The social media platform championed by former president Donald Trump, following his permanent suspension from Twitter in January 2021, has billed itself as Americas leading free speech social platform, Americas Big Tent social media platform and Social media without discrimination.

Many found Trumps declaration to revolutionize social media suspect. He was, after all, the golf green jacket of the Twitterverse riding the platforms algorithmic ability to increase divisiveness and spread misinformation all the way to the White House.

Alongside a new report, which investigates whether everyones truths make it to Trumps platform, experts weighed in on whether Truth Social is just as shady as the next platform when it comes to censorship.

When Truth Social debuted over this past Presidents Day weekend, the app revealed itself to be what most experts saw as a shiny, glitchy Twitter knockoff.

The platforms interface, functionality-wise, literally copied Twitter, said Jesse Lehrich, the co-founder and senior adviser of Accountable Tech.

Design-wise, it was a cheap trick of the platform Trump was suspended from. Tweet and retweet were replaced with Truth and reTruth. Users feeds, profile pages, button shapes and menu items all resembled Twitter and the usual social media infrastructure. The classic light-blue color palette was hued just slightly darker: eggplant purple.

But there was still the promise of romping through amber waves of free speech, which Trump hoped would attract patriotic minds. In the news release announcing Truth Social last October, he promised to create a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight back against the Big Tech companies of Silicon Valley.

Trump was unhappy when Twitter flagged covid-19 misinformation and false election claims, and deleted hate speech arguably the few positive, noticeable strides platforms have taken to moderate how users behave and engage with information.

But Truth Social has been doing a similar thing, says a new report released by Cheyenne Hunt-Majer, a Big Tech accountability fellow at Public Citizen. Hunt-Majer found that Truth Social limited posts and images that discussed reproductive rights, gun control and the Jan. 6 hearings. But as far as Trump might be concerned, it isnt even censoring all that well.

In a now-viral TikTok, Hunt-Majer explained that any post that included the phrase abortion is healthcare couldnt be posted, regardless of context. And she noted that while left-leaning posts were being limited, images with pro-gun quotes and anti-Ukraine phrases were also being banned.

But if there is anything that Truth Social does authentically replicate from Twitter, it is inconsistent, shrouded lever-pulling by algorithmically deciding what appears on peoples feeds, says Hunt-Majers report. Its called shadow banning which, as defined by Truth Social, is a deceptive and manipulative practice whereby a social media platform artificially limits the visibility of a users posts without the users awareness. Shadow banning is a practice often used by Big Tech social media platforms to effectively censor users who question prevailing narratives or hold disfavored political viewpoints.

But no social media platform is off the hook for shadow banning.

When it comes down to the under-the-hood architecture of what these platforms are actually doing, its just a black box, Lehrich said. In theory, downranking violative, borderline content is good practice, but theres no way to know what theyre actually doing. Its all self-reported.

The term shadow banning is one of those interesting, nebulous tech catchphrases that means different things to different people, Lehrich said.

When the term was first introduced, it was accepted to mean that a user can continue to post but not know that the platform is partially or completely limiting others from seeing that post. In other words, the user can see that theyve posted, but nobody else can.

But it has been co-opted to mean any time anyones distribution is being limited or not being retweeted as much as they normally would, Lehrich said.

Twitters algorithm is not without intention. In 2018, in response to right-wing outrage over Twitters alleged shadow banning Republican politicians, Twitter put out a statement asserting that it didnt outright engage in the practice. Instead, it used its algorithm to bury the posts of bad-faith actors deep in peoples feeds.

The algorithm is designed to maximize engagement, Lehrich said. One might think theyre being shadow banned on Twitter, Facebook or YouTube, but they really just arent posting often enough or following the right people.

Shadow banning is different from outright censorship seen in countries like China where posts criticizing the government will be taken down and ones account is likely to be deactivated. Its also different from the warning labels added to posts with misinformation, many of which are allowed to stay up with those flags.

The road ahead for Trumps social media baby is looking rather bleak. Since debuting at No. 1 on the Apple Stores social networking category, progress has been a slow, forward stumble. The app has fallen to 68th as of Friday and has not yet been adapted for Android phones (though a pre-order option is available).

