Chinese Govt. Arrests More Pro-Democracy Icons In Hong Kong, Including Music Stars

from the sing-me-a-song dept

While we have been discussing the way mainland China's plan to slow-creep the end of democracy in Hong Kong has turned into more of a sprint, it's also quite true that what is occurring there hasn't gotten nearly enough media burn as it should. Plenty of folks have chalked up China's aggressive attitudes towards Hong Kong to the 2019 pro-democracy protests, but the real sprint began once it became clear that Donald Trump stood a good chance of losing the White House to Joe Biden. Trump showed little willingness to push back on China when it came to its treatment of Hong Kong and the theory was that Biden would reverse course and show some backbone. That he generally hasn't is one of geopolitics great ironies. Beijing has taken such steps as to try to erase the CCP's own bloody history, to censor all kinds of Hong Kong pro-democracy culture, and to arrest of all kinds of pro-democracy lawmakers and media.

Democracy is over in Hong Kong, in other words, and has been for some time now. What Beijing is currently in is a mop-up mode, as it looks to take the vice it has built around the city-state and spin the tightening lever. China's actions have made any designation of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region an absolute punchline, including at present when China is busy arresting more pro-democracy cultural icons, including a popular musician, Denise Ho.

Cantopop star and prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Denise Ho was arrested at her home on Wednesday morning by the city's national security police.

She was one of six people arrested in an early morning operation, all linked to online media organization Stand News. Police later confirmed at a news conference that a seventh person had been arrested. They have been accused by police of "conspiracy to publish seditious material," a colonial-era crime.

Ho, a former Stand News board member, was born in Hong Kong but grew up in Canada. She found fame in the early 2000s with a string of hit albums, before later building a successful career as an actress.

In addition to this raid, Chinese authorities raided the Stand News offices in a wild show of force. Hundreds of officers descended on the operation, all under the cover of the relatively new National Security Law passed in 2020 that seemed specifically designed to erase freedoms in Hong Kong. Perhaps the most surprising part of this story is how long it took for China to take this action against Ho. She is a gay, pro-democracy advocate who has regularly participated in protests and marches, all with a large following thanks to her musical and acting careers. In other words, she is absolutely a sensible target for a Chinese government intent on playing thought police over the city.

Her activism has also drawn other repercussions over the years -- including being blacklisted and censored in mainland China.

Chinese state media has attacked Ho as "Hong Kong poison" in previous years. In 2016, amid criticism of Ho from Beijing, luxury brand Lancome canceled a promotional concert featuring the star, citing "safety reasons."

But it