Mediaboss Marketing

The Internet has always been filled with junk: porn, flamewars, and the dreaded misinformation. According to a new study in Nature, its no more toxic today than in the past. Levels of rudeness and hostility online have stayed the same for over 34 years across practically every platform.

The only thing that has changed is the surface area. Not only are more people online, but more people are online all the time. The Internet has gone from a place where you could theoretically get your news to where most people get their news, with few exceptions. Its understandable that people would feel more impacted by the Internet and mistake that for a change in toxicity. The real change, as it turns out, is our time online.

According to the researchers behind the study, toxicity online is just human nature. In other words, the medium how we communicate, as opposed to the what is the danger.

It inspires a question: why do we focus on moderation and curbing toxic comments and misinformation with entire industries of so-called experts instead of trying to moderate our Internet usage?

On a recent episode of 60 Minutes, featured misinformation experts argued that researchers are experiencing a chilling effect on social media platforms because of pushback from Republican policymakers who feel that claims about misinformation are being used to silence conservative voices. The experts argue that conservatives do spread more false, misleading, or downright dangerous information.

One one of their recommendations for solving that problem is a process called pre-bunking. In their words, pre-bunking is simply arming users with the tools to identify these posts. They fear that the public will struggle without this help Republicans, rightfully, say that all theyre doing is vilifying conservative positions.

The researchers interviewed on 60 Minutes framed the issue in a way that sounds like a plea for censorship. But this is a slippery slope: why should any speech protected by the First Amendment be censored, including by labelling? And why shouldnt we trust the public to use their best judgement?

A recent article from R Street points out another problem: defining what is and isnt misinformation in the first place isnt clear cut, something these experts seemed to take for granted on the 60 Minutes segment. How do you regulate something you cant define? As the Twitter Files showed us, politicisation and weaponisation of the term are very real issues, too conservative voices were suppressed.

But lets assume the term is clearly defined, as is the impact. Handling misinformation is more complex than determining the best content moderation policies.

Determining expertise has never been more difficult. For example, in the 2000s, you could advise people to avoid personal blogs or pseudonymous posters. Today, the rules around pseudonymity and blogging have changed. Its plausible that a Substack written under a pseudonym may be more reliable and even more widely read than a piece from a legacy publication. But how do you know which ones you can and cant trust?

While imperfect, Xs Community Notes feature is a good solution. It allows users to add context and clarification to potentially misleading posts, providing a layer of fact-checking and nuance that can help readers navigate complex issues. By crowdsourcing this process, Community Notes taps into the X user bases collective knowledge and expertise, which can be more effective than relying on a centralised team of moderators or fact-checkers.

Of course, there are potential downsides to a crowdsourced approach. Users may have biases and agendas, and theres a risk that popular opinion could drown out dissenting voices or minority perspectives. Its unclear how quality control works outside of the voting system.

But the alternative relying on a small group of experts to determine what is and isnt true is far more problematic.

As for the misinformation experts? They should also publish their findings and create supplementary material that people can opt into, should they want to use it to educate themselves. Because of the potential for bias (and their history), the problem is when they become the sole adjudicators of what is and isnt the truth.

Its not that misinformation researchers should be silenced. But we should be careful when they are treated like the be-all and end-all of speech online.

Read this article:
Misinformation 'experts' are paving the way for more censorship - UnHerd

Tags:

Meta, the company owning Facebook and Instagram, refuses to answer questions on its policy regarding the Israel-Hamas war censorship, despite the pressure from senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, reported TheIntercept on Tuesday.

Meta insists that theres been no discrimination against Palestinian-related content on their platforms, but at the same time, is refusing to provide us with any evidence or data to support that claim, Warren told The Intercept. If its ad-hoc changes and removal of millions of posts didnt discriminate against Palestinian-related content, then whats Meta hiding?

In a letter to Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent earlier in December, Warren posed dozens of specific questions about the companys Gaza-related content moderation efforts, said The Intercept. Warren asked about the "exact numbers of posts about the war, broken down by Hebrew or Arabic, that have been deleted or otherwise suppressed."

Meta's reply provided little detail, with no breakdown on languages or markets presented in the answer: "In the nine days following October 7, we removed or marked as disturbing more than 2,200,000 pieces of content in Hebrew and Arabic for violating our policies.

Now, Warren is joined by Sanders who again appeal to Meta. Metas response, dated January 29, 2024, did not provide any of the requested information necessary to understand Metas treatment of Arabic language or Palestine-related content versus other forms of content, the senators wrote.

They refer the the human rights groups that report "systemic moderation bias against Palestinians," said The Intercept.According to a February report by AccessNow,Meta suspended or restricted the accounts of Palestinian journalists and activists both in and outside of Gaza, and arbitrarily deleted a considerable amount of content, including documentation of atrocities and human rights abuses.

Zuckerberg already finds himself under intense scrutiny from senators. In February, Senate held a hearing focusing on safeguarding children and adolescents on social media, leaders from major platforms, including Meta, where its CEO was openly criticized the platforms' approach to child safety.

Read this article:
Meta Refuses To Provide Details On Its Gaza War Censorship - Report - I24NEWS - i24NEWS

Tags:

InNebraska,a bill that would criminalize librarians did not get enough votes.Meanwhile,inGeorgia, educators worry about legislation aimed at ALA funding;and in one Texas county, a citizen review board will now decide what stayson public library shelves.

