Parents should be able to have a say in their children’s education (although, they shouldn’t be astroturfed). The thing is, these articles are selective in revealing the money behind some of these groups. I’ve included links to a few, of the financials/partnerships, below the cut. I wasn’t able to find information on a couple of them, though. Another thing, PEN has ties to the CIA and the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
…We can expect more of this when the war against the “deep state” begins in earnest. According to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), there is a whole cabal determined to undermine American security, a “Uniparty” of elites made up of “neoconservatives on the right” and “liberal globalists on the left” who are not true Americans and therefore do not have the true interests of America at heart. Can such “anti-American” behavior be criminalized? It has in the past and can be again.
So, the Trump administration will have many avenues to persecute its enemies, real and perceived. Think of all the laws now on the books that give the federal government enormous power to surveil people for possible links to terrorism, a dangerously flexible term, not to mention all the usual opportunities to investigate people for alleged tax evasion or violation of foreign agent registration laws. The IRS under both parties has occasionally looked at depriving think tanks of their tax-exempt status because they espouse policies that align with the views of the political parties. What will happen to the think-tanker in a second Trump term who argues that the United States should ease pressure on China? Or the government official rash enough to commit such thoughts to official paper? It didn’t take more than that to ruin careers in the 1950s.
Their panic just shows how out of touch they are with the working class! As for Kagan, there’s so much more that I could say, but for now I’ll just roll my eyes! 🙄
We’ve noted many times how the GOP’s obsession with TikTok is stupid, performative, and utterly hollow. For example, the party desperately wants to ban TikTok for “privacy reasons,” yet consistently opposes passing privacy laws, or regulating data brokers that traffic in far more data — at a far greater international scale — than TikTok executives could ever dream of.
For all the (mostly misleading) talk of the US government having too much say in content moderation decisions, this move would literally put US government officials effectively in control of content moderation decisions for TikTok. Apparently the thinking is “welp, it’s better than the Chinese government.” But… that doesn’t mean it’s good. Or constitutional.
…
Honestly, what this reads as is the moral panic over China and TikTok so eating the brains of US officials that rather than saying “hey, we should have privacy laws that block this,” they thought instead “hey, that would be cool if we could just do all the things we accuse China of doing, but where we pull the strings.”
…
So, look, if we’re going to talk about US government influence over content moderation choices, why aren’t we talking much more about this?
CFIUS monitoring agencies, including the departments of Justice, Treasury and Defense, would have the right to access TikTok facilities at any time and overrule its policies or contracting decisions. CFIUS would also set the rules for all new company hires, including that they must be U.S. citizens, must consent to additional background checks and could be denied the job at any time.
Vivek Ramaswamy would ban anyone under 16 from having social media accounts and believes members of Gen Z would choose TikTok over voting rights if forced to decide.
So, we’ve been talking a lot about age verification of late, as governments around the world have all (with the exception of Australia?!?) seemed to settle on that as a solution to “the problem” of the internet (exactly what that problem is they cannot quite identify, but they’re pretty sure there is one). Of course, as we’ve explained time and time again, age verification creates all sorts of problems, including undermining both privacy and speech rights.
We have covered the Protecting Kids On Social Media Act a few times, when it was first introduced back in April, where we highlighted how it was both unconstitutional and the rationale behind it was not supported by any actual evidence, and then again just recently when Senator Chris Murphy (one of the bill’s co-sponsors) wrote a ridiculously confused op-ed for the NY Times, claiming it was necessary because kids these days get too many music recommendations and no longer could discover new music on their own.
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.