Page 1,523«..1020..1,5221,5231,5241,525..1,5301,540..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

National Psoriasis Foundation Honors Two Penn Dermatologists – Newswise (press release)

Posted: August 18, 2017 at 4:48 am

Newswise PHILADELPHIA The National Psoriasis Foundation has announced the winners of its Medical Professional Research Awards, and its a clean sweep for the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. The NPF honored Joel M. Gelfand, MD MSCE, a professor of Dermatology and Epidemiology, with the 2017 Outstanding Scientific Achievement Award. The second award is for Outstanding New Investigator, and this year it went to Junko Takeshita, MD, PhD, MSCE, an assistant professor of Dermatology and Epidemiology. The two were honored together at this months 2017 NPF Research Symposium.

Gelfand received the award for Outstanding Scientific Achievement, which recognizes his work and takes into consideration independence of thought, originality, significance of discovery, and impact on the area of research. Gelfand is a national leader in research connecting psoriasis to other comorbidities. He is particularly interested in the connection between psoriasis and cardio metabolic disease. He has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, many on this very topic, and it continues to be a major focus of his work. Gelfand completed his MSCE at Penn, received his MD from Harvard, and holds a B.S. from Tufts.

It was an honor to receive this award from the National Psoriasis Foundation, and also to share the stage with my colleague Dr. Takeshita, Gelfand said.

Takeshita received the Outstanding New Investigator award, which also recognizes outstanding scientific achievement in psoriatic disease research from a new or early-career investigator. Takeshita spent two years as an NPF fellow, during which time she trained under Gelfand. She has received a grant from the National Institutes of Health to explore racial disparities in the treatment of psoriasis. She has published more than two dozen peer-reviewed papers, including one that identified psoriasis treatment disparities in the Medicare population that is often cited by advocacy groups. Takeshita completed her MSCE at Penn, received her MD and PhD from Washington University in Saint Louis, and completed her B.A. at Wellesley.

###

Penn Medicineis one of the world's leading academic medical centers, dedicated to the related missions of medical education, biomedical research, and excellence in patient care. Penn Medicine consists of theRaymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (founded in 1765 as the nation's first medical school) and theUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System, which together form a $6.7 billion enterprise.

The Perelman School of Medicine has been ranked among the top five medical schools in the United States for the past 20 years, according toU.S. News & World Report's survey of research-oriented medical schools. The School is consistently among the nation's top recipients of funding from the National Institutes of Health, with $392 million awarded in the 2016 fiscal year.

The University of Pennsylvania Health System's patient care facilities include: The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center -- which are recognized as one of the nation's top "Honor Roll" hospitals byU.S. News & World Report-- Chester County Hospital; Lancaster General Health; Penn Wissahickon Hospice; and Pennsylvania Hospital -- the nation's first hospital, founded in 1751. Additional affiliated inpatient care facilities and services throughout the Philadelphia region include Good Shepherd Penn Partners, a partnership between Good Shepherd Rehabilitation Network and Penn Medicine.

Penn Medicine is committed to improving lives and health through a variety of community-based programs and activities. In fiscal year 2016, Penn Medicine provided $393 million to benefit our community.

Follow this link:
National Psoriasis Foundation Honors Two Penn Dermatologists - Newswise (press release)

Posted in Psoriasis | Comments Off on National Psoriasis Foundation Honors Two Penn Dermatologists – Newswise (press release)

Genetic test helps people avoid statins that may cause them pain – New Scientist

Posted: at 4:47 am

People often ditch statins due to side effects

GARO/PHANIE/REX/Shutterstock

By Viviane Callier

Should you take statins? The common drugs are a safe and effective way to lower cholesterol and prevent heart disease, but many of those taking them give up due to painful side effects. Furthermore, in some people, this pain may be caused by the nocebo effect, rather than the drug itself. But genetic screening could help reduce side effects and reassure people they are unlikely to feel any pain, encouraging more people to take statins.

Deepak Voora of Duke University, North Carolina, and his colleagues have been researching a gene associated with muscle pain in people taking statins. The gene encodes a protein that carries drugs into liver cells. A variant of this gene has been linked to aches in response to statins.