Obscenity Bill that Could Criminalize Nebraska Librarians, Teachers Fails to Advance | KOLN Three days of tense debate ended with lawmakers falling three votes short of advancing a bill that received national attention after a senator read an explicit rape scene on the legislative floor.

Georgia Teachers Raise Concerns over Legislation Aimed at American Library Association Funding | 11 Alive The bill bars state and local governments from giving money to the American Library Association.

Texas County Directs Citizen Board to Review, and Potentially Remove, Library Books | KHOU Montgomery County, TX, officials adopted a new policy empowering a citizen committee to review, and potentially remove, library materials at the request of the public. County Judge Mark Keough, the policys author, said the process will prevent children from accessing inappropriate books. Critics argued the new guidelines strip librarians from the reconsideration process and will target books featuring LGBTQIA+ characters.

Amid Book Bans, DEI Cuts and 'Don't Say Gay' Laws, Seven States Will Mandate LGBTQ-Inclusive Curricula | NBC News Washington is the seventh state to enact legislation mandating that public schools incorporate LGBTQIA+-inclusive curricula in some capacity. The other six areCalifornia, New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, and Illinois.

Ali Velshi Banned Book ClubBlack Stories in Philadelphia | The Philadelphia Citizen Philly is not only the birthplace of American libraries, it's also an epicenter for resisting book bans through the use of "Little Free(dom) Libraries."

Teen Social Network Launched by Austin Public Library to Save Banned Books| KVUE The Save The Books Social Network unites teens who want to defend their freedom to read.

The Post-2020 Surge in Calls for Banning Books, Visualized | The Washington Post Data provided to The Washington Post by the ALA shows that this increase is part of a surge in such efforts in recent yearsones that are centered more heavily in Republican-voting states.

Texas District Votes to Remove The HatersFrom School Libraries | KVUE A discussion over two Jesse Andrews books, The Haters and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl,endedwith Lake Travis (TX) ISD leaders voting4-2 to remove The Haters from the Lake Travis High School library. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl will remain in circulation.

Libraries are always evolving. Stay ahead. Log In.

Original post:
Nebraska Obscenity Bill to Criminalize Librarians Fails to Advance | Censorship News - School Library Journal

Tags:

EU mulls removal of Iranian firm linked to internet blackout from censorship list  Arab News

Read the original post:
EU mulls removal of Iranian firm linked to internet blackout from censorship list - Arab News

Tags:

The justices of the Supreme Court never focused on the First Amendments words when hearing arguments in Murthy v. Missouri last week.

The case challenges the federal governments orchestration of social media censorship, so one might have expected the justices to pay some attention to the First Amendment itself. Instead, the court relied on its own weak doctrines that invited the censorship in the first place.

The First Amendment makes a crucial distinction between abridging and prohibiting. But theres a danger the court, in this case, will ignore this and instead reinforce its erroneous coercion standard. If thats what the court does, it will give the executive branch the green light to persist in the most far-reaching censorship in the nations history.

The coercion doctrine, established in Blum v. Yaretksy, suggests that when the government uses private entities to censor Americans, a complaining party must show that the government coercively converted the private censorship into government censorship. This doctrine has invited the government to think it may use social media platforms to suppress the public, as long as it isnt too obviously coercive against the platforms. Government coercion thus gets elevated as the archetypical measure of censorship (its not), and less than coercive privatized censorship gets legitimized (it shouldnt).

Nonetheless, the court seemed to take the Blum framework for granted. The justices spent much time asking when the government could persuade newspapers to drop their news stories, even though this case had nothing to do with that. The government never asked the suppressed scientists and doctors whether they would be willing to forbear from publishing. Instead, the government used the social media platforms to shut down the speech of the individuals, who were never consulted. Still, most of the justices seemed to assume, in line with Blum, that as long as the government didnt coerce the platforms, no censorship occurred.

The First Amendment, however, rejects the coercion test. It bars the government from abridging, or reducing, the freedom of speech. That standard stands in sharp contrast to the amendments bar against prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The amendment thus clearly rejects a coercing or prohibiting measure of government censorship in favor of a more sensitive inquiry as to whether the government abridged that is, diminished the freedom of speech.

This point about abridging was part of the plaintiffs argument. The brief of Missouri, Louisiana, and the individual plaintiffs urged the court to revisit Blum and other such cases, on the ground that their artificially narrow conception of state action . weakens the freedom of speech. In contrast, the First Amendment capaciously protects the freedom of speech from any abridging (i.e., diminishing) of that freedom.

This, the Constitutions measure of freedom of speech, clearly bars the government from working with social media to set parameters on public debate. Yet under the Blum coercion standard, thats exactly what the government has been doing orchestrating social media to bar evidence and opinion that dissents from the official narrative and questions official policy.

Even cursory attention to the First Amendment would have offered a profound corrective to this coercion doctrine the doctrine that invites the censorship. The justices, however, appeared to leave the First Amendment aside.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

This failure even to quote the First Amendment is especially troublesome because of the judicial barriers that tend to leave the public without an effective remedy for censorship. The courts qualified immunity doctrine leaves people with little chance of getting damages for past censorship, and its standards for obtaining an injunction leave them with difficulty securing a remedy against future censorship, as the government can simply declare that theres little reason to think the censorship against the plaintiffs will recur.

So, the government can censor one American after another, seriatim, without consequence.

Philip Hamburger teaches at Columbia Law School and is CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents four individual plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri. He is the author of Courting Censorship.

Read the original:
Supreme Court must rely on the First Amendment, not its own precedent, when deciding government censorship case - Washington Examiner

Tags: