Twitter And Social Media Are A Cancer On Our Civic Life

So let me just say up front, I am not an expert on Section 230 or on federal liability law generally. I don’t have a strong opinion on exactly how the law should be reformed or what the mechanisms of a successful reform might be, nor do I think there aren’t real trade-offs to consider here.

But I don’t need to be an expert in liability law to know this: social media are corrosive to our civic life, and social media companies
like Twitter are largely unaccountable for their actions in that regard. Without question, Twitter and Facebook and YouTube have harmed democratic life in America, eroded our civic values, and exacerbated
divisions and distrust between citizens. If they all disappeared tomorrow, the country would be better off.

Consider for a moment the disconnect between what social media promised us and what we actually got. The big idea was that making
everyone more connected virtually would bring us closer together in reality, that a digital commons would increase empathy and build real community.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg made this sentiment a kind of mantra. When he took his company public in 2012, he was clear about the social
mission behind the enterprise. “We are extending people’s capacity to build and maintain relationships,” he wrote, adding that, “Facebook
exists to make the world more open and connected, and not just to build a

It hasn’t worked out that way, or at least not quite in the way Zuckerberg meant. The world is undoubtedly more open and connected thanks to Facebook and Twitter, but it is not more sanguine or tolerant or kind.
Connectedness through social media has not made us more empathetic or willing to change our minds, and it has not brought us closer together.

Just the opposite, in fact. Even setting aside the online ugliness of the 2016 election, is there any conflict or tension in American society
that isn’t made worse by social media? Sure, there are rare exceptions—sometimes people do nice things for each other, sometimes
people use these platforms to reunite with long lost family members or friends. But the dominant emotion of social media is anger, the default
tone is caustic, and the overall effect is division.

Delete The Comment Section

Obviously, not everyone shares this view. Many people think the
advent of the internet and the inventions of mass platforms like Facebook and Twitter meant we had to make concessions in federal law to enable these companies to host third-party content without the fear of defamation lawsuits over what their users might post. (For some background on how we got Section 230, check out Eugene Volokh’s helpful primer at Reason.)

Rolling back or reforming these liability protections isn’t so easy, were told. And besides, such drastic reform might not even be necessary.
After all, companies like Twitter have no obligation under federal law to be neutral in how they police content posted on their platforms.

My friend David Harsanyi makes this point at NRO,
rightly noting that newspapers and magazines with online comment
sections enjoy the same liability protections under Section 230 that
Twitter does. An outlet like the New York Times is liable for what it publishes or commissions but not for what online commenters write.

“In the same way,” writes Harsanyi, “if Twitter ‘factchecks’ a user, its opinion should be considered published material that is no longer
protected from liability. By offering one opinion, Twitter isn’t suddenly liable for the billions of other tweets that exist on its site, or for the opinion held in the tweet to which it is responding.”

It’s a fair point, but it misses a larger problem. Why should Twitter or Facebook or YouTube be given liability protections at all? Why
should it be the case that these companies can host all manner of content, make a fortune, and not be expected to bear responsibility for
any of it?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996,
back when Congress was grappling with new technology and trying to make the internet as open as possible. Harsanyi and others worry that if liability protections are taken away, there would be a flood of
lawsuits. Media companies might abandon open platforms altogether.
Social media as we know it might cease to exist.

Despite coronavirus-caused cutbacks, Israel expects to get full $3.8 billion

The current aid to Israel is part of a package promised by the Obama administration in 2016 under which Israel would get $38 billion over the next 10 years – the largest such package in U.S. history.

The aid package works out to $7,230 per minute to Israel, and equals about $23,000 per each Jewish Israeli family of four.

Under the Obama-Netanyahu Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the $3.8 billion per year was to be a ‘ceiling’ – the agreement was that Israel would not ask for more money on top of this annual disbursement.

However, an MOU is a non-binding agreement and can be changed. Therefore, Israel partisans in Congress have introduced legislation that would make it into law – and the legislation before Congress makes the terms even more beneficial to Israel than the MOU.

Under the current bill
before Congress, the $38 billion would be a ‘floor’ rather than a
‘ceiling,’ meaning that aid could increase, as it almost always has in the past.

Google Autocorrecting All Searches For ‘Biden Allegations’ To ‘Kavanaugh Allegations’ — The Babylon Bee | Truth2Freedom’s Blog

Comment by tonytran2015: Google should have been dismantled a long time ago using the Anti-trust laws for its abuse of market dominance.

U.S.—This is a little concerning: if you search Google for “Biden allegations” you’re immediately redirected to a search results page full of articles about the accusations made against Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation process.

“Did you mean ‘Kavanaugh allegations?’” the top of the search results page reads, helpfully reminding you that you are searching for allegations against the wrong party. Furthermore, all searches for “Tara Reade” are autocorrected to “Christine Blasey Ford.” If you keep trying to search for the Biden allegations, Google assumes you’re a hate group and bans you from the site entirely.

Can We Trust the WHO? – Counter Information

Wuhan authorities declared an unprecedentedlockdown of the entire city of 11 million as of 10am that day. By then, hundreds of thousands if not several million residents had fled in panic to avoid the quarantine.

lockdown of the entire city of 11 million as of 10am that day. By then, hundreds of thousands if not several million residents had fled in panic to avoid the quarantine.
By the time the WHO declared its Public Health
Emergency of International Concern on 30 January, precious weeks had been lost to contain the disease.

the WHO spokesman, Tarik Jasarevic, stated “There is no official category (for a pandemic)…WHO does not use the old system of 6 phases — that ranged from phase 1 (no reports of animal influenza causing human
infections) to phase 6 (a pandemic) — that some people may be familiar with from H1N1 in 2009.”

