Category Archives: Censorship

The social media giants Facebook and Twitter on Tuesday censored President Trump's post and tweet, comparing COVID-19 and the flu.

Facebook removed Trump's post in which he claimed COVID-19 is less deadly "in most populations" than the flu.

The President wrote on Twitter: "Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu. Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!"

Twitter left the President's tweet in place, but added the following disclaimer:

"This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public's interest for the Tweet to remain accessible," the disclaimer read.

Axios reports Facebook has been criticized for not removing posts that violate community guidelines in a timely manner, yet the company took swift action when Trump posted information about the virus that "could contribute to imminent physical harm." Twitter took action about 30 minutes later.

A Facebook spokesperson told Axios, "We remove incorrect information about the severity of COVID-19, and have now removed this post."

A Twitter spokesman also told the website: "We placed a public interest notice on this Tweet for violating our COVID-19 Misleading Information Policy by making misleading health claims about COVID-19. As is standard with this public interest notice, engagements with the Tweet will be significantly limited."

The President's social media posts came after he tested positive for COVID-19 and spent three days at the Walter Reed Medical Center. While reportedly still contagious, he will continue his recovery at the White House, where he will be cared for 24/7 by a team of doctors and nurses.

Out of 7.4 million cases in the US, COVID-19 has killed almost 210,000 Americans this year, according to the CDC. For comparison, the CDC's website estimates 24,000 to 62,000 have died during the most recent flu season, out of 39 million to 56 million people who were sick from it.

STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE CBN NEWS APP!Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Live Events!

More here:
Facebook, Twitter Censor Trump Post Comparing COVID with the Flu - CBN News

Factually is a newsletter about fact-checking and accountability journalism, from Poynters International Fact-Checking Network & the American Press Institutes Accountability Project. Sign up here

The major social media platforms arent always in lockstep on what content they moderate. But this week, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube were all on the same page in blocking a video of a group called Americas Frontline Doctors touting the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19, contrary to scientific evidence. One of the doctors said you dont need masks to halt the spread of the virus.

By now, the story of the video is well known the retweets by President Donald Trump and his son, the fact-checks that followed, and the bizarre beliefs of one of the doctors involved, Stella Immanuel.

What happened in the days after that, though, is key in understanding the methods and tactics of people who push unproven cures and other falsehoods and then have their content blocked: The blocking itself and the claims of censorship that follow become part of the attempt to get attention.

The day after the video of their Washington press conference was removed, the white-coated doctors were out again talking about the same messages, but with an added angle: They were being silenced.

Were coming after you Big Tech, were coming after you, said Simone Gold, one of the doctors leading the effort. We wont be silenced,

The censorship message then took off among the doctors supporters on Twitter and other platforms.

This is a common tactic among groups that champion unconventional messages. The censorship claim becomes central to their efforts to control the narrative, said Aimee Rinehart, U.S. deputy director of the nonprofit organization First Draft, which fights disinformation.

Cries that Big Tech is censoring us! become part of the attention grab, she said, even though the platforms are clear that they will only remove content that spreads false information about the coronavirus or messages that suppress the vote.

The doctors events were also held the same week that the CEOs of Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple (Twitter was not among them) were testifying before a House subcommittee, which is probing the power of the tech companies. So it was convenient timing for the doctors, since there was a good chance that the platforms decision to take down the video would come up in the hearing, and it did.

In short, the doctors were successful in inserting their cause into the hearing, in effect, using the platforms content moderation decision to extend what might otherwise have been written off as a one-news-cycle fringe event.

Susan Benkelman, API

This week, Brazillian fact-checking organizations Agncia Lupa and Aos Fatos debunked a claim that citrus fruit peels contain the same basic ingredients as chloroquine and ivermectin.

Chloroquine has been shown to be ineffective at treating COVID-19 according to studies by both the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ivermectin, a medicine used to treat heartworm in animals and roundworm in humans, has shown some promise in early studies to treat COVID-19, but has not been properly vetted and approved to treat the disease.

Both fact-checkers talked to experts who explained both chloroquine and ivermectin are created through combining other chemicals in laboratory settings. They do not exist in citrus fruit peels. Both also noted misinformation about using citrus to treat COVID-19 is not new, and put this latest hoax in that context.

What we liked: This is a unique fact-check that builds on the work fact-checkers have been doing throughout the infodemic. It reiterates the current scientific understanding about the efficacy of chloroquine, and recognizes the trope of citrus fruits being used to treat COVID-19. This falsehood is a combination of those two narratives, and Aos Fatos and Agncia Lupa unpack that for their readers.

Harrison Mantas, IFCN

Thats it for this week! Feel free to send feedback and suggestions to factually@poynter.org. And if this newsletter was forwarded to you, or if youre reading it on the web, you can subscribe here. Thanks for reading.

Susan and Harrison

Here is the original post:
Doctors' cries of censorship become part of their message - Poynter

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law on "Online Platforms and Market Power" in the Rayburn House office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on July 29, 2020.

Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

The House Judiciary Committee held an antitrust hearing on Wednesday with the CEOs of four of the largest U.S. technology companies Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google to determine whether they have grown too large (i.e., are "too successful"), and therefore, should be broken up.

Democrats on the Committee suggested that these companies' success threatens the free market and even democracy itself. Numerous Republicans raised concerns about their alleged political bias as well as their size.

Meanwhile, in China, the government is taking an opposite course. Instead of attacking its "national champions," China is showering them with government subsidies and discriminating against "would-be" competitors to great effect.

Ten years ago, nearly all of the top technology companies and start-ups in the world were American. Now, China has nine of the top 20 technology companies and four of the top 10 start-ups. And this trend appears likely to continue.

China recently passed the United States in the number of global patent applications and is on track to eclipse U.S. research and development spending in the next two years, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

As policymakers on the Right and Left increasingly proclaim the importance of out-innovating China in critical technologies, their comments during yesterday's hearing raise an important question which companies will they actually let play that role?

Ten years ago, nearly all of the top technology companies and start-ups in the world were American. Now, China has nine of the top 20 technology companies and four of the top 10 start-ups. And this trend appears likely to continue.

Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are not the only important U.S. technology companies, but they spend a disproportionate amount on research and development in key areas like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and robotics. They are also leaders on privacy and security technology, an area where China poses a particular threat, and they provide communication alternatives to less secure Chinese competitors. Mere search engines and social networks they are not.

Moreover, all four companies are uniquely American. They were built from the ground up by hard-working middle-class entrepreneurs, they revolutionized their industries, and they provide platforms to expand American influence and ideals like free speech around the world.

So rather than tear down our most innovative and most American of companies, let's build them up and others like them to stay ahead of China. How to begin?

First, let's stop attacking success to score political points. Policymakers should always question potential monopolistic behavior and make sure that a diversity of opinions are allowed to thrive online, but much of Big Tech's recent scrutiny appears populist in nature either intended to bolster "anti-corporate" credentials or to admonish the political views of their CEOs and employees.

The consequences of this "loose talk" is real it threatens American jobs at these companies, discourages other would-be risk-takers from setting out on new ventures, and provides cover for other countries to target U.S. business. After all, if U.S. policymakers are attacking Big Tech, why shouldn't their counterparts in China and Europe do the same? Instead of needlessly hurting our most innovative companies, let's champion their ingenuity and encourage others to replicate it.

Second, let's use the size of these companies and the unique skill sets of their workers to the government's advantage. Let's harness their cross-cutting strengths through public-private partnerships and joint R&D programs in critical technologies so the United States (and the U.S. military) remains the global leader. When policymakers consider their options for a modern U.S. industrial policy, working with and further strengthening these American champions is exactly what they should be doing.

Third, let's tread carefully when it comes to circumscribing the activities of these and other U.S. companies abroad. There are areas where our companies should not be permitted to engage, such as helping China improve its military capability. But one of the best ways for America to stay ahead of its global competition is for our companies to sell more in markets like China so they can spend more on innovation in the United States.

Fourth, let's forcefully back these companies against unfair practices abroad, whether it be unacceptable pressure from China to censor their activities or opportunistic targeting from France for tax revenue. Such pressure is very difficult for companies to combat alone, and they shouldn't be criticized for trying. Rather, the U.S. government should stand by their side and help them to compete fairly in these crucial markets, not encourage them to disengage.

Finally, as we continue to push back against the unfair practices of others, let's not emulate them ourselves. Censorship and higher taxes are not the way to create more Apples, Amazons, Facebooks, and Googles. And using anti-trust tools for political purposes a trick right out of the Chinese playbook will certainly not help win the defining global competition of our time.

Clete Willems is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council (2018-2019), and proudly represents innovative U.S. tech companies.

More:
Op-ed: Censorship and higher taxes won't create more Apples, Amazons, Facebooks and Googles - CNBC

SALT LAKE CITY Sen. Mike Lee used his new Parler account to tout the fight hes picking with Google, Facebook, Twitter and Squarespace over how each internet platform moderates content in general, and potentially targets conservative voices

Somehow, Im willing to be(t) this will get more likes and shares on Parer (sic) than it will on Facebook and Twitter combined. In any event, I picked a big fight today with Google, Facebook, and Twitter, Lee posted to his @SenMikeLee Parler account Thursday evening.

Parler has emerged as the social media darling of some conservative U.S. politicians and commentators, and Lee has even worked to pump up the platform by issuing an invitation to President Donald Trump to join the party. Ironically, that invitation was proffered on Twitter, where the president enjoys a follower list north of 80 million accounts.

Not surprisingly, Parler was not one of the addressees of Lees letter Thursday that instead went to the CEOs of Google, Facebook, Twitter and Squarespace.

Lee, who earlier this week announced the Senate antitrust committee he chairs will host a hearing focused on Google and its online advertising practices, said he is most concerned with company conduct he believes is based on political bias rather than consistent, across-the-board content policies.