To find out if this variant affects what side effects someone experiences from different statins, Voora and his team reanalysed data from a clinical trial that had randomly assigned three types of this drug. They found that people with the gene variant had the highest risk of side effects when they were given a statin called simvastatin, but this risk was much lower when they took pravastatin.

The researchers then ran a trial in 159 people to see if genetic screening could help prescribe the most appropriate statin for each person. All the participants had previously stopped taking statins due to muscle pain.

First, everyone was given a genetic test, but only one group were told their results. For this group, a doctor explained whether or not their DNA put them at risk of statin-related muscle pain. Those at risk were recommended a statin that was less likely to cause side effects for their genetic variant, while those not at risk were told they could try any type.

The other participants werent told their test results, and instead received standard, generic recommendations from their doctor.

Of those told their results, around 57 per cent decided to start taking statins again within the next three months, compared with only a third of those who received generic recommendations. By the end of the eight-month study, those who knew their results had blood LDL cholesterol levels that were, on average, 10 to 15 per cent lower than the others.

Thats pretty remarkable given these were patients that were initially refusing to take statins, says Jason Vassy of Harvard Medical School.

By improving a persons perception of a drug, you can boost how many take it and keep taking it, which has been a major problem, says Voora. He hopes the approach could be extended to help doctors and patients feel more confident about other drugs. This concept of using precision medicine to address the psychology of how patients feel about drugs might be a winning combination, he says.

Read more: Statin muscle aches are all in my head? I beg to differ

More on these topics:

Read this article:
Genetic test helps people avoid statins that may cause them pain - New Scientist

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on Genetic test helps people avoid statins that may cause them pain – New Scientist

What can genetic testing really tell you? – Popular Science

Posted: at 4:47 am

Once difficult and expensive even for the most technologically advanced labs, genetic testing is fast becoming a cheap and easy consumer product. With a little spit and 200 dollars, you can find out your risk for everything from cystic fibrosis to lactose intolerance.

But its important to remember that not all genetic tests are created equal. And even the best clinical genetic test, carried out in a medical lab under a doctor's supervision, isn't perfectgenes are important, but they don't seal your fate.

Genetic tests are diagnostic, so anyone who is curious about their health can get one done. But they're more informative if you think you might be at risk for a genetic disorder.

Heavy-duty genetic tests have been used as a clinical tool for almost half a centurylong before 23andMe and Ancestry.com began offering direct-to-consumer tests. Lets say that many women in your family have had breast cancer. You can get a genetic test to see if you may have inherited an abnormal version of the BRCA gene, known to increase your risk for breast cancer.

Heidi Rehm, associate professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School, is the director of the Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, where patients get tested for diseases that can be traced to specific genetic roots. She says it is most common for people to get tested when they either suspect or know that they have a genetic disease; it may have affected multiple people in their family or they could show symptoms of something widely known to be genetic, like sickle cell anemia. For these people, genetic tests can provide a much-needed explanation for an illness and help doctors determine the best course of treatment. Babies are often tested for genetic diseases, either while they are still fetuses or shortly after birth.

Others get genetic tests if they and their partner both have family histories of an inherited diseaseeven if they dont have the disease themselves. For example, cystic fibrosis is linked to one particular gene, but you have to inherit the abnormal version of the gene from both your parents to get the disease. If you only inherit one copy, you may never knowyou wont display any of the symptoms. But if you and your partner both carry one copy of the faulty gene, your child could still inherit two copies. Genetic tests can forewarn you of that possibility.

But Rehm says there has been a recent trend of healthy people getting tested to predict whether theyll get certain diseases. I do think there are settings where predictive genetic testing is incredibly important and useful, Rehm says; for example, knowing that youre at risk for breast cancer gives you the opportunity for early intervention (remember when Angelina Jolie got a double mastectomy upon finding out she had a mutated BRCA gene?)

But Rehm also points out that genetic tests may not be as straightforward as they seem. For example, some genes are thought to increase risk of getting a certain disease, but it might only happen if you have specific family history, or you might be able to reduce your risk with lifestyle changes. So remember that a genetic test isnt the final verdictthere are other factors at play too.

