Mediaboss Marketing

And unlike Haugens media-grabbing Capitol appearance in early October, when she testified solo in front of a Senate Commerce subcommittee, she had to share the spotlight Wednesday. Republicans called their own former Facebook employee to testify alongside her: A conservative who echoed their own arguments about censorship.

Lawmakers also appeared far apart on the hearings main topic: how to rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a decades-old law that provides broad liability protections over user-posted content online.

Haugen even faced some harsh public questioning from GOP lawmakers Wednesday for the first time ever.

Here are POLITICOs top takeaways from the hearing:

The warm reception and praise Haugen received during her earlier appearances before the Senate and policymakers in Europe were less evident Wednesday, as some Republicans took a hostile tone with the former Facebook product manager.

Several lawmakers, especially Democrats, still heaped praise on her for divulging thousands of internal documents detailing Facebooks research into the harm its products inflict on vulnerable populations or political discourse. But the tough questioning from some GOP members, along with low in-person attendance at the hearing, show that her star power may be dwindling and that her credibility with Republican lawmakers may be starting to wear thin.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) were among the lawmakers who grilled, snubbed or interrupted Haugen in a manner unseen at the Senate hearing in October, when members of their party joined Democrats in applauding Haugens strength and bravery for coming forward.

McMorris Rodgers zeroed in on GOP complaints that social media companies censor conservative voices and in doing so, appeared to pin Haugen as a liberal even though she has not been explicit about her political views.

"Do you support Big Tech's censorship of constitutionally protected speech on their platforms?" McMorris Rodgers said, demanding a yes-or-no answer.

When Haugen failed to respond in one word, McMorris Rodgers interrupted her, saying: I take it as a no.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen appears before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee at the Russell Senate Office Building on Oct. 5, 2021 in Washington, D.C. | Matt McClain-Pool/Getty Images

In another apparent snub, Johnson posed a question to Haugen but then asked witness Kara Frederick, a tech policy research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to respond. Johnson raised concerns about Haugens recent testimony before the U.K. Parliament in which she had called for regulators to intervene in tech platforms content moderation operations. Johnson argued that government involvement in private businesses content moderation is a threat to the First Amendment.

This is un-American, Johnson said in his line of questioning to Haugen but he tossed the floor to Frederick before Haugen could respond.

It added up to often-chillier treatment than Haugen has received since going public as the Facebook whistleblower in October, including in her high-rated 60 Minutes appearance and recent profile in Vogue.

Frederick, the Republicans key witness on Wednesday, offered a stark contrast at times with Haugen, especially on the accusations that Facebook censors conservative viewpoints on topics such as the origins of the Covid pandemic.

Frederick, who worked at Facebook from 2016 to 2017 and helped develop its Global Security Counterterrorism Analysis Program, said she joined the company because of what she saw as its mission the democratization of information.

But I was wrong, its 2021, and the verdict is in: Big Tech is an enemy of the people, she said. It is time all independently minded citizens recognize this. Her arguments were echoed by numerous Republican lawmakers, even as they opposed the idea of creating an agency to regulate the tech giants.

She added that social media companies like Twitter and Facebook censor Republican lawmakers more than Democrats. Both companies have previously rejected these accusations, and some analysis has found that right-leaning social media influencers, conservative media outlets and other GOP supporters dominate online discussions on hot political topics.

Holding Big Tech accountable should result in less censorship, not more, Frederick said.

Meanwhile, Haugen called for tougher government oversight of social media companies, including their algorithms.

But the two witnesses agreed on one thing: that Facebooks algorithms amplify extremist content on the platform.

I am extremely concerned about Facebooks role in things like counterterrorism or counter-state actors that are weaponizing the platform, Haugen said. Facebook is chronically under-invested in those capacities and if you knew the size of the counterterrorism team for the threat investigators youd be shocked.

Facebook, which recently renamed itself Meta, contested this assertion. The company has more than 350 employees working against organizations that proclaim or are engaged in violence and will spend over $5 billion on safety and security this year, according to a spokesperson. (Thats a small percentage of the companys revenues, Haugen noted.) The company removed 9.8 million pieces of terrorism content from July to September, according to its transparency center.

Read Our Coverage on The Facebook Papers

Frederick, who was deployed three times to Afghanistan for the Defense Department, said she went to work at Facebook because she believed in the danger of foreign Islamic terrorism. I went to make sure that the platform was hostile to those bad actors, illegal actors. Instead, she said, human traffickers, Islamist terrorists and drug cartels all use the platform, despite being against Facebooks policies.

