Biden Appeals Judge’s Ban on Government Asking for Social Media Takedowns

Biden Appeals Judge’s Ban on Government Asking for Social Media Takedowns

State Department officials, according to a Facebook employee speaking with The Washington Post, told the company all future monthly meetings to discuss content takedowns were “canceled pending further guidance.” The reported cancellation means government officials and trust and safety representatives at Facebook will no longer meet to discuss brewing political misinformation or foreign influence operations. It’s unclear whether other agencies have taken similar measures following the ruling or if Google or Twitter have canceled meetings. The State Department, Meta, and Google did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. Twitter sent us a 💩 . …

Judge compares Biden’s admin’s meeting with tech companies to Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’

The Justice Department appealed Trump-appointed federal Judge Terry A. Doughty’s preliminary injunction hours after it landed, according to court documents filed Wednesday evening. Doughty’s preliminary injunction bars numerous government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from contacting or asking social media companies about posts he said are protected by the First Amendment. The ruling does offer some exceptions for government communications with tech firms intended to warn them of national security threats, criminal activity, and voter suppression. Government officials maintain their content recommendations to social networks were merely suggestions, not legal demands. Doughty said numerous uncovered communications show Biden administration officials wielded threats of increased regulations or a stripping of Section 230 immunity protections to get its way.

Related:

State Dept. cancels Facebook meetings after judge’s ‘censorship’ ruling

When tech companies and State Department officials meet, “they talk about foreign influence, they compare notes. It gives them the opportunity to ask questions about foreign influence they are seeing,” this person said. “State will share Russian narratives, things they are seeing in state media in Russia about U.S. topics. They will ask whether Facebook is seeing things from known entities, such as the Chinese Communist Party or the Internet Research Agency,” the Russian entity thought responsible for much of the interference in the 2016 election. …

“The really tough question is when does the government cross the line from responding to speech — which it can and should do — to coercing platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech?” Kosseff said. “The judge here believes that line was crossed, and he certainly cited some persuasive examples,” such as administration officials suggesting antitrust actions against tech firms or changes to their liability protections while criticizing their content moderation efforts.

US Court Victory Against Online Censorship

American Paranoia: How the First World War triggered a wave of xenophobia and a Red Scare

In 1912 Woodrow Wilson was an unlikely Democratic candidate for the presidency, a sometime law professor and president of Princeton who had only served in public office for two years, as governor of New Jersey. But then it would be an unusual election, with a three-way fight. When the incumbent, William Howard Taft, defeated Theodore Roosevelt, his predecessor in the White House, for the Republican nomination, Roosevelt ran as a “Progressive”, splitting the Republican vote and allowing Wilson to win the presidency with little more than two-fifths of the popular vote.

American Paranoia: How the First World War triggered a wave of xenophobia and a Red Scare

U.S. Accelerates Three-Tier Plan To Reduce Oil Prices

U.S. President Biden has three key strategies in place to lower oil prices.

– The first and foremost strategy is the implementation of the NOPEC bill.

– The second pillar of the plan is to release more crude from the U.S. SPR.

– The third element of the plan to bring oil prices down is to be a concerted effort to encourage U.S. oil firms, shale or otherwise, to increase their production.

U.S. Accelerates Three-Tier Plan To Reduce Oil Prices

Don’t Expect The US Government To Actually Stop Elon From Buying Twitter

Honestly, the only thing one can say about the whole Elon Musk buying Twitter situation is that you should expect the unexpected to happen. Nothing about this deal has been normal, even though some moves (like Musk coming up with laughably ridiculous pretextual excuses to try to get out of the deal) were telegraphed way in advance. The Delaware Court of Chancery has said that the deal needs to be completed by Friday October 28th or there will be hell to pay (if you’re Elon Musk), and in all likelihood that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I know a lot of people insist he doesn’t intend to close the deal, or that he doesn’t have the money, or that something else will happen to stop it, and I find all of those claims to be unlikely at best. The most likely scenario is that in a week, Twitter will be owned by Elon Musk.

Don’t Expect The US Government To Actually Stop Elon From Buying Twitter

Previously:

Biden Admin Weighs Blocking Twitter Deal On “National Security” Grounds… Just As Musk Wanted

The Straw That Broke the Camel’s Back: The Best Way to Respond to Saudi Arabia’s Embrace of Putin

The Best Way to Respond to Saudi Arabia’s Embrace of Putin

But this claim is unjustified. OPEC has never cut production in such a record tight market and these production cuts will lead to unsustainably low oil inventories, sending the price of oil skyrocketing out of any “acceptable band.” Furthermore, the G-7 oil price caps plan is not targeted at OPEC; it is strictly limited to Russian oil.