As reported by Reuters, the apps 2.8 million downloads as of July 1 have been considered laughable by some, given its high-profile backing. The most prominent users of which there are very few verified accounts include (surprisingly) Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom and (unsurprisingly) Trump himself.

And major questions about Truth Socials funding remain. The planned merger of Truth Socials parent company and Digital World Acquisition Corp. a so-called SPAC set up for investors to merge with another company and go public without needing an initial public offering is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In June, Digital World said that executives from both companies had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in New York.

If truth be told, what happens next is to Truth Social is anyones guess.

Thanks to Lillian Barkley for copy editing this article.

See the article here:

Truth Social is accused of shadow banning: Here's what that means - Grid

TikTok has been "shadow-promoting" banned content for Russian users, according to the latest report. Although the platform has already stopped live-streaming in the region, several accounts are still able to access these clips.

Tracking Exposed's head of research, Salvatore Romano, has given birth to a new word that some people might have already encountered in social media.

The word "shadow promotion" simply pertains to the silent promotion of clips to FYPs of For You Pages of some accounts. This occurs despite the platform's decision to make them unviewable to the creators' accounts.

Some situations are different from one another. While some accounts appear safe from the ban, new content could still pop up in users' feeds and even in other accounts.

According to a report byWired,there's a study that Romano's team conducted from May to July 2022. The group tested using VPN so they could open TikTok using IP addresses in Russia.

At the time, they wanted to know how it feels to access a platform from the perspective of a Russian user. Usually, a person based in this country won't be able to view any digital content because of some restrictions.

Although it might take effect on other videos, some old clips are reportedly showing on FYPs. This means that when you are following Sputnik News and other Russian websites, new content will still appear from the account.

"TikTok will say, 'We removed this number of accounts, we blocked this amount of videos,' and so on. But if we don't have an independent way to assess not just the content, but also the algorithmic promotion of the content on the platform, we will never be able to assess if content moderation is actually in place or not," Romanosaid.

Most likely, Romano speculated that TikTok's shadow promotion had targeted Russian users who had lost track of their online feed. The platform might want to fill in some fresh content for their liking.

Additionally, since the competition among digital platforms is becoming tighter, TikTok does not want to be left behind in this battle. The Chinese app desires to be a frontrunner in the market. That's why it does not fully eliminate Russian content from appearing.

Romano was also aware that TikTok has been receiving slightly better treatment than its competitors in Russia. To be exact, search engine giant Google was slapped with a $370 million fine last month because it could not delete a YouTube video that the Russian government flagged as "false."

However, when we look at TikTok in the same case, the Kremlin does not lay a sanction on the platform. As per Tracking Exposed's co-director Marc Faddoul, there might be serious implications that could happen in the future if TikTok continues to roll out its country-by-country approach.

Related Article:TikTok to Add Labels on its Platform for Selected 'State-Controlled' Media, Suspends Livestreaming and New Content

Shadow ban and shadow promotion are somehow new terms that you might have heard recently. After discussing the latter, it's now time to know more about shadow-banning.

According toPopSugar,shadow-banning could be described as an approach where moderators hide content that they think is harmful to the users.

In short, this method will limit the visibility of your posts, videos, and other content. This will sound bad for influencers who are looking for more engagements on their page.

One of the reasons why a user is subject to shadow-ban is because of the continuous violation of the app's community guidelines. If what you're frequently posting or sharing is all about sensitive matters like hate speech, misinformation, and nudity, this could be a ground for this punishment.

Read Also:Viral TikTok Debunked: Tampons Can Cause Cancer But Experts Say it Public Shouldn't Panic

This article is owned by Tech Times

Written by Joseph Henry

2022 TECHTIMES.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.

Read more:

TikTok's 'Shadow-Promotion' Applies to Russian-Based Accounts; Banned Videos Still Keep on Showing Up - Tech Times

Former President Donald Trump is appealing the dismissal of his lawsuit against Twitter for violating his First Amendment rights by banning him from the platform, and one of his attorneys said the key issue is whether Twitter was acting at the behest of government officials to censor him.

Alex Kozinski, who is representing the former president, said the government cant use a third party as a cats paw to get around the law.