Not entirelyits scope is limited. For starters, not all diseases are caused by genes. Plenty of conditions stem from environmental and lifestyle factors; they may interact with your genes, but the external factors are the real trigger.

But even if a disease is caused solely by faulty instructions written in your genes, you wont necessarily be able to test for it. Thats because genetic tests are mainly used for diseases that are penetrant, a term that scientists use to describe a strong connection between having a certain gene (or multiple genes) and getting a disease.

Genetic tests are surprisingly simple on the surface. All thats required of you is a small sample of cells, like a blood sample or saliva (which doesnt have DNA itself, but picks up cheek cells during its journey out of your mouth). It get sent to a lab where sequencing machines match up small pieces of synthetic DNA with your DNA to figure out the overall sequence.

Once they have your sequence, geneticists can compare it with "normal" or disease-causing sequences. In the end, they might give you a yes or no answer, or sometimes youll get a probabilitya measure of how much your genes increase your risk of developing the disease. Then, its up to your doctor to figure out what these genes (in combination with your lifestyle, family history and other risk factors) mean for your health.

With penetrant diseases, theres a very, very high ability to explain the disease, Rehm says. For example, the breast cancer-related gene BRCA1 can give you a 60 percent chance of getting breast cancer (in Jolies case, with her family history, the risk was 87 percent.)

This makes genetic tests better at detecting so-called rare diseases, says Steven Schrodi, associate research scientist at the Marshfield Clinic Research Institutes Center for Human Genetics, but theyre less useful when it comes to more common diseases, like heart disease or diabetes. Genetics can increase your likelihood of getting these disease, but scientists still dont know quite how much. Part of the problem is that there may be dozens or hundreds of genes responsible for these diseases, Schrodi says.

We have an incomplete understanding of why people get diseases, Schrodi says. A large part of it hinges on how we define diseases. Perhaps physicians have inadvertently combined multiple diseases together into a single entity.

Consumer genetic teststhe ones where you send in samples from homesometimes claim to test for these more complex traits, but be careful: Their results might not be very medically relevant, Rehm says. If they tell you that your genes make you twice as likely to develop diabetes, for example, that's a marginal increase that doesn't significantly affect your risk, especially when you take into account lifestyle factors.

Genes do seem to play a role in determining lifespan. After all, some family reunions stretch from great-great-grandparents all the way down to infants. Scientists have studied centenarianspeople who lived to be 100 years oldand found that people with certain versions of genes involved in repairing DNA tend to live longer.

This makes sense because aging leaves its mark on your DNA. Environmental factors can damage DNA, and even the routine chore of replicating cells can introduce errors as the three billion units of your DNA are copied over and over. Long-lived individuals have different sequences that seem to make their cells better at keeping DNA in mint condition.

But figuring out your expiration date is more complex than just testing for a few genes, says Jan Vijg, professor of genetics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. In theory, you could design a test that looks at specific genes that might measure your risk for developing Alzheimers Disease or other age-related diseases, or your risk for aging quickly. To some extent, yes: Biomarkers will tell you something about your chances of living a long life, Vijg says. Still, that will only work if you live a careful life. And that means no accidents, infections, or cancers.

Aging also affects the exposed ends of your DNA, called "telomeres." DNA is stored as chromosomes, those X-like structures that you may have seen in biology textbooks. The most vulnerable parts of the chromosome are the chromosomes tips, which get shorter as you age because they arent properly replicated. But while telomere length might let you compare your DNA now with your DNA from a decade ago, you cant compare your own telomeres with other peoples telomeres. Theres a lot of variation between individuals, Vijg says. Some of us are just old souls (on the genomic level, that is.)

The methylation test, which looks at how the presence of small chemical groups attached to your DNA changes as you age, might be a better bet. A study at UCLA showed that changes were slower in longer-lived people. But Vijg is hesitant: I would not put my hopes on that as a marker to predict when exactly youre going to die.

For now, just enjoy your life, because you cant predict death. And if you decide to unlock the secrets of your DNA with an at-home test, don't take those results for more than their worth.

