a direct correlation with poverty and with inequality," Mr Thomas-Symonds said.

"The poorer you are the greater proportion of your income you spend on food, and it can often be less nutritious food because it's cheaper.

"You need to be tackling the underlying causes of poverty and you need to look at public health and the budgets of local councils to tackle this in a comprehensive way.

"So while we welcome some of the measures the government has put forward, they aren't doing enough."

View post:

Unhealthy foods and checkout snacks targeted in obesity crackdown | ITV News - ITV News

In a speech due to be shared on social media, Mr Johnson will propose the introduction of new laws to ban junk food advertising on television and online before 9pm and ministers will also hold a consultation on whether the internet ban should apply at all times of day.

Eagle-eyed political observers have pointed out this was first suggested by Mr Miliband ahead of the 2015 election which he lost to David Cameron and led to his resignation.

His manifesto was dismissed by the Conservatives as thin to the point of invisibility when it was launched.

But critics have pointed out at least 15 of Labour's 2015 pledges have since been put into action by a series of Tory administrations triggering accusations the party has lurched to the left.

Mr Miliband's manifesto proposals brought in by Conservative governments in the last five years include:

the introduction of an energy price cap

the creation of the national infrastructure commission

tougher rules on speaking English in the public sector

greater powers to the devolved governments

more free childcar

a higher minimum wage

higher taxes on empty homes

a ban on unfair letting fees

a ban on wild animals in circuses

easier gender pay gap reporting

a ban on legal highs

a levy on payday lenders.

They also brought in measures to protect tax credits after the threat of a backbench rebellion and are taking steps to bring an end to the controversial nationwide badger cull.

The Miliband manifesto even called for a referendum on EU membership if more powers were transferred to Brussels.

Many Tory MPs and ministers are said to be privately furious at the party's willingness to borrow policies from previous Labour pledges.

One Cabinet source claimed the junk food proposals, part of wider ranging plan to curb the nation's obesity crisis, risked tying up business in red tape.

Another minister branded the plans draconian and bonkers.

READ MORE:Cameron humiliation: How ex-PM 'didn't read report' on junk foods

The highly interventionist approach marks a U-turn for Mr Johnson, who until recently has been a vocal opponent of "sin taxes" and perceived them as "nannying" by the state.

But the Prime Minister appears to have softened his libertarian stance for a plan designed to save the NHS time and money while also helping to reduce the number of COVID-19 deaths in a possible second wave of infections.

He said: "Losing weight is hard but with some small changes we can all feel fitter and healthier.

"If we all do our bit, we can reduce our health risks and protect ourselves against coronavirus - as well as taking pressure off the NHS."

The rest is here:

Tories lurch to the left - 15 of Labour's 2015 manifesto pledges actioned by Conservatives - Daily Express

Sign up to LabourLists morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.

Cue the Rocky montage. The PM wants us all to get super fit and healthy. Today sees the unveiling of the governmentsplan to curb obesity in the UK, with evidencesuggesting that those who are overweight are at greater risk if they contract Covid-19. The proposed plan includes GPs being encouraged to prescribe exercise and a new consultation on banning junk food adverts on TV before 9pm. Labour has slammed the government for kicking the ad ban into the long grassagainwith a consultation pointing out that the Tories first announced restrictions on advertising in 2018. On Sunday, Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworthcalled for a wider approachto combat obesity,urging the government to tackle the circumstances in which people live and focus on the link between poverty and health inequalities.

However, this announcement has been largely overshadowed by the governments latest Covid-related mess. With no notice, the government announced on Saturday the introduction of a 14-day quarantine period for all travellers coming from Spain blindsiding those in the country, including Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, or those booked to go soon. Lots of questions remain unanswered, especially as it seems the government is simply relying on the goodwill of employers to support those workers forced to quarantine.Dominic Raab has claimedthat you cannot be penalised in this country lawfully for following the rules, but this is a patently naive statement ignoring the many workers in casual employment; that employees dont generally have unfair dismissal rights with less than two years in a job; and the fact that the government hasnot made any changes to statutory sick pay meaning those facing two weeks of house arrest will officially be entitled to nothing.