Under Tedros, the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown. According to a recent report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in 2018 and 2019 under Tedros, the WHO Health Emergencies Program, the section responsible for the COVID-19 global response, was cited with the highest risk rating noting the “failure to adequately finance the program and emergency operations [risks] inadequate delivery of results at country level.” The ABC report further found that there has also been a “surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the organisation, with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body.” Not very reassuring.

In early March Oxford University stopped using WHO data on COVID-19 because of repeated errors and inconsistencies the WHO refused to correct. The WHO test protocols for coronavirus tests have repeatedly been cited by various countries including Finland for flaws and false positives and other defects.

This is the WHO which we now trust to guide us through the worst health crisis of the past century.

Hold Facebook and Google to account | The Wentworth Report

Hold Facebook and Google to account, by Josh Frydenberg, the Australian Treasurer.

For every $100 spent by advertisers in Australia on online advertising, excluding classifieds, $47 goes to Google, $24 to Facebook and $29 to other participants. In Australia, this market is worth almost $9bn a year and has grown more than eight-fold since 2005.

In a groundbreaking report that took 18 months to prepare, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission found that more than 98 per cent of online searches on mobile devices are with Google, while Facebook has approximately 17 million users who are connected to its platform for at least half an hour a day.

This has created a level of market concentration and power that was never envisaged by our regulatory system. …

It is only fair that the search ­engines and social media giants pay for the original news content that they use to drive traffic to their sites.

By way of example, the ACCC found that between 8 and 14 per cent of Google search results included reports from news websites.

A Frantic Bill Gates Spending Billions In All-Out Blitzkrieg To Be First To Create Coronavirus Vaccine And Digital ID, Funding 7 Factories At Once — Now The End Begins | ARLIN REPORT……………….walking this path together

Comment by tonytran2015: Readers should know about the insistence in the 1990’s by B. Gates that developping countries still can NOT freely use old (more than 15 years old) MSDOS operating systems on donated obsolete computers. That action shows who is the real philantropist, Mark Shuttleworth or Bill Gates?

If you had a dream of controlling the global population through abortion and vaccinations, as Bill Gates has oft repeated is his dream, how much money do you think it would take to fulfill that dream? Think about it, how much cold, hard cash would it take to force every, single person on planet earth to receive a vaccination and a digital ID to go with it? 10 billion, 30 billion, one hundred billion? The final figure doesn’t matter because Bill Gates is about to see his lifelong dream come true. Right now. 7 factories at the same time? Man, but that number 7 is everywhere right now.

Did Bill Gates Just Reveal The Real Reason Behind The Lock-Downs? | ZeroHedge News | Truth2Freedom’s Blog

Comment by tonytran2015: Readers should know about the insistence in the 1990’s by B. Gates that developping countries still can NOT freely use old (more than 15 years old) MSDOS operating systems on donated obsolete computers. That action shows who is the real philantropist, Mark Shuttleworth or Bill Gates?

Gates said at 30:29 in
the interview that he and a large team are moving fast to test
anti-virals, vaccines and other therapeutics and to bring them to market
as quickly as possible.

Anderson asked whether the blood serum from people who have recovered from a COVID infection can be used to treat others.

“I heard you mention that one possibility might be treatments from the serum, the blood serum of people who had had the disease and then recovered. So I guess they’re carrying antibodies,” said Anderson.

“Talk a bit about that and how that could work and what it would take to accelerate that.”

[Note that Anderson did not ask Gates about, instead, just letting most of the population – aside from people most vulnerable to serious illness from the infection, who should be quarantined — be exposed to COVID-19 and as a result very likely recover and develop life-long immunity. As at least one expert has observed, “as much as ninety-nine percent of active cases [of COVID-19] in the general population are ‘mild’ and do not require specific medical treatment” to recover.]

“This has always been discussed as, ‘How could you pull that off?’” replied Gates.

“So people who are recovered, it appears, have very effective antibodies in their blood. So you could go, transfuse them and only take out white cells, the immune cells.”

However, Gates continued, he and his colleagues have dismissed that possibility because it’s “fairly complicated – compared to a drug we can make in high volume, you know, the cost of taking it out and putting it back in probably doesn’t scale as well.”

Then a few seconds later, at 33:45, Gates drops another bomb:

We don’t want to have a lot of recovered people

To be clear, we’re trying – through the shut-down in the United States – to not get to one percent of the population infected. We’re well below that today, but with exponentiation, you could get past that three million [people or approximately one percent of the U.S. population being infected with COVID-19 and the vast majority recovering]. I believe we will be able to avoid that with having this economic pain.”

It appears that rather than let the population be exposed to the virus and most develop antibodies that give them natural, long-lasting immunity to COVID-19, Gates and his colleagues far prefer to create a vast, hugely expensive, new system of manufacturing and selling billions of test kits, and in parallel very quickly developing and selling billions of antivirals and vaccines.

And then, when the virus comes back again a few months later and most of the population is unexposed and therefore vulnerable, again selling billions of test kits and medical interventions.

Encore une fois, silence radio dans nos #MerdiasDouble exclamation mark Le #COVIDー19 est plus vendeurDouble exclamation mark | ukgovernmentwatch

Despite #Macron ‘s best efforts and #Coronavirus, the anti-globalist #GiletsJaunes march on through the streets of Paris today on their 69th week. Mainstream media continue to turn their backs #Acte69