Russian Government Abuses IP Law, Regular Law To Shut Down Alexey Navalny's 'Smart Voting' App

from the hashtag-just-Putin-things dept

The Russian government sent KGB 2.0 (the FSB) to kill opposition leader Alexey Navalny late last summer. That effort failed. Navalny survived the poisoning attempt to continue to be a thorn in Putin's side. So, the Russian government did the next best thing. It tossed Navalny in jail, revoking his suspended sentence to imprison him in a "corrective labor colony."

That still hasn't managed to silence Navalny to the Russian ruling party's satisfaction. He's still capable of moving masses and shaping elections despite being confined. One of his efforts -- Smart Voting -- continues to make things difficult for the dominant "United Russia" party. Debuting in November 2018, Smart Voting aids in the consolidation of opposition votes in areas where parliamentary races are close enough they can possibly be swung in favor of opposition candidates.

The effort to silence Navalny continues, with the Russian government trying to kill off his Smart Voting project. Its first move was to secure a court order forbidding Google and Yandex from returning search results for the term "smart voting." Enjoy this incredibly bold blast of extreme shadiness that does everything but provide a phonetic pronunciation of the word "corruption."

The Moscow Arbitration Tribunal issued an injunction prohibiting Google and Yandex from creating a list of results for the search query “Smart Voting”. The relevant decisions were made on the website published by the court.

The documents showed that the lawsuit against both companies was brought by Woolintertrade. The main activity of the company is the wholesale of agricultural raw materials. Woolintertrade deals with the purchase and processing of unwashed sheep’s wool in order to sell it. In the summer, the company received approval from Rospatent to register the “Smart Voting” trademark.

So, through the magic of government intervention, a company that has nothing to do with "smart" and/or "voting" managed to secure a trademark during the run-up to an election and talk a court into issuing an injunction that would prevent voters from working together to elect opposition candidates.

This bullshit still didn't satisfy the Russian government, which has now ordered Google and Apple to boot Navalny's Smart Voting app from its stores.

Russia demanded this month that Apple and Google remove the app from their stores, saying a refusal to do so would be treated as meddling in its parliamentary election.

Apple and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

On Thursday, Russia said official approaches had been made to the two companies' chief executives.

The demands worked. The apps were removed. And the worst possible outcome for both companies has been achieved: the gratitude of the thuggish Russian government.

During a daily briefing Friday, President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin welcomed Google and Apple’s decisions to comply with the Russian government’s lawful orders.

“Both platforms received a notification and they have apparently decided [to delete the Navalny apps] in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law,” Peskov told reporters.

“We dislike [Smart Voting]. This is just another absolutely provocative attempt that actually harms voters. There’s no other way of treating this,” Interfax quoted Peskov as saying.

Yep, giving Russian citizens the power to loosen United Russia's grip on national governance is definitely "provocative." However, it's definitely not "harmful" to voters… unless Peskov was insinuating those who voted for opposition candidates will be subjected to retaliatory actions by the government they failed to unseat.

As for Apple and Google, refusing to comply was always an option. Why they didn't refuse remains unclear. I mean, both companies could have just told the Russian government to put it on their respective tabs.

Google, Apple and social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and Telegram have been subject to several months of court-imposed fines totaling several million U.S. dollars for their failure to delete content that Moscow deems illegal, including calls to attend unsanctioned protests.

The only difference here was the dangling threat of criminal prosecution, which may have forced the companies to make the wrong decision for the right reasons: to keep their Russian-based employees from being rounded up and sent away to penal colonies to spend a few years with Navalny and his supporters.

Finally, there's this censorial cherry on top:

Following a request from Russian authorities, YouTube has blocked access to a video posted by Alexei Navalny’s team with a list of anti-Kremlin candidates it wants voters to back in nationwide parliamentary elections currently underway

That's right. A complete "fuck you and your YouTube video too" from a government obviously afraid it can't win a parliamentary election without pulling out all the stops to silence the imprisoned leader of its opposition.