Elsewhere, a host of Labour MPs have joined a 48-hour boycott of Twitter over its failure to take action following a string of antisemitic tweets from Grime artist Wiley. Although the party as a wholewont be joining, figures including shadow cabinet membersKate Green,Jonathan Reynolds,Luke Pollard,Lisa Nandyand lots of others have and many others will be. The protest follows a suspension of the artists account by the social media giant after a series of tweets on Friday and Saturday. Some of the posts have been removed, but Twitter has been widely criticised for leaving others visible and for not removing his account altogether. Using the hashtag #NoSafeSpaceforJewHate, Labour MPs have joined the two-day action taking place on Monday and Tuesday this week.

In other labour movement news, therace is underwayto replace outgoing UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis after his two decades in the top job. The trade union bossannounced earlier this monthhis intention to retire at the end of 2020. Assistant general secretary Christina McAnea is expected to formally launch her campaign today pledging to listen to members, back a new deal for workers and a national care service. Her fellow assistant general secretary Roger McKenzielaunched his campaignlast week, while UNISON national executive council member Hugo Pierre has also joined the contest, saying that he is looking to be the candidate of the left.Sign up to LabourLists morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

Support LabourList

Read more:

Latest Covid-related mess overshadows the PMs plan to curb obesity - LabourList

November 26, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) Twitter has banned the conservative investigative group Project Veritas from advertising on the social media platform, apparently in retaliation for a two-year-old investigation that implicated the social media platform in the controversial practice of shadow-banning.

Project Veritas president James OKeefe explained the situation via Twitter on Monday, starting with footage from a 15-second ad that Twitter approved just weeks ago. The ad, which solicits applicants to work as undercover journalists, simply asks, Go undercover? Wear a camera? Put on a wire? Do you have what it takes?

However, days ago, Veritas received an email revealing the ad had been rejected for inappropriate language. The email identified nothing objectionable in the ad itself, but came with a link to a differenttwo-year-old video that shows Twitter Trust & Safety policy manager Olinda Hassan saying were trying to get the shitty people to not show up, and contains former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu admitting, our strategy is to shadow ban so that you have ultimate control.

Shadow-banning refers to the practice of preventing a users content from appearing in other users feeds, but giving the target no indication that his account has been flagged, restricted, or otherwise affected. Last year, Twitter came under fire over revelations that numerous prominent Republicans had been excluded from its drop-down menu meant to simplify searching for specific people (with the victims Democratic counterparts not being similarly affected).

So you guessed it: a tweet about Twitter shadow-bans is the thing in the hundreds of videos that weve done, that Twitter is considering the reason why we shouldnt be approved for Twitter Ads, OKeefe said, noting that the video has been quoted as evidence in Congressional hearings about social media bias.

OKeefe then displayed a follow-up email from Twitterinforming Veritas that the group had been deemed ineligible to participate in Twitter Ads entirely, on the basis of unspecified inappropriate content.

The incident is only the latest in a long series of examples fueling conservative suspicion of Twitters motives. The company defines misgendering someone as hateful conduct, yet has let stand violent and hateful tweets directed at conservatives. There has been a long series of bans and suspensions affecting non-violent, non-hateful, non-obscene tweets from right-of-center perspectives (including LifeSiteNews), and Twitter insiders have admitted to intentionally targeting conservative accounts and topics.

OKeefe expressed confidence that Twitters apparent attempt to undermine Project Veritas would ultimately backfire. So Twitter thinks theyre going to stop people from applying to work here, stop us from advertising, but this is all gonna blow up in their face and even more people are gonna apply, he predicted.

Project Veritas undercover investigations have caught people within numerous organizations admitting to unflattering views or incriminating actions, or contradicting the public statements from those organizations. Past subjects include Google, CNN, ABC News, and the campaign office of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri).

See the article here:

Twitter bans Project Veritas ads over old video exposing ...

Last week the president, alluding to a poorly researched article by VICE News, accused Twitter of shadow banning prominent Republicans. Twitter didnt shadow ban anyone. But they did hide some Republican politicians accounts, not because they were Republicans, but for two more embarrassing reasons.

The president is wrong (!)Twitter doesnt intentionally hide accounts based on political affiliation. But there actually was something screwy happening to certain accounts, including those of some Republican figures. And if its affecting a lot of Republican users, Twitter implied in a blog post, thats because those users are linked to patterns of abuse.

