Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON (AFP) Silicon Valley is finding itself entrenched in battle with the far right over ground rules for the digital world, a conflict that mirrors the polarization of American politics in recent years.

The recent firing of a Google engineer for questioning the internet giants diversity efforts, which ignited a backlash from the alt-right and fueled charges of hypocrisy, is just one example.

Facebook has been accused of suppressing conservative voices and skewing information presented in its news feed. Twitter has banned accounts from far right activists for violating its terms on hate speech. Paypal refused to transmit donations to a group in Europe seeking to turn back refugees, claiming it does not support activities that promote hate or violence. And even Airbnb canceled accounts ahead of a white nationalist rally for promoting discrimination in violation of the terms of the home-sharing platform.

Activists on the extreme right have responded with an outcry against the tech giants and have begun migrating to alternatives for social networking and money transfers. The conflict has caught Silicon Valley off-guard, amid a political onslaught from critics as online platforms grow in importance.

A Donald Trump supporter holding a poster of Pepe the Frog, a symbol of the alt-right movement, at a campaign event in Bedford, New Hampshire, Sept. 29, 2016. (Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images/JTA)

In Silicon Valley, youve got a bunch of people who are interested in technology who would prefer to be apolitical, said Bob ODonnell, consultant for Technalysis Research. They are being dragged into these decisions and being put into a difficult spot.

ODonnell acknowledged that the big tech firms may allow bias to filter into their business operations because Silicon Valley and northern California are heavily Democratic and heavily focused on political correctness.

The flare-up of tensions come with the tech sector roiled by accusations of discrimination, sexual harassment and a lack of diversity despite the idealism espoused by its leaders.

Alan Rosenblatt, a digital strategist for left-leaning groups, said alt-right activists are frustrated because they have been unable to exploit online platforms as much as they would like.

It traces back to the whole fake news issue starting in the 2016 election campaign, Rosenblatt said.

Rosenblatt said social networks such as Facebook and Twitter were correctly working to crack down on disinformation, such as the erroneous report about a child sex ring in a Washington pizza restaurant in an effort to tarnish candidate Hillary Clinton.

It was appropriate, Rosenblatt argued, to suspend accounts pushing alt-right messaging that is either hateful or disinformation.

President Donald Trump, he argued, is the greatest enabler of the alt- right. He gives political coverage to their attacks on diversity and workplace fairness.

Tensions have flared at Google over the firing of engineer James Damore, who published a manifesto which claimed biological differences were a key factor in the low percentage of women in technology jobs.

This photo taken on December 28, 2016 in Vertou, western France, shows logos of US multinational technology company Google. (AFP PHOTO / LOIC VENANCE)

Google said Damores memo went too far in advancing harmful gender stereotypes but his dismissal fueled criticism that the tech giant was ignoring diverse viewpoints.

Damore said in an essay Friday that Google had become an echo chamber intolerant of open debate.

How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

Elaine Ou, an engineer at a financial technology company, offered a similar comment in a column for Bloomberg: Silicon Valley wont solve its gender issues if political correctness shuts down every conversation.

In a sign of the fractious atmosphere, Google canceled a town hall meeting intended to air viewpoints on diversity, sexism and free speech, citing worker safety concerns.

Google chief executive Sundar Pichai said in a memo to staff that despite the cancellation he wants a frank, open discussion and that all of your voices and opinions matter.

Some analysts argue a small group of activists are trying to impose their will on the tech sector.

A small group of social terrorists have hijacked the rational discourse led by societys most accomplished, intelligent, and promising organizations, said a blog post by John Battelle, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and journalist.

Thomas Main, a political science professor at the City University of New Yorks Baruch College, said the latest developments reflect a realization that the internet may not be the utopia for political discourse that some had imagined.

In some ways the internet is an ideal speech situation, he said.

But extremist trolls, Main said, are polluting the environment and you need some gatekeeping function.

Main said the gatekeeping function is a big problem because we dont want government going in and its not clear if the digital companies are positioned to handle this.

Im searching for a better solution, he said.

ODonnell said social networks and other digital companies may end up splintering along political lines in the same manner as the media industry.

We may see over time an evolution where one social network is more left leaning and another is right leaning, he said. It has become so challenging to remain in the middle.