When the government forces a private individual or cajoles a private individual to do something that they otherwise wouldnt do, that is considered to be the action of the government,Kozinski said in a recent interview for EpochTVs Crossroads program.

Twitter permanently suspended Trumps account on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Trump sued the social media company in July 2021 to challenge the ban, but in May 2022, U.S. District JudgeJames Donato for the Northern District of California dismissed the suit, stating that the First Amendment doesnt apply to private companies.

A month and a half later, Trump filed an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kozinski, himself a former judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said there wasa good deal of evidence presented to the district court suggesting that people in the government pressured the tech companies to censor Trump.

The legal question is whether the threats used by the government to coerce the tech companies are sufficient to be considered government action, he explained.

In some cases, the government coerces tech companies by threatening to pursue certain legislation, threatening to remove the protections of Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act, or threatening to hold anti-trust hearings, or even anti-trust prosecution, the attorney said.

Section 230(pdf) protects social media companies and other online platforms from liability for content posted by third parties.

In other cases, a tech company may be willing to take action at the request of the government, and such cases are considered collaboration with the government, he said.

Whether its the result of coercion or collaboration, this would be viewed as government action, Kozinski explained.

Kozinski estimated that it would take a year or so for the appellate court to make a determination in Trumps case.

Politically motivated viewpoint restriction is the most serious First Amendment violation if it is done by the government, Kozinski said, and the government has never been permitted by the courts to favor one viewpoint over another.

If the courts agree with us, I think this will be better for everybody, including internet service companies who will no longer be buffaloed and beaten up, Kozinski said.

Also, government officials will realize that if they request internet service companies to censor speech, their actions could be considered government censorship.

In recent years, members of Congress have hauled the heads of tech companies into hearings and demanded that they implement more censorship of some viewpoints and users. If Trumps case goes to the Supreme Court, and the court rules in favor of the former president, government officials will take notice and will probably be more careful about how they issue these demands to private companies,Kozinski said.

Lots of people have had their accounts shadow banned, suspended, or permanently deleted from social media platformsbecause they were expressing views that people in government did not like, Kozinski said.

Shadow banning is the practice of social media platform moderators suppressing the reach of a social media post or account without telling the owner of the account.

Thats just not the American way, he added.

Kozinski said the censorship of speech in the United States is too widespread and affecting too much of Americas national life for the Supreme Court not to eventually get involved.

When it does [get involved], I think it will see things our way, he said.

Censorship impacts not only the speaker but also those who are unable to hear the speech.

If you disagree with Trump or anybody else, you can disagree. You can make an argument and explain why hes wrong, and then people can make up their own minds, Kozinski said. When you censor someones speech, you not only censor the speaker, but you also censor everybody who would hear the speaker and make an intelligent judgment as to whether what hes saying is correct.

Kozinski said the government and tech officials engaging in censorship are probably concerned that too many people will agree with the speakers.

Theyre afraid that people will agree because if these are ideas everybody disagrees with, why bother censoring them?

This is why dictatorships such as Nazi Germany and communist regimes such as the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communist Party have always been so keen on censorship,Kozinski said.

Were entitled to speak without having the government leaning on people, leaning on the newspapers or service providers,sayingYou cant publish these views. Thats just not how we do things in America, he said. Thats how we should do things in Romania, where Iwas born. I actually lived under communism. I know what its like.

In communist Romania, nobody believed anything printed in the newspapers because they were published by the government, Kozinski said. People got their news either from other people or from Radio Free Europe and shortwave radio, he said.

When getting the news or speaking with other people, Kozinski said they had to speak with a low voice and make sure nobody else was listening, because there were informants paid by the secret police who would report on others.

Thats whats happening now in the United States, he said.

The mainstream press is just completely under the control of basically the Democratic Party, and they will only say things that support that point of view, Kozinski said. And people are looking for other ways of expressing themselves, and certainly Twitter, YouTube, Facebook are among them.

Kozinski cautioned people who advocate for censorship in America against embracing communist policies.

People who have not lived through communism just have no conception of how government can suppress ideas, can suppress speech, can punish people, and just how bad things are when everything is controlled by the government.

Kozinski thinks that many supporters of communism are idealistic.

He told a story of his father, who was communist and was persecuted for his beliefs. During the Second World War, he was sent to one of the worst concentration camps because of his communist beliefs and because he was a Jew, Kozinski said.

His father survived, and after the war ended,when the communist party seized power in Romania, Kozinskis father actually saw communism implemented.

Then he said, I had no idea thats how it would be. And thats when he and my mother decided they had to take me out of there, Kozinski said.

The whole family emigrated to the United States in the early 1960s, Kozinski said.

Kozinski said that people who believe in communism need to understand that its been proven again and again to be a false hope, a delusion, and a way to enslave people.

Learn from history. Talk to people who have lived in the system. Dont just theorize.

Kozinski said that suppressing speech on social media is a foolish strategy because its a basic human trait for someone to want to think on their own, and not to just adopt whatever someone else tells them to think.

[Censorship has] made a lot of people very angry and certainly hasnt suppressed those ideas, he said. Because truth will out.

Rita Li and Caden Pearson contributed to this report.

Follow

Ella Kietlinska is a reporter for The Epoch Times focusing on U.S. and world politics.

Follow

Joshua Philipp is an award-winning investigative reporter with The Epoch Times and host of EpochTV's "Crossroads" program. He is a recognized expert on unrestricted warfare, asymmetrical hybrid warfare, subversion, and historical perspectives on todays issues. His 10-plus years of research and investigations on the Chinese Communist Party, subversion, and related topics give him unique insight into the global threat and political landscape.

See the original post here:

Courts Must Decide Whether Government Pressured Twitter to Ban Donald Trump: Attorney - The Epoch Times

Elon Musk might follow in Donald Trumps footsteps to start his own social media platform to rival Twitter. While Trumps Truth Social platform turned out to be a disaster, the worlds richest person might be on to something here. Earlier this year, it came as a surprise to everyone when Musk acquired a 9.2% stake in Twitter and followed it up with an offer to buy the microblogging platform for a whopping $43 billion. Back then, most industry experts were left puzzled trying to figure out the billionaires real intention behind the attempt to buy Twitter. However, within a few weeks, Musk came out to announce that the deal was on hold, citing Twitters inability to disclose the percentage of fake accounts. What ensued is an ugly legal battle between Musk and Twitter, with the court deciding to set a five-day trial in October this year.Via Twitter / @teslaownersSVThe tech tycoon teased his intention to transform X.com into a new social media platform in a response to a tweet asking about his move in case the Twitter deal doesnt go through. The Tesla Owners of Silicon Valley group asked Musk on Twitter if he plans on creating his own social media platform. Musk responded in his typical fashion by tweeting a link to X.com. Its true that many of the rumors linked to the Tesla CEO turn out to be false, including the recent reports suggesting that the Billionaire is planning to build a private airport in the Austin area. However, his intentions with X.com might be more than just plain rumors. During the Tesla 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, Musk claimed that X.com is a part of his grand vision and his attempt to buy Twitter was linked to it.

Screenshot of x.comX.com was an online bank that was co-founded by Elon Musk in 1999 and was later merged with competitor Confinity Inc. to form PayPal. The billionaire reportedly bought the domain X.com from PayPal in 2017, claiming that the domain had great sentimental value. Although, it was to serve as an umbrella website for Musks ventures. Is Musk planning to build something thats much bigger and refined than the current crop of social media platforms that are dying a slow death? Well, who knows? But, like most stories linked to the billionaire, this ones also shrouded in mystery and is developing.

More here:

Is Elon Musk going the Donald Trump way? The Tesla CEO has hinted that he wants to start a social media platform of his own. - Luxurylaunches

ATLANTA -- Tens of thousands of Music Midtown festivalgoers are no longer going to descend on Atlantas massive Piedmont Park next month to cheer on hip-hop star Future or watch beloved rock band My Chemical Romance take the stage.

In fact, some people are convinced Atlanta center of the nations hip-hop music scene will lose more music festivals and performances on public land as organizers and artists learn that state law makes it nearly impossible for them to stop people from carrying guns among the alcohol-fueled crowds.

That prospect has ignited a new fight over gun rights in Georgia that is roiling the governors race, casting a shadow over Atlantas vaunted music scene and adding to tension between the city and state.

Live Nation has refused to say why it recently called off Septembers Music Midtown, a longtime fixture for pop music lovers.