I am specifically concerned about corporations wielding their power unilaterally to silence opinions they dislike, and thus warp the public debates their platforms present to the American people, Lee wrote. In recent years, conservative voices like The Federalist, PragerU, President Trump, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, Jr., churches, religious groups, Christian schools and others have found themselves deplatformed, demonetized or otherwise penalized for expressing their opinions.

Lees concerns mirror some lines of questioning that arose during a House antitrust hearing this week that featured the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google.

During that virtual hearing, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio reeled off a list of instances of purported censoring of, or content warnings issued to, conservative social media posters.

Jordan accused the group of tech executives of selectively censoring those expressing politically conservative opinions and cautioned them that If it doesnt end, there have to be consequences.

Lee issued his own admonishment of big tech companies and the power he says theyre using inappropriately.

I view your heavy-handed censorship as a sign of exactly the sort of degraded quality one expects from a monopolist, Lee wrote. In any other business you would never dream of treating your customers the way you treat those with views you dont like.

In another Parler post on Thursday evening, Utahs senior senator linked to a story posted by right-wing website Breitbart News claiming Google has been censoring the outlets content from search results since the 2016 election. Attached to the post was Lees comment, This is not ok, and it has to stop.

In his letter, Lee also called out tech leaders for their roles in taking down video content that circulated earlier this week that showed what was characterized as a press conference by a group calling itself Americas Frontline Doctors.

CNN reported that the video, which had not been viewed by the Deseret News, was published by Breitbart News and included a quote from a woman claiming to be a doctor who said This virus has a cure, its called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax, and You dont need masks, there is a cure.

Lee declined to take a position on the content of the video, but said he supported a social media arena of open dialogue.

While Im not in a position to endorse or refute any of the doctors comments, I believe that we should err on the side of encouraging more speech, not less, Lee wrote.

The heart of the letter goes to 11 questions seeking details of how each of the platforms manages content moderation in the stipulated areas of COVID-19; violent riots and how they are distinguished from peaceful protests; hate speech; protections of the unborn; misinformation; and terrorist influence.

The questions include how content standards are established, the scope of processes designed to screen moderators for bias, whether user consent about content moderation is appropriately established, if platforms coordinate with each other on content moderation and other issues.

Deseret News requests for comment via email and social media direct messaging to Google, Facebook, Twitter and Squarespace were not immediately responded to.

See the rest here:
Lee says Google, Facebook and Twitter are censoring conservative voices - Deseret News

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos the world's richest man, making his long-awaited first-ever appearance before a congressional hearing faced no questions at all for nearly two hours, before offering an inconclusive answer on whether the company uses data to undermine its third-party merchants. Amazon is still facing allegations that one of its executives misled Congress about that same issue last year.

The virtual testimony comes at a time of rising legal jeopardy for the major tech companies, who are the subject of antitrust and consumer-protection probes in Washington, multiple U.S. states and Europe.

Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) set the tone early, with an opening statement vowing to check the power of the "emperors of the online economy." But so did Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the full Judiciary panel, who laid out a long series of alleged slights against conservatives by top social media companies and later got into a shouting match after a Democrat accused him of promoting fringe conspiracy theories.

See live highlights from the hearing below.

Amazon is making more money from sellers fees because more third-party sellers are using its services, CEO Jeff Bezos told lawmakers, countering the idea that his company is unfairly profiting from the merchants.

But the Amazon CEO acknowledged that the marketplace algorithm may indirectly favor those who pay the company to fulfill orders.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) cited a new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance that found Amazon brought in nearly $60 billion from seller fees last year 21 percent of Amazons total revenue and that the e-commerce giant keeps about 30 percent of each sale. That amount is up from 19 percent of each sale five years ago.

Bezos said the increased amount is because sellers are spending more money with Amazon by using additional services such as Fulfillment by Amazon, where the company stores and ships products on behalf of third-party sellers.

When you see these fees going up, sellers are choosing to use more of our services we make available, he said. Previously they were shipping their own products from their own fulfillment centers so they would have had costs doing that. Now they are doing that through Fulfilment by Amazon.

Bezos also acknowledged that the Buy Box which preselects the seller for when a user clicks on a product indirectly favors sellers who use the Fulfilled by Amazon services.

Indirectly, I think the Buy Box does favor products that can be shipped with Prime, he said. The Buy Box is trying to pick the offer that we predict the customer would most like. That includes price, that includes delivery speed, and if youre a Prime member, it includes whether the item is eligible for Prime."

In response to questions from Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ill.) about stolen and counterfeit goods, Bezos said he believes that Amazon requires sellers to provide a real name and address, but wasnt sure whether a phone number is required. He also said he didnt know how many resources Amazon devotes to seller verification.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos took a rare swipe against a core feature of his Silicon Valley competitors late in todays hearing, singling out social media as destructive for free expression.

