Login
A Nonprofit Fights GOP Allegations That It Supported a ‘Censorship Regime’
When the Biden White House attacked social media companies in July 2021 for allegedly fostering the spread of misinformation about coronavirus vaccines, it cited a report by an obscure nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
The organization, which studies hate speech and misinformation on social media, earned a new level of infamy last month when X owner Elon Musk sued the group, arguing that its researchers violated the terms of service of the site formerly known as Twitter in a “scare campaign to drive away advertisers.” Days later, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) announced he was probing the nonprofit, demanding it turn over documents related to its alleged role in a Biden administration-led “censorship regime.”
On Thursday, the CCDH responded with a full-throated defense of its research and communications with government officials, dismissing Jordan’s allegations as “confusion about the organization” in a letter.
The probe underscores the growing pressure Jordan and House Republicans are placing on nonprofits, researchers and companies working to address online misinformation, an ecosystem that grew in prominence amid a proliferation of falsehoods about COVID-19 and President Biden’s electoral victory in 2020. Jordan and other Republicans allege these efforts to limit online falsehoods amount to a vast conspiracy between social media companies and the Biden administration to silence conservative viewpoints online.
New Neurotechnology Is Blurring the Lines Around Mental Privacy — but Are New Human Rights the Answer?
Neurotechnologies — devices that interact directly with the brain or nervous system — were once dismissed as the stuff of science fiction. Not anymore.
Several companies are trying to develop brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs, in hopes of helping patients with severe paralysis or other neurological disorders. Entrepreneur Elon Musk’s company Neuralink, for example, recently received Food and Drug Administration approval to begin human testing for a tiny brain implant that can communicate with computers. There are also less invasive neurotechnologies, like EEG headsets that sense electrical activity inside the wearer’s brain, covering a wide range of applications from entertainment and wellness to education and the workplace.
Neurotechnology research and patents have soared at least twentyfold over the past two decades, according to a United Nations report, and devices are getting more powerful. Newer BCIs, for example, have the potential to collect brain and nervous system data more directly, with higher resolution, in greater amounts, and in more pervasive ways.
However, these improvements have also raised concerns about mental privacy and human autonomy — questions I think about in my research on the ethical and social implications of brain science and neural engineering. Who owns the generated data, and who should get access? Could this type of device threaten individuals’ ability to make independent decisions?
Close to Half of American Adults Favor TikTok Ban, Reuters/Ipsos Poll Shows
Close to half of American adults support a ban on the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos survey that also asked questions about national security concerns and China.
TikTok, owned by Chinese tech giant ByteDance and used by tens of millions of Americans, has faced calls from U.S. lawmakers for a nationwide ban over concerns about possible Chinese government influence.
Some 47% of respondents to the two-day poll, which concluded on Tuesday, said they at least somewhat supported “banning the social media application, TikTok, from use in the United States,” while 36% opposed a ban and 17% said they didn’t know.
FBI Director Christopher Wray said in March that China’s government could use TikTok to control software on millions of devices and drive narratives to divide Americans, adding that the app “screams” of national security concerns. Other top U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director William Burns, also have said TikTok poses a threat.
Time Is Running Out to File Claims for Facebook’s $725 Million Data Privacy Settlement
Anyone in the United States who had a Facebook account in the past 16 years has roughly one week left to file for payment in a data privacy settlement case.
Facebook’s parent, Meta, in December, agreed to pay $725 million to settle a host of privacy-related class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that Facebook let third parties access its users’ private data and that of their friends without users’ permission.
If you were a user of Facebook in the United States for any period between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, you may file a claim. You must submit your claim using this form by 11:59 pm PT on Friday, August 25 if you’re filing online. If you are filing by mail, your envelope must be postmarked by August 25.
Once everyone’s claims are in, there will be a final approval hearing for the settlement of the case. That hearing is scheduled for September 7 at 1 pm PT, according to the Facebook user privacy settlement website.
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese Says He Would Ban Social Media, if Allowed to Be a Dictator
In an unfiltered admission during a radio interview, Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has raised eyebrows by placing a social media ban at the top of his wishlist if he was allowed to act as a dictator for five years.
This statement has attracted significant attention amidst proceedings discussing a contentious “misinformation” bill in parliament, stirring concerns about online censorship and the government defining truth.
Albanese, during his conversation with Neil Mitchell, 3AW Radio Host, unveiled his apparent vexation with social media, underlining the issues it poses to the long-term goal-setting for the nation.
In a precarious state, the Prime Minister’s statement amplifies the concerns of those advocating free speech and social media activists. It hints at the potential reinforcement of government censorship, a dreaded scenario as the misinformation bill seeks the green light.
How NewsGuard Became the Establishment Guard Against Independent Media
As difficult as it is to run an independent media outlet, there’s a company making it substantially harder. Its name is NewsGuard. The company claims to rate online content, including from media outlets, for trustworthiness, but a closer look shows it does much more than that — its business model produces censorious pressure on news organizations.
An investigation by The Epoch Times has revealed troubling questions regarding the quality of and the agenda behind NewsGuard’s offerings.
Founded in 2018, NewsGuard dispatches its “analysts” to prepare reviews of online content creators and to issue ratings “to help readers have more context for the news they read online.” The ratings display as small badges with scores next to search results.
That, however, represents only a small part of the picture. The bigger picture shows that NewsGuard’s most potent function stems from its relationships with advertising agencies, which have steered their clients to cut off advertising dollars for content creators disfavored by the company’s “analyst” reviews. As it so happens, corporate, establishment-friendly media tend to receive high scores while independent media skeptical of the establishment tend to receive low scores, even if they adhere to high journalistic standards.
