Digiday’s Post

Censorship is the Tool Used When The Lie Loses Its Power Summary —— Have liberals and conservatives equally suffered ‘legally protected interest’ and been afforded equal-protection? As an outfall or reaction to inconvenient truths — ersatz ‘truth agendas’ seek control via algos, bots, fact-checkers, self-censorship, fusion centers, internet-observatories, deplatforming, cancellation, trolls, hate-policing and truth-policing. Joint Activity outsources #censorship to third parties or private corporations working together in #corporatecomplicity with government entities or officials in performing public functions —— thereby subject to claims under civil-rights laws. ‘Machtgelüst’, a lust for power, has been institutionalized, for centuries, as colonial-calls to ‘truth and ‘safety. Living in the ‘bell-curve media bubble’ is not a solution. Subscribing to WSJ, NYT, or HBR will not inform us of the next ‘Black Swan’. Most of the U.S. media was controlled by 50 corporations in 1983. Recognize that establishment now controls 100% left-leaning press and a vast majority, 90% or more of the right-leaning press. As much as I liked Bill Clinton, as a result of administrative policies of the period — 5 corporations now control U.S. media. Much of media #spin reads like parody today. Machtgelüst ‘hunger to overpower’ consumes a media controlled by the corporate-establishment. Fourth Estate, mainstream press and non-alternative news media is complicit, today, in #jointactivity #PublicPrivatePartnerships effectively outsourcing ‘Machtgelüst censorship. ‘“Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth'" within the present administration "targeted suppression of conservative ideas…Government jointly participated” with the social-media companies to such an extent that [they] have become “pervasively entwined” in the private companies’ workings to such an extent as to blur the line between public and private action. Therefore, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits that the government Defendants are responsible for the private social media companies’ decisions to censor #protectedcontent on social media platforms.”” — U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty Supreme Court: Blocking People on Facebook Can Violate Constitutional Rights? [National Review] The Supreme Court addressed two cases on the question of when the First Amendment is violated by public officials compelling censorship via third parties: https://lnkd.in/gCEquCAM Joint-activity :: https://lnkd.in/gH9Kbf9X Fifth Estate :: https://lnkd.in/gJifQTib

Elon Musk’s X sues California over new social media transparency laws | California Elon Musk’s X sued California on Friday, difficult the constitutionality of a surrounding regulation origination brandnew transparency necessities for social media corporations, together with how they police disinformation, abhor pronunciation and extremism.X, For More Information Do visit Our website! #News #WorldNews #news #trending #viral #like #share

Supreme Court Weighs When Officials May Block Citizens on #SocialMedia The justices struggled to distinguish private conduct, which is not subject to the #FirstAmendment, from state action, which is. “The Supreme Court worked hard in a pair of arguments on Tuesday to find a clear constitutional line separating elected officials’ purely private social media accounts from ones that reflect government actions and are subject to the First Amendment. After three hours, though, it was not clear that a majority of the justices had settled on a clear test. The question in the two cases was when the Constitution limits officials’ ability to block users from their accounts. The answer turned on whether the officials’ use of the accounts amounted to “state action,” which is governed by the First Amendment, or private activity, which is not.” By Adam Liptak https://lnkd.in/euPQRw23 #freedom #freedomofspeech #censorship #propaganda #misinformation #security #privacy #justice #democracy

Hello Everybody! #TrustTuesday is here! The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to make pivotal decisions about what Americans can see on social media. These two cases being heard by the U.S. Justices is the most important first amendment cases to be seen since the start of the internet era. After four hours of argument yesterday, Florida & Texas are on the side of not censoring political views on social media platforms and protecting our first amendment rights of free speech. The definition of "content moderation" and the nuances of ownership of what is moderated and allowed to be seen on platforms takes center stage. For those in #TrustandSafety this is likely a hot topic with your teams about the path forward. With a multitude of global elections, the need to curb #misinformation is critical. While also ensuring conservative viewpoints aren't being gated. For companies to scale moderation well, it might be advantageous to leverage 3rd parties to enforce content moderation because of the nuances between censorship verse editorial discretion. If your company needs the highest quality #contentmoderation and #policychangemanagement look to Vaco to protect your brand. #digitalcontentservices #incubationworkflows #riskmanagement #socialmedia #regulatorycompliance https://lnkd.in/gbR7_X-b

The Supreme Court cast doubt Monday on state laws that could affect how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users. The cases are among several this term in which the justices could set standards for free speech in the digital age. In nearly four hours of arguments, several justices questioned aspects of laws adopted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas in 2021. But they seemed wary of a broad ruling, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett warning of “land mines” she and her colleagues need to avoid in resolving the two cases. While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. Differences on the court emerged over how to think about the platforms — as akin to newspapers that have broad free-speech protections, or telephone companies, known as common carriers, that are susceptible to broader regulation.