What I find a little discouraging is that it appears to me that social media is a nuance destruction machine, Bezos said. And I dont think thats helpful for a democracy.

Bezos offered his critique while testifying by videoconference, alongside the head of social media giant Facebook.

He was responding to House Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who was invoking the idea of cancel culture and the notion of online mobs that shout down unfashionable opinions. The lawmaker was assessing whether lawmakers were concerned about the polarizing idea, which some question as overblown.

I am concerned in general about that, Bezos told Jordan.

Other tech CEOs also appeared sympathetic to Jordans cancel culture worries.

Apple CEO Tim Cook noted he wasnt all the way up to speed on the idea but expressed concern: If youre about where somebody with a different point of view talks, and theyre canceled, I dont think thats good. I think its good for people to hear from different points of view and decide for themselves.

Im very worried about some of the forces of illiberalism that I see in this country that are pushing against free expression, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Jordan, without identifying specifics.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai simply noted the interest in building platforms to allow freedom of expression. John Hendel

The Chinese government steals U.S. technologies, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said making him the only one of the four tech CEOs willing to say that plainly in response to a question from Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.).

I think its well-documented that the Chinese government steals technology from American companies, Zuckerberg said.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he had no personal knowledge about Chinese technology theft.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai initially followed Cooks line, but later corrected the record to confirm that in 2009 China stole Google information in a well-publicized cyberattack.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who answered last, acknowledged that he had read many reports about technology theft by Beijing, but had no first-hand experience beyond knock-off products sold on Amazon.

All four CEOs passed on the opportunity to suggest how Congress could better help defend U.S. companies abroad, against either technology theft or excessive regulation. Leah Nylen and Ryan Heath

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who heads the Houses probe into tech giants, accused Facebook of tolerating a fountain of misinformation that benefits the companys engagement-driven business model even on topics as deadly as the coronavirus.

Theres no competition forcing you to police your own platform, the House antitrust subcommittee chairman told CEO Mark Zuckerberg. During the greatest public health crisis of our lifetime, dont you agree that these articles viewed by millions on your platform will cost lives?

The lawmaker cited articles that drew millions of views on sites like Facebook while making claims about Covid-19, including those describing President Donald Trumps musings about placing disinfectants inside the body or allegations that coronavirus hype is a political hoax.

Cicilline said Facebook allows such content to reap advertising dollars. But Zuckerberg countered that this kind of noxious material is not helpful for our business.

It is not what people want to see, and we rank what we show in Feed based on what is going to be most meaningful to people and what is going to create long-term satisfaction, Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg defended Facebooks policy of taking down bogus information that could cause imminent harm and its attempt to highlight authoritative guidance. But Cicilline brought up a Monday video from the conservative website Breitbart, which dismissed the necessity of masks and called hydroxychloroquine a Covid-19 cure and which experienced soaring Facebook traffic over several hours before Facebook removed it.

A lot of people shared that, Zuckerberg said. And we did take it down because it violates our policies.

After 20 million people saw it after a period of five hours? Cicilline countered. Doesnt that suggest, Mr. Zuckerberg, that your platform is so big that even with the right policies in place, you cant contain deadly content? John Hendel

Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks via video conference during the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law hearing. | Graeme Jennings/Getty Images

Apple didnt consider the impact on its own parental control app when it removed some of the most popular apps that limit screentime from its App Store, CEO Tim Cook told lawmakers.

Apple introduced its own Screen Time app, which allows parents to limit how much time kids spend on their phones, in September 2018. After that, the company removed a number of competing apps. Qustodio and Kidslox, two of the leading parental control apps, have filed a complaint with the European Commission about their removal.

Cook said Apple removed the apps because of privacy concerns.

We were worried about the safety of kids, Cook said in response to questions by Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.).

Demings asked Cook why the company removed many of the most popular screentime apps but not Absher, an app created by the Saudi Arabian government that uses the same technology.

It sounds like you applied different rules to the same apps, Demings said.

Cook said he wasnt familiar with Absher, but said the App Store has about 30 parental control apps after it changed its policy last year. Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who returned to the issue later in the hearing, noted that Apple eventually allowed the apps back into the App Store after six months without requiring major changes.

We apply the rules to all developers equally, Cook said. I see Screen Time as just an alternative. Theres vibrant competition for parental controls out there. Leah Nylen

Facebook has certainly adapted features from competing services, CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged Wednesday, but he denied it has threatened to copy start-ups if they wouldnt sell to his company.

But Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) expressed skepticism about his answer, reading from text messages between Zuckerberg and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom and messages between Systrom and a venture capitalist. She asked Zuckerberg whether he threatened Systrom and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel by saying he would clone their products if they didnt sell to Facebook. The company bought Instagram in 2012, but Snap rebuffed offers to sell to the social network.

The House subcommittee also posted those documents to its website Wednesday.

Im not sure what you would mean by threaten, Zuckerberg said, referring to the companys effort to build an app called Facebook Camera. It was public we were building a camera app at the time. That was a well-documented thing.

