I am not suggesting that you perform a Google search for “responsible development.” I just want to call attention to the demise of the “Responsible Development of AI Advisory Council” at Google. It was just last week that Google announced the formation of the Advisory Council, intended to debate potential policy related to Artificial Intelligence. They started announcing persons who were going to serve on the Advisory Council. One of the persons named was Kay Coles James.
The histrionics from Google staffers were immediate and intense. Tantrums were thrown and a clamor of angry rhetoric consumed much energy and attention for a couple of days. Google promptly caved, and today they announced the dissolution of the Advisory Council. Evidently placating the SJW staffers at Google was much more important than any effort to get ahead of the plethora of ethical pitfalls that beset the development of artificial intelligence.
What prompted the outrage? Well, Ms. Kay Coles James is an African-American grandmother who held a variety of jobs in government and education. She is currently on the Advisory Council for NASA. And, by the way, she is also the current President of Heritage Foundation.
A petition with more than 2,000 signatories from within the company was published on Medium on Monday, with the title “Googlers Against Transphobia and Hate.”
…Meredith Whittaker, who leads Google’s Open Research Group, posted on a private Google listserv that, “I would disagree that their views are important to consider, when those views include erasing trans people, targeting immigrants, and denying climate change.”
Other ringleader employees at Google vociferously trashed Heritage Foundation on a variety of charges, such as “anti-LGBTQ,” “anti-immigrant” and climate denial, etc. When some employees said that the hoo-rah sounded intolerant, they were attacked with messages saying that there is no need to listen to such haters.
Both Daily Caller and Breitbart have the story. Links are in the comments.
Donald Trump Jr. has an editorial at The Hill, about censorship on the internet. He runs through a bill of particulars, which concern matters that we have talked about at Ratburger.org. The following is the middle third of his editorial, which amounts to good old-fashioned journalism about something he saw while at CPAC.
Silicon Valley lobbyists have splashed millions of dollars all over the Washington swamp to play on conservatives’ innate faith in the free-market system and respect for private property. Even as Big Tech companies work to exclude us from the town square of the 21st century, they’ve been able to rely on misguided conservatives to carry water for them with irrelevant pedantry about whether the First Amendment applies in cases of social media censorship.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has been making a name for himself as a Republican prepared to stand up to Big Tech malfeasance since his time as Missouri’s attorney general. He delivered a tour de force interview with The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel in front of the CPAC crowd, one that provided a clear-eyed assessment of the ongoing affront to the freedoms of conservative speech and expression.
Hawley demolished the absurd notion that “conservative principles” preclude taking action to ensure free debate online simply because Big Tech firms — the most powerful corporations in the world — are private companies.
Hawley pointed out that Big Tech companies already enjoy “sweetheart deals” under current regulations that make their malfeasance a matter of public concern. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, for instance, allows them to avoid liability for the content that users post to their platforms. To address this problem, Hawley proposed adding a viewpoint neutrality requirement for platforms that benefit from Section 230’s protections, which were originally enacted to protect the internet as “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”
“Google and Facebook should not be a law unto themselves,” Hawley declared. “They should not be able to discriminate against conservatives. They should not be able to tell us we need to sit down and shut up!”
It’s high time other conservative politicians started heeding Hawley’s warnings….
I looked at Senator Hawley’s website, but did not see anything there on this topic. I hope he will bring forward some good initiative.
Apple CEO Tim Cook suggests it's "a sin" to not ban certain people from social media and technology platforms: "We only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division, and violence: You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here." pic.twitter.com/gO5qB6bBuO
Private companies’ content censorship raises important public concerns of a magnitude meriting book-length treatment. Not here, however, and not by me. The left, for example, saw its near-absolute content control of most public media – print, broadcast, movies, education – as insufficient because of talk radio. Leftist radio programs fell flat while Rush Limbaugh, intolerably, soared to prominence. We know that tolerance has a very restricted meaning for leftists, thus their regulatory effort to quash conservative talk radio with the “fairness doctrine” was a case study in the use of state power in furtherance of their illiberal – totalitarian, actually – impulses and tactics.
The left never hesitates to enforce its rubrics, on pain of abusive name-calling (amplified by their “media”) or ruination at the hands of some public agency or other with enforcement powers. For instance, a Christian baker in Colorado is being singled out yet again. All sense of proportion has been lost, to such an extent that definitions of basic language and process must be re-examined. Does what we have referred to as media up until now still qualify as media?
