adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

Trump escalates war on Twitter, social media protections – CTV News

Published

 on


WASHINGTON —
U.S. President Donald Trump escalated his war on social media companies, signing an executive order Thursday challenging the liability protections that have served as a bedrock for unfettered speech on the internet.

Still, the move appears to be more about politics than substance, as the president aims to rally supporters after he lashed out at Twitter for applying fact checks to two of his tweets.

Trump said the fact checks were “editorial decisions” by Twitter and amounted to political activism. He said it should cost those companies their protection from lawsuits for what is posted on their platforms.

300x250x1

Trump and his allies, who rely heavily on Twitter to verbally flog their foes, have long accused the tech giants in liberal-leaning Silicon Valley of targeting conservatives on social media by fact-checking them or removing their posts.

“We’re fed up with it,” Trump said, claiming the order would uphold freedom of speech.

It directs executive branch agencies to ask independent rule-making agencies including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to study whether they can place new regulations on the companies — though experts express doubts much can be done without an act of Congress.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

President Donald Trump is escalating his war on social media companies, preparing to sign an executive order Thursday challenging the liability protections that have served as a bedrock for unfettered speech on the internet.

Still, the move appears to be more about politics than substance, as the president aims to rally supporters after he lashed out at Twitter for applying fact checks to two of his tweets.

The proposed order would direct executive branch agencies including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to study whether they can place new rules on the companies — though experts express doubts much can be done without an act of Congress.

Trump and his allies, who rely heavily on Twitter to verbally flog their foes, have long accused the tech giants in liberal-leaning Silicon Valley of targeting conservatives on social media by fact-checking them or removing their posts. The executive order was expected to argue that such actions should cost those companies their protection from lawsuits for what is posted on their platforms.

Companies like Twitter and Facebook are granted liability protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because they are treated as “platforms,” rather than “publishers,” which can face lawsuits over content.

A similar executive order was previously considered by the administration but shelved over concerns it couldn’t pass legal muster and that it violated conservative principles on deregulation and free speech.

Two administration officials outlined the draft order on the condition of anonymity because it was still being finalized Thursday morning. But a draft was circulating on Twitter — where else?

“This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!” Trump tweeted.

Press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the Twitter fact checks reflected “bias in action” and Trump aimed to sign the order by the end of the day.

Trump and his campaign reacted after Twitter added a warning phrase to two Trump tweets that called mail-in ballots “fraudulent” and predicted “mail boxes will be robbed.” Under the tweets, there’s now a link reading “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” that guides users to a page with fact checks and news stories about Trump’s unsubstantiated claims.

Trump accused Twitter of interfering in the 2020 presidential election” and declared “as president, I will not allow this to happen.” His campaign manager, Brad Parscale, said Twitter’s “clear political bias” had led the campaign to pull “all our advertising from Twitter months ago.” In fact, Twitter has banned political advertising since last November.

Late Wednesday, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted, “We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally.”

Dorsey added: “This does not make us an `arbiter of truth.’ Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves.”

On the other hand, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Fox News his platform has “a different policy, I think, than Twitter on this.”

“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” he said.

The president’s critics, meanwhile, scolded the platforms for allowing him to put forth false or misleading information that could confuse voters.

“Donald Trump’s order is plainly illegal,” said Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat and advocate for internet freedoms. He is “desperately trying to steal for himself the power of the courts and Congress. … All for the ability to spread unfiltered lies.”

Trump’s proposal has multiple, serious legal problems and is unlikely to survive a challenge, according to Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a Washington-based organization that represents computer and internet companies.

It would also seem to be an assault on the same online freedom that enabled social media platforms to flourish in the first place — and made them such an effective microphone for Trump and other politicians.

“The irony that is lost here is that if these protections were to go away social media services would be far more aggressive in moderating content and terminating accounts,” Schruers said. “Our vibrant public sphere of discussion would devolve into nothing more than preapproved soundbites.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was “outrageous” that while Twitter had put a fact-check tag on Trump’s tweets asserting massive mail-in election fraud, it had not removed his tweets suggesting without evidence that a TV news host had murdered an aide years ago.

“Their business model is to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts that they know,” she said of social media giants, also mentioning Facebook. She said their goal is to avoid taxes “and they don’t want to be regulated, so they pander to the White House.”

The order was also expected to try to hold back federal advertising dollars from Twitter and other social media companies that “violate free speech principles.”

The president and fellow conservatives have been claiming, for years, that Silicon Valley tech companies are biased against them. But there is no evidence for this — and while the executives and many employees of Twitter, Facebook and Google may lean liberal, the companies have stressed they have no business interest in favouring on political party over the other.

The trouble began in 2016, two years after Facebook launched a section called “trending,” using human editors to curate popular news stories. Facebook was accused of bias against conservatives based on the words of an anonymous former contractor who said the company downplayed conservative issues in that feature and promoted liberal causes.

Zuckerberg met with prominent right-wing leaders at the time in an attempt at damage control, and in 2018, Facebook shut down the “trending” section,.

In August 2018, Trump accused Google of biased searches and warned the company to “be careful.” Google pushed back sharply, saying Trump’s claim simply wasn’t so: “We never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment.”

Experts, meanwhile, suggested that Trump’s comments showed a misunderstanding of how search engines work.

Last year, Trump again blasted social media companies after Facebook banned a slew of extremist figures including conspiracy peddler Alex Jones from its site and from Instagram.

Meanwhile, the companies are gearing up to combat misinformation around the November elections. Twitter and Facebook have begun rolling out dozens of new rules to avoid a repeat of the false postings about the candidates and the voting process that marred the 2016 election.

The coronavirus pandemic has further escalated the platforms’ response, leading them to take actions against politicians — a move they’ve long resisted — who make misleading claims about the virus.

Last month, Twitter began a “Get the Facts” label to direct social media users to news articles from trusted outlets next to tweets containing misleading or disputed information about the virus. Company leaders said the new labels could be applied to anyone on Twitter and they were considering using them on other topics.

The Democratic National Committee said Trump’s vote-by-mail tweets should have been removed, not just flagged, for violating the company’s rules on posting false voting information.

“After taking too long to act, Twitter once again came up short out of fear of upsetting Trump,” the party said in a statement.

——

AP writers Amanda Seitz, Barbara Ortutay and David Klepper contributed.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Media

Struggling Sports Illustrated inks deal to stay afloat following partnership – NBC News

Published

 on


The owner of Sports Illustrated came to an agreement with digital media company Minute Media, officials said Monday, to operate the iconic magazine, two months after mass layoffs appeared to signal the publication’s demise.

Authentic Brands, which also owns a host of clothing and lifestyle brands, purchased the sports magazine in 2019; it had been operated in recent years by publishers at The Arena Group.

Then in late January, Authentic Brands said it had terminated The Arena Group’s publishing license, leading to widespread staffing cuts.

300x250x1

Minute Media, best known for The Players’ Tribune and FanSided, said it’s reached a deal with Authentic to keep Sports Illustrated going.

“Minute Media will oversee all digital and print editorial operations across the SI portfoliowhich has been the industry leader in dedicated sports journalism for decades,” Minute Media said in a statement.

“Minute Media plans to leverage its premium sports content expertise as well as its technology platform that powers the creation, global distribution and monetization of hundreds of digital content brands, to continue to grow the Sports Illustrated media business.”

The magazine suffered a reputation blow late last year when it was disclosed that stories written by an artificial intelligence tool had been published.

“In Minute Media we have found a partner that will honor SI’s lauded legacy and exceed fan expectations for the future,” Authentic Executive Vice Chairman Daniel W. Dienst said in a statement.

“As Minute Media shepherds the SI brand across a rapidly evolving media landscape, our priority at Authentic is — and has always been — to protect its journalistic integrity and longevity.”

The agreement also included Authentic buying an undisclosed amount of equity in Minute Media.