It was clear this was a space we were going to compete in one way or another, he said. I dont think those are a threat in any way.

Jayapal reminded Zuckerberg he was under oath while testifying.

In closing her questioning, Jayapal said she didnt believe threats should be a normal business practice.

Facebook is a case study in monopoly power, in my opinion, because your company harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on your competitors and copy, acquire and kill rivals, she said. Youve used Facebooks power to threaten smaller competitors and ensure you always get your way. These tactics reinforce Facebooks dominance. Leah Nylen

House Judiciary Democrats lost a big potential GOP ally if they had any hopes of bipartisan recommendations to update antitrust law as part of their probe into tech giants.

I have reached the conclusion that we do not need to change our antitrust laws, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the antitrust subcommittee, said hours into the hearing on alleged bad behavior by Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook. Theyve been working just fine. The question here is the question of enforcement of those antitrust laws.

The subcommittees probe has been led by Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who has been preparing a report to conclude the long investigation. GOP buy-in would strongly bolster its conclusions, including potential recommendations for updates to antitrust law.

Notably, Sensenbrenner seemed to support the probe itself and said hes been working with the chairman for over a year on this bipartisan investigation. His support runs counter to some Republicans who have disparaged Democratic handling of the probe.

But Congress shouldnt toss out a century of precedent, added the retiring House Republican. He said lawmakers should instead pressure antitrust regulators like the Federal Trade Commission, an agency that has faced accusations of going lightly on companies like Facebook and Google. John Hendel

Tempers flared more than two hours into the hearing after Rep. Mary Scanlon (D-Pa.) began her questioning with a dismissal of what she called fringe conspiracy theories of House Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

That prompted an outburst from Jordan, who had just pressed Google on whether its biased toward Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and said he had internal evidence of the search giants interest in encouraging Latino voters in 2016.

The only problem: It was no longer Jordans time to speak, as Democrats immediately reminded him as they shouted him down.

Mr. Jordan, you do not have the time! antitrust subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) declared amid gavel slamming.

When someone told him to wear a mask, Jordan sought to bring up the unmasking in the surveillance sense of former Trump White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.

When someone comes after my motives for asking questions, I get a chance to respond, Jordan said before letting the hearing proceed.

For the record, Google CEO Sundar Pichai maintained that his company is apolitical. John Hendel

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said the company is still investigating whether employees may have used data it acquires from its third-party sellers to launch competing products an issue that has prompted allegations that the company misled House lawmakers a year ago.

We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business. I cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated, Bezos said in response to questions from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose district includes Amazon headquarters. If we found someone violated the policy, we would take action against them.

The Wall Street Journal reported this year that Amazon employees frequently looked at seller data to help determine what products the company should offer, contrary to what an Amazon executive told the House a year ago. Jayapal also quoted a former Amazon employee as telling the panel that seller data is a candy shop. Everyone can have access to anything they want.

Bezos also acknowledged that while company policy might prevent employees from looking at a specific sellers information, they could look at aggregate data. Jayapal and The Wall Street Journal story noted that Amazon workers took advantage of that by pairing a successful seller with one who had little business to gain insights into particular products.

You have access to data that other sellers do not have, Jayapal said. The whole goal of this committees work is to make sure that there are more Amazons, that there are more Apples, that there are more companies that get to innovate and small businesses get to thrive. ...That is why we need to regulate these marketplaces so that no company has a platform so dominant that it is essentially a monopoly. Leah Nylen

The first batch of questions saw the CEOs collectively struggle to directly answer lawmakers, who came armed with well-researched questions and strong opinions a shift in gear from previous congressional tech hearings.

The one exception was Jeff Bezos, who escaped all questions for the first hour.

As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his companys management of Instagram, citing the Federal Trade Commissions original decision not to challenge the companys 2012 merger with Instagram, hearing chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) dismissed Zuckerberg, saying the failures of the FTC in 2012 do not alleviate Facebooks current antitrust challenges.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai tried to fend off questions by citing examples of individual vendors using Google to grow their business, before Cicilline cut him off for not answering the question.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) reeled off a list of possible links and alignment between Google and the Chinese Communist Party, leaving Pichai to say only that Google had only a very limited presence in China. He repeated that answer to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who repeated charges by tech investor Peter Thiel that Googles China links are treason, and concerns from Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said in 2018 that Googles artificial intelligence work in China puts the U.S. military at a competitive disadvantage. Ryan Heath

Apple CEO Tim Cook rejected allegations that the companys App Store rules for developers are enforced arbitrarily and argued that the company must compete with rivals to interest developers in building apps for its iPhone and iPad.

We treat every developer the same. We have open and transparent rules, Cook said under questioning from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). Those rules apply evenly to everyone.

Cook said the majority of apps sold through the App Store, 84 percent, pay no fees. The remainder pay either a 30 percent or 15 percent commission, he said.