Are newspapers and TV newscasts merely neutral means of communication for all or do they now zealously advocate one single worldview, to the vituperous exclusion of all others? It is no longer merely a medium when the New York Times “news” pages are blatantly editorial and read like daily DNC talking points. Do administrative agencies, whose rules are enacted at every level – federal, state and local – by leftist activists (who are the pervasive and permanent denizens of these administrative swamps) really represent the will of the voting majority? There are literally scores of thousands of such rules – many with huge fines or even prison sentences for non-compliance – at every level of government, so that virtually anyone could be ruined by merely coming to the attention of a “public servant” with an axe to grind – particularly vis-à-vis an uppity, outspoken conservative. Legislative or judicial oversight of such agencies, as a practical matter, is non-existent.
While it would be a terrible idea to attempt to impose a “fairness doctrine” on Silicon Valley, I am heartened that President Trump tweeted today on the subject of censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media and said “…we won’t let that happen”. As a proponent of small government, I do not advocate promiscuous use of state power to right all wrongs. However, the situation today is intolerable. With the status quo – where we cannot even be heard to object – we can only lose our rights. The power of the state is being used regularly to stifle non-progressive speech and this is being perpetrated in part by state-sanctioned companies with monopoly power. Trump’s statements are useful push-back and very necessary, as the progre$$ive $ilicon Valley types have had a free ride up until now, doing as they like to squash our views.
While I am not thrilled with use of state power generally, one of its necessary powers is to “secure” our fundamental rights – like freedom of political speech. Maybe we ought to recall Obama’s rejoinder that, “You didn’t build that…” These huge companies, to some extent after all, exist at the sufferance of the entire public and the state functionaries which represent us. It is unacceptable for companies with monopoly power to censor speech with which they disagree and to do it by subterfuges such as “offensive” or contrivances like “hate speech”. Although they are private companies and do have substantial commercial rights, such rights are not without limit and may not legitimately be used to infringe fundamental personal (and essentially political) freedom of speech rights of millions of individuals. To say otherwise is to make the Constitution into a suicide pact for conservatives and libertarians..
It is high time these behemoths began to fear negative consequences for some of their business practices, including censorship. If he chooses, President Trump can make their lives difficult and their bottom lines shrink by executive actions (and not necessarily executive orders). It is time, I think, to set the Department of Justice about the task of examining antitrust aspects of the business practices of Google (YouTube), Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, etc. The exercise will likely prove salutary.
I am not an Alex Jones fan, so at first I had no interest or concern about anything involving him. But then, the sheer number of headlines and articles about Him finally drew my attention. I became curious to find out what really was happening (I believe about zero of what is promoted by the MSM).
The first online websites I went to, looking for more information/insight was actually talking loudly about censoring/faux news the prior day. This is because they had themselves become targets that day. More specifically there had been in excess of 4 pages of anti-conservativeMSM articles (all saying essentially the same things) attacking their website. The articles were all disseminated via broadcast, print, and social media during the same timeframe, on the same day! The obvious concerted ‘attack’ really had the website users excited.
The chatter on this website was focused primarily on the money/government angle and, since many think Jones is a ‘black hat’, they argued whether it was legit news/actual banishment, or if Jones himself was involved and it was some sort of tactic to gain more direct subscribers to his website. I have read the number of subscribers to Alex Jones’ website has soared.
Regarding the government/money, the focus was on H.R. 5181 which was passed by the house and which in the Senate became the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act. This Act was signed by President Obama in December 2016 and quietly snuck into NDAA 2017 by the Senate. Some speculated Obama and friends took this action to provide legal authority for strangling free speech. Also, the ‘bad guys’ wanted to ensure the Left/Globalist/MSM would be able to legally retain control over information disclosure by blocking any information that independent websites attempted to be share.
There was also some noise being made about exactly how much of the people’s money was taken to fund implementation of the Act, which includes establishment of a Center for Information Analysis and Response, (aka the Ministry of Truth). Some on the website stated the amount is $160 million, some say it was only $20 million. I could only find official confirmation of the $20 million figure for period 2017 to 2018.