Filed Under: alexey navalny, app stores, content moderation, corruption, court orders, russia, smart voting, voter suppression, voting apps
Companies: apple, google

Angry Anti-Masker Sues Joe Biden, Facebook, And Twitter Because His Social Media Was Taken Down For Disinfo

from the you-can't-be-serious dept

Another day, another truly silly lawsuit. The "Liberty Justice Center" and the Tyler & Bursch law firm -- both of which seem to specialize in filing ridiculous lawsuits -- have now filed a lawsuit on behalf of a disinformation-spewing anti-masker against Joe Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Facebook, and Twitter... because Facebook and Twitter locked his account after he posted an image claiming (incorrectly) that "masking children is impractical and not backed by research or real world data."

The image, which you can find in the lawsuit, but which I will not post here, posts some stuff that is true but uninteresting (such as the fact that sometimes people wear masks improperly) with stuff that is out of context and misleading (such as that studies don't have conclusive answers yet about the effectiveness of masks for kids) to try to make a claim that masking kids is a bad idea. But, like so much misinformation, it's telling a story by cherry-picking a few points out of context. Actual credible sources have broken down why these claims -- repeated frequently by anti-maskers -- are basically bullshit. Yes, there remain some unknown things and inconclusive science (though the blanks will be filled in soon). But the really "scary" stuff about harming development are mostly bogus. Of course, this is the way most misinformation works: take things out of context that you can point to as true, pool them together with a few other things, slip in a few exaggerations, and claim a big picture, the implications of which are ridiculous and not supported.

That's what the graphic Justin Hart posted basically did. And, Facebook and Twitter both reasonably felt that it was spreading potentially dangerous misinformation about masks and children. So both services gave him a time-out. Facebook suspended him for three days for violating its community standards. Twitter locked his account for violating its rules.

Hart is suing Biden, Murthy and other government officials on the laughably bogus argument that the account suspensions were ordered by the US government. The argument is that because the White House did use its bully pulpit to get angry at Facebook for leaving up misinformation, that somehow makes the government responsible for the actions against Hart (even though those occurred before the White House statements). As we noted at the time, the White House's statements were pretty stupid and short sighted. But they did not, in any way, amount to evidence that the White House and social media were colluding to censor people. Indeed, the whole point of the White House's statements were that Facebook wasn't taking down accounts.

The claims in the case are, as expected, silly. First you get a state action claim.

Facebook and Twitter engaged in state action when they removed posts like Hart’s at the request of Murthy and Biden based on the viewpoint of those posts.

Facebook and Twitter worked in concert and/or conspiracy with Murthy and Biden to deprive Hart of his First Amendment right to Free Speech.

Murthy and Biden affirmed, authorized, encouraged, and/or facilitated Facebook and Twitter’s unconstitutional conduct of censorship.

Except, that's not what happened, at all. That's not how state action doctrine works. This is just silly.

Then, there's the claim that these companies violated Hart's free speech rights under the California Constitution. And, because every stupid content moderation lawsuit has to cite Pruneyard, so does this one. As a reminder, Pruneyard is a case about a shopping mall being required to allow speakers on the property, but the ruling and subsequent rulings have narrowed it down to the very, very, very specific circumstances of the Pruneyard Shopping Mall and basically nowhere else.

In Pruneyard Shopping Center, the California Supreme Court recognized that the suburban shopping center—even ones that are privately owned—are an “essential and invaluable forum for exercising” speech rights. 592 P.2d 341, 347 (Cal. 1979). The court reasoned that shopping centers are where most people “spend the most significant amount of [their] time in suburban areas where [their] needs and wants are satisfied” because “shopping centers provide the location, goods, and services to satisfy [their] needs and wants.”

And then the case misleadingly cites the other favorite, Packingham, which is limited to how the government cannot pass a law blocking people from the entire internet and has no impact at all on whether or not an individual service can kick someone off for violating terms.

The U.S. Supreme Court made a similar observation about the internet in Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1735. There, the Court compared social media to a “quintessential forum” for engaging in speech such as “a street or park.” It further found that the most important forum today for speech is “cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general . . . and social media in particular.”