Democrats and Republicans agreed that Congress needs to focus on the algorithms that the companies use to determine what content their users see including in the debate about the sweeping liability protections the platforms enjoy under Section 230.

They sharply diverged from there, however.

Democrats often argue that social media platforms lean on the 1996 law to evade responsibility for misinformation, hate speech and other harmful material on their sites, while many Republicans contend that the statute enables tech companies to censor conservative voices with impunity.

None of the Democrat-led bills that had been slated for consideration at Wednesdays hearing had Republican support a reflection of the two parties existing on vastly different wavelengths on Section 230 changes.

Crenshaw emphasized that even bipartisan outrage at Facebook and other large tech players cannot bring the parties closer together on the matter.

"I want to be clear. ... Republicans and Democrats do not agree on this issue, he said during the hearing. I've observed a clever strategy by the media and some of my colleagues implying that we all agree, that we're all moving in the right direction towards the same thing: We're all mad at Big Tech. This is not really true; we have very different views of the problem.

Despite some commonalities in the parties respective proposals, the parties are a long way from sorting through thornier details like the contours of what material Section 230 should cover.

Some Republicans have called for repealing the statute entirely. One of four Democratic bills discussed at the hearing the SAFE TECH Act (H.R. 3421 (117)) would take a narrower approach, removing the liability protections when it comes to extremist and terrorist content.

A separate group of Energy and Commerce lawmakers the consumer protection subcommittee led by Chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is convening a related hearing Dec. 9 on legislation aimed at bringing transparency and accountability to social media platforms and their algorithms. Instagram head Adam Mosseri faces a grilling before the Senate Commerce consumer protection panel a day earlier, albeit on a more bipartisan issue: Childrens privacy online.

But some see the dissonance across party lines on Section 230 as a threat to any broader efforts to rein in tech companies.

There are ideas coming from both sides of the dais that are worth debating, said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). The devils in the details, but if were not even trying to engage in a bipartisan process, were never going to get a strong or lasting set of policies.

Continue reading here:
Tech feuding flares on the Hill as Haugens star power fades - Politico

Twitter shares jump amid news of CEO Jack Dorsey stepping down. FOX Business' Susan Li with more updates.

New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was thrust into the spotlight on Monday when Jack Dorsey announced he would step down from the position in a surprise decision that puts a man who once declared the company is "not to be bound by the First Amendment" in charge of the social media juggernaut.

Agrawal, who was Twitter's chief technology officer until the social media giant's board unanimously appointed him to replace Dorsey, was quickly praised by his successor.

New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was thrust into the spotlight on Monday when Jack Dorsey announced he would step down. (Twitter) (Twitter | Istock)

TWITTER CEO JACK DORSEY TO STEP DOWN

"Hes been my choice for some time given how deeply he understands the company and its needs," Dorsey wrote. "Parag has been behind every critical decision that helped turn this company around. Hes curious, probing, rational, creative, demanding, self-aware, and humble. He leads with heart and soul, and is someone I learn from daily. My trust in him as our CEO is bone deep."

Agrawal also took to Twitter with thoughts on his promotion.

"Im honored and humbled," he wrote to kick off a lengthy statement.

"We recently updated our strategy to hit ambitious goals, and I believe that strategy to be bold and right. But our critical challenge is how we work to execute it against and deliver results thats how well make Twitter the best it can be for our customers, shareholders, and for each of you."

TWITTER LAUNCHING CRYPTOCURRENCY-FOCUSED TEAM

Agrawal quickly learned what its like to run such a polarizing company, as one of his old tweets was unearthed moments after he was put in charge. Many thought a 2010 message sent by Agrawals verified account claimed all White people are racist and critics quickly mocked Twitter for the hire. However, it was revealed that he was simply quoting comedian Asif Mandvi from "The Daily Show," which Agrawal himself pointed out 11 years ago in a follow-up tweet.

Parag Agrawal joined twitter in 2011 and has been the companys CTO since 2017. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

Ironically, Agrawal now oversees a company that is infamous for helping cancel culture ruin careers of public figures who sent pre-fame tweets that were not simply the quote of a comedian.

"It's just wild that Twitter didn't wipe or at lest [sic] spotcheck its new CEO's past tweets considering how often old (and usually contextless) tweets get resurfaced on here to derail someone recently thrust into a position of power or fame," New York Times tech reporter Ryan Mac observed.

Reason senior editor Robby Soave wrote the Mandvi was harmless, but "something Agrawal said just one year ago is actually concerning" before sharing an Agrawal quote.

"Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation," Agrawal said in 2020 during an interview with Technology Reviews Editor-in-Chief Gideon Lichfield. "The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed."

Jack Dorsey announced he would step down as Twitter CEO on Monday. (Credit: House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing screenshot)

Agrawal joined Twitter in 2011 and has been the companys CTO since 2017. In that role, he led Twitters technical strategy and improved "development velocity while advancing the state of Machine Learning across the company," the company said. He was previously Twitters first Distinguished Engineer and has been celebrated by the company for work across both across revenue and consumer engineering.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

"Parag understands Twitter and appreciates the Company's unique potential. He has been instrumental in tackling our most important priorities, including accelerating our development velocity, and I know he'll hit the ground running to strengthen execution and deliver results. The Board has the utmost confidence in Parag," Twitter's incoming Independent Board Chair Bret Taylor, who is also president and COO of Salesforce, said in a statement.

Agrawal holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science fromStanford University. He earned his Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and Engineering from theIndian Institute of Technology,Bombay.

Fox News Lucas Manfredi contributed to this report.

Read this article:
New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal once said company is not to be bound by the First Amendment - Fox Business

During the South Dakota State University Students Association meeting Nov. 29, Senators were addressed by the director of the Wintrode Student Success Center, Jody Owen, as well as the Little International and Formula SAE clubs. The Senate also passed three new amendments and tabled another amendment until the Dec. 6 meeting.

Wintrode:

Jody Owen, director of the Wintrode Student Success Center and coordinator for undergraduate academic advising, spoke to the Senate Monday about the efficacy of the center.

We served more than 4,300 unique students at SDSU, which is about 43% of the undergraduate population, and had about 28,000 visits, Owen said about the 2020 to 2021 school year.

The Wintrode tutoring program offers in-person and virtual options to accommodate most students. According to Owen, students may earn between half a letter grade and a full letter grade higher when they regularly participate in supplemental instruction.

The center also offers early-alerts for grades. 93 percent of students who receive the alert will take steps to improve in the class, Owen said.

Little International:

The 99th Little I will be a two-day event held April 1 -2. The 98th Little I was held March 26 -27, 2021 and marked a return to in-person events after the 97th was canceled in 2020 due to COVID-19 concerns. The club expects a high turnout this year despite continued pandemic concerns in some localities.

Were looking at ramping up the fundraising and sponsorships and getting the word out to as many people as possible, Dalton Howe, the clubs treasurer, said.

Last year, the club received $8,000 from the Students Association.

Formula SAE:

In the Formula SAE club, students build formula-style race cars. The club has about a year to design and build the car. From there, the car will have to pass a series of tests to go on to the convention. At the convention, SDSU will compete with colleges from around the world.

This year, the team of about 40 active students are trying to transition to a new engine to fare better in the competition.

Amendments:

The Senate passed three new amendments Monday and tabled another. The first amendment was 21-7-A, which provided clarity on how QR codes are to be used on Students Association campaign material. The amendment requires QR codes to be correctly labeled on materials. The Senate recognizes QR codes as a way to help increase voter turnout, which was less than 20% in 2021.

The second amendment passed Monday, 21-8-A, will require future SA campaign posters to include Sponsored by the Students Association, rather than sponsored by the Office of Student Activities.

The third amendment passed recognizes November as Native American Heritage Month.

This month is focused on celebrating Native American people by highlighting contributions of Native people and also, highlighting different indigenous stories and culture, 21-13-R reads.

All three amendments passed unanimously.

A fourth amendment that was set to be voted on was tabled. 21-12-R is a move to reverse a South Dakota Board of Regents policy that restricts alcoholic beverages at athletic events by only allowing alcohol sales in box suites and lounge areas.

[UPD] sees tailgating as a problem. People will feel like they need to get drunk and will drink too much before the game, Senator Jonathon Sundet said about the SDBOR policy.

Sundet asked the Senate to postpone the vote to allow more time for revision.

Excerpt from:
SA in brief: Little International, Formula SAE and amendments - SDSU Collegian

People have been asking me why I havent been writing to the Readers Forum lately. I told them nothing has fire me up recently.

Well, Wilbert Clarks letter on Nov. 12 Read the Constitution for what it is did just that, fired me up.

First of all Clark, the definition of protest is: An action of expressing disapproval. The definition of insurrection is: A violent uprising. Jan. 6 was violent. Do you really want to argue that?

Secondly, you justify what happened by saying we the people own the federal buildings. We the people also own the public library, so can we the people just walk in and throw all the books on the floor and threaten to hang the workers? Are we animals?

And third, should I read the Constitution before or after the 27 amendments were added, because if you interpret the Constitution to believe that it will stand behind this mutiny on Jan. 6, then the Constitution needs a 28th Amendment added.

Maybe you should read the First Amendment that includes, the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Its right there every morning at the top of this page.

Tina Blough

Roxbury

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read more:
Letter to the editor | Read the First Amendment | Readers Forum | tribdem.com - TribDem.com

Since 1947, one topic in education has regularly come up at the Supreme Court more often than any other: disputes over religion.

That year, in Everson v. Board of Education, the justices upheld a New Jersey law allowing school boards to reimburse parents for transportation costs to and from schools, including religious ones. According to the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof an idea courts often interpreted as requiring a wall of separation between church and state. In Everson, however, the Supreme Court upheld the law as not violating the First Amendment because children, not their schools, were the primary beneficiaries.

This became known as the child benefit test, an evolving legal idea used to justify state aid to students who attend religious schools. In recent years, the court has expanded the boundaries of what aid is allowed. Will it push them further?

This question will be in the spotlight Dec. 8, 2021, when the court hears arguments in a case from Maine, Carson v. Makin. Carson has drawn intense interest from educators and religious-liberty advocates across the country as illustrated by the large number of amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs filed by groups with interests in the outcome.

To the school choice movement which advocates affording families more options beyond traditional public schools Carson represents a chance for more parents to give their children an education in line with their religious beliefs. Opponents fear it could establish a precedent of requiring taxpayer dollars to fund religious teachings.

As a faculty member who focuses on education law, I have often written about the Supreme Courts decisions about religion in schools. In the almost 75 years since Everson, the courts thinking about aid to students who attend religious schools has evolved.

In 1993, justices heard Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, which centered on a student who was deaf. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the public school board provided him with an interpreter. When he enrolled in a Catholic high school, the justices ruled that the board still had to provide him with an interpreter because this was a discrete service that assisted him and no one else. Ever since, the court has allowed greater aid to students attending religious schools.

Two recent judgments have continued that trend. In 2017s Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, the court reasoned that states cannot deny religious people or religious institutions generally available public benefits simply because they are religious. Three years later, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court invalidated a provision in the state constitution barring religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools. This decision meant parents in Montana who enrolled their children in faith-based schools could participate in a state tuition tax credit program.

Maines Constitution mandates the creation of public schools. But many rural towns dont have their own school system: In fact, of the 260 school administrative units in Maine, more than half lack a secondary school.

In areas without access to public schools, Maine allows students to attend other public or private schools at public expense, but not religious ones. The state requires approved schools to be nonsectarian, in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Carson v. Makin arose when three sets of parents unsuccessfully filed suit on behalf of their children, arguing that the rule discriminated on the basis of religion. The federal trial court in Maine ruled in favor of the state, affirming that its tuitioning statute did not violate the rights of the parents or their children. On appeal, the First Circuit unanimously affirmed in favor of the state, rejecting all the parental claims.

First, the First Circuit decided the requirement that schools be nonsectarian did not discriminate solely based on religion or punish the plaintiffs rights to exercise their religion.

This is because the rule has a use-based limitation which may prove to be a crucial distinction. In other words, sectarian schools are denied funding not because of their religious identity, the First Circuit wrote, but because of the religious use that they would make of it.

It is wholly legitimate to restrict religion-based content, the court noted, because there is no question that Maine may require its public schools to provide a secular educational curriculum rather than a sectarian one.

[3 media outlets, 1 religion newsletter. Get stories from The Conversation, AP and RNS.]

The First Circuit also rejected the parental claims that Maines nonsectarian requirement violated their rights to freedom of speech, because it was enacted to provide students with secular secondary educations and does not commit to providing any open forum to encourage diverse views from private speakers.

Quoting Eulitt v. Maine, another case about Maines tuitioning system, the court noted: The fact that the state cannot interfere with a parents fundamental right to choose religious education for his or her child does not mean that the state must fund that choice.

School-choice advocates had hoped that Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza would strengthen the Maine parents case, since they upheld the idea that the First Amendment requires the government to extend general benefits to religious institutions or individuals, so long as it is not discriminating against or in favor of particular religions. But the courts differentiated these cases, and mused that if parents wish to forgo the free secular education Maine offers in its public schools or tuitioning program, they are free to pay tuition in the religious schools of their choice.

Carson is unlikely to end disagreements over the limits of using taxpayer funds to assist students who attend religious schools. However, it will likely provide an indication of the Supreme Courts position on the future of the child benefit test, as it seems to be softening on its attitude of maintaining a wall of separation between church and state when it comes to education and aid to students who attend religious schools.

Follow this link:
Money, schools and religion: A controversial combo returns to the Supreme Court - The Conversation US