Login
Censorship or Free Speech? Supreme Court Likely to Decide on ‘Momentous’ Question
Social media companies have been pilloried by Republicans for taking down content, suspending accounts or simply for restricting the spread of some information.
But the Supreme Court is set to hear a pair of cases in its next term — NetChoice v. Moody and NetChoice v. Paxton — that could undercut the GOP’s complaints.
Despite its conservative majority, the Supreme Court could find that social media companies have free speech rights, too. If so, it would rule that when the platforms restrict, fact-check or take down content, this is constitutionally protected speech and the government cannot interfere, which is the view of many legal experts.
“The ruling will be momentous,” wrote Clay Calvert, a First Amendment expert at the American Enterprise Institute.
This issue has been winding its way toward the Supreme Court for a few years, after Republican-controlled state legislatures in Florida and Texas tried to crack down on social media companies in 2021, following the suspension of then-President Donald Trump from Facebook and Twitter in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
COVID: Alberta Restaurant Owner Acquitted on Charges Linked to Public Health Restrictions
The lawyer for an Alberta restaurant owner says his client has been acquitted on all charges he faced under the Public Health Act in connection with accusations made against him during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the spring of 2021, Alberta Health Services said it received hundreds of complaints about the Whistle Stop Café in Mirror, Alta., with people telling the health authority it had not been complying with pandemic health restrictions.
When health officials closed owner Christopher Scott’s diner, an anti-lockdown rally was held in support of the business owner, attracting hundreds of people.
The acquittal came less than four weeks after a Court of King’s Bench of Alberta ruling found that provincial cabinet and government committees making final decisions about orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of the chief medical officer of health herself, violated the Public Health Act.
Artificial Intelligence May Influence Whether You Can Get Pain Medication
Tools like Narx Scores are used to help medical providers review controlled substance prescriptions. They influence and can limit, the prescribing of painkillers, similar to a credit score influencing the terms of a loan.
Narx Scores and an algorithm-generated overdose risk rating are produced by healthcare technology company Bamboo Health (formerly Appriss Health) in its NarxCare platform.
Such systems are designed to fight the nation’s opioid epidemic, which has led to an alarming number of overdose deaths. The platforms draw on data about prescriptions for controlled substances that states collect to identify patterns of potential problems involving patients and physicians. State and federal health agencies, law enforcement officials, and healthcare providers have enlisted these tools, but the mechanics behind the formulas used are generally not shared with the public.
Artificial intelligence is working its way into more parts of American life. As AI spreads within the healthcare landscape, it brings familiar concerns of bias and accuracy and whether government regulation can keep up with rapidly advancing technology.
ChatGPT-Maker OpenAI Accused of String of Data Protection Breaches in GDPR Complaint Filed by Privacy Researcher
Questions about ChatGPT-maker OpenAI’s ability to comply with European privacy rules are in the frame again after a detailed complaint was filed with the Polish data protection authority yesterday.
The complaint, which TechCrunch has reviewed, alleges the U.S.-based AI giant is in breach of the bloc’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — across a sweep of dimensions: Lawful basis, transparency, fairness, data access rights, and privacy by design are all areas it argues OpenAI is infringing EU privacy rules. (Aka, Articles 5(1)(a), 12, 15, 16 and 25(1) of the GDPR).
This is not the first GDPR concern lobbed in ChatGPT’s direction, of course. Italy’s privacy watchdog, the Garante, generated headlines earlier this year after it ordered OpenAI to stop processing data locally — directing the U.S.-based company to tackle a preliminary list of problems it identified in areas including lawful basis, information disclosures, user controls and child safety.
Less Than 1/3rd of Canadians Have ‘High Trust’ in Their Government
Trust in the government in Canada, and the government’s handling of public health, is waning, according to a new piece of in-house research conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).
The report was called “Use Of Public Health Measures, Advice And Risk Assessment Survey” and it was conducted by seeking out the opinions of 6,200 people across Canada and nine Federal focus groups.
The new report says that: “Trust, particularly in the government and healthcare sector, is central to the effectiveness of public health measures.” It adds: “While respondents have a lot of trust in hospitals and healthcare workers, trust in the federal government (e.g., the Public Health Agency) is much lower.”
The research asked Canadians to express their trust level in institutions and entities using a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being the highest. Responding to a question about the Federal Government, just 32% of Canadians said they had “high trust.”
Twitter Allows U.S. Political Candidates and Parties to Advertise in Policy Switch
The social media company formerly known as Twitter said on Tuesday it would now allow political advertising in the U.S. from candidates and political parties, reversing previous policies and raising concerns over misinformation and hate speech ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
In a blog post on Tuesday, X said it would grow its teams to combat content manipulation and “emerging threats.”
The company said it would create a global advertising transparency center, which would let users see what political ads were being promoted on X, and added it would continue to prohibit political ads that spread false information or seek to undermine public confidence in an election. This is in keeping with the company’s goal of “seeking to preserve free and open political discourse”, the blog post said.
Meta Drops University-Based Fact-Checking Group After Bias Exposed
From Down Under comes a rare triumph for victims of manipulative social media “fact-checking.”
Facebook parent Meta has suspended the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) from its fact-checking operation after investigative reporters exposed its leftist bias and the expiration of its fact-checking certification from the entity that coordinates Meta’s policing of speech.
“Considering both the nature of the allegations against RMIT and the upcoming referendum, we have decided to suspend RMIT from our fact-checking program,” a Meta spokesman told Sky News.
In a lengthy August 23 exposé, Sky News uncovered multiple conflicts of interest and fact-checking policy violations by RMIT’s so-called “FactLab.” Facebook’s deputized RMIT thought police had frequently blocked and suppressed anti-voice journalism on Facebook, including that of Sky News. Sky found that, between May 3 and June 23, every one of RMIT’s fact-checks about the Voice scrutinized content that bolstered the case for voting ‘no’ on the measure.