Johnson noted that Amazon has an agreement with Apple to allow users to bypass the iPhones in-app payment service, and its 30 percent fee, and instead use the credit card on file in their Amazon account for the Amazon Prime Video app. Cook said that would be available to anyone meeting the conditions, though he didnt outline what those conditions are.

The Apple CEO also argued that the company must compete to attract developers, who could offer apps for Googles Android, Microsofts Windows or XBox or Nintendos Playstation.

Theres a competition for developers just like theres a competition for customers, Cook said. Its so competitive I would describe it as a street fight for market share in the smartphone business. Leah Nylen

Were starting to see some fruits of the subcommittees year-plus investigation, and its got Zuckerberg on the defensive.

The Facebook CEO and New York Democrat Jerry Nadler went back and forth over internal company emails in which, Nadler said, Zuckerberg told a colleague back in 2012 that it was buying the photo-sharing Instagram because it could meaningfully hurt us without becoming a huge business.

Zuckerbergs thinking at the time could become a critical piece of evidence if it bolsters the idea that Facebook was abusing its dominance and deep coffers to eliminate budding rivals. Facebooks buying up of Instagram has become a key focus for critics of the company, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others saying the deal should be unwound. Thats a threat for Facebook: Instagram has become wildly popular in its own right, and is central to Zuckerbergs plan to keep a toe hold with younger generations who are otherwise flocking to sites like TikTok.

Did you mean that consumers might switch from Facebook to Instagram? Nadler asked.

Congressman, started Zuckerberg, attempting to make the case that no one at the time saw Instagram has a general social network app, rather than a really good photo-sharing app. Nadler pressed on: Yes or no: Did you mean that?

Then Nadler went for the kill, asking what Zuckerberg meant when he wrote that what were really buying is time, adding, Mr. Zuckerberg: Mergers and acquisitions that buy off potential competitive threats violate the antitrust laws.

Zuckerberg tried again, insisting that the Federal Trade Commission knew how Facebook was thinking about Instagram back when it signed off on the merger almost a decade ago. Thats when antitrust subcommittee David Cicilline (D-R.I.) jumped in: I would remind the witness that the failures of the FTC in 2012 of course do not alleviate the antitrust challenges that the chairman described.

Translation: Dont think this is over just because that agency down the road said it was.Nancy Scola

A top House Republican used his questioning to press Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a recent content moderation squabble involving Donald Trump Jr., the presidents son, with Twitter.

It was reported that Donald Trump Jr. got taken down for a period of time because he put something up on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. Although Sensenbrenner said he wouldnt take the medication, the lawmaker said, I think this is a legitimate matter of discussion.

Why has that happened? Sensenbrenner asked Zuckerberg.

Congressman, first, to be clear, I think what you might be referring to happened on Twitter, so its hard for me to speak to that, the Facebook CEO said. But I can talk to our policies about this.

Zuckerberg said Facebook would take down any claim a proven cure for Covid-19 exists when there is none, given the potential imminent risk for harm, although he said the social platform would allow free discussion about drug trials and what people may think more generally about a treatments prospects.

Our goal is to offer a platform for all ideas, Zuckerberg told Sensebrenner. Frankly I think weve distinguished ourselves as one of the companies that defends free expression the most. John Hendel

Google CEO Sundar Pichai denied that the search giant steals content from other websites and rejected reports alleging that the company steers users to its own products and sites rather than sources elsewhere on the web.

We have always focused on providing users the most relevant information, Pichai said in response to pointed questions from House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee chair David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who said the panel had seen evidence about Google taking content from other websites and placing more ads on its search results. The vast majority of queries on Google, we dont show ads at all.

Cicilline cited an investigation by The Markup that showed Google has devoted more space on the first page of search results to its own products -- which earn the company more revenue that if users go to other webpages. Pichai said that Google only shows ads when consumers are seeking to buy products and argued that they compete with other e-commerce platforms, like Amazon, where consumers often go directly to try to find products.

When I run the company Im really focused on giving users what they want, Pichai said. We see vigorous competition, whether it be travel or real estate, and we are working hard to innovate.

The Federal Trade Commissions investigation into Google in the early 2010s found Google scraped content from other websites, including Yelp and TripAdvisor. The company agreed to allow other companies to opt out of having their content scraped through 2017. Leah Nylen

One surprise so far in the hearing: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who generally likes to stick fairly religiously to a script in his public appearances, went far afield from his written testimony including strongly arguing that his 2-billion-member social network is an underdog when you look at the behemoths hes testifying alongside.

Follow this link:
Theft, censorship and the emperors of the online economy: Tech CEOs go on defense - POLITICO

Peter Olson,Goonengerry

It is one thing to have social distancing, but it is another thing altogether, to unjustly inflict total media censorship, in the very mistaken belief, that doing so will save lives or prevent rioting: quite the opposite is the actual case.

The elimination of freedom of speech, under the pretext of protecting people from the new virus, is a clear sign of tyranny being imposed.If invaders had come to bring tyranny through a military invasion, thousands would fight for freedom, but when such tyranny comes in the disguise of public health, no one even notices.