And with just those two barebones paragraphs, that ignore the realities of both cases, the lawsuit claims:

Because Facebook and Twitter provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising Hart’s right to Free Speech under the California Constitution, they violated such right when they removed Hart’s posts and suspended his ability to speak on their platforms

Except, we've already done this and it's not how any of this works. As the 9th Circuit pointed out in the PragerU case:

PragerU’s claim that YouTube censored PragerU’s speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech. See Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1928 (the Free Speech Clause “prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,” and “does not prohibit private abridgment of speech”); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976) (“the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state”). PragerU does not dispute that YouTube is a private entity that operates its platform without any state involvement.

These are not antiquated principles that have lost their vitality in the digital age. In Halleck the Supreme Court considered whether a private entity that operates a public access channel on a cable system is a state actor. 139 S. Ct. at 1926. The plaintiffs tested a theory that resembled PragerU’s approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its “operation” of the private property as “a public forum for speech.” Id. at 1930. The Court rejected this argument. Such a rule would eviscerate the state action doctrine’s distinction between government and private entities because “all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints.” Id. at 1930–31. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Id. at 1930.

Importantly, private property does not “lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.” Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972). YouTube may be a paradigmatic public square on the Internet, but it is “not transformed” into a state actor solely by “provid[ing] a forum for speech.” Halleck, 129 S. Ct. at 1930, 1934.

Notably, the Hart filing does not mention the PragerU ruling. Perhaps because it debunks every argument here.

There is another claim that is even dumber than those first ones. Count IV claims that Facebook and Twitter "committed promissory estoppel by not fulfilling their promise for Hart to use their platform for his business."

Facebook and Twitter made “a clear and unambiguous promise” to Hart that he could use their services to communicate and network with other Facebook and Twitter users

Except, no, they didn't.

Facebook and Twitter did not caveat this promise by announcing that they would censor speech opposing masks.

They absolutely did. Both services include terms of service that Hart agreed to, which make it clear that he can be suspended for violating community standards and terms of service, and may have content removed for basically any reason at all.

I can only imagine that Hart's very silly lawyers pulled out this laughable argument after looking at the infamous Barnes v. Yahoo ruling, in which someone got around Section 230 because an employee at Yahoo promised to takedown some content. The court basically said that once the company promised to do that, its failure to violated that promise and that took precedence over Section 230. But that was a direct promise from an employee. Hart totally misreading (if he read at all) the terms that he agreed to is not a promise to let him spew misinformation.

There are also the usual padding claims about "negligent interference with a prospective economic advantage" and "intentional interference with a contract" which have no chance. The only claim in the lawsuit that is actually reasonable (though not very interesting) is the claim against two government agencies -- Health & Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget -- for failing to respond to his FOIA request in the 20 business days required by law. Of course, as we well know, FOIA requests often take years, but you can sue after the 20 days to try to force the issue -- so that claim seems to be the sole legit claim here, but the only remedy would be expedited processing of his FOIA request and nothing else.

This lawsuit may be useful for fundraising campaigns and silly pandering about how much of a "victim" Hart is, but it's not a serious legal complaint and the courts are likely to treat it with exactly the level of respect it deserves.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, common carrier, content moderation, free speech, joe biden, justin hart, promissory estoppel, vivek murthy
Companies: facebook, twitter

Florida Presents Its Laughable Appeal For Its Unconstitutional Social Media Content Moderation Law

from the disney-exempt! dept

Now that Texas has signed its unconstitutional social media content moderation bill into law, the action shifts back to Florida's similar law that was already declared unconstitutional in an easy decision by the district court. Florida has filed its opening brief in its appeal before the 11th Circuit and... it's bad. I mean, really, really bad. Embarrassingly bad. I mean, this isn't a huge surprise since their arguments in the district court were also bad. But now that they've had a judge smack them down fairly completely, including in terribly embarrassing oral arguments, you'd think that maybe someone would think to try to lawyer better? Though, I guess, you play with the hand your dealt, and Florida gave its lawyers an unconstitutionally bad hand.

Still, I'd expect at least marginally better lawyering than the kind commonly found on Twitter or in our comments. It starts out bad and gets worse. First off, it claims that it's proven that social media platforms "arbitrarily discriminate against disfavored speakers" and uses a really bad example.

The record in this appeal leaves no question that social media platforms arbitrarily discriminate against disfavored speakers, including speakers in Florida. The record is replete with unrebutted examples of platforms suppressing user content for arbitrary reasons. E.g., App.891 (Doc.106-1 at 802) (Facebook censoring The Babylon Bee, a Florida-based media company, for obviously satirical content). When caught, platforms frequently cast these decisions off as “mistakes.” E.g., App.1693 (Doc.106-5 at 201). But systematic examinations show that platforms apply their content standards differently to content and speakers that express different views but are otherwise similarly situated, all while publicly claiming to apply those standards fairly. See App.999, 1007, 1183 (Doc.106-2 at 14, 22; Doc.106-3 at 17). There are many examples in the Appendix, and even that list is hardly exhaustive.

Except that at scale, tons of mistakes are made, so yes, many of these are mistakes. And others may not be, but it is up to the platform to determine who breaks the rules. But, much more importantly, it is totally within the right of private companies to moderate how they see fit and interpret their own terms of service. So even if there were proof of "discrimination" here (and there is not), it's not against the law.

From there it just gets silly:

Undoubtedly, social media is “the modern public square.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). In S.B. 7072 (the “Act”)...

Generally speaking, citing Packingham is a demonstration for support of your plan to force private actors to host speech shows you have totally misunderstood Packingham and are either too ignorant or too disingenuous to take seriously. Packingham is about preventing the government from passing laws that remove full internet access from people. It does not mean that any private company has to provide access to anyone.

The argument that Florida's law is not pre-empted by Section 230 is nonsense. Section 230 is clear that no state law can contradict it and do anything to put liability on private website operators (or users) regarding the actions of their users. But that's exactly what Florida's law does.

As the District Court tacitly acknowledged, the only part of that statute that could possibly preempt the Act is Section 230(c)(2). But that provision serves only to absolve platforms of liability when they remove in good faith content that is “objectionable” within the meaning of Section 230(c)(2). That leaves myriad ways in which the Act can apply consistently with Section 230(c)(2). For example, the Act and Section 230 can peacefully coexist when a social media platform fails to act in “good faith,” when the Act does not regulate the removal or restriction of content, or when a platform removes unobjectionable material.

This is disingenuous to downright wrong, and completely ignores the interplay between 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) and, notably, the fact that nearly every lawsuit regarding moderation has said that (c)(1) protects all moderation choices, whether or not they are "good faith." And Section 230 clearly also pre-empts any attempt by a state to ignore moderation that is protect by (c)(1). Florida's lawyers just ignore this. Which is kind of stunning. It's not like the lawyers for NetChoice and CCIA are going to ignore it too. And they can point to dozens upon dozens of cases that prove Florida wrong.

The 1st Amendment argument is even worse:

Plaintiffs are also unlikely to succeed on their claim that the Act violates the First Amendment on its face. Most of the Act is directed at ensuring that social media platforms host content in a transparent fashion. For example, the Act requires non-controversial, factual disclosures, and disclosure requirements have long coexisted with the First Amendment. Even the portions of the Act that regulate the manner in which platforms host speech are consistent with the First Amendment. When properly analyzed separately from the Act’s other provisions—and from the extraneous legislative statements on which the District Court primarily relied—these requirements parallel other hosting regulations that the Supreme Court has held are consistent with the First Amendment. E.g., Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 63 (2006). The Act’s hosting regulations prevent the platforms from silencing others. They leave platforms free to speak for themselves, create no risk that a user’s speech will be mistakenly attributed to the platforms, and intrude on no unified speech product of any platform. These requirements are little different from traditional regulation of common carriers that has long been thought consistent with the First Amendment.

The reliance on Rumsfeld v. FAIR is quite silly, and the few people who have brought it up also tend to look quite silly. This is not even remotely similar to the Rumsfeld situation, which was very narrow and very specific and cannot be extended to apply to an entire social media platform. And to just sort of toss in the idea that social media is a common carrier -- when they do not meet (at all) the classification of a common carrier, and have never been deemed a common carrier -- is just boldly stupid.

There's more, of course, but those are the basics. You never know how a court is going to decide -- and perhaps you get a confused and persuadable judge (there are, unfortunately, a few of those out there). But, this is really weak and seems unlikely to stand.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, common carrier, content moderation, florida, free speech, packingham, pruneyard, public square, section 230, social media

Malwarebytes Conclusion Shows Section 230's Best Feature: Killing Dumb Cases Before They Waste Everyone's Time And Money

from the 230's-procedural-benefits dept

A few years ago, Professor Eric Goldman wrote an important paper, explaining how Section 230 is better than the 1st Amendment. The key part of the argument is that if you treat Section 230 as a rule of civil procedure that kicks out frivolous and wasteful cases quickly, you realize how important it is.

Last month, a federal district court in California dismissed Enigma Software's high profile lawsuit against Malwarebytes. You may have heard about this case. We've been covering it for years, and it even got some (dubious) attention at the Supreme Court, regarding Section 230. Enigma didn't like that Malwarebytes (and others) found Enigma's "SpyHunter" software to be sketchy itself and started suing. Malwarebytes initially won on Section 230 grounds, pointing out that its opinions on what is and what is not spyware is a moderation choice -- in this case protected by Section 230's rarely used (c)(2)'s immunity for content that the provider deems "otherwise objectionable."

Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit reversed that ruling with a very weird opinion that seemed to contradict its own previous precedent. In that ruling, the 9th Circuit carved a new hole in (c)(2) arguing that you could lose 230 protections if there was an argument that the decision to block content (or call something spyware) was done "for anticompetitive reasons." From the ruling:

We hold that the phrase “otherwise objectionable” does not include software that the provider finds objectionable for anticompetitive reasons.

This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court who declined to hear the case, though allowing Justice Clarence Thomas to spew some unfettered unbriefed nonsense about Section 230.

Either way, that sent the case all the way back to the district court... where it was dismissed anyway because calling something spyware is protected opinion.

Like in Asurvio LP, Enigma has not pleaded that Malwarebytes’ alleged labels are verifiably false rather than just subjective opinions. Enigma’s allegations that users view statements categorizing Enigma’s programs and domains as “malicious,” “threats,” and PUPs as statements of fact rather than subjective opinions are not supported by the facts presented. The allegations ignore that users of Malwarebytes are aware of why it opines that a given software program may be a PUP based on Malwarebytes’ disclosed criteria and can choose to quarantine or un-quarantine the detected program.

In other words, after all this nonsense and back and forth over Section 230, years later, Malwarebytes still wins the case because the 1st Amendment protects its opinions.

This is similar to another famous 9th Circuit ruling on 230 from a while back: the Roommates.com case. In that case, the court ruled that Section 230 did not protect Roommates.com for content it places in a pulldown menu (that users used to select roommate preferences), but in the end (many years later) Roommates.com still won the case because the 1st Amendment protected it.

Both of these cases demonstrate two very important things: first, most of what people complain about regarding Section 230 is actually protected by the 1st Amendment, so even if we got rid of Section 230, the 1st Amendment would still enable websites to moderate how they see fit. But, much more importantly, both of those cases demonstrate the procedural benefits of Section 230, in that they enable these kinds of cases to be dismissed quickly and relatively inexpensively, rather than having to go through a years long process. In short, Section 230's civil procedure benefits are that they get frivolous cases tossed out of court much more quickly, and at less expense. And that's important, since so many of these cases are, in some form or another, SLAPP suits, designed to pressure companies not to moderate certain content.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, free speech, malware, moderation, opinion, section 230, spam
Companies: enigma software, malwarebytes

Brazilian President Bans Social Media Companies From Removing Disinformation & Abuse

from the well-that-will-work-out-just-great dept

Ah, great. Just after Australia made it clear that media organizations are liable for comments on social media (demonstrating one aspect of a world without intermediary liability protections), Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro has announced new social media rules that effectively force social media sites to keep all content online (demonstrating the flipside to a world without intermediary liability protections). The two most important things that Section 230 does -- limiting liability for 3rd party intermediaries and freeing websites of liability for moderation choices -- each going away completely in two separate countries in the same week.

To be clear, the rule in Brazil can only stay on the books for 120 days -- since it's a "provisional measure" from the President -- and if they're not enacted into law by the Brazilian Congress by then, they'll expire (and there's at least some suggestion that the Brazilian Congress has no interest). But, still, these rules are dangerous.

Under the new policy, tech companies can remove posts only if they involve certain topics outlined in the measure, such as nudity, drugs and violence, or if they encourage crime or violate copyrights; to take down others, they must get a court order. That suggests that, in Brazil, tech companies could easily remove a nude photo, but not lies about the coronavirus. The pandemic has been a major topic of disinformation under Mr. Bolsonaro, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all having removed videos from him that pushed unproven drugs as coronavirus cures.

Imagine needing to get a court order to remove content? That's ridiculous. Bolsonaro's government put out a twitter thread (in English) claiming that this is the country "taking the global lead in defending free speech" when the reality is exactly the opposite. Compelled speech, which includes the compelled hosting of speech, is the exact opposite of "defending free speech." Here's what the government is saying about this dangerous proposal:

Brazilian government is taking the global lead in defending free speech on social networks and protecting the right of citizens to freedom of thought and expression.

As noted, compelled speech is not defending free speech. And freedom of expression does not mean you get to force someone else to let you speak on their property.

The Provisional Measure issued today by the Brazilian government forbids the removal of content that may result in any kind of "censorship of political, ideological, scientific, artistic or religious order".

Hilariously, though, it does allow for the removal of copyright infringing material, which already undermines the idea that it does not allow for censorship of "artistic" works.

It is also guaranteed that the social network will have to justify the removal of content under the terms of Brazilian laws. Without a just cause, the social network will have to restore the removed content.

This may be the most pernicious part here, because (as we've discussed before), the most bad faith, abusive trolls are the ones who are most likely to demand justification -- and then to act shocked and pretend to be offended at claims that they were acting as bad faith, abusive trolls. This provision just allows trolls to make an even bigger nuisance of themselves. Which seems to be exactly what Bolsonaro wants, knowing he has more bad faith, abusive trolls on his side.

This measure forbids selective deplatforming by requiring that social media provide a just cause for the suspension of services and restore access should the suspension be considered unlawful. This measure is based on precedent in Brazilian law and freedom of expression.

Compelled speech is never freedom of expression. As for "precedent," Brazil once led the way in passing smart internet rules. This makes a mockery of them.

Attention: the law does not prevent the social network from removing content that violates Brazilian law, such as child pornography. The Brazilian government stands for both freedom and democracy!

That's a pretty damn Orwellian statement right there.

This measure has been emitted as a result of ongoing concern with actions taken by social media groups that have been perceived as harmful to healthy debate and freedom of expression in Brazil, and hope it will serve to help restore online political dialogue in the country.

Basically, we're doing this because our President is not doing well in the polls leading up to a national election, and has been taking a page from Trump's playbook and talking about how he can only lose by election fraud -- and we need to make sure that social media companies don't actually stop our bullshit propaganda from spreading widely.

The real question now is how will the social media companies respond. According to the NY Times:

Facebook said that the “measure significantly hinders our ability to limit abuse on our platforms” and that the company agrees “with legal experts and specialists who view the measure as a violation of constitutional rights.”

Twitter said the policy transforms existing internet law in Brazil, “as well as undermines the values and consensus it was built upon.”

YouTube said it was still analyzing the law before making any changes. “We’ll continue to make clear the importance of our policies, and the risks for our users and creators if we can’t enforce them,” the company said.

There's also this:

In July, YouTube removed 15 of Mr. Bolsonaro’s videos for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. And late last month, YouTube said that, under orders from a Brazilian court, it had stopped payments to 14 pro-Bolsonaro channels that had spread false information about next year’s presidential elections.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has also been investigating disinformation operations in the country. Mr. Bolsonaro became a target of those investigations last month, and several of his allies have been questioned or detained.

Of course, it seems notable that it was just a few years ago that Brazil arrested a Facebook exec because the company refused to hand over information on WhatsApp users, and has, at times, blocked the entirety of WhatsApp in the country. So, it would be interesting to see what will happen if the companies refuse to follow these ridiculous rules.

But, between this and what happened in Australia, we'll now get to see two examples of the dangerous situation that happens when you don't have strong intermediary liability protections, including for the ability to moderate websites how best you see fit.

Filed Under: brazil, compelled speech, content moderation, election misinformation, free speech, jair bolsonaro, marco civil
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Announces On Twitter The Livestreaming On Facebook Of His Signing Of A Bill That Removes 1st Amendment Rights For Both

from the you-did-what-now? dept

We've talked a bunch about just how incredibly unconstitutional Texas's social media content moderation bill, HB20 is, so I don't really need to cover any of that again. You can look it up -- or just read how a court found Florida's similar bill unconstitutional.

Still, the entire point of this bill is to play up a culture war for grandstanding politicians, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott wants to grandstand with the best of them (even if he's a pathetic copy of some of the other grandstanders in his party). Even so, it still was quite something to see Abbott announce on Twitter that people should watch him on Facebook as he signed the bill into law -- a bill that would attempt to remove the 1st Amendment rights against compelled speech from both companies.

He's doing this on the same day that the Justice Department is suing Texas for its equally unconstitutional anti-abortion "let everyone sue everyone and let the courts sort it out" bill.

I know that some people are concerned about this bill, and what awful things it will do for social media, but all it's really going to do is waste a ton of taxpayer money in Texas, which Abbott and the other faux culture warriors want to use as basically taxpayer-funded campaign dollars to get their names in the headlines, talking about they're "fighting for free speech" when all they're doing is removing 1st Amendment rights, abusing the power the voters entrusted with them, and throwing their money away on lawyers who have nothing legitimate to defend.

It's political theater, with your speech and your tax dollars being held hostage. No one should accept this as reasonable, but these are the times we live in, where corruption and violations of the oath of office for the sake of some dumb culture war are more important than governing and doing what's right.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, compelled speech, content moderation, greg abbott, hb20, social media, texas
Companies: facebook, twitter

Impossibility Of Content Moderation: Scientist Debunking Vaccine Myths Gets A YouTube Strike For Medical Misinfo

from the it's-tougher-than-you-think dept

Here's another one in our never ending series on the impossibility of doing content moderation at scale, and how (all too frequently) people trying to expose bad behavior are punished as if they're promoting bad behavior.

This involves a scientist who streams on YouTube as Scientist Mel, and tries to educate people about science, including debunking bad science takes. This included a recent two hour episode debunking anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers. The video does look at a bunch of ridiculous conspiracy theories and scientific claptrap and nonsense... and then debunks it. But, YouTube dinged her channel for misinformation:

And... look, you can see how this happens, right? You have reviewers with limited time and a two hour video is a lot to take in. And in skimming through the video, you will come across conspiracy theory nonsense regarding COVID and COVID treatments. But it's there so that Mel can debunk it. So... Mel appealed the strikes. And YouTube upheld the appeal, claiming "we reviewed your content carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our medical misinformation policy." They were condescendingly nice about it in their form email: "We know this is probably disappointing news, but it's our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all." Yeah, that's not what this is doing, of course.

Of course, as this started to get a bit more attention... on Twitter... suddenly YouTube realized it might have made a mistake, and over the weekend admitted it was a mistake and the strike was removed (and the video returned).

So, in this case, the end result worked out -- but like so many cases, that only happened once the initial "bad" result started to get some attention elsewhere (Twitter being the world's best "consumer complaint" forum).

Of course, I'm sympathetic to both ends of this argument. I can see why this clearly erroneous strike/takedown sucks for Mel. But I can also see exactly how it happens. When tons of people are screaming at every social media site out there to make sure they take down any medical misinformation, and videos often involve (as in this case) multiple hours of content, it's literally impossible to review them completely and understand the context in which the conspiracy theory nonsense was shown. That doesn't excuse YouTube messing up the appeal, of course, but the appeals process apparently isn't particularly robust, and likely suffers from the same limitations as the initial review.

And this kind of issue is only going to get worse and worse as various laws around the world demand that "bad" information be removed quickly or websites will face significant liability.

Filed Under: content moderation, debunking, myths, science, scientist mel
Companies: youtube