|
| Curious about how AI regulation could shape the future of innovation and free speech? Today we dive deep into California’s controversial bill, which Elon Musk supports, and go over all the parts you should be aware of.
The bill introduces strict controls over AI development on the grounds of “safety” but loose definitions about what constitutes speech “safety” would have a big impact on free speech, especially as AI seems to be quickly embedded in many aspects of life.
Get the post here. |
| Reclaim The Net accepts no invasive advertising and is kept going by those who directly support. If you support free speech, the eradication of cancel culture, and restoring privacy and civil liberties, please become a supporter today. Supporters also get extra content, tutorials, and guides. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
| Vice President Kamala Harris’s decision to employ Karen Dunn for debate preparation—while Dunn simultaneously defends Google against a major antitrust lawsuit from the Biden-Harris administration—has sparked accusations of a conflict of interest.
Karen Dunn, who has a long history of assisting Democratic candidates with debate preparation since 2008, represented Google at the start of their trial on Monday.
The ongoing lawsuit, pursued by the DOJ, claims Google unlawfully monopolizes its search engine market and is one of the biggest ever challenges to Big Tech’s dominance.
Despite no formal ethics rules barring such dual roles since political campaigns are not legal battles, the decision to have Dunn so heavily associated with the Harris campaign raises eyebrows, especially coinciding Dunn’s influence on Harris could lead to Harris’ being less likely to take action against Google should Harris win the presidency.
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, has escalated concerns regarding the potential conflict of interest between Vice President Harris and Dunn. The committee sent a pointed letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland demanding a briefing on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) handling of potential biases and conflicts in the ongoing lawsuit, United States v. Google LLC.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
“According to recent press coverage, Karen Dunn, a ‘lead attorney’ representing Google in the antitrust case United States v. Google LLC, is also simultaneously leading Vice President Harris’s preparations for the September 10 presidential debate,” the committee outlined. Rep. Jordan further stressed the issue, stating, “This apparent conflict of interest raises serious concerns about whether Dunn’s relationship with key figures in the Biden-Harris Administration creates a conflict of interest that could inappropriately bias the Department’s approach in United States v. Google LLC.”
The committee’s request for a detailed briefing by September 24 is part of a broader scrutiny under the umbrella of investigations into possible governmental overreach and collusion with big corporations to censor lawful speech. “Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has jurisdiction to conduct oversight over the Department of Justice and of matters concerning ‘civil liberties’ and antitrust to inform potential legislative reforms,” the letter highlighted.
Prominent tech leaders have significantly supported Vice President Harris’ rise from San Francisco’s district attorney to the national stage, and they remain key backers, recently demonstrating their support at a high-profile Democratic National Convention and a fundraiser in Atherton, California.
These events signal a Harris Presidency could be a potential return to more industry-friendly policies reminiscent of the Obama administration, which refused to challenge Big Tech’s dominance. |
| Since you’re reading this, we hope you find Reclaim The Net useful. Today, we could use your help. We depend on supporters (averaging $15), but fewer than 0.2% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $5, (or the equivalent in your currency) you would help keep Reclaim The Net thriving for years. You don’t have to become a regular supporter; you can make a one-time donation. Please take a minute to keep Reclaim The Net going.
Thank you. |
| Sir Lindsay Hoyle, speaker of the lower chamber of the British Parliament, has shared his thoughts about the dangers of “misinformation” during an interview with BBC Radio, at the same time coming up with some fairly unusual proposals on how to counter that – even by the standards of today’s political climate of a “misinformation witch-hunt.”
Opponents will easily ridicule – but also warn about – his proposals as yet another attempt to set up a real-world Ministry of Truth, but this one comes with a twist: Hoyle wants his country to enact more “anti-misinformation” laws, but the sort that would be valid outside the UK.
Watch the video here.
So, a Global Ministries of Truth, if you will; and while (actual) misinformation can indeed prove to be dangerous, as the speaker of the Commons underlines – so surely are out of-whack proposals coming from prominent politicians.
Hoyle laments that the degree of taking responsibility for what he says is misinformation and fake news has gone down lately.
Referring clearly to the era before Musk takeover (he at one point comments to say, “We have a better relationship with some (other sites)”) – Twitter was a platform that Hoyle said “we” (apparently referring to himself and his team) could just contact to get content deleted.
“Look, these things are up there. Can you take them down? Threats against MPs, you know, threatening to whatever,” Hoyle recounts his past communications with Twitter.
And back in the “good old days” only 8% of those “threatening to whatever” posts would remain up, the rest would get taken down – while now, the speaker complained, the reverse is true.
And now, for the solution: unless social media platforms go back to what, in the (roundabout) way he explains it, comes down to heavy censoring at the authorities’ request – then those authorities should enact new laws.
The UK authorities, that is, with a parliamentary bill. But, Hoyle reveals, “And I believe it should be across. It doesn’t matter what country you’re in.”
People – and governments – in those other countries might beg to differ, but in the meantime, Hoyle is engrossed in his own “war on misinformation” that includes advocating for monitoring what users are saying about members of the British parliament on social media.
Ministry of Truth, Police State – it’s hard to tell what the key push Sir Lindsay is trying to make here might be. But it doesn’t sound like anything that should be coming out of a “true democracy.” |
| Journalist Alex Berenson has amended his lawsuit against Joe Biden (Berenson v. Biden, deliberated by a New York district court), to add new evidence regarding alleged government-social media censorship collusion.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Berenson’s lawsuit revolves around the involvement of not just the Biden administration, but Covid vaccine maker Pfizer, and what the journalist believes is their joint effort (“conspiracy”) to get Twitter to ban him in 2021.
According to Berenson, formerly a New York Times reporter, the updated suit provides proof that many similar legislative efforts have been trying to present – namely, that Twitter’s censorship was “ultimately traceable” to the current White House, specifically, government pressure exerted upon social media companies.
This evidence related to the ban comes from Twitter’s archives thanks to Elon Musk and X making it available to the journalist, as well as the ongoing Congressional investigation.
Meanwhile, the mention of “traceable (injury)” has to do with the bar set by the US Supreme Court in Missouri v. Biden that has to be satisfied to allow a case to proceed to trial. Berenson believes that now with new evidence about what he calls coercive censorship, his lawsuit is “much stronger.”
The amended complaint includes internal Twitter emails where the company’s own top executives state that the platform made a mistake banning Berenson’s account, while another appears to show lobbyist middlemen put Pfizer Director (and former FDA chief) Scott Gottlieb’s outreach in touch with the Biden administration.
Yet another email reveals that Andy Slavitt, who had just resigned from the White House, communicated with Facebook to tell an exec there precisely how the White House – referred to as “WH” in the document – wants Facebook to treat content the government disapproves of.
Berenson goes into details regarding mutual relationships among all these actors, and what each of them stood to gain from what is now commonly referred to by opponents as collusion; the reporter also singles out Slavitt as having “the central role (…) in the conspiracy” to censor him personally.
In light of the new evidence, Berenson believes that his case will be allowed to proceed despite the defense team’s motions to dismiss it.
“But if it does not, if federal Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke dismisses it before even allowing discovery and appeals courts back that decision, free speech on the internet will be close to dead,” Berenson warns. |
| FEDERAL CENSORSHIP PRESSURE |
|
|
| Former United States President Donald Trump’s pledge to safeguard the First Amendment was a highlight of his recent campaign rally in Wisconsin. Standing against the Big Tech censorship attempts by the ruling Biden-Harris administration, Trump stated his commitment to protecting the free speech of Americans, “I will sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech, and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who is engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.”
Watch the video here.
His remarks come in the wake of heightened debate around safeguarding free speech rights. The First Amendment, recognized as the bedrock of American values and rites, guarantees every citizen the right to voice their opinion, peacefully protest, and practice their religion without intrusion from the government. However, these liberties have come under fire in the online world, with government pressuring social media platforms to censor speech.
Under the Biden-Harris governance, the administration has been accused of muzzling so-called “misinformation.”
Congressional investigations like those conducted by the Select Subcommittee Government Committee on Weaponization and lawsuits against the administration have brought many incidents of censorship pressure to light.
This suppression undermines public trust in institutions by concealing inconvenient information.
In 2022, the administration introduced the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board. The board was shut down following pushback over First Amendment concerns. |
| Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net |
|
|
|