The elimination of evidence-based, rational and reasonable dialogue, solely on the grounds it conflicts with the official government narrative, is not in the public interest. At the first sign of infection, democratic power was rapidly transferred from those elected, to unelected health professionals, who have substantial financial conflicts of interest: trillions of dollars are at stake in expensive drug treatments.

At the event 201 rehearsal of this pandemic (on YouTube), they said the government should suppress all conflicting views; that has now happened. We could have this medical tyranny for the next 20 years will we ever have freedom of speech again?

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week or maybe more we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.

Read more from the original source:
Censorship and the pandemic - Echonetdaily

By its own admission, Facebook has nearly 2.5 billion active users, so its clear that it serves the entire world, rather than just the US market.

Yet during a global crisis and turmoil such as the multi-month coronavirus pandemic the way it dishes out coronavirus disinformation censorship, Facebook went with imposing the rules of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on its users.

The CDCs position, for example, is that hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treatment of Covid-19 patients. Facebook and other social media giants dutifully follow this line, regardless of the fact that many countries are already officially using and recommending hydroxychloroquine as efficient medicine.

This could easily be seen as a case of digital imperialism, where these corporations give themselves the right to impose one countrys agencys rules onto the rest of the world. All the more so, since a recent study by Sermo a global social network for physicians shows what the rest of the world is up to, in a bid to cure Covid patients.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

This company, that says it is the largest healthcare data collection, carried out a 3-day poll with participation of 6,200 physicians from 30 countries, to, among other things, find out that hydroxychloroquine is one of the three most commonly prescribed treatments for the disease (33%). Only analgesics (56%) and the drug Azithromycin (41%) are used more frequently overall, the study has shown.

It might seem strange to Americans, where the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine has been relegated to a hoax and even a conspiracy theory by mainstream media and Big Tech, that there are countries in the world like Spain and Italy among the hardest hit initially, but that, according to the study, seem to be doing well in this second coronavirus wave where hydroxychloroquine is by far the most used anti-Covid drug (72% and 49% respectively).

And while in the US giant social media are taking down content promoting this medication as dangerous disinformation the drug is among the most commonly prescribed (in double digits percentage-wise) in Mexico, Canada, Germany, France, and Brazil.

Not only that, but hydroxychloroquine has been overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters): 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the US, and 13% in the UK.

Read more here:
Facebook censors hydroxychloroquine praise, even in countries where its an official treatment - Reclaim The Net

Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and youll be hung out to dry.

The above is a quotation from George Orwells preface to Animal Farm, titled "The Freedom of the Press," where he discussed the chilling effect the Soviet Unions influence had on global publishing and debate far beyond the reach of its official censorship laws.

Wait, no it isnt. The quote is actually an excerpt from the resignation letter of New York Times opinion editor and writer Bari Weiss, penned this week, where she blows the whistle on the hostility toward intellectual diversity that now reigns supreme at the countrys most prominent newspaper.

A contrarian moderate but hardly right-wing in her politics, the journalist describes the outright harassment and cruelty she faced at the hands of her colleagues, to the point where she could no longer continue her work:

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how Im writing about the Jews again. Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly inclusive one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

Weisss letter reminds us of the crucial warning Orwell made in his time: To preserve a free and open society, legal protections from government censorship, while crucial, are not nearly enough.

To see why, simply consider the fate that has met Weiss and so many others in recent memory who dared cross the modern thought police. Here are just a few of the countless examples of cancel culture in action:

These are just a few examples of many. One important commonality to note is that none of these examples involve actual government censorship. Yet they still represent chilling crackdowns on free speech. As David French put it writing for The Dispatch, Cruelty bullies employers into firing employees. Cruelty bullies employees into leaving even when theyre not fired. Cruelty raises the cost of speaking the truth as best you see ituntil you find yourself choosing silence, mainly as a pain-avoidance mechanism.

These recent observations echo what Orwell warned of decades ago:

Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship... but the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the [government] or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

Similarly, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell noted in a 1922 speech It is clear that thought is not free if the professional of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.

Some might wonder why its really so important to protect speech and thought beyond the law. After all, if no ones going to jail over it, how serious can the consequences really be?

While understandable as an impulse, this logic misses the point. Free and open speech is the only way a society can, through trial and error, get closer to the truth over time. It was abolitionist Frederick Douglas who described free speech as the great moral renovator of society and government. What he meant was that only the free flow of open speech can challenge existing orthodoxies and evolve society. From womens suffrage to the civil rights movement, we never would have made so much progress on sexism and racism without the right to speak freely.

Silence enshrines the status quo. As John Stuart Mill put it:

If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

This great discovery process through free-flowing speech first and foremost requires a hands-off approach from the government, but it still cannot occur in a culture hostile to dissenting opinion and debate. When airing a differing view can get you mobbed or put your job in jeopardy, only societys most powerful or those whose views align with the current orthodoxy will be able to speak openly without fear.

