The 1619 Project and the New York Times’ glorification of the UK monarchy

In its coverage of the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of King Charles, the New York Times has published article after article celebrating the pageantry of the British monarchy. In so doing, the newspaper responsible for publishing the 1619 Project has entangled itself in many layers of contradictions.

The 1619 Project and the New York Times’ glorification of the UK monarchy

California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Radical Anti-Internet Policy

from the well,-there-goes-the-neighborhood dept

Thu, Sep 15th 2022 12:55pm – Mike Masnick

This isn’t a surprise, but it’s still frustrating. Gavin Newsom, who wants to be President some day, and thus couldn’t risk misleading headlines that he didn’t “protect the children,” has now signed AB 2273 into law (this follows on yesterday’s decision to sign the bad, but slightly less destructive, AB 587 into law). At this point there’s not much more I can say about why AB 2273 is so bad. I’ve explained why it’s literally impossible to comply with (and why many sites will just ignore it). I’ve explained how it’s pretty clearly unconstitutional. I’ve explained how the whole idea was pushed for and literally sponsored by a Hollywood director / British baroness who wants to destroy the internet. I’ve explained how it won’t do much, if anything, to protect children, but will likely put them at much greater risk. I’ve explained how the company it will likely benefit most is the world’s largest porn company not to mention COVID disinfo peddlers and privacy lawyers. I’ve explained how the companies supporting the law insist that we shouldn’t worry because websites will just start scanning your face when you visit.

Gavin Newsom Fucks Over The Open Internet, Signs Disastrously Stupid Age Appropriate Design Code

Related:

California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Radical Anti-Internet Policy

Gavin Newsom Signs Hugely Problematic ‘Transparency’ Bill Into Law

from the but-why-gavin? dept

Wed, Sep 14th 2022 03:48pm – Mike Masnick

We’re still waiting to see if California Governor Gavin Newsom will sign the California Age Appropriate Design Code (AB 2273) into law, though all indications are that he will. However, he has now signed a different bad bill into law. He has happily signed what he calls the “nation-leading social media transparency measure” AB 587 into law. The bill is a disaster whether or not you support the goal of “transparency” for social media companies. Actually, the bill is a disaster especially if you support more transparency from social media companies.

Gavin Newsom Signs Hugely Problematic ‘Transparency’ Bill Into Law

White House Releases Performatively Ridiculous ‘Principles’ For ‘Tech Platform Accountability’ That Include Removing Section 230

from the last-minute-homework dept

Fri, Sep 9th 2022 09:50am – Mike Masnick

During the 2020 campaign, there were a few times when candidate Joe Biden insisted he wanted to get rid of Section 230 entirely, though he made it clear he had no idea what Section 230 actually did. When I wrote articles highlighting all of this, I had some Biden supporters (even folks who worked on his campaign) reach out to me to say not to worry about it, that Biden wasn’t fully briefed on 230, and that if he became President, more knowledgeable people would be tasked to work on stuff, and the 230 stuff wouldn’t be an issue. I didn’t believe it at the time, and it turns out I was correct.

White House Releases Performatively Ridiculous ‘Principles’ For ‘Tech Platform Accountability’ That Include Removing Section 230

Doesn’t matter who’s in charge, they both want to cancel each other and censor whatever they determine is disinformation, whether it’s domestic or foreign policy!

Related:

Communications Decency Act – Section 230

The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

from the must-we-always-relive-the-past? dept

Fri, Sep 2nd 2022 09:40am – Mike Masnick

In July of 1995, Time Magazine published one of its most regrettable stories ever. The cover just read “CYBERPORN” with the subhead reading: “EXCLUSIVE A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kidsand free speech?” The author of that piece, Philip Elmer-Dewitt later admitted that it was his “worst” story “by far.”

The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

Previously:

Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?