Nor can this Saudi move be justified by the non-existent global recession its leaders cite. Presently markets are very tight, with lush 73 percent profit margins for Saudi Arabia. In other words, there was no immediate need for Saudi Arabia to reduce supply unless they were seeking to harm the U.S. to the benefit of Russia.

Non-existent global recession?!? Low oil inventories?!? Maybe Biden shouldn’t be releasing our oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?! As for never cutting production, before, looks like they have!? 🤷🏼‍♀️

Peace Train: Silencing contrarian voices

In the U.S., we proudly point to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights that was adopted in 1791.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Peace Train: Silencing contrarian voices

Related:

U.S. Wars and Hostile Actions (WW2 – 2014)

Techbro Influencer Scott Galloway Heads To The Fainting Couch Over TikTok

Techbro Influencer Scott Galloway Heads To The Fainting Couch Over TikTok

This week, Galloway spent his time pushing the hot DC claim du jour: that TikTok is a profound menace to the planet and should be banned. He made the point at the Vox Code conference, then hopped over to Bill Maher’s HBO show to make a similar pronouncement:

Actual evidence of TikTok being uniquely dangerous (especially any indication China has used or could use TikTok to bedazzle U.S. children) has been sorely lacking, but that doesn’t stop folks from heading to the fainting couches. This face fanning has been especially popular among a certain set of xenophobic DC politicians, and companies that don’t want to have to directly compete with China.

The problem: the U.S. is a corrupt, xenophobic, superficial dumpster fire, so most of the “solutions” to this potential problem have been stupid and performative.

Here’s the thing: you could ban TikTok immediately, and China could hoover up location, browsing, and behavior data from an ocean of completely unaccountable and hugely shady data brokers and middlemen. And they can do that because U.S. privacy and security standards are hot garbage. And in some instances, they’re hot garbage because of the same people now complaining about TikTok.

Both Carr and Cruz have extensive histories of undermining regulatory oversight and privacy rules at absolutely every opportunity, yet both are lauded by Galloway in a blog post for being heroic leaders in the “ban TikTok” crusades. Galloway’s a top pundit, yet somehow can’t see that Carr and Cruz are engaged in a zero-calorie xenophobic theatrics, and couldn’t care less about actual consumer privacy.

For literally thirty straight years, at absolutely every single turn, we prioritized making money over transparency or consumer privacy. As a result, consumer privacy protections are garbage, regulators are toothless, governments exploit the attention economy to avoid having to get warrants, and any idiot with a nickel can easily build gigantic, hugely detailed profiles about your everyday life without your consent.

“Banning TikTok” does nothing meaningful if you’re genuinely interested in meaningful surveillance and privacy reform. There will always be another TikTok. There’s an ocean of companies engaging in the same or worse behavior as TikTok because we’ve sanctioned this kind of guardrail-optional hyper-collection and monetization of consumer behavioral data at every step of the way.

Many of the folks beating the “ban TikTok” drum may be well intentioned but just don’t really understand how broken the consumer privacy landscape is. They may not understand that this is a problem that’s exponentially more complicated than just what we do with a single app. Freaking out exclusively about a single app tells me you either don’t really understand the data-hoovering monster we’ve built, or don’t really care if anybody other than China exploits it (waves tiny American flag patriotically).

Many of the other folks calling for a TikTok ban aren’t operating in good faith. Facebook/Meta, for example, spends a lot of time spreading scary stories about TikTok in the press and DC because they want to crush a competitive threat they’ve been incapable of out-innovating. Similar, Politico’s owner is on the Netflix board and simply wants to curtail what he sees as a threat to market and advertising mindshare.

Then there’s just a ton of Silicon Valley folks who believe they inherently own and deserve the advertising market share TikTok occupies. And then of course there’s just a whole bunch of rank bigots who are mad because darker skinned human beings built a popular app, and try to hide this bigotry behind patriotic, pseudo national security concerns.

All of this converges to create a stupid, soupy mess that’s devoid of any actual fixes to any actual problems. Hyper surveillance and propaganda are very real problems that require a dizzying array of complicated fixes, including media and privacy policy reform, antitrust reform, tougher consumer protection standards, education reform, and a meaningful privacy law for the internet era.

Previously:

The NATO to TikTok Pipeline: Why is TikTok Employing So Many National Security Agents?

The White House is briefing TikTok stars about the war in Ukraine

UK uses TikTok influencers to urge teens to get jab after Pfizer-linked vaccine committee chair admits policy lacks evidence + White House enlists army of social media influencers to promote COVID-19 vaccines