The rest is here:
Silicon Valley's accidental war with the far right - The Times of Israel

Accounting for 23 percent of GDP worldwide, the United States has dominated the global economy for over 70 years. However, the US attitude towards trade policy has changed significantly since the new administration took office. President Donald Trump has removed the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), slowed the progress of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and called into question the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

With these notable changes in policies, the United States is no longer situated at the forefront of international trade, and in its absence the European Union has stepped in. The European Union recently signed a free trade agreement with Canada, finished free trade negotiations with Japan, and has essentially replaced the United States as the leader in global trade policy.

In recent years, there has been a significant rise in free trade agreements. This rise can be attributed to the lack of movement in the most recent round of trade negotiations among World Trade Organization (WTO) members, as well as the organizations inability to set world standards. The WTO was created to negotiate trade agreements and remove obstacles to international trade. While the WTO had success in the early stages of removing tariffs, issues with non-tariff barriers have slowed down negotiations. As less progress is made through the WTO framework, even more emphasis will be placed on free trade agreements and their ability to shape global trade policy.

TPP and TTIP were significant trade deals, not just for the United States and its signatories, but also for the world more broadly. The Brookings Institution conducted a study on the impact of TPP, stating the agreement was significant because it represented 60 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of international trade, in addition to bringing together both developed and developing countries in the Pacific Rim. TTIP represented nearly half of the worlds GDP and, as Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce Michael Czinkota states, it was the Wests last best opportunity to set global rules as the emerging markets continue to gain ground. NAFTA, when instated, was the most comprehensive free trade agreement in terms of gross domestic product. The removal and stalling of these agreements leaves the United States no longer as the rule-setter for new trade policies, but as a follower to the decisions made in European free trade agreements.

In February, the European Union ratified its free trade agreement with Canada, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). With plans for it to be in effect by September, this agreement will represent the most comprehensive trade agreement in the world. Besides the standard reduction of tariffs between the two countries, CETA addresses issues such as trade of services, simplifying technical and regulatory standards, and greater protection for intellectual property to reduce as many non-tariff barriers as possible. The most significant advantage the European Union has gained from this agreement, though, is access to the North American market EU companies can now compete with US exporters in the Canadian market. Overall, CETA represents two strong, Western trade powers setting the global standards on non-tariff barriers yet to be addressed on the world stage.

Prior to the G20 summit held in July, the European Union and Japan concluded discussions on their free trade agreement. For both powers, it represents the commitment to improving global trade despite the United States new turn towards America First policies. With the fourth largest economy in the world and the EUs second largest Asian trading partner, Japan is a huge market for the European Union. The agreement also demonstrates the benefits of being part of the European Union and is the first agreement concluded post-Brexit. For Japan, it will be the largest trade agreement made to date and provide their car manufacturers with greater access to the European Union, a market which was once heavily restricted. Both sides believe this agreement will encourage other countries to further reduce barriers and value free trade even without US support.

In addition to CETA and the EU-Japan agreement, the European Union has a free trade agreement with South Korea, which went into effect in 2015, as well as pending agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. While all will benefit from the higher standards being set by the European Union and its new trading partners, US companies will begin to feel pressure in current markets as EU companies gain preferred access through these new deals. Since 2000, the European Union has enacted over 30 trade agreements with countries in Africa, Asia, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and South America. In the same time frame, the United States had enacted only 20 trade agreements with a more narrow focus on South and Central America. As the European Union continues to build agreements with more countries, it gains a larger role in defining global trade policy.

As long as the United States continues to follow its America First policies, the European Union will set the global trade standards and rules with its free trade agreements. The European Union has the largest free trade agreement in the world with Canada and it is forming more agreements with key nations. As free trade agreements become the new tool for defining global trade policy, recent developments could mark the end of US-dominated trade policy and a beginning of a new era led by the European Union.

Nicole Gunkle is a Fellowship Editor at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). Her focus is on European Affairs and International Trade with a particular interest in the European Union. Nicole holds a MA in International Affairs from American University.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more:
Meet the New Global Trade Leader: the European Union - HuffPost

The sharp slowdown in the migrant crisis since 2015, Emmanuel Macrons defeat of anti-EU populist Marine Le Pen in France earlier this year, and the likely re-election of Germanys Angela Merkel have reinvigorated optimism that Europe has survived yet another round of challenges. Not so fast. There will be many more problems to manage in coming months, and the current confidence is unlikely to last long.

First, the entrance onto the stage of the youthful, energetic Macron has made France the envy of others across Europe hungry for a new generation of leaders in their own countries. But the most remarkable outcome of Frances elections this year was the scale of defeat for the centre-Right and centre-Left parties that have dominated French politics for decades. Pro- or anti-EU, French voters want change, and Macron must deliver it with a legislature in which 70% of deputies are serving in government for the first time. If inexperience undermines his ability to revitalise Frances economy and energise its labour market all those fresh faces will be much less welcome.

