Category Archives: Transhuman News

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said governments wanting to censor social media platforms is not the right reflex.

Asked during an interview on Fox News about President Trumps plan to sign an executive order curbing the power of Twitter, Facebook and Google, Zuckerberg said it would depend on what the intent is.

But in general, I think a government choosing to censor a platform, because theyre worried about censorship doesnt exactly strike me as the right reflex there, he said in the interview that aired on Thursday.

The founder of the social media giant said such platforms strive for a balance: we try very hard to give people a voice, and we get a lot of criticism from some people who think that we censor too much.

Zuckerberg said his company cares deeply about giving people a voice and empowering individuals.

I dont think that you build a company that gives people a voice like this if you dont believe that individuals having a voice is a good thing, he said.

Zuckerberg said hes trying to give people a wide ability to express themselves, but warned that real harm can be done if its creating violence.

But broadly speaking, we try to give people as much latitude and having a voice as possible, he said.

Trump said hes preparing to sign an executive order on social media companies after Twitter added fact-checking links to two of his tweets claiming that allowing voting by mail would cause rampant fraud and result in a rigged election.

In an interview on MSNBC, Zuckerberg said he didnt think social media networks like Twitter should be fact-checking political speech.

I dont think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth, Zuckerberg said on Squawk Box.

Political speech is one of the most sensitive parts in a democracy, and people should be able to see what politicians say, he continued.

See more here:
Mark Zuckerberg says social media censorship not the 'right reflex' - New York Post

YouTube is automatically deleting comments that contain certain Chinese-language phrases related to criticism of the countrys ruling Communist Party (CCP). The company confirmed to The Verge this was happening in error and that its working to fix the issue.

Upon review by our teams, we have confirmed this was an error in our enforcement systems and we are working to fix it as quickly as possible, said a YouTube spokesperson. The company did not elaborate on how or why this error came to be, but said it was not the result of any change in its moderation policy.

But if the deletions are the result of a simple mistake, then its one thats gone unnoticed for six months. The Verge found evidence that comments were being deleted as early as October 2019, when the issue was raised on YouTubes official help pages and multiple users confirmed that they had experienced the same problem.

Comments left under videos or in live streams that contain the words (communist bandit) or (50-cent party) are automatically deleted in around 15 seconds, though their English language translations and Romanized Pinyin equivalents are not.

The term is an insult that dates back to Chinas Nationalist government, while , (or wu mao) is a derogatory slang term for internet users paid to direct online discussion away from criticism of the CCP. The name comes from claims that such commenters are paid 50 Chinese cents per post.

These phrases seem to have been accidentally added to YouTubes comment filters, which automatically remove spam and offensive text. The comments are removed too quickly for human moderation and are deleted even if the banned phrases are used positively (e.g., The are doing a fantastic job). YouTube says its been relying more on its automated filters in recent months due changes to its workforce brought about by the pandemic.

The accidental censorship is even more puzzling considering that YouTube is currently blocked in China, giving its parent company, Google, even less reason to censor comments critical of the CCP or apply moderation systems in accordance with Chinese censorship laws.

The automatic deletion of these phrases was highlighted on Tuesday by US technologist and former Oculus founder Palmer Luckey on Twitter. But earlier reports of the issue date back to the middle of May when they were spotted by human rights activist Jennifer Zeng. As mentioned above, though, The Verge also found complaints on YouTubes official help pages dated to October 2019.

Google has frequently been criticized for accommodating the wishes of the CCP by censoring content. Most notably, it created a prototype search engine known as Project Dragonfly that complied with Chinese state censorship. The project, which was never deployed, is part of the companys long-running struggles to enter the Chinese market.

When news of Dragonfly leaked in 2018 in a report from The Intercept, Google was criticized by politicians and its own employees for selling out its principles. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in June 2019, the company said it had terminated the project and that it had no plans to launch Search in China.

Update, May 26th, 12:43PM ET: The story has been updated to include YouTubes response.

Update, May 27th, 04:18AM ET: The story has been updated with another response from YouTube confirming it is now working on a fix.

Here is the original post:
YouTube is deleting comments with two phrases that insult Chinas Communist Party - The Verge

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aimed at making it easier for people to sue Twitter and other social media platforms for what Trump and his allies have denounced as unconstitutional political censorship.

But any future First Amendment lawsuits that Trump has in mind will run into a problem that his order doesnt appear to address: a US Supreme Court decision written by a justice he appointed, Brett Kavanaugh.

Trumps executive order doesnt and couldnt change Supreme Court precedent. Last year, the court ruled 54 that private companies arent government actors subject to the First Amendments free speech protections just because they open their platforms to the public. Kavanaugh, one of Trumps two appointees to the Supreme Court, wrote the opinion.

Just this week, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit cited that Kavanaugh opinion when a three-judge panel rejected a First Amendment claim against Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple brought by conservative activists, including far-right media personality Laura Loomer, who argued theyd been deplatformed and censored in violation of the First Amendment.