Original post:
What can genetic testing really tell you? - Popular Science

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on What can genetic testing really tell you? – Popular Science

Vitamin C helps genes to kill off cells that would cause cancer – New Scientist

Posted: at 4:46 am

Could vitamin C help drugs fight leukaemia?

Steve Gschmeissner/SPL/Getty

By Aylin Woodward

Injections of vitamin C could be a way to help fight blood cancer. Experiments in mice suggest that the nutrient helps tell out-of-control cells to stop dividing and die.

Some blood cancers, including acute and chronic leukaemia, often involve mutations affecting a gene called TET2. This gene usually helps ensure that a type of stem cell matures properly to make white blood cells, and then eventually dies. But when TET2 mutates, these cells can start dividing uncontrollably, leading to cancer. Mutations in TET2 are involved in around 42,500 cancers in the US a year.

Luisa Cimmino and Benjamin Neel at the New York University School of Medicine and their colleagues have genetically engineered mice to have variable TET2 function. They found that a 50 per cent reduction in TET2 activity can be enough to induce cancer, but that TET2 activity needs to remain low if the disease is to continue developing. If we genetically restore TET2, it blocks unhealthy replication and kills the cells, says Cimmino.

Next, the team turned to vitamin C, because it is known to have an effect in embryonic stem cells, where it can activate TET2 and help keep cell replication in check.

The team injected mice with low TET2 activity with very high doses of vitamin C every day for 24 weeks and found that it slowed the progression of leukaemia. By the end of this period, a control group that got no injections had three times as many white blood cells a sign of pre-leukaemia.

When the team exposed human leukaemia cells in a dish to a cancer drug, they found they got better results when they added vitamin C.

Neel hopes that high doses of vitamin C will eventually be incorporated into cancer therapies. People who have acute myeloid leukemia are often of advanced age, and may die from chemotherapy. Vitamin C in combination with cancer drugs may provide an alternative approach.

But taking large amounts of vitamin C is unlikely to prevent you from getting cancer, says Neel. The mice were given 100 milligrams of vitamin C in each injection, the equivalent of about two oranges. But the average person weighs about 3000 times as much as a mouse. Because the body stops taking in the vitamin after around 500 milligrams, any therapies would need to supply vitamin C intravenously. You cant get the levels of it necessary to achieve the effects in this study by eating oranges, he says.

Journal reference: Cell, DOI: 10.1026/j.cell.2017.07.032

Read more: Choosing alternative cancer treatment doubles your risk of death

More on these topics:

Continue reading here:
Vitamin C helps genes to kill off cells that would cause cancer - New Scientist

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on Vitamin C helps genes to kill off cells that would cause cancer – New Scientist

Here’s what I thought of John Mellencamp’s new album featuring Carlene Carter – The Sun Herald

Posted: at 4:46 am


The Sun Herald
Here's what I thought of John Mellencamp's new album featuring Carlene Carter
The Sun Herald
... die in increasingly hideous ways; and she begins to regret making the deal that has made her a famous reality star even though she hasn't accomplished anything. This is a politically incorrect, violent, sexually charged B-movie that some readers ...

Go here to see the original:
Here's what I thought of John Mellencamp's new album featuring Carlene Carter - The Sun Herald

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Here’s what I thought of John Mellencamp’s new album featuring Carlene Carter – The Sun Herald

Silicon Valley escalates its war on white supremacy despite free speech concerns – Chicago Tribune

Posted: at 4:46 am

Silicon Valley significantly escalated its war on white supremacy this week, choking off the ability of hate groups to raise money online, removing them from Internet search engines, and preventing some sites from registering at all.

The new moves go beyond censoring individual stories or posts. Tech companies such as Google, GoDaddy and PayPal are now reversing their hands-off approach about content supported by their services and making it much more difficult for "alt-right" organizations to reach mass audiences.

But the actions are also heightening concerns over how tech companies are becoming the arbiters of free speech in America. And in response, right-wing technologists are building parallel digital services that cater to their own movement.