More broadly, Macron needs to put Frances fiscal house before sceptical Germans will work with him toward EU fiscal union, banking union, and other needed EU reforms. The new president quickly lost 10 percentage points from his early approval rating as citizens look past the easy smile and confident speeches toward cuts in social spending. And as his predecessors discovered, labour reform, no matter how skilfully presented, draws labour unions into the streets.

Then there is Italy, a country that remains in political stalemate. The next elections, likely in the first half of 2018, are increasingly likely to produce either another fragmented government that cant advance much-needed political and economic reforms or a Five Star Movement-led government thats openly hostile to the EU.

The migrant story continues to reshape Italys political landscape. An EU deal with Turkey has sharply limited the flow of desperate people across the Aegean toward Greece, but arrivals in Italy, mainly by boat from Libya, increased 20% from 2015 to 2016. For the first half of this year, just 9,000 migrants reached Greece, and 4,000 arrived in Spain, while Italy has now taken in more than 90,000 people. Italian anger is rising as the French and Austrian governments seem more interested in tightening their borders with Italy than with sharing even a small part of its burdens. An EU quota system which mandates that each EU member take in refugees to ease the pressure on others is not being enforced.

In particular, the Visegrad countries of Eastern Europe Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were expected to accept about 11,000 refugees as part of this system. Slovakia and the Czech Republic have taken in 28 people, as of this writing, while Poland and Hungary have accepted zero. This is not the only source of defiance from the East. Hungarys Viktor Orban has fully embraced the term illiberal democrat as he battles to consolidate political control in that country, and Polands Right-wing government is still working on legislation that would allow legislators to fire the countrys judges and replace them with political cronies. The EU has threatened to provide less money for these countries in the next EU budget, but nothing credible has yet been done to force them to comply with EU rules.

If all that werent enough to worry about, there is also the quest of Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to give himself Putin-like powers in his country and the problems that creates between Turkey and the EU. Erdogan has discovered that public hostility toward Europe boosts his popularity at home, and a re-election bid next year is sure to create more friction with Germany and others. It could also jeopardise Erdogans deal with the EU that keeps huge numbers of refugees in Turkey in exchange for European cash and various political promises. That deal will probably hold, because it works for both sides. If it doesnt, Europe could face another migrant crisis, reviving populist anger across the continent.

Add troubles with Trump, provocations from Putin, and the high-stakes complexities of Brexit negotiations. Merkel remains a force for stability, and Macron may energise reform in France and the EU more broadly, but its clear that EU leaders will have their hands full for the rest of this year and beyond.

Ian Bremmer is president, Eurasia Group

The views expressed are personal

Visit link:
Is it too early to get optimistic about the European Union? - Hindustan Times

GETTY

The European Commissions annual report on monitoring the application of EU law showed a 21 per cent increase of open infringement cases, suggesting member states are standing up to Brussels bureaucrats and their relentless legislative agenda.

The report shows a huge rise over the past few years, with the number of new late-transposition infringement cases - when member states are slow to implement EU directives - increasing sharply in 2016 (847) compared to 2015 (543).

Cyprus and Belgium top the list of member states that delay in giving force to directives, the report reveals.

However, most of the proceedings were against Germany and Spain (91 each). In 26 cases, Germany is said to have implemented EU directives or regulations too late and, in 65 cases, incorrectly.

The high number of infringement procedures remains a serious problem, the EU Commission writes in its report which was published last month.

The report reads: The high number of infringement procedures, which in 2016 rose to a five-year peak, remains a serious concern.

Failure to ensure timely and correct transposition of EU legislation ultimately deprives citizens and businesses of their benefits under EU law.

The Commission therefore attaches great importance to ensuring the effective application of the law.

GETTY FILE IMAGE

The high number of infringement procedures, which in 2016 rose to a five-year peak, remains a serious concern

EU report

Reclaiming control over Britains laws was a key reason behind the Brexit vote.

Last week, Jacob Rees-Mogg said the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) must "stop" in the UK on the day of Brexit.

The Tory MP hit out at European rule and said the UK must have control of its own laws once again.

Speaking on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, Mr Rees-Mogg rejected the notion the ECJ could be Britains senior court for a period after its exit from the European Union.

Asked by presenter Nick Robinson whether there should be no compromise on ECJ power, Mr Rees-Mogg replied the country needed to prepare to take back control now.