Asaf Peled, the CEO and founder of Minute Media, called Sports Illustrated the “gold standard for sports journalism and has been for nearly 70 years.”

“The weight and power of that distinction cannot be understated,” Peled added. “At Minute Media, our focus will be to take that legacy into new, emerging channels enhancing visibility, commercial viability and sustainable impact, all while ensuring that the SI team is inspired to flourish in this new era of media.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Minute Media will publish Sports Illustrated – The Washington Post – The Washington Post

Published

 on


Sports Illustrated has found a new publisher, the company’s owner announced Monday, ending months of uncertainty over who would operate the storied sports publication. The new publisher is Minute Media, a London-based digital media company that publishes a number of websites including the Players’ Tribune.

Minute Media takes over publishing Sports Illustrated from the Arena Group, which held those rights for five years and lurched from controversy to controversy, including several rounds of layoffs, publishing product reviews written by artificial intelligence and, earlier this year, laying off the entire unionized workforce of SI.

Minute Media is not acquiring SI but rather licensing the publishing rights from SI’s owner, Authentic Brands Group, a brand ownership firm that owns the intellectual property of celebrities like Elvis and Shaquille O’Neal. Minute Media will now decide the fates of around 80 staffers as it charts a path forward for SI. A spokesperson for Minute Media said the company would meet with SI leadership in the coming weeks to determine which staffers will be offered employment with Minute Media.

300x250x1

Dan Dienst, Authentic’s Executive Vice Chairman, Tactical Ops, said in a statement: “In Minute Media we have found a partner that will honor SI’s lauded legacy and exceed fan expectations for the future. As Minute Media shepherds the SI brand across a rapidly evolving media landscape, our priority at Authentic is – and has always been – to protect its journalistic integrity and longevity.”

A new publisher could help stabilize SI after several tumultuous months, multiple staffers told the Post. In January, the Arena Group missed a scheduled payment to Authentic, part of the licensing fee it paid to publish SI. Authentic responded by revoking the publishing license and Arena issued layoff notices to all of the unionized staff. Their last days were scheduled to be at the end of April.

While staffers have awaited their fates, Authentic has spent the last several months negotiating a new publishing license. The company’s CEO, Jamie Salter, told the Post last month he was considering four proposals, including continuing its partnership with Arena. But that became increasingly untenable because of the deterioration of the relationship between Authentic and Arena’s largest shareholder, Manoj Bhargava, the founder of 5-Hour Energy. An Arena executive killed a print story about transgender boxing policy, and threatened recently to end print publication of the magazine only to immediately reverse course on that threat.

“We have said from the start that our top priorities are to keep Sports Illustrated alive, uphold the legacy of the institution and protect our union jobs. We look forward to discussing a future with Minute Media that does that,” said Emma Baccellieri, staff writer for SI and vice chair for the SI Union, in a statement released by the NewsGuild.

Sports Illustrated Editor-in-Chief Steve Cannella emailed staffers Monday morning. “I know we all have a lot of questions — I wish I had more to share with you right now,” he wrote, adding, “I’m sure we will get a chance to meet with the Minute Media team as soon as possible.”

The licensing deal is for 10 years, with an option for an additional 20. It includes the rights to publish Sports Illustrated in print and online, as well as Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, and Sports Illustrated Kids. As part of the deal, Authentic will also acquire an equity stake in Minute Media.

The New York Times first reported the agreement.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Supreme Court leans against limiting Biden administration contacts with social media platforms

Published

 on

WASHINGTON — A majority of Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared highly skeptical about claims the Biden administration crossed the line from persuasion to coercion when it told social media platforms to remove problematic content.

At issue is an injunction imposed by a federal judge, currently on hold, that would limit contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues.

During oral arguments, justices across the ideological spectrum questioned whether the conduct of government officials was unlawful and whether plaintiffs that brought the lawsuit could even show they were directly harmed. Among the issues raised was the lack of evidence that government officials threatened punitive action if the social media companies failed to cooperate.