Gab.ai, a social network for promoting free speech, was founded in August 2016 by Silicon Valley engineers alienated by the region's liberalism. Other conservatives have founded Infogalactic, a Wikipedia for the alt-right, as well as crowdfunding tools Hatreon and WeSearchr. The latter was used to raise money for James Damore, a white engineer who was fired after criticizing Google's diversity policy.

"If there needs to be two versions of the Internet so be it," Gab.ai tweeted Wednesday morning. The company's spokesman, Utsav Sanduja, later warned of a "revolt" in Silicon Valley against the way tech companies are trying control the national debate.

"There will be another type of Internet who is run by people politically incorrect, populist, and conservative," Sanduja said.

Some adherents to the alt-right a fractious coalition of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and those opposed to feminism said in interviews they will press for the federal government to step in and regulate Facebook and Google, an unexpected stance for a movement that is skeptical of government meddling.

"Doofuses in the conservative movement say it's only censorship if the government does it," said Richard Spencer, an influential white nationalist. "YouTube and Twitter and Facebook have more power than the government. If you can't host a website or tweet, then you effectively don't have a right to free speech."

He added "social networks need to be regulated in the way the broadcast networks are. I believe one has a right to a Google profile, a Twitter profile, an accurate search ... We should start conceiving of these thing as utilities and not in terms of private companies."

The censorship of hate speech by companies passes constitutional muster, according to First Amendment experts. But they said there is a downside of thrusting corporations into that role.

Silicon Valley firms may be ill-prepared to manage such a large societal role, they added. The companies have limited experience handling these issues. They must answer to shareholders and demonstrate growth in users or profits weighing in on free speech matters risks alienating large groups of customers across the political spectrum.

These platforms are also so massive Facebook, for example, counts a third of the world's population in its monthly user base; GoDaddy hosts and registers 71 million websites it may actually be impossible for them to enforce their policies consistently.

Still, tech companies are forging ahead. On Wednesday, Facebook said it canceled the page of white nationalist Christopher Cantwell, who was connected to the Charlottesville rally. The company has shut down eight other pages in recent days, citing violations of the company's hate speech policies. Twitter has suspended several extremist accounts, including @Millennial_Matt, a Nazi-obsessed social media personality.

On Monday, GoDaddy delisted the Daily Stormer, a prominent neo-Nazi site, after its founder celebrated the death of a woman killed in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Daily Stormer then transferred its registration to Google, which also cut off the site. The site has since retreated to the "dark Web," making it inaccessible to most Internet users.

PayPal late Tuesday said it would bar nearly three dozen users from accepting donations on its online payment platform following revelations that the company played a key role in raising money for the white supremacist rally.

In a lengthy blog post, PayPal outlined its long-standing policy of not allowing its services to be used to accept payments or donations to organizations that advocate racist views. The payment processor singled out the KKK, white supremacist groups and Nazi groups all three of which were involved in organizing last weekend's rally.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-leaning nonprofit anti-hate group, said until now, PayPal had ignored its complaints that the company was processing donations and payments to dozens of racist and white supremacist groups. The center said PayPal also allowed at least eight groups and individuals openly espousing racist views to raise money that was integral to orchestrating the Charlottesville rally.

"For the longest time, PayPal has essentially been the banking system for white nationalism," Keegan Hankes, analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told The Washington Post. "It's a shame it took Charlottesville for them to take it seriously."

PayPal has agreed to remove at least 34 organizations, including Richard Spencer's National Policy Institute, two companies that sell gun accessories explicitly for killing Muslims, as well as all accounts associated with Jason Kessler, the white nationalist blogger who organized the Charlottesville march, according to a list provided to the Post by Color of Change, a racial justice organization seeking to influence corporate decision-makers.

Spencer, whose site was blocked by major advertisers earlier this year and who previously told the Post "it would have no effect on my life whatsoever," said the PayPal move was more damaging. "I am getting this treatment because of things I say and not things I do," Spencer said. "I've never hurt anyone and I'm not going to."

Other payment systems have made similar moves. Apple on Wednesday dropped payment processing for hate groups. GoFundMe, one of the largest crowdfunding sites, shut down several campaigns to raise money for the Nazi sympathizer who allegedly crashed his car into a crowd of activists protesting the hate rally, killing one woman and injuring dozens.

Patreon, another payment processor, recently canceled the accounts for some "alt-right" figures. That inspired a new crowdfunding site, Hatreon, which markets itself as a company that does not police speech.

Technology companies have long relied on a 20-year-old law that shields them from responsibility for illegal content hosted on their platforms. The more they get into the business of policing speech making subjective decisions about what is offensive and what isn't the more they are susceptible to undermining their own immunity and opening themselves to regulation, said Susan Benesch, director of the Dangerous Speech Project, a nonprofit group that researches the intersection of harmful online content and free speech.

Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberty Union's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, cautioned consumers against being so quick to condemn companies that host even the "most vile white supremacist speech we have seen on display this week."

"We rely on the Internet to hear each other," Rowland said. "We should all be very thoughtful before we demand that platforms for hateful speech disappear because it does impoverish our conversation and harm our ability to point to evidence for white supremacy and to counter it."

The Washington Post's Avi Selk contributed to this report. Dwoskin reported in San Francisco.

Go here to read the rest:
Silicon Valley escalates its war on white supremacy despite free speech concerns - Chicago Tribune

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Silicon Valley escalates its war on white supremacy despite free speech concerns – Chicago Tribune

Tech firms go on offensive against hate groups – The Straits Times

Posted: at 4:46 am

LOS ANGELES Silicon Valley significantly escalated its war on white supremacy this week, choking off the ability of hate groups to raise money online, removing them from Internet search engines and preventing some sites from registering at all.

Companies such as Google, GoDaddy and PayPal are now reversing their hands-off approach about content supported by their services and making it much more difficult for "alt-right" groups to reach mass audiences.

Other companies have done the same. Ride-hailing firm Uber told drivers they do not have to pick up racists.Colour of Change, a racial- justice advocacy group, said on Wednesday that Apple had also moved to block hate sites from using Apple Pay. Facebook shut down eight group pages that it said violated hate-speech policies.

"It's one thing to say we do not allow hate groups, it's another thing to actually go and hunt down the groups, make those decisions and kick those people off," said professor of information systems Gerald Kane at the Boston College Carroll School of Management. "It's something most of these companies have avoided intentionally and fervently over the past 10 years."

Right-wing technologists have responded by building parallel digital services for their own movement. Gab.ai, a social network for promoting free speech, was founded in August last year by Silicon Valley engineers alienated by the region's liberalism. Other conservatives have founded Infogalactic, a Wikipedia for the alt-right, as well as crowdfunding tools Hatreon and WeSearchr. The latter was used to raise money for Mr James Damore, a white engineer who was fired after criticising Google's diversity policy.

"If there needs to be two versions of the Internet, so be it," Gab.ai tweeted on Wednesday morning. Its spokesman, Mr Utsav Sanduja, later warned of a "revolt" in Silicon Valley against the way tech firms are trying to control the national debate. "There will be another type of Internet which is run by people politically incorrect, populist and conservative," he said.

PayPal said late on Tuesday that it would bar nearly three dozen users from accepting donations on its online payment platform following revelations that the company played a key role in raising money for the Charlottesville rally. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, a left-leaning non-profit anti-hate group, said until now, PayPal had ignored its complaints.

"For the longest time, PayPal has essentially been the banking system for white nationalism," Mr Keegan Hankes, an analyst for the centre, told The Washington Post. "It's a shame it took Charlottesville for them to take it seriously."

WASHINGTON POST, BLOOMBERG

Read more from the original source:
Tech firms go on offensive against hate groups - The Straits Times

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Tech firms go on offensive against hate groups – The Straits Times

More Internet Censorship – National Review

Posted: at 4:45 am

PayPal this week banned at least 34 organizations for promoting hate, violence or racial intolerance, including Richard Spencers group and others apparently involved in the Charlottesville riot. PayPals announcement mentions KKK, white supremacist groups or Nazi groups that have violated its acceptable use policy.

