There's really no good reason why we should still be talking about Dave Chappelle's 2-week-old standup special The Closer. Except that Netflix employees have wielded it as means of inserting themselves into high-level company affairs, demanding that the company accede to their demands, seemingly as penance for its decision to platform Chappelle.

For people who have actually committed an hour of their time to watching the special, it's a stretch to portray Chappelle as a man with animus toward the trans community. He makes a point of opposing North Carolina's bathroom bills, which would bar transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice, saying that no American should have to show their birth certificate to take a shit in a Walmart bathroom (true). He attempts to delineate the difference between such mean-spirited laws and feeling annoyed by the quickly changing elite consensus that we must actively cheer on the transgender rights movement, as opposed to just not being all that interested in the demands of a niche subgroup. He closes with a tale of his friend, the transgender comic Daphne Dorman, who committed suicide purportedly after facing online fury from people in the trans community (though Chappelle takes care not to assign a singular cause to her decision to take her own life). The through line is a commentary on the plight of the black man in America, along with a lamentation that it's terribly easy for people to get barred from polite society, immediately and retroactively, for committing acts or uttering words that offend people's poorly-calibrated sensibilities.

The special is characteristically irreverentwhich you should expect if you've seen literally anything that Chappelle has ever worked on before. And it created such a firestorm of internal criticism that Netflix's trans employee resource group organized a walkout, which took place earlier today, while laying a list of demands at the feet of Netflix executives.

The walkout itself didn't amount to much (a not-huge crowd of Netflix employees, plus some counter protesters with cutely tepid signs like "We like Dave" and "I like jokes"), but Twitter really wanted users to believe it was a big deal, promoting the walkout as a trending moment. Several prominent actors and comedians, like Elliot Page and Wanda Sykes, drummed up support for the protest. The protesters' demands, which interestingly do not actually call for deplatforming Chappelle, involve specific asks: the company must add disclaimers before transphobic or hate speech-promoting content; suggest "trans-affirming" content alongside content deemed transphobic; "hire trans and non-binary content executives, especially BIPOC, in leading positions"; create a new fund that specifically cultivates and platforms work by trans and non-binary creators; and revise the processes involved in curating transphobic content. Having pried the door open, low-level transgender rights activist-employees are trying to force Netflix executives to engage in affirmative action and aggressive content moderation.

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, who had recently defended Chappelle in a letter to employees ("content on screen doesn't directly translate to real-world harm," he wrote) now says he miscalculated. "I should have led with a lot more humanity. I had a group of employees who were definitely feeling pain and hurt from a decision we made," he toldVariety. "Because we're trying to entertain the world, and the world is made up of folks with a lot of different sensibilities and beliefs and senses of humor and all those things sometimes, there will be things on Netflix that you dislike," Sarandos continued, saying they'll draw the line at content that calls for intentionally "physically harming other people" and hyping the company's "creative equity fund," which supports trans and non-binary content creators. Sarandos' did not reiterate his initial question of whether content that appears on screen will "directly translate to real-world harm."

It's good that Sarandos hasn't fully backed down from his defense of supplying artistic freedom to creators who partner with Netflix, and it's perfectly reasonable for CEOs to want to cultivate content that appeals to different subgroups. But he blundered by ceding ground to a small group of employees who are making radical demands concerning the structure and priorities of a massive company with customers all over the world. After initially defending a good decision, Sarandos looks a bit like another CEO in a long line whose employees successfully held their feet to the fire, demanding a digital world littered with content warnings and a physical world filled with diversity hires.

This moment of moral panic is predicated on the idea that portrayal or discussion of bad actions in some way leads more people to commit terrible acts that end up harming the physical safety of vulnerable people. We don't have good data to indicate this (except perhaps when it comes to portrayal of suicides, where data better bears out the idea of a contagion effect), but people uncritically fling this concept around, rarely pausing to ask whether Chappelle's jokes about trans people carry a radicalizing power that converts otherwise benevolent decent people into violent transphobes. We have no evidence to indicate they do, and for whatever reason, this essential question has been repeatedly pushed aside, as if it bears no relevance to how we should forge ahead.

Read this article:

Netflix CEO Apologizes for Having Principles

Former President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit in Florida seeking to force Twitter to reinstate him, arguing the platforms ban violates the First Amendment and Floridas new social media law.

Trump is seeking a preliminary injunction of Twitters ban, according to the complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida late Friday. The former president argues that Twitter, coerced by members of the United States Congress, is censoring him, describing the social media platform as a major avenue of public discourse. Trump seeks to be temporarily reinstated on Twitter while he continues his efforts toward permanent reinstatement.

Twitter exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate, the complaint states. The former president used his @RealDonaldTrump account to announce policy and personnel decisions (often to the surprise of the agencies and people involved), criticize political enemies, and spread misinformation about election results.

Twitter permanently banned @RealDonaldTrump in January, two days after the deadly January 6th riot at the Capitol building by pro-Trump supporters seeking to prevent the certification of Joe Bidens victory in the 2020 presidential election. Twitter at first put a 12-hour ban on the former presidents account for repeated and severe violations of our Civic Integrity policy after he posted tweets repeating lies that the election was stolen. The platform made the ban permanent two days later. Other social platforms, including Facebook, Snapchat and YouTube, also banned the former president after the January 6th riots. Facebooks Oversight Board later upheld that platforms decision.

In the Friday filing, Trump argues that his Twitter account became an important source of news and information about government affairs and was a digital town hall, where the former president posted his views. At the time of the ban, Trump had 88 million Twitter followers. Twitter also censored him during his presidency, Trump claims, by labeling some of his tweets as misleading information, which the platform said violated its rules against glorifying violence.

Trumps complaint also cites Floridas new social media law, which prohibits social media companies from knowingly deplatforming politicians, and requires the platforms to apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner. Trump argues that Twitter has not enforced its standards in a consistent manner. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law in May, but a federal judge blocked it in July before it could take effect. DeSantis administration is appealing that decision.

The former president also said Twitter applied its rules about COVID-19 posts inconsistently, to placate government actors who generally approved of the protests of the summer of 2020, but disapproved of the events of January 6. The media had claimed, Trump argues, that the January 6th riot was a source of COVID-19 infection, but the summer protests were not. Data from numerous reports found no increase in COVID-19 cases in cities where there were large protests in the summer of 2020, noting that outdoor masking at the events likely helped keep cases down.

Twitter declined to comment Saturday.

Read the rest here:

Trump sues to reinstate his Twitter account - The Verge

Short audio clip extracted from a recording

A sound bite or soundbite[1] is a short clip of speech or music extracted from a longer piece of audio, often used to promote or exemplify the full length piece. In the context of journalism, a sound bite is characterized by a short phrase or sentence that captures the essence of what the speaker was trying to say, and is used to summarize information and entice the reader or viewer. The term was coined by the U.S. media in the 1970s. Since then, politicians have increasingly employed sound bites to summarize their positions.

Due to its brevity, the sound bite often overshadows the broader context in which it was spoken, and can be misleading or inaccurate. The insertion of sound bites into news broadcasts or documentaries is open to manipulation, leading to conflict over journalistic ethics.

In the 1960s and 1970s, pressure from advertisers on the American television industry to create entertaining news material made sound bites central to political coverage. Politicians began to use PR techniques to craft self-images and slogans that would resonate with the television-viewing audience and ensure their victory in campaigns.[2] The term "sound bite" was coined in the late 1970s, several years before the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who was famous for short, memorable phrases like, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" in reference to the Berlin Wall.[3]

During the 1988 United States presidential election, candidate Michael Dukakis highlighted the prominent role of sound bites and spin doctors in political campaigns by running a commercial that mocked contender George H.W. Bush's handlers' frustration over the gaffes of his vice presidential running-mate Dan Quayle.[4]

In journalism, sound bites are used to summarize the position of the speaker, as well as to increase the interest of the reader or viewer in the piece. In both print and broadcast journalism, sound bites are conventionally juxtaposed and interspersed with commentary from the journalist to create a news story. A balanced news report is expected to contain sound bites representing both sides of the debate.[5] This technique, however, can lead to biased reporting when a sound bite is selected for sensationalism, or is used to promote the point of view of one individual or group over another.[6]

In his book The Sound Bite Society, Jeffrey Scheuer argues that the sound bite was the product of television's increased power over all forms of communication, and that the resulting trend toward short, catchy snippets of information had a significant negative impact on American political discourse.[7] In contrast, Peggy Noonan feels that sound bites have acquired a negative connotation but are not inherently negative, and that what we now think of as great historical sound bitessuch as "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", the most famous phrase in Franklin D. Roosevelt's first Inaugural Addresswere examples of eloquent speakers unselfconsciously and "simply trying in words to capture the essence of the thought they wished to communicate."[8]

The increased use of sound bites in news media has been criticized, and has led to discussions on journalistic and media ethics.[9] According to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, journalists should "make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."[10]

Despite this criticism, sound bites are widely employed by businesses, trade groups, labor unions and politicians. Senator Jim DeMint readily admitted this when he said, "Theres a reason why most politicians talk in sanitized sound bites: Once you get out of that, youre opening yourself up to get attacked."[11]

Read the original post:

Sound bite - Wikipedia

We are so sorry! We bumped into a system failure and couldnt take your email this time.

Thank you for signing up!

A Texas bill signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in September, which was designed to stop social media companies from censoring users based on their political "viewpoint," has been blocked by a federal judge a day before it was due to come into force.

In a filing submitted to an Austin, Texas district court, Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the bill called HB 20 would violate social media companies' First Amendment right to exercise editorial control over the content that appears on their platforms.

"HB 20 prohibits virtually all content moderation, the very tool that social medial platforms employ to make their platforms safe, useful, and enjoyable for users," the filing states.

HB 20 was due to come into force on Thursday.

Pitman's ruling came in response to a legal challenge by NetChoice and the CCIA, two industry groups whose members include Google, Amazon, Meta (formerly known as Facebook), and Twitter.

The CCIA said in a press release: "Today's outcome is not surprising. The First Amendment ensures that the Government can't force a citizen or company to be associated with a viewpoint they disapprove of, and that applies with particular force when a State law would prevent companies from enforcing policies against Nazi propaganda, hate speech, and disinformation from foreign agents."

A similar bill signed in Florida by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May was blocked by a federal judge in July, also citing First Amendment violations.

Abbott and DeSantis are among Republican lawmakers who say social media companies unfairly target conservative voices when enforcing their moderation rules. When he signed HB 20 in September, Gov. Abbott said: "There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values."

Former President Trump also accused social media companies of displaying a bias against conservative voices.

See the article here:

Judge Blocks Texas Bill That Aimed to Ban Social-Media 'Deplatforming' - Business Insider

While the Biden administration appears uninterested in combating online censorship, that doesnt mean conservatives are powerless to do anything about it. States can act, and they must if they hope to protect First Amendment freedoms.

Major technology companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google control most of the spread of information online. They openly use this power to suppress disfavored views. Big Tech deplatformed former President Donald Trump, suppressed reporting on Hunter Bidens laptop scandal, and prohibited posts speculating that COVID-19 escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. One poll found nearly half of the public knows someone who has been censored online. No wonder polling shows people overwhelmingly believe Big Tech companies are censoring their users.

These companies and their allies argue state governments have no power to prevent online censorship. They contend that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows them to remove any posts they want. Moreover, they argue First Amendment free speech rights allow them to pick and choose what content they will host on their platform.

These arguments persuaded conservative states such as North Dakota and Utah not to pass laws combating tech censorship. However, Big Tech overstates its case. States can and should protect free speech in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and Section 230.

It is true that the First Amendment generally prevents the government from forcing companies to transmit a specific message. But the government can require communications companies to serve everyone impartially. Common carrier regulations prohibit telephone companiesand telegraph lines before themfrom discriminating against particular users. The Supreme Court has long considered these requirements constitutional.

Imagine if your cellphone company cut your service because you were criticizing a particular politician. States can constitutionally prohibit such censorship. They can similarly stop Big Tech from discriminating against its users.

The Supreme Court has never interpreted the scope of the immunity Section 230 provides. It is true that some lower courts have interpreted the statute very broadly,reading it to protect virtually all decisions to restrict content. Other courts have paid closer attention to Section 230s statutory text. These courts interpret its immunity much more narrowly. Under these textual precedents, Section 230 only immunizes platforms that take down content in good faith. That allows states to pass laws against bad faith content moderation,such as selectively applying terms of service to suppress disfavored views. Until the Supreme Court clarifies this judicial debate, states have room to act, relying on the textual precedents.

Of course, Big Tech will likely sue over any new laws. Companies quickly sued Florida and Texas when those states passed social media free speech laws earlier this year. A Clinton-appointed judge enjoined the Florida law that ruling is under appeal while the Texas lawsuit is ongoing. Both cases underscore the importance for state legislators of drafting new laws carefully to maximize their odds of legal success.

The America First Policy Institute has produced model legislation that legislators can use to prevent Big Tech censorship. This proposal treats major social media companies as common carriers. It prohibits them from deplatforming users and requires them to moderate content in good faith; they cannot selectively apply their terms of service. It also prohibits platforms from discriminating against content based on its political, philosophical, or religious views. These common carrier regulations fit comfortably within the textual interpretation of Section 230.

The draft bill also contains a legal backstop. Some of the courts that interpret Section 230 broadly, including the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, nonetheless hold that, if a platform contractually commits to content moderation standards, that promise is legally enforceable.

So, the model legislation encourages the platforms to protect free speech in their terms of service. It imposes hefty, but not crushing, fees on big social media platforms that do not protect free speech. It then exempts platforms that incorporate the common carrier free speech protections into their terms of service. These terms of service would let users sue over violations. Courts that take a broad view of Section 230 may nonetheless enforce these contracts, thereby protecting free speech.

Moreover, this provision would be difficult to sue against. States have broad authority to tax, meaning that judges are unlikely to strike down the new fees. So, if a lawsuit struck down the exemption for noncensorious platforms, Big Tech would simply have to pay the fees.

Big Tech is deciding who can speak on the internet and what they can say. The public does not have to submit to this corporate censorship. States have the power to protect free speech. The only question is, will they?

JamesSherkis the director of the Center for American Freedom at the America First Policy Institute. He previously served as a special assistant to the president in the Domestic Policy Council at the White House during the Trump administration.

Continued here:

States are the last line of defense against Big Tech - Washington Examiner

Twitter announced a new set of rules on Tuesday that effectively bans the dissemination of memes and the mockery of public figures.

The changes come one day after Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey resigned to usher in a new era under free-speech foe and new CEO Parag Agrawal, who, while he served as Twitters chief technology officer, expressed disregard for the First Amendment.

Under the new Twitter policy, photos of public figures will be subject to removal based on the censorship platforms desires.

This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse, the policy states. However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.

Twitter clarified that exceptions would be made for content that you guessed it corrupt left-wing corporate media outlets deem acceptable.

We will always try to assess the context in which the content is shared and, in such cases, we may allow the images or videos to remain on the service. For instance, we would take into consideration whether the image is publicly available and/or is being covered by mainstream/traditional media (newspapers, TV channels, online news sites), or if a particular image and the accompanying tweet text adds value to the public discourse, is being shared in public interest, or is relevant to the community.

As some Twitter users pointed out, with this new policy, the Big Tech company has carved out a way to justify removing or banning any content it deems irrelevant and effectively solidifies Twitters role as a gatekeeper of information instead of the free-speech platform it once claimed to be.

These tactics have, of course, been used by Twitter in the past to justify stifling the spread of the Hunter Biden laptop story, subduing content about COVID-19 treatments and vaccine side effects, and intentionally deplatforming former President Donald Trump. But the updated policy suggests the Silicon Valley giants net is getting wider and seeks to stop even the smallest of accounts from sharing information that could damage Democrats or their propaganda narratives.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read the original:

Twitter's New Rule Lets It Selectively Ban Memes, Mockery Of Democrats - The Federalist