Orwell and Russell were right then, even if were only fully realizing it now. Self-censorship driven by culture, not government, erodes our collective discovery of truth all the same.

See the rest here:
Why George Orwell's Quote on 'Self-Censorship' Is More Relevant Than Ever | Brad Polumbo - Foundation for Economic Education

SHANGHAI To protest censorship during the COVID-19 outbreak, a Chinese artist known as Brother Nut kept his mouth shut for 30 days, using metal clasps, gloves, duct tape and other items.

In the project #shutupfor30days he also sealed his mouth with packing tape with 404, the error code for a webpage not found, written across it, a nod to the blocking of online content that is common in China for sensitive issues.

If you ask me how an artist should digest unfair treatment, such as violence or censorship, my first reaction is: keep fighting, with art, said Brother Nut.

The 39-year-old artist has built a reputation for statement-making projects in a country where the room for dissent has shrunk and censorship has intensified under President Xi Jinping.

China faced a barrage of criticism over the virus that emerged late last year in Wuhan, from being slow to sound the alarm to the treatment of a doctor who tried to alert authorities about the outbreak but was reprimanded by police for spreading rumors.

The doctor, Li Wenliang, became a symbol of the outbreak in China and later died from coronavirus.

Sometimes I feel my job is similar to that of an NGO or a journalist seeking to raise awareness of social issues and the moves to counter them, said the soft-spoken, long-haired artist during an interview at a cafe in Shanghais M50 art district.

Brother Nuts previous performances include tugging a battery-powered vacuum cleaner around Beijing and creating a solid brick from polluted air.

In 2018, he invited a heavy metal band to play in a village polluted with heavy metals, prompting local environmental authorities to investigate the contamination.

To speak up for investors who lost their savings in a financial scam, Brother Nut staged a torch relay dubbed Good Luck Beijing, which in Chinese sounds similar to Beijing Olympics.

He was later detained for 10 days by police.

Threats and calls from police are commonplace, which he said makes him angry, rather than fearful, although he does not want his real name to be published.

Brother Nut acknowledged that during last months project to maintain silence, he sometimes spoke to himself while eating.

We need expressions of art whenever and wherever. Theyre like flowers growing in cracks and allow us to dance in the most desperate time, he said.

Go here to see the original:
Artist holds his tongue in protest of pandemic censorship in China - New York Post

Israel's fight against the second wave of the coronavirus is thoroughly out of control.

Regulations are pulled out of thin air (shutting restaurants only to open them again too late to save the ditched produce), there is no organized database upon which to make decisions, people are confused due to the clueless leadership, and above all there is dwindling public trust in the government.

At war: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud MK Yifat Shasha-Biton

(Photos: Adina Wellman and Alex Kolomoisky)

To those who are looking for political motive behind every struggle or argument, this is no longer about left or right, it is about life itself.

This theater of the absurd reached a crescendo on Saturday night, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to fire his own Likud party's head of the Knesset coronavirus committee, MK Yifat Shasha-Biton, after she made it clear she was not going to automatically agree to every government decision.

Finance Minister Israel Katz also decided to reprimand his ministry's director-general Karen Turner-Eyal after she defended the head of the budget department Shaul Meridor against social media attacks from Netanyahu and other Likud members.

Meridor came under fire for daring criticize Netanyahu and Katz's plan to distribute money "to everyone" as part of their financial aid program.

The prime minister's son Yair Netanyahu even went so far as to brand anyone at the Finance Ministry who thinks before automatically reciting his father's talking points as "terrorists."

Under fire: Shaul Meridor

(Photo: Rafi Kotz)

It is not for nothing that Turner-Eyal said the comments directed at her colleague Meridor were "extremely violent."

Shasha-Biton, Turner-Eyal and Meridor are people who decided as part of their job to voice their concerns and expert opinion on the government's decisions decisions which are often controversial or downright motivated by foreign interests and political schemes.

They refused to align themselves with the narrative imposed on them from above. Yes, such officials might be a bit more "courteous" and express their thoughts via channels other than social media.

But to go for their heads? Is that how the Israeli government plans to fight the coronavirus pandemic?

Finance Minister Israel Katz and Director-General Karen Turner-Eyal

(Photo: Orel Cohen)

The preoccupation with what Meridor says or what Turner-Eyal is is tweeting is characteristic of a leadership that does not know how to handle a crisis such as the coronavirus.

True, the fight against the contagion is a tough one. It is much easier to blame political rivals, threaten anyone who does not toe party line and pit one against the other.

The politicians and the financial experts who criticize the government's decisions and warn of ill-advised plans are those certain they are doing their jobs as part of the fight against the contagion.

You can criticize them or disagree with them, but that is not the issue.

The problem is that anyone who thinks differently is being figuratively burned at the stake.

With such an attitude, it will be impossible to defeat the coronavirus.

Read more:
Censorship in a time of coronavirus - Ynetnews