He said: Thats absolutely right. It cannot be our senior court for a day after weve left the European Union.

GETTY

It is about control. Do we make our laws according to our own democratic principles on the day weve left or not.

If we dont, were still in the European Union and that is the essence of this whole debate.

Actually I think the implementation period is now, people should be getting ready now, government departments should be getting ready now, they know whats going to happen, they know were leaving.

But there will be some things that cant be done until weve left. But the court just must stop on the day weve gone.

Go here to read the rest:
EU nations REBELLION: Huge rise in number countries BREAKING Brussels' laws - Express.co.uk

For 16 years, the United States has tried to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan with a goal of preventing the war-torn country from once again being used as a launching pad for international terrorism as it was during the September 11 attacks.

But despite spending more than $600 billion and thousands of lives lost, American efforts in Afghanistan have largely fallen short of expectations and promises.

The situation in Afghanistan is incredibly shaky right now, said Lt. Col. Mike Waltz, a former Special Forces commander in Afghanistan and the Middle East. We are essentially partnered with the Afghans. And the Afghans are losing slowly.

PENTAGON TO SEND ALMOST 4,000 ADDITIONAL FORCES TO AFGHANISTAN, US OFFICIAL SAYS

As the Trump administration mulls its next move, experts say both Iran and Russia are actively trying to move in to shape Afghanistan in its favor.

Experts say the two American foes are trying to exert their influence over Afghanistans future as the U.S. debates what the new strategy should be for the U.S. mission there. According to U.S. and Afghan officials, both countries have stepped up their contacts with insurgent groups and are even training and arming them.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen John Nicholson Jr., has repeatedly warned about both countries growing influence.

Russia has become more assertive over the past year, overtly lending legitimacy to the Taliban to undermine NATO efforts and bolster belligerents using the false narrative that only the Taliban are fighting [ISIS], Gen. Nicholson told the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee in February. Similarly, neighboring Iran is providing support to the Taliban while also engaging the Afghan government over issues of water rights, trade, and security.

EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN MILITARY SUPPORT FOR AFGHAN TALIBAN IS GROWING

A few months later, one of the Pentagons top Generals issued a similar though more tempered warning.

"I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an influential party in this part of the world," Gen. Joseph Votel, chief of U.S. Central Command, told American lawmakers in March. "I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to [the Taliban] in terms of weapons or other things that may be there."

After initially losing territory during the surge of American troops six years ago, the Taliban is gaining ground in areas once controlled by the U.S.-led NATO coalition and Afghan security forces. ISIS has also established a foothold in several parts of the country, as well.

Insurgents have gained ground in the wake of President Obamas decision to withdraw U.S. combat forces at the end of 2014. Both groups have launched a string of deadly attacks across the country this summer, and Afghan security forces have sustained huge losses among their ranks.

GEN. KEANE: RUSSIA MOVING ARMS THROUGH IRAN TO TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN

Unlike, Afghanistans troublesome neighbor, Pakistan, which directly supports the Taliban, it is not clear the extent of Russia and Irans involvement with insurgent groups.

We havent any indications that there are sanctuaries in Iran right now, said Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan Ambassador to the U.S. told Fox News, But the ones in Pakistan continue to be a problem for Afghanistan.

Pakistan has long been the chief supporter of the Taliban. Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the violent Taliban group, the Haqqani network, as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency,"

In order to deal with the growing problems in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has proposed sending roughly an additional 4,000 U.S. troops to train and assist Afghan Security forces.

"We are not winning in Afghanistan right now, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Congress in June. And we will correct this as soon as possible."

But the Trump administration, which promised a new strategy by the middle of July, is resisting that plan. Some in the White House, including President Trump, have questioned whether winning in Afghanistan is even possible.

Some security analysts are worried given the deteriorating security situation that the Trump Administration will simply walk away from the 16 years of American investment in Afghanistan.

The stakes are high. What we cant do is just walk away, said Waltz, who argues that the troop number sent to Afghanistan is secondary, and not nearly as important, as a public statement of continued commitment from President Trump. President Trump will then be to Afghanistan what President Obama was to Iraq.

The White House is expected to announce a new policy in the coming days. Afghan officials hope it will be one of continued support.

The United States and Afghanistan are fighting a common enemy, Mohib said. We have had a long partnership so far. We are hoping to be able to continue that.

Conor Powell joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2009 and serves as a Jerusalem-based foreign correspondent.

Follow this link:
Russia, Iran pushing their influence in Afghanistan as ...