But news outlets, citing anonymous sources, ascribed last weeks announcement to a 2019 Georgia Supreme Court decision that outlined limits on the ability of private companies to ban guns on public property. The ruling stemmed from a 2014 state law that expanded the locations where guns were allowed.

Democrats, led by Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, pounced on the news, casting the cancellation as an example of the sort of economic fallout the state would experience from Republican Gov. Brian Kemp's extreme gun agenda. Though the gun law cited in reports about Music Midtown was enacted under Kemp's Republican predecessor, Kemp was a key backer of a new state law this year that eliminated the need for a license and with it, a background check to carry a handgun in public.

An Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial warned the gun policies threaten Atlanta's status as the cultural capital of the South. Atlanta City Council President Doug Shipman bemoaned the loss of this year's Music Midtown, as well as its timing.

All of these things are culminating at the moment when we should be coming out of COVID with music festivals and people gathering, a lot of economic activity," he told The Associated Press.

Beyond the immediate fallout, the fight also added to a disconnect between Georgia's heavily Democratic capital city and the GOP-controlled state Legislature that has recently expanded gun rights and restricted abortion and voting access. State leaders butted heads with huge Atlanta-based firms Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola over the voting changes, which the companies called unacceptable.

Live Nation did not respond to emails about the cancellation of Music Midtown. The festivals website cited circumstances beyond our control, but no one from the company has publicly blamed the state's gun laws.

Phillip Evans, a gun rights activist whod previously sued the Atlanta Botanical Garden over its gun-free policy, has said he had warned Music Midtown organizers that their policy of banning guns was contrary to state law. Evans' suit prompted the 2019 state Supreme Court ruling that said private companies with a certain type of lease on public land could not ban guns.

Live Nation planned to host the festival at Piedmont Park public land where the festival had been held each year since 2011, with the coronavirus-related exception of 2020. And it almost certainly fell into the leasing category that would make a ban on guns illegal.

In terms of Music Midtown, its virtually a no-brainer that they cant ban guns there, said John Monroe, an attorney who represented a gun rights group in the case before the state Supreme Court.

Cancelling the event over the gun law would make sense from Live Nation's perspective, said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University.

A mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas in 2017 that claimed more than 50 lives cost MGM Resorts International the owner of the concert venue and its insurers $800 million in legal claims. With no restriction on guns, Live Nation was looking at potentially astronomical liability exposure at Music Midtown, Lytton said.

The cancellation was a blow to Georgia's economy and local businesses.

Abrams said in a statement that Kemp cares more about protecting dangerous people carrying guns in public than saving jobs and keeping business in Georgia," and her campaign released an attack ad this week focused on the cancellation. Democrats in other states also weighed in.

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak tweeted, Here in Nevada, we believe in common sense gun safety and protecting our reproductive rights. @MusicMidtown, we would love to have you in the Silver state! North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper also invited Music Midtown to his state.

Kemp accused Abrams and other Democrats of pushing critical narratives of Georgias firearms landscape to distract from inflation that he blames on the partys policies.

Georgia also recently took fire from Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom over a state law banning most abortions once fetal cardiac activity is present. The law took effect last month.

Newsom released an ad in the entertainment magazine Variety last week urging film companies to end production in states, including Georgia, that he accused of a cruel assault on essential rights." State tax credits have made Georgia a major destination for film production.

Kemp told reporters last week that he wasnt worried about attempts by Democratic governors, including in California, to lure business away from Georgia.

You check the gas prices in those states lately? Kemp said, citing strong industrial development, tourism and film figures in Georgia.

Gun rights advocates have identified at least one other music venue in Atlanta that they say could be in violation of the 2014 gun law Chastain Park, which features an amphitheater nestled inside a wealthy residential neighborhood and prohibits weapons at shows.

But the activists say they are not looking to shut down events, just protect themselves.

If Im going somewhere in a big crowd, I want to be able to carry my firearm," said Jerry Henry, executive director of Georgia Second Amendment. "I will assure you there will be criminals out there.

Associated Press writers Jeff Amy and Bill Barrow contributed to this report.

Read the original here:

Cancellation of Atlanta festival sparks new fight over guns - ABC News