Its a private company (thats not yet regulated as a utility) so it can do as it pleases, and the Nazi/Klan creeps certainly arent going to evoke any sympathy. But as someone whos been at the receiving end of hate group smears, it would be good to know how such decisions are made. PayPals announcement notes that our highly trained team of experts addresses each case individually highly trained in what? Sniffing out heresy? (No one expects the PayPal Inquisition!) When PayPal goes beyond the objective standard of banning activity prohibited by law to banning those it simply doesnt like (however loathsome they might be), all dissenters are vulnerable.

PayPals highly trained experts havent yet targeted my organization, but Twitter has, albeit in a small way so far. You can pay them to promote a tweet thats already been posted, as a form of advertising, and here are three that we submitted for promotion that were rejected:

All three were rejected on the grounds of Hate:

They contain nothing hateful, obviously, but the common thread appears to be that all three refer to the costs to society of illegal immigration, and all three contain the word illegal two refer to illegal immigrants and one to illegal aliens.

When you look at Twitters Hateful content in advertising page, it looks like the very word illegal is indeed prohibited with regard to immigrants (as opposed to the U.S. Code, where its common). It mentions Hate speech or advocacy against a protected group or an individual or organization based on, but not limited to, the following including Status as a refugee and Status as an immigrant.

This is merely a nuisance for me, so far, but it does point to the broader issue addressed by Jeremy Carl in his piece on the homepage this week about regulating the big internet firmsas public utilities. Carl writes What is needed is not regulation to restrict speech but regulation specifically to allow speech regulation put on monopolist and market-dominant companies that have abused their positions repeatedly.

One internet company this week abused its position but at the same time practically begged for the government to step in. Cloudflare is a sort of middleman facilitator between users and the web sites theyre visiting. Because of the companys position in the infrastructure of the internet, its CEO, Matthew Prince, was able to simply shut down the Daily Stormer neo-Nazi website: Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldnt be allowed on the Internet. He explained his decision by noting that the people behind the Daily Stormer are assholes, which they no doubt are.

But to Princes credit, he continued: No one should have that power:

We need to have a discussion around this, with clear rules and clear frameworks. My whims and those of Jeff [Bezos] and Larry [Page] and Satya [Nadella] and Mark [Zuckerberg], that shouldnt be what determines what should be online, he said. I think the people who run The Daily Stormer are abhorrent. But again I dont think my political decisions should determine who should and shouldnt be on the internet.

As Prince wrote in a blog post on the incident, Without a clear framework as a guide for content regulation, a small number of companies will largely determine what can and cannot be online.

The internet is now a utility more important than phones or cable TV. If people can be denied access to it based on the content of their ideas and speech (rather than specific, illegal acts), why not make phone service contingent on your political views? Or mail delivery? Garbage pickup? Electric power? Water and sewer? (I hope Im not giving the SPLCs brownshirts any ideas.)

Read more:
More Internet Censorship - National Review

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on More Internet Censorship – National Review

judge Nap: Censorship Worse Than Hate | The Daily Caller – The Daily Caller

Posted: at 4:45 am

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said private industry has a right to censor opinions but its a very dangerous business.

The First Amendment restrains the government. It reads Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Congress has now been interpreted [that] to mean no government shall abridge the freedom of speech, Napolitano said during a Fox and Friends interview Thursday. And Facebook and the other high tech companies are not owned by the government so they are free to censor. They can do whatever they want, but censorship is a very dangerous business.

They will lose market share, they will lose a lot of customers. They will lose their identity as a marketplace for ideas and then these hateful ideas will go somewhere else.

Napolitano argued that although hate speech is detestable and wrong, its better to suffer through it than to sacrifice the right of free expression.

Which is worse in the American icon of values? Hate speech or censorship? I would argue that censorship is worse, he said. The remedy for hate speech is not censorship. Its more speech. Its speech to challenge and expose it.

He added he doesnt believe it will be easy to change the minds of those who peddle hate speech, but its preferable to driving them into hiding and obscuring the threat.

I am not naive. I dont think that we could all stand on a street corner and talk to a bunch of haters and change their minds. Some of them, a legion of angels coming from heaven telling them theyre wrong would not change their minds, he said. But it is better we know who they are, where they are, and what they say, than they be driven underground.

Once we get into the censorship business it will just keep getting worse. So if they can censor something that I say because its hate to them, it might be music to your ears, he concluded.

You can Follow Nick on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected]

See the original post:
judge Nap: Censorship Worse Than Hate | The Daily Caller - The Daily Caller

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on judge Nap: Censorship Worse Than Hate | The Daily Caller – The Daily Caller

Keep the Internet’s Backbone Free From Censorship – Bloomberg

Posted: at 4:45 am

Wanting to ban the haters is understandable.

It was inevitable that the fallout from violent protests in Virginia organized by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups would extend to the virtual world of the web. The internet is our modern commons. But the past few days have shown how fast we can glide down the slippery slope to web censorship.

Facebook and Twitter were perfectly within their rights, legally and ethically, when they banned accounts of certain hate groups and their leaders. These are private companies enforcing their own rules about how their services and platforms can be used. Providers of web infrastructure, however, must be held to a stricter standard since they act as choke points that can prevent an individual or group from being able to express themselves online.

Soon after the Charlottesville events, domain name registrars GoDaddy and Google separately decided to no longer serve the Daily Stormer after the neo-Nazi site wrote a disparaging story about Heather Heyer, the woman who died after being struck by a car while protesting the Charlottesville rally. Registrars act as a sort of phone book for the internet by turning a raw IP address -- like 62.23.150.94 -- into a line of text, like "Bloomberg.com." Without GoDaddy or Google, it would be impossible for people to find the Daily Stormer online. Shortly afterwards, CloudFlare, which offers firewall services for websites to help them ward off attacks, kicked the Daily Stormer off its servers.

In a refreshingly candid email to his employees and blog post, CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince admitted that his decision was "arbitrary" and "dangerous," and departed from years of maintaining strict neutrality about the content of the sites his company protected. As Prince told Gizmodo: I think the people who run The Daily Stormer are abhorrent. But again I dont think my political decisions should determine who should and shouldnt be on the internet.

It's hard not to cheer Prince's courage and his motives. But his decision and those of the registrars have big implications for the debate over how the internet should be regulated. To reach web users, publishers of content small and large rely on a complex machinery of web hosts, domain registrars, transit providers, platforms, proxy servers and search engines.

While the companies that provide the back-end services of the web are less well known than the Facebook and Snapchats of the world, they're indispensable to its smooth functioning; they are effectively the plumbing that allows the whole system to function. When they take sides, everyone loses.

Many may be happy to see the Daily Stormer pushed into web oblivion, myself included, but we probably wouldn't feel the same way for publishers of content we agreed with. What if a dissident politician or a corporate whistle-blower got similar treatment?

Currently there are no U.S. laws or regulations to prevent web infrastructure providers from taking such actions. Under federal law, private corporations can deny service to groups or individuals, as long as it's not because of their race, religion or sexuality. Nor does the principle of "net neutrality" really apply since that just calls for broadband providers like Verizon or Comcast to treat all data equally.

We may need new rules in the U.S. that specifically bar web infrastructure providers from cutting off services to publishers based on their content. This would limit firms like GoDaddy's ability to use their terms of service to silence people with controversial views.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

It would be preferable to keep efforts to eradicate hate speech at the platform level and not among the providers of internet infrastructure services. After long resisting, platforms like Facebook and Twitter now acknowledge that they bear some responsibility for what people post.Since they are governed by local laws where they operate, they fall under the jurisdiction of elected officials with the legitimacy to regulate. Just look at Germany's tough new law that levies fines up to 50 million euro ($58.5 million) if social networks don't remove hate speech promptly.

Regulators will make mistakes and may even overreach. But they have more standing to make tough calls on free speech than the internet's plumbers.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leila Abboud at labboud@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.net

View original post here:
Keep the Internet's Backbone Free From Censorship - Bloomberg

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Keep the Internet’s Backbone Free From Censorship – Bloomberg

Page 1,523«..1020..1,5221,5231,5241,525..1,5301,540..»