ban of the New York Post’s scoop on Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian payoffs last Wednesday, CEO Jack Dorsey called his staff’s actions “unacceptable.” Ya think? The timing was especially dumb, as he’s set to appear next week, along with
Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai, before the Senate Commerce Committee. The topic is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social-media platforms from liability as publishers. Mr. Dorsey just gave his adversaries the fuel to burn his tweet house down.
Except Twitter didn’t do anything illegal. Section 230 protects online forums against being sued for user-posted content on their platforms. But these platforms can also apply “community standards” to remove anything they deem objectionable. You and I have First Amendment rights to say whatever we please (without inciting violence), but these platforms are private companies. They can remove or allow what they want.
That doesn’t mean they should. All rise: The court of public opinion is in session. Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out the hypocrisy of banning the Biden revelations—however questionable or ill-gotten they may be—but allowing the
New York Times’s
story on Donald Trump’s leaked tax returns or Buzzfeed’s Steele dossier.
So now Twitter—along with Facebook, which didn’t ban the Biden story but said it was “reducing its distribution”—have drawn a murder hornet’s nest of rebuke, mostly calls for rewriting or repealing Section 230. In a dogpile sandwich, it now seems everybody hates the statute that built the latest version of the internet.
Republicans, led by Sen. Josh Hawley, rightly worry about bias against conservative posts. Mr. Hawley has introduced several bills to rewrite Section 230, and he’s probably not done. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested in April that Section 230’s privileges “could be removed.” And forget Chuck Schumer—even comedian Amy Schumer wants to “Amend CDA 230.”
President Trump tweeted “REPEAL SECTION 230.” This may have been a trick to get Kamala Harris, who said of a vaccine, “if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it,” to be for Section 230. Mr. Trump even signed a toothless executive order against online censorship. Joe Biden told the New York Times that Section 230 should be “revoked, immediately.” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that Section 230’s immunities are too broad.
I’ve had my doubts too. After writing a column against Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s proposed wealth taxes, my Twitter feed quickly filled with guillotine animations, including one clip with Alfred Hitchcock. Clever. Even I wanted to sue Twitter.
But no one is thinking through the consequences of mucking with Section 230. It’s like bases being 90 feet apart in baseball—it just works.
First, if we repeal 230, we’ll end up with more censorship. Why? Because if platforms are suddenly liable for everything posted, the knee-jerk reaction will be to take down everything questionable, leaving us with giant receptacles of Baby Shark videos, which would diminish the channels small businesses use to reach customers. Then, say goodbye to competition. There are hundreds of smaller social media competitors that wouldn’t be able to afford the software, let alone the tens of thousands of humans, to take down posts.
There’s no simple way to “fix” Section 230 either. The feds could require nonpartisan, balanced views. But who decides what’s balanced? We’d be back to where we started. Any fix would open a can of worms of special interests, maybe even a new Digital Diction Department staffed by justice warriors deciding which phrases are no longer acceptable, like “master bedroom” or even “preference.” And then the law would get larded with special exceptions. The thinking would be, “Let politicians say what they want, for democracy’s sake, but protesters should also get a pass, depending on their grievances.” It would never end.
The only real solution is transparency—hard to legislate, but not impossible. If you have community standards, I want to see them chiseled in stone. Tell us! All Mark Zuckerberg’s flip flops: He was against restricting any political ads until he was for it, and tolerant of Holocaust deniers until he recently decided to ban them. We need transparency on shadow banning (which Twitter has been caught doing) and other restrictions, like the demonetizing Google did to ZeroHedge. Each banning action, like removing doctors’ Covid advice from YouTube, must come with a specific explanation, else leave the post up. If that’s too hard, they don’t deserve billion-dollar valuations.
The genius of Section 230 is that it is vague. It created a set of rules for the sandbox and then let creativity abound. Sure, if a dog gets into the sandbox, you want to clean it up. (I hear sunshine/transparency is a great disinfectant.) By not being specific and leaving it to the sandbox owner, we’ve allowed the interconnection of billions of people in a planetary network where new ideas—some good, some bad—fly around the globe at the speed of light. Don’t screw that up.