And earlier this year, the 9th Circuit relied on the same Kavanaugh opinion to reject an appeal from Prager University, a nonprofit that produces videos about conservative issues, which had sued YouTube for restricting access to some of its videos.

Social media platforms are not the government, they are not public fora, trying to superimpose that kind of framework on this makes no sense, and the courts have uniformly held that, First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere told BuzzFeed News. (Corn-Reveres law firm Davis Wright Tremaine has represented BuzzFeed News.)

Trumps order concerns Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly says that companies that serve as platforms for third-party speech, like Twitter or Facebook, arent liable for what people post on their sites. It also says that these companies cant be sued for acting in good faith to restrict or take down obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable material.

Trump contends social media companies arent acting in good faith and are using Section 230 as a shield to censor conservative voices. Trump signed the order after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets and flagged them as containing potentially misleading information.

It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that far from acting in good faith to remove objectionable content instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree, the executive order states.

The executive order doesnt change anything about how Section 230 is applied in court right away. Trump directed agencies to propose new rules and draft legislation for Congress that would chip away at the immunity social media companies have against being sued.

The question of just how much immunity social media platforms should get has come up in the federal courts in recent years, but not always for the reasons Trump articulated in Thursdays order. Victims of terrorism and their families have tried to sue tech companies for serving as platforms for groups such as ISIS to recruit, but theyve lost, in part because courts have found that social media sites are immune under Section 230.

Rather than focusing on political speech, Attorney General Bill Barr brought up terrorism cases in a speech in February as one area where Section 230 had severely diminished the power of other tools Congress adopted to provide relief to victims. But Daniel Weininger, a lawyer for families involved in some of the terrorism-related cases, told BuzzFeed News that it didnt appear Trumps executive order would directly address the Section 230 issues that have come up in their cases.

The administrations concern seems to be some sort of pressing the thumbs on the scale of the content thats posted on the platform, and what were driving at is that there needs to be more activity from the big three [Facebook, Google, and Twitter] with respect to the content that is on there, Weininger said. We are asking for more vigilance in terms of policing the content.

Trumps order is couched in terms of the First Amendment. The first section reads: Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.

Several courts have cited Kavanaughs June 2019 opinion in rejecting First Amendment claims against online platforms. That case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, wasnt about social media; it involved a private nonprofit that operated a public access TV channel in New York. The nonprofit faced a First Amendment claim after it suspended people from the network who had criticized the nonprofit. Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., and Neil Gorsuch (Trumps other Supreme Court pick), wrote that the nonprofit wasnt acting as a government entity just because it opened up the channel to public speech.

As a private actor, and not a state actor, the nonprofit was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion, Kavanaugh wrote.

In February, the 9th Circuit relied on Halleck when it upheld the dismissal of Prager Universitys lawsuit against YouTube, which had restricted access to some of the organizations videos and limited advertising. The 9th Circuit found that the Supreme Court was clear that private entities dont become state actors just because they operate as a public forum for speech.

PragerUs attempt to foist a public forum label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum ... fails. YouTubes representation that it is committed to freedom of expression, or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be a neutral public fora, cannot somehow convert private property into a public forum, Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the three-judge panel.

And in yesterdays DC Circuit order, a three-judge panel wrote that a First Amendment claim against Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple brought by Loomer and conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch failed because there was no evidence that the platforms were engaged in state action.

In general, the First Amendment prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech, the DC Circuit panel wrote, quoting Kavanaugh, who had included the italics for emphasis in his opinion. Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But, under Halleck, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.

See more here:
Trump Wants To Help Conservatives Sue Twitter For Censorship, But Hell Face An Obstacle: Justice Brett Kavanaugh - BuzzFeed News

A former NSA foreign surveillance agent tells The Sociablehow censorship destroys the very diversity of thought it was meant to protect just beforeUS President Trump signs an Executive Order to prevent online censorship.

Jim Penrose is a former NSA foreign surveillance agent and the current Chief Operating Officer at the cybersecurity firm, BlueVoyant, which works with global industries around the world to help them understand how nation-state adversaries think and what cultural norms push them to act the way they do in cyber warfare.

Fundamentally, the scourge of censorship as we know it today is that its forcing an orthodoxy which actually destroys the very diversity its meant to protect

During his 17 years of service in the NSA and beyond, Penrose has seen first-hand how misinformation campaigns have been launched to influence elections, and how censorship has impacted societies from Russia, China, and the Middle East, and all the way back to the United States.

At the heart of the censorship debate is, as always, the issue of free speech.

Censorship creates a scenario where assumptions dont get the proper questioning that they need, and we need to have ideas tried in the crucible of public debate, and free speech is fundamental to that, Penrose told The Sociable.

Free speech is complicated by the fact that big social platforms like Facebook and Twitter have billions of users from just about every country on the planet, and these countries dont all have the same levels of protection for free speech in their laws, so regulating free speech on social is a slippery slope.