🔍 The Supreme Court in spotlight! 🏛️💬 Deliberating on cases reshaping online speech and First Amendment in social media. 📜🔍 Laws from Florida & Texas trigger debates on censorship and platform duties. 🤔 Who's right? Legal scholars, playwrights, and more weigh in. 🌐💡 Conservatives fear government-led censorship with platform content moderation. #SupremeCourt #OnlineSpeech #FirstAmendment #Debates #Censorship 📚🎭

The internet and the First Amendment is a tricky issue. Are social media sites not at all responsible for content, or do they become responsible when they use algorithms to promote some content and suppress other content? What about how they sell infofmation about us and use it to select both what content we see and what ads we are exposed to? People should be able to access all public information about political candidates, but social media can tailor ads to be seen by different segments of the population, so people don't have ready access to all of what a candidate says publicly. For example, a candidate could use racist tropes in ads to White voters and use race-neutral language to Black voters. What about disinformation, deep-fakes, altered audio, Russian or other propaganda, bots, and scams? Some are so sophisticated that experts have trouble identifying them. Can social media sites flag or remove them? Can the government flag or ask hosting companies and social media companies to take down foreign propaganda sites and posts designed to destabilize the country or to radicalize people to entice them to commit acts of violence or domestic terror? What about deliberate election interference such as incorrect information about polling locations and times, or lies about candidates? We haven't yet figured how to protect us on the internet and social media, and it is now being complicated by AI-produced content based on indiscriminate learning models that include an internet full of lies, disinformation, and outdated information, not to mention copyright violations. Are advertizers free to lie, or can they be held accountable for damages done by lies as well as directly from their products? How will people be protected from content explicitly designed to harm while protecting everyone's right to speak? These are not easy issues to solve. The Internet and the First Amendment https://lnkd.in/e_Pd7gWW

Supreme Court: Blocking People on Facebook Can Violate Constitutional Rights? [National Review] The Supreme Court addressed two cases on the question of when the First Amendment is violated by public officials compelling censorship via third parties: https://lnkd.in/gCEquCAM ‘Machtgelüst’ drives the ‘Truth Agenda’ —— Have liberals and conservatives equally suffered ‘legally protected interest’ and been afforded equal-protection? As an outfall or reaction to inconvenient truths — ersatz ‘truth agendas’ seek control via algos, bots, fact-checkers, self-censorship, fusion centers, internet-observatories, deplatforming, cancellation, trolls, hate-policing and truth-policing. Joint Activity outsources #censorship to third parties or private corporations working together in #corporatecomplicity with government entities or officials in performing public functions —— thereby subject to claims under civil-rights laws. ‘Machtgelüst’, a lust for power, has been institutionalized, for centuries, as colonial-calls to ‘truth and ‘safety. Living in the ‘bell-curve media bubble’ is not a solution. Subscribing to WSJ, NYT, or HBR will not inform us of the next ‘Black Swan’. Most of the U.S. media was controlled by 50 corporations in 1983. Recognize that establishment now controls 100% left-leaning press and a vast majority, 90% or more of the right-leaning press. As much as I liked Bill Clinton, as a result of administrative policies of the period — 5 corporations now control U.S. media. Much of media #spin reads like parody today. Machtgelüst ‘hunger to overpower’ consumes a media controlled by the corporate-establishment. Fourth Estate, mainstream press and non-alternative news media is complicit, today, in #jointactivity #PublicPrivatePartnerships effectively outsourcing ‘Machtgelüst censorship. ‘“Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth'" within the present administration "targeted suppression of conservative ideas…Government jointly participated” with the social-media companies to such an extent that [they] have become “pervasively entwined” in the private companies’ workings to such an extent as to blur the line between public and private action. Therefore, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits that the government Defendants are responsible for the private social media companies’ decisions to censor #protectedcontent on social media platforms.”” — U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty Joint-activity :: https://lnkd.in/gH9Kbf9X Fifth Estate :: https://lnkd.in/gJifQTib

I think the author of the attached Op-Ed is wrong, and so is the law passed in my state of Texas regarding regulating the content of social media companies. I believe that all that needs to happen to properly regulate social media in America is the repeal of United States Code, Title 42, Section 230, which prevents social media companies from being sued for the content they allow on their sites. Once that protection is removed the social media companies will start properly moderating their content to protect against continuous devastating litigation. #repealt42sec230 https://lnkd.in/gUYmdGkB

Tuesday, May 7, 2024- United Interdependent Global Activists- The Way To Peace! #460- "Global Cross Media News Universe, Insights, New Horizons, News Purview's, and Global Perspectives,"- "The Question Remains the Same," "One Would Think that Mr. Trump Would Clearly Know" by Now, "The Limits on The Comments" that "He Can Make While on Trial in New York,"- Amis, "If This was A Criminal Fraud Trial Against The Majority of The 341,541,362 Citizens in The United States of America," as of The Seventh of May 2024, "It is Quite Possible that Limit Would have Been Reached!" However, "The Follow Up Question" is "Why is Mr. Trump Being Accorded," "What Appears to Be Special Treatment," (Over and Over Again)! And "What Kind of Message is This!" "Is There Special Treatment for The Elites," and "Celebrity," and "Another for Everyone Else!" Note that, "Judge Merhan said" on Monday, The Sixth of May 2024, "that the fines were not having their intended deterrent effect, and that Trump could be jailed for future violations." However "Another Follow Up Question" of "Electoral Significance" is "In The Future," "Should Candidates," and "Nominees," for "Public Office," (Whether It Be Federal," "State," "City," or "Local"), "Be Vetted" by "An Independent," "Impartial," "Non-Political," "Judicial Official!"   "Let Us Agree" that "The Youth of America Need Excellent Examples" in "Public Service," "Justice," "Law and Order," and "Good Leadership," that are "Inspiring," and that "Represents A Code of Ethics" that "Is Irreproachable," and "Impeccable!"   "Mr. Trump" is "The First Former President of The United States of America" to "Be Criminally Indicted!" And "Has Been Charged in Four Separate Criminal Cases," and "Charged on Ninety-One Felony Counts!"- Cont.- For Global Cross Media News Events, Google, Yahoo, Bing, Linkedin, YouTube, Firefox, MSN, Saa09, Instagram, or Twitter- United Interdependent Global Activists- The Way To Peace! #460