Write to email@example.com.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey may appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain the company’s unprecedented speech blackout against a New York Post story that could embarrass the Joe Biden campaign. Images: NY Post/AFP/Getty Composite: Mark Kelly
Source:- The Wall Street Journal
QYOU Media Board Chair Exercises 2 Million Warrants
/NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES./
TORONTO and LOS ANGELES, Oct. 29, 2020 /CNW/ – QYOU Media Inc. (TSXV: QYOU) (OTCQB: QYOUF) (“QYOU Media” or the “Company”) announces that G. Scott Paterson, Board Chair of QYOU Media, exercised 2 million warrants at 6 cents per share bringing his total direct and indirect holdings of shares and warrants of the Company to 22,891,694 common shares and 4,250,000 warrants.
About QYOU Media
QYOU Media operates in India and the United States producing and distributing content created by social media stars and digital content creators. In India, we curate, produce and distribute premium content including television networks and VOD for cable and satellite television, OTT and mobile platforms. In the United States, we manage influencer marketing campaigns for major film studios and brands. Founded and created by industry veterans from Lionsgate, MTV, Disney and Sony, QYOU Media’s millennial and Gen Z-focused content reaches more than 650 million consumers around the world. Experience our work at www.qyoumedia.com and www.theqindia.com
Join our shareholder chat group on Telegram: t.me/QYOUMedia
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
SOURCE QYOU Media Inc.
Source:- Canada NewsWire
Media Beat: October 29, 2020
Two Facebook users are seeking damages on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose personal data may have been improperly used for political purposes.
The proposed class-action lawsuit filed by Calgary residents Saul Benary and Karma Holoboff asks the Federal Court to order the social-media giant to bolster its security practices to better protect sensitive information and comply with federal privacy law. – Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
A congressional hearing Wednesday left Facebook, Google and Twitter facing conflicting pressures — from Democrats who say they should patrol their sites and services more aggressively and Republicans who felt the companies should have a more hands-off role with most political speech. The mixed signals threatened to add new complications to the tech giants’ already controversial work to protect the world’s most popular digital communications channels from abuse. And it evoked the lingering, widespread unease in Washington with the political and economic leverage the three companies have amassed and the ways they seek to wield it. – Tony Romm, Rachel Lerman, Cat Zakrzewski, Heather Kelly & Elizabeth Dwoskin, The Washington Post
Platforms like Facebook and Google are sharing their plans to pause political ads around Election Day. That’s won’t stop all paid campaigning. – Arielle Pardes, Wired
Spotify’s content policy is in the spotlight amid controversy over Joe Rogan’s hosting of Alex Jones on his podcast, even though Spotify has banned Jones’ own show from its platform. BuzzFeed reported that Spotify won’t tell podcast hosts whom they can have on their shows. – The Information
Tencent Music Entertainment Group, the leading online music entertainment platform in China, and Merlin, the global digital rights agency for the world’s independent labels, have expanded the terms of their multi-year licensing and cooperation agreement.
Merlin members account for more than 15% of the global digital music market and has deals with over 30 digital partners. – Jem Aswad, Variety
Watch “We told Americans that Canadians all vote the same way
Source: – FYI Music News
Media election planners prepare for a night of mystery – Assiniboia Times
NEW YORK — This coming weekend, CNN’s Sam Feist will distribute to his staff copies of the testimony news executives gave to Congress when they tried to explain how television networks got 2000’s disputed election so spectacularly wrong.
It’s required reading — perhaps never more than this year. Media planners are preaching caution in the face of a surge in early voting, high anxiety levels overall and a president who raises the spectre of another disputed election.
“We need to prepare ourselves for a different kind of election night,” said Feist, CNN’s Washington bureau chief, “and the word I keep using is ‘patience.’”
Nearly half of people polled recently by the Pew Research Center said they intend to follow election night returns closely. It’s easy to see this year eclipsing 2008’s record of 71.5 million people who watched for results, and many will have laptops, tablets or smartphones ready for a multi-screen experience.
CBS News built a new studio where pop stars once visited MTV’s “Total Request Live,” and Fox News hired the makers of the “Fortnite” video game to design whiz-bang graphics, an illustration of the money and planning that goes in to the quadrennial event.
Live television coverage will extend into the early morning of Nov. 4 and perhaps beyond. NBC News has mapped out a schedule to stay on the air for days if necessary, said Noah Oppenheim, NBC News president.
Besides the traditional broadcast and cable news networks, there will be live-stream options from the likes of The Washington Post and others, including websites filled with graphics and raw numbers.
“There is an odd combination of anticipation and uncertainty about this election night, more than any other election night I can remember,” said David Bohrman, a television veteran who this year is producing the CBS News coverage.
Election nights always have surprises, but the worry this year is being driven by the large number of people voting early or by mail, in part driven by the coronavirus. By many estimates, the early vote will eclipse the number of people going to polling places on Election Day for the first time.
That’s an extraordinary change: In 1972, only 5 per cent of votes were cast prior to Election Day, and by 2016 it was 42.5 per cent. That profoundly affects how the results are reported.
Some states begin counting early votes as they come in. Some wait until Election Day or even after polls close. Some key states count absentee ballots only if they are postmarked by Election Day. Elsewhere, ballots can arrive as late as Nov. 13, as is the case in Ohio.
Some states have enough experience that their counts usually go quickly and smoothly. Other counts are more problematic. Florida and North Carolina are two battleground states that have, historically, done well at counting and posting the results of mail ballots on election night.
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are prohibited by state law from processing mail ballots until Election Day. It can be a cumbersome process, and since neither state has experience counting as many ballots as are expected this year, it may be days before their results are known.
With more Democrats than Republicans voting early, the pace of how votes are reported is also important. Some states will release early votes before the Election Day tallies. That can make the first numbers shown on the screen appear deceptive, said Steve Kornacki, elections guru at MSNBC.
The challenge is knowing all those idiosyncrasies and communicating them clearly, he said.
“When I say I want a few more days (to study), that’s why,” he said.
Instead of listing how many voting precincts are reporting, ABC News will tell viewers the percentage of expected votes that are in so far, said Marc Burstein, senior executive producer who’s been in charge of ABC election coverage since 2000.
“Our byword of the night is transparency,” Burstein said. “We will tell people what we know. We will tell people what we don’t know, and we will tell them why.”
News organizations will still declare winners in individual states much as they have done in the past, using a combination of poll results and actual vote totals. Again, the expectation is these calls may be slower than in past years.
Producers say viewers should look to Florida as an early bellwether, because of its importance, efficiency in counting and early poll closing time. Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog said last week that if Democrat Joe Biden wins Florida, his chances of winning the presidency shoot up to 99 per cent. If President Donald Trump wins the state, his reelection chances jump to 39 per cent, what Silver calls essentially a tossup.
North Carolina and Ohio are other states where relatively early results could give an indication of how the night is going.
“If 2020 has taught us anything, it’s to expect the unexpected,” said Alan Komissaroff, Fox News senior vice-president of news and politics.
More reporting from outside of studios will likely be on display, with news organizations placing greater emphasis on voter integrity issues and the possibility of legal challenges. PBS is tapping a dozen public broadcasting reporters from across the country to contribute to its coverage. The Washington Post is stationing reporters in 36 states.
Networks are hiring election law experts in case those issues need to be addressed.
Because of the coronavirus, CBS’ Bohrman said people who will be on the network’s new set are being tested every day.
ABC News’ Manhattan set isn’t big enough for everyone to be 6 feet apart, so the network will operate out of three different studios on election night, including the set of “The View,” Burstein said.
At some point, after months of pontificating and speculating, the conclusion of the 2020 election will be known. Four years ago, The Associated Press declared Trump the next president at 2:29 a.m. the day after the election.
“We’re going in prepared but without preconceptions,” Oppenheim said.
AP’s Election Decision Editor Stephen Ohlemacher in Washington contributed to this report.
Kamloops clinic hosts flu vaccination drive-thru | Kamloops News | iNFOnews – iNFOnews
NASA says probe successfully stowed sample from asteroid – FRANCE 24
Cranbrook maps out investment attraction strategy for economic development – Cranbrook Townsman
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Galaxy M31 July 2020 security update brings Glance, a content-driven lockscreen wallpaper service
- Science16 hours ago
Ice loss to add 0.4C to global temperatures: Study
- Tech21 hours ago
AMD announces Radeon RX 6000 series gaming graphics cards – GSMArena.com news – GSMArena.com
- Economy14 hours ago
Bank of Canada says economy will likely be scarred by COVID-19 until 2023
- Tech7 hours ago
Xbox Series X stock shortages could last 'for a few months' after launch, admits Microsoft – TechRadar
- Tech23 hours ago
Here's everything you need to know about the PlayStation 5 in Canada – MobileSyrup
- Tech15 hours ago
Sony shares pop on strong outlook
- Media11 hours ago
QYOU Media Board Chair Exercises 2 Million Warrants
- Tech13 hours ago
AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, 6800, 6800 XT Price and Release Date Announced