Censorship creates a scenario where assumptions dont get the proper questioning that they need, and we need to have ideas tried in the crucible of public debate, and free speech is fundamental to that Jim Penrose

However, at the time of writing, US President Donald Trump had just signed an Executive Order to Prevent Online Censorship, which stated, Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse, and that It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.

Today, Im signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people, Trump said at the time of signing.

My Executive Order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield, he added.

Further elaborating on the subject of free speech vs censorship, Penrose said that people can say things we dont like, or they may say things that are abhorrent, but at the end of the day, arguments should be won with the force of ideas and the proof to back up those statements.

Instead of having that respectful conversation that we used to have, and we would have had if we were face-to-face, we ended up going into a mode where were just not going to talk Jim Penrose

When ideas are censored; however, their arguments, too are censored. The right to question information becomes censored as well.

For example, in the name of public health and safety, massive amounts of content are removed on a daily basis while more orthodox narratives become the accepted truth without question.

Right now, YouTube is censoring content that goes against recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO), but in hindsight, the WHO hasnt always given the best information, especially with regards to Chinas transparency in the handling of the coronavirus.

Nevertheless, the WHO narrative has become the orthodox ideology on world health policies, and saying anything against that orthodoxy on social media is met with censorship.

Fundamentally, the scourge of censorship as we know it today is that its forcing an orthodoxy which actually destroys the very diversity its meant to protect, said Penrose.

Big tech platforms are aggressively trying to stamp out misinformation, which is a very real problem when it comes to massive influence campaigns, but in stamping out misinformation, they are also stamping out real concerns from real people whose real voices have been silenced to censorship.

As citizens, we get pulled into this weird position where do I really want to debate this person on topic X do I really want to have that argument? Jim Penrose

Penrose explained that there are many motives and tactics behind spreading misinformation and how those activities influence the way we behave online.

If you think about the Russians and what they did during the election in 2016, their primary tactic was the noise in the channel tactic you create so much noise in the channel that people start to have overall doubts on all information thats available in the media, social media, and other places, he said.

Some people turn off and disengage. They stop debating and they stop talking. Then theres other groups that go full into what I would say vehement, strident, vitriolic mode where they themselves become internet trolls and attack the living daylights out of anybody who they disagree with and report them as abusive or objectionable content in trying to get everybody removed from a platform like Twitter, Penrose added.

Coincidentally, as Penrose was speaking, #TakeTrumpOffTwitter was trending on Twitter, highlighting those who call for censorship through efforts to deplatform certain individuals.

Some people turn off and disengage. They stop debating and they stop talking. Then theres other groups that go full into vehement, strident, vitriolic mode where they themselves become internet trolls and attack the living daylights out of anybody who they disagree with Jim Penrose

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal recently published a story called Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less Divisive, in which it says that Facebook internally studied how it polarizes users, then largely shelved the research.

Social media companies bank on divisiveness in order to keep users on their platforms. In fact, the Center for Humane Technology president Tristan Harris went before Congress earlier this year and testified that tech products and culture were designed intentionally for mass deception, which furthers the division.

Tech products, culture are designed intentionally for mass deception: Ex-google ethicist testifies https://t.co/ewkeWBBvxF via @thesociable

Joe Rogan (@joerogan) January 17, 2020

Penrose said that this divisiveness on social media makes us turn on one another online, whereas if we had met in person, we would probably be having civilized discussions instead.

As citizens, we get pulled into this weird position where do I really want to debate this person on topic X do I really want to have that argument? said Penrose.

As a result, the divisiveness has led many to self-censor or fear the wrath of a thousand trolls calling for them to be censored.

It rips at the fabric of who we are and how we can still be friends and patriotic colleagues with each other, even when we disagree about topics Jim Penrose

I think what happens is we have actually estranged ourselves from each other, Penrose continued.

Instead of having that respectful conversation that we used to have and we would have if we were face-to-face, we ended up going into a mode where were just not going to talk, he added.

And weve actually grown farther apart from each other, which I think ultimately was one of the major goals of the Russians during their influence campaign.

It rips at the fabric of who we are and how we can still be friends and patriotic colleagues with each other, even when we disagree about topics X, Y, and Z, Penrose concluded.

No matter the intention, online censorship eliminates the possibility to have a free and open exchange of ideas if they are not in line with the ideologies of social media platforms.

Online censorship creates a herd mentality where there is no gray area; only black and white.

Its us vs them, and it looks like the truth lies somewhere between those who scream the loudest, and those who have disengaged and dont want to hear about it.

Big tech COVID-19 surveillance data & censorship threaten privacy & free speech: op-ed

Businesses are turning to more secure communication tools to avoid govt overreach: encryption platform report

We must not let coronavirus response be a cover to restrict our human rights: Committee to Protect Journalists advocacy director

Read the original:
Censorship destroys the very diversity it was meant to protect: former NSA foreign surveillance agent - The Sociable