Some speculated the current censoring activities are occurring now due to upcoming elections, some say it’s just the MSM extending the use of the “Russian Bots” narrative: in essence the theory is, if you support President Trump or conservative ideas then you must be a Russian Bot, so therefore you can be legally censored/countered as ‘permitted by H.R. 5181. ??? But wait, it gets better, the MSM/Silicon Valley ‘Censors’ can also collect money from Uncle Sam for censoring you, or me … or even Alex Jones.
On still other websites folks were thinking about other aspects. One website seemed to want to focus on the 1st Amendment vs. Private property.
On Ratburger, I found interesting thoughts about the potential legal and liability aspects of the situation, as follows:
Excerpt from post I Thought Libertarians were for Freedom of Speech by Mate De 08.08.2018
Platforms like Twitter and Facebook have taken the position, successfully so far, that they are common carriers like the telephone network, as opposed to publishers, and are therefore content-neutral. In return, the federal government has granted broad exemptions from liability for content published on their platforms. See Phil Turmel’s comment on the Alex Jones post and subsequent discussion for details. By choosing to explicitly restrict access to their platforms based upon content, they are putting themselves into the position of a publisher, not a common carrier, and in so doing expose themselves to forms of liability from which they’ve been shielded so far. It may be that whatever you think of the political consequences of explicit and acknowledged filtering, it may be a very bad business decision for these companies. Imagine lawsuits from victims or their families of an attack by a jihadi recruited by a Facebook page.
Excerpts from post Alex Jones, unperson by Cyrano 08.07.2018
The Sinistral Bassist:
Doesn’t this open up those platforms to lawsuits over the content they choose not to ban? When they only banned people from doing illegal things, they could claim they were not content-providers and merely a platform for others to publish on. Once they start selectively choosing who to ban, they now become curators and publishers. They should be sued for every troll posting that is rumor or libel now because they didn’t ban it.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act includes a “Safe Harbor” provision for any site allowing users among the general public to post content, such that postings that infringe copyrights of others may be taken down with a simple process, and if followed with certain time limits, disallows lawsuits against the website operators. One of the criteria to qualify for this clause is that the site must be content-neutral. Bingo. Discriminating on political viewpoint (probably on much else, too) seems to open these social media operators to enormous potential liability for misconduct among their users. We’ll see.
After reading the above, I stopped briefly to wonder if H.R. 5181 would will effectively act to eliminate the potential liability issues. Not an attorney, so I don’t know. But in a school debate, I think there is enough information conflict to argue either side of the debate successfully.
And, then I continued my searching.
More digging provided additional information from other websites, and articles on H.R. 5181 bill and its support for censoring of information:
Portman/Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.
“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel. Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on,” said Senator Portman. “With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”
“Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries’ widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America’s foreign policy goals,” said Murphy. “I’m proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it’s long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats.”
NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation. They are as follows:
The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.
I found all of the above very helpful in clarifying my own thoughts about the issues surrounding the Alex Jones ban, and I hope the collected information contain herein proves to be of value to others as well. That said, what really made me sit-up and pay attention is the following video:
I found it quite worrisome (if what MSM reports is real). The video also proved to me that I am not as well informed as I thought I was. I simply had not been paying enough attention in December 2016 and had not noticed that Obama, with the help of both Democrats and Republicans, the House and the Senate – effectively created The Ministry of Truth before he left office.
It will be interesting so see how tactics of the Ministry of Truth play out in our country’s future.
Then again, being an optimist, my mind smiles as it wonders how far this hand will be allowed to continue before the President shuts it down by playing his trump-suit ace, squashing the MSM/Globalists/Leftists dreams that they are actually going to be able to control dissemination of information in the digital age.
In closing, I thought the whole Alex Jones ‘thing’ was nothing of interest to me. Now, I realize it could be very serious, or then again, maybe it is not. Maybe I could go back to sleep pretending this is all a nothing-burger or perhaps just another false flag.
It’s complicated. The truth is out there but I can’t figure out which money trail to follow to find it. Alex Jones himself and all his new ‘business’, or the MSM and Ministry of Truth? I guess time will tell.
CPAC Nevers have censored a scheduled panel on free speech.
Pamela Geller worked for months on a panel discussion. At the last minute, CPAC told her that the founder of Gateway Pundit would be banned because he “supports Nazis.” Geller said she would not cancel anyone from speaking at a panel discussion on free speech.