A shadow ban, used on sites such as Reddit and Craigslist, is a form of ban that isnt immediately obvious to the user. The user is allowed to keep posting, but their posts dont show up to anyone but themselves.

A shadow ban buys the sites moderators a little time: If the user doesnt immediately notice that no one is responding to their posts, they might spend more time harmlessly posting into the void, instead of creating a new account and posting their unwanted content. So a shadow ban is a tool against abuse and spam.

In a blog post about the supposed shadow ban, Twitter says no:

We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly dont shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.

G/O Media may get a commission

You could say that Twitter is untrustworthy, but theres no real reason to believe that. The site has the ability to ban obvious Nazi accounts, but it only consistently bans those accounts in countries where its forced to by law.

The company bends over backward to placate the right wing, to an extent that some might call cowardly or collaborationist. It would be out of character, and even less strategic than usual, for the service to shadow ban sitting members of Congress. This is the company that decided not to ban the president for open threats of violence that obviously violate Twitters terms of service.

Twitter does make some accounts easier to discover than others. Their search results, the company says, favor popular tweets, and disfavor tweets from bad-faith actors who intend to manipulate or divide the conversation. Thats a pretty loaded description, so Twitter unpacks some factors that go into identifying bad-faith actors:

The specifics are still mysterious, partly for the good reason that if Twitter explained every detail of the algorithm, it would be easier to circumvent it. But Twitter defends the practice with a killer line: We know this approach is working because we see fewer abuse reports and spam reports.

It sure sounds like Twitter is implying something: If a famous account seems to disappear from search results and follower suggestions, its probably because theyre linked to abuse and spam. (Twitter recently started blocking all users with Elon Musk in their display name, because Musk fans fell for scam tweets from fake Musk accounts. Again, why dont they use this on the Nazis?) So gee, maybe prominent Republicans need to stop encouraging abusive behavior!

But then things got confusing when a Twitter bug temporarily blocked a lot of accounts from being auto-suggested in search results. Twitter says this no one got blocked from normal search results. But to be fair to the complainers, auto-suggest matters a lot more on Twitter, where usernames can be hard to remember. Auto-completing usernames is more immediately noticeable than auto-completing words in a Google search.

But this impact was not limited to a certain political affiliation or geography, says Twitter. Some Democratic politicians were not properly showing up within search auto-suggestions as result of this issue. And most accounts affected had nothing to do with politics at all.

Again, if they were lying, that would be very out of character. If the company wants to punish right-wingers, it has many more effective ways to do so. Instead the company avoids punishing politicians accounts even for straightforward violations. But breaking the site with a bug is in character.

But this article wont convince some people, who interpret everything as a conspiracy against them, partly because they dont understand how the world works. Recently, Republican celebrity and former Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke temporarily took his account private. You cant retweet a private account. But Clarkes followers immediately tweeted that Clarke, who brags when Twitter doesnt ban him for threatening violence, had been shadowbanned.

Crying shadow ban! is an old complaint from people who want more attention, especially extremists. They use it as an excuse when people arent listening to them, because they refuse to accept that everyone is just over their shit. A 2011 Urban Dictionary definition for shadowban includes this satirical example sentence: Ive been posting right-wing crap all over the forum, but no one is biting. I think Ive been shadowbanned.

So dont worry about getting shadow banned. But if you dont want to get de-prioritized in search results, consider being less of an abusive pain in the ass.

Continued here:

What Is Shadow Banning on Twitter? - Lifehacker

By Flavia Krause-JacksonShuttering businesses, grounding airlines and ordering people to stay home was hard enough the first time. The thought of having to do it all over again is something world leaders dont want to even contemplate.From Italy to New Zealand, irrespective of how well the virus was contained, governments acknowledge that fresh waves of the deadly coronavirus are likely and that the policy tools to mitigate the damage are limited. The hope is that localizing quarantines to towns, cities and regions will be enough to snuff out bouts of infections as they come.

U.K.s Boris Johnson was reluctant to order a lockdown and then ended up in intensive care fighting for his life after contracting Covid-19. Yet he finds the idea of isolating the nation again so off-putting that he compared it to a nuclear deterrent: I certainly dont want to use it. French Prime Minister Jean Castex, was equally blunt: We wont survive, economically and socially.

At the other end of the globe, New Zealands Jacinda Ardern has warned that it just takes one mistake to be exposed to the virus again. But even for her, reverting to a nationwide lockdown would be a measure of last resort.

It all speaks to the great elephant in the room: while scientists warn it could take years to control a deadly virus that has killed more than 630,000 worldwide, there is no appetite to sustain the hiatus on travel, work and leisure that has upended everyones lives in 2020.

With the world facing its worst recession since the Great Depression and U.S. President Donald Trump fighting for re-election in November, voters are on edge. Politicians of all stripes are looking for ways to ease the painnot add to itas fear morphs into anger and discontent.

The political calculus is to try and ride it out. Yet while efforts to get people back to stores, restaurants, bars and hairdressers demonstrate the urgency among governments of reviving economies, they also show the risks.

Europes hardest-hit country, Britain, reopened pubs and is now finding spikes in virus cases. Johnson, who aims to return to significant normality by Christmas, on Friday said his government is preparing the health service for a second wave of infections over the winter.

Countries around the Mediterranean Sea pray a glimpse of tourism will get them through the summer before the cold snap drives people indoors and ushers a second chapter to the pandemic.

Italy was the first Western democracy to quarantine the entire population as it became apparent its death toll was going to overtake that of China, where the virus originated. A person close to Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte described that decision as shock therapy that cant be repeated. The euros weakest economy this week became the biggest beneficiary of the European Unions $860 billion rescue package.

Populations have already shown they are restless. Spain had a similar trajectory to Italy and in Madrid the resentment spilled into the streets. In Serbia, a jump in cases prompted President Aleksandar Vucic, just re-elected in a landslide, to try and impose another curfew only for him to reverse course in the face of violent protests.

The situation is so desperate in Croatia, which relies on tourism more than any other country in the EU, that it pivoted from lockdown mode to embracing the Swedish model that allows bars and shops to stay open and there is no limit to size of public gatherings.

At one point the government considered banning all wedding celebrations after a cluster of cases were traced to one event. All it took was some bad press from prospective brides for the plan to be dropped.

Nowhere is the disconnect between the health risk and reticence to lock down more pronounced than in the U.S., the worst-hit nation with more than 140,000 dead and the number of infections soaring in battleground states Trump needs to win. But as far back as May, the president made his priorities clear.

Will some people be affected? Yes. Will some people be affected badly? Yes, Trump said during a factory visit in Arizona, a crucial swing state, that month. But we have to get our country open and we have to get it open soon.

The approaches have been so different its impossible to predict what governments will do when there is an agonizing trade off between deaths and the economy.

In places like Singapore or South Korea, mass testing and heavy fines were the strategies successfully deployed to stop the spread. By contrast, in the U.K., there was until recently no mandatory use of masks to go into a shop. It was left to basic good manners.

However unpalatable, the need to shut everything down may ultimately be forced upon leaders.

In Australia, residents of Melbourne have been ordered to stay home for six weeks and South Africa ordered schools to be shut again. Israel declared victory over the virus only for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to warn another shutdown could be inevitable.

New Zealand is unique in having eradicated the virus within its borders. Now its on high alert to keep it that way. Ardern, herself up for re-election this year, has deployed the military to enforce a quarantine on anyone entering the country.

Back in the U.S., Trump has resurrected his White House briefings on the virus in an attempt to reassure Americans he has the pandemic under control and life is going back to normal. On Thursday, though, he scrapped the highly attended Florida convention for the Republican Party he had been keen to hold for 20,000 ardent supporters.

The country is in very good shape, other than if you look south and westsome problems, he said. That will work out.

--With assistance from Josh Wingrove, Thomas Penny, Jasmina Kuzmanovic, Gordana Filipovic, Matthew Brockett, Iain Marlow, Michael Cohen, Andra Timu, Ivan Levingston, Edward Johnson and Jan Bratanic.

See the original post:

Shadow of second wave of the virus hangs over efforts by world leaders to restore normalcy - Economic Times

Big Tech has become one of the most contentious issues in American politics since social media was born.

Outlets such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook started "shadow banning"conservatives immediately after President Donald Trumps election in 2016. Shadow banningis colloquially defined on the internet as the act of blocking or partially blocking a user or their content from an online community so that it will not be readily apparent to the user that they have been banned, according to Wikipedia.

They began by targeting more people who are frequently characterized as fringe commentators. The so-called deplatforming tactics have now come for anyone whose views differ from those of the CEOs of Silicon Valley Trump andnumerous Republican U.S. senators and representativesamong them. The new word deplatforming is described on Wikipedia as a form of political activism or prior restraint by an individual, group, or organization with the goal of shutting down controversial speakers or speech, or denying them access to a venue in which to express their opinion."

Sympathetic conservatives were told from pundits on high that to rail against these tactics would be tantamount to slaying the sacred cow of unbridled capitalism.

Those who would dare to call for the enforcement of laws already on the books dealing with deplatformingwere nothing more than statists who wanted toinfringe on the free marketplace of ideas.

But, in recent weeks, this may be changing in a big way.

Project Veritasrecent expos on Facebook may be the push that finally gets the reluctant Republicans in Congress to start attacking censorship from Big Tech in effect, to simply not care that this may endanger BigTech'scontributions to their reelection war chests.

The Project Veritass new video is entitledFacebook Content Moderator: 'If Someones Wearing MAGA Hat, I'm Going to Delete Them for Terrorism.

The new video speaks volumes, with fresh information coming from a whistleblower working on the inside of Big Tech. Zach McElroy is the whistleblower who worked at the company Cognizant, which performs content moderation for Facebook,andwent to Project Veritas to go public with the flagrant abuse of power that he saw while serving as a content moderator for the tech giant.

He is currently hosting a GoFundMe campaign to finish the fight with Facebook: (https://www.gofundme.com/f/exposefacebook).

McElroy told Newsmax that his feeling of corporate bias started during the training when they disseminated their policies. I knew right away that something was wrong. I felt that I had to do something, but I did not know how I would do it. It was apparent that to stick my neck out legally would be the hardest because I thought nobody would notice.

One of the worst parts of McElroy's ordeal was that he felt so uneasy and unsafe going to major news outlets to get this story out. He specifically mentioned that he could not trust The New York Times and The Washington Post because I had this feeling that they wont take my story seriously and they would rat me out to Facebook.

In the eye of the author, the censorship at Facebook is best characterized as a deliberate attempt to suppress Trump supporters from proselytizing progressives and liberals about Joe Bidens voting record.

As the video shows, the moderators built up a personal sense of "justice"in exacting their vengeance against conservatives.

If anyone looks particularly bad in the video, it is inarguably Facebooks proverbial father, Mark Zuckerberg. He has routinely espoused that Facebook will be able to stop a lot of harm while fighting back against putting additional restrictions on speech. ... Focusing on authenticity and verifying accounts is a much better solution than an ever-expanding definition of what speech is harmful.

Clearly, Zuckerbergs grandiose vision of protectingfree speech does not apply to conservatives who use Facebook in the hopes of voicing their opinions.

While McElroy did not work directly at Facebook headquarters, he described his third-party company atmosphere as having the same systemic issues. You have an employee base that is majority Democratic and left-leaning because these companies are based all in blue cities, blue states, or both.

McElroy has yet to be targeted by Facebook, but he did say he was worried about that happening when [he] decided to go public and still is concerned about that. However, the need for the story to come to light and ensuring it gets out is the most important thing to [him].

As he put it, telling the truth is going to get me through this.

Toward the end of the interview, McElroy told Newsmax how his story would add to the mounting evidence that Big Tech companies are doing everything in their power to stymie speech online.

We have seen how dark the Big Tech censorship is, he said, and I hope that things will be different this time. President Trump has moved on Twitter with Section 230 so maybe he will be proactive with this. Nobody is doing the kind of investigative work that Project Veritas does."

Section 230 refers to that specific section of the Communications Decency Act which states, No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In laymans words, it is an exemption that these social media platforms use to protect both the content of what is written on their website as well as the company from legal liability. However, if the these tech giants are picking and choosing which content can be on their website, then they are in effect violating this exemption by acting as a "publisher,"as the Communications Decency Act defines it.

Moving forward into the future, it may very well be the case that courts decide that the acts perpetrated by companies such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. are grounds to revoke their coveted legal protection, making their demise all the more likely.

(Michael Cozzi is a Ph.D. candidate at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.)

2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

See the rest here:

Big Tech Unmasked as Anti-conservative by Project Veritas - Newsmax