Supreme Court social media ruling came after GOP vilified disinformation experts | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Media

Supreme Court social media ruling came after GOP vilified disinformation experts

Published

2 months ago

 on

When I learned I was named as a defendant in Missouri v. Biden, the predecessor to Murthy v. Missouri, a lawsuit alleging that the U.S. government, in coordination with independent researchers, had censored American citizens via social media, I was 36 weeks pregnant, extremely out of breath and in the midst of one of the worst weeks of my life. For days, the right-wing media and members of Congress had been incessantly lying about me and my new job as executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board. They falsely claimed that the board — set up to coordinate policy related to disinformation within the Department of Homeland Security — was actually set up to police Americans’ views and that I would be the country’s chief censor. The allegations resulted in relentless, vitriolic harassment, doxxing and credible death threats to me and my family.

The allegations resulted in relentless, vitriolic harassment, doxxing and credible death threats to me and my family.

But when I learned about the lawsuit, I laughed. As a defendant, I was named in a list of dozens of Biden administration officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, several Cabinet secretaries and the president himself. These were people I had never met. I’d never discussed policy with them, let alone conspired with them to establish a vast censorship regime. When the lawsuit was filed, I had served in government for eight weeks. My inclusion in the case so patently exposed the fact that the case was politically motivated that, at the time, it passed for funny. But I also realized it was meant to smear those named as treasonous and freeze work that had been set up to protect our information environment ahead of key events including the 2024 election. Republicans were playing the long game.

A few weeks later, I resigned from DHS, and on those grounds the government removed me from the case. But when the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a broad injunction in the case last summer, prohibiting any U.S. government officials from making contact with social media platforms or certain independent researchers except in a few narrow exceptions, I was worried. A ruling like this would clearly have a chilling effect on civil servants and researchers working in this space. If you ran afoul of it, then you could put your career, your financial security and your family’s safety on the line.

Since the original case was filed, the lie that the government was conspiring with a shadowy cabal of researchers to censor conservatives had grown. The case was one of several making that claim, and it was supported by breathless, baseless publication after publication of the so-called “Twitter Files” making the same wild allegations. The lawsuits and the “reporting” all bore a resemblance to fan fiction: They relied on context collapse and outright fabrications, amplifying some facts, ignoring others, and mixing them with misleading and false statements to create the world their authors wanted to believe existed.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court finally ruled 6-3 to throw out the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett surgically dismantled each of the plaintiffs’ fact-free claims. “The plaintiff cannot rest on ‘mere allegations,’” she wrote, “but must instead point to factual evidence.” This will make it more difficult in the future for charlatans and fraudsters to make such arguments in court without proof.

But the damage this case and others like it have caused cannot be undone with a pronouncement from the Supreme Court. Twenty-five months after I resigned from government — the entirety of my son’s short life — my family still contends with regular threats. I’ve been forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees in various challenges that have stemmed from the lie that I wanted to censor my fellow Americans: to get a protective order against a cyberstalker, to defend myself in a frivolous civil suit, to secure representation in Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio’s absurd investigation of disinformation researchers.

My colleagues across academia and think tanks are dealing with similar challenges. Stanford University’s Internet Observatory, one of the nation’s pre-eminent organizations studying online harms, was forced to shut down due to these baseless allegations because of the financial and political pressure it faced. I know from my conversations with other researchers and philanthropists that similar worries and outright self-censorship are now common. While the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri and others across the internet have claimed “censorship,” it is those studying disinformation who have had their speech silenced.

With its decision to throw out Murthy, the Supreme Court put the ball back in Congress’ court. There are legitimate questions about social media oversight, transparency and the limits of public-private cooperation on matters of speech, and Congress is where they should be debated.

There are legitimate questions about social media oversight, transparency and the limits of public-private cooperation on matters of speech, and Congress is where they should be debated.

Over the past eight years, our legislators have punted that responsibility and opted instead for political theatrics that are high on fantasy and low on facts. While we won’t see robust social media regulation passed before the 2024 election, we can hope that with a new Congress installed in January, members can finally begin work on this issue, which is crucial to preserving democratic discourse in the digital age.

In the meantime, it will be up to all Americans to guard this election from disinformation threats. Be vigilant about emotional content; the most engaging posts online are often the most enraging ones. Don’t share what you’re not sure of. Wait for multiple sources to verify breaking news before amplifying it.

Since Congress isn’t going to respond, we’re now the last line of defense in this information war.

It’s a war we must win. Democracy is at stake.

 

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 20, 2024

By

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version