The case was one of two the court heard on Monday about the practice known as “jawboning,” in which the government leans on private parties to do what it wants, sometimes with the implicit threat of adverse consequences if demands are not met. Those challenging the government actions say that in each case there was a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects free speech rights.

300x250x1

The second case involves claims that a New York state official inappropriately pressured companies to end ties with the National Rifle Association, the leading gun rights group.

In the social media case, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit alleging that U.S. government officials went too far in putting pressure on platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Covid lockdown opponents and Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.

The Facebook logo reflected in a puddle at the company's headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., on Oct. 25, 2021.
The Facebook logo reflected in a puddle at the company’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., on Oct. 25, 2021.David Paul Morris / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

The lawsuit makes various claims relating to activities that occurred in 2020 and before, including efforts to deter the spread of false information about Covid and the presidential election. Donald Trump was president at the time, but the district court ruling focused on actions taken by the government after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021.

Several justices questioned whether the nature of the communications was problematic, with liberal Justice Elena Kagan noting that officials sometimes have fraught communications with journalists.

“This happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government,” she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, similarly pointed out that the federal government is “not monolithic,” meaning that a complaint from one department is not necessarily a sign that another agency would take action if a post was not removed.

“That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly doesn’t it?” he said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, indicated that the argument made by Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga that mere encouragement by the government could constitute unlawful conduct “would sweep in an awful lot” of routine activity.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Aguiñaga whether, under his interpretation of the law, it could be potentially unlawful for the government to ask social media platforms to take down a viral post encouraging teens to jump out of windows.

“Is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?” she said.

Aguiñaga said the government’s conduct could cross the line if it goes beyond expressing concerns about content and then asks for posts to be removed.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh also appeared skeptical of the plaintiffs’ arguments that there was coercion involved.

“What do you do with the fact that the platforms say no all the time to the government?” he said.

The justice who appeared most sympathetic to the plaintiffs was conservative Samuel Alito.

The evidence showed that White House officials and others suggested they were on the “same team” as the social media companies, demanded answers and “cursed them out” when they did not get the responses they wanted, Alito said.

“There is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms,” he added.

Alito also referred to reporters present in the courtroom.

“I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media representatives over there. If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?” he said.

Last July, Louisiana-based Judge Terry Doughty barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of Doughty’s injunction. But the appeals court still required the White House, the FBI and top health officials not to “coerce or significantly encourage” social media companies to remove content the Biden administration considers misinformation.

When agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court in October blocked the appeals court ruling, with three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — noting they disagreed with that decision.

In the NRA case, the gun rights group claims that its free speech rights were violated by the actions of Maria Vullo, then-superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services.

Based questions asked during those oral arguments, the court could find that Vullo inappropriately pressured insurance companies to end their business relationships with NRA.

Vullo’s office had been investigating insurance companies that the NRA had worked with to provide coverage for members. The NRA alleged that Vullo, in meetings with insurance companies, made “back channel threats that they cease providing services to the NRA.”

Speaking out after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 people were killed, Vullo also urged insurance companies and banks to reconsider any relationships they had with gun rights-affiliated groups.

Alito indicated that the only difference between the two cases is that Vullo was not subtle enough in her interactions with the companies.

“Does that mean that really the New York officials could have achieved what they wanted to achieve if they hadn’t done it in such a ham-handed manner?” he asked.

Another key distinction between the two cases is that the Biden administration, while defending its own conduct in the social media cases, filed a brief mostly backing the NRA in the other case, saying it had made a plausible free speech allegation.

Justice Department lawyer Ephraim McDowell told the justices that in the NRA case there was a “specific coercive threat” that was not present in the social media case.

The NRA is appealing a 2022 ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Vullo’s actions did not constitute unlawful conduct.

Vullo argued in her defense that it was part of her job to warn companies about the “reputational risk” of doing business with the NRA.

The case attracted additional attention after the American Civil Liberties Union, which often backs liberal causes, signed on to represent the NRA. The ACLU said that while it disagrees with the NRA’s positions, it would defend the gun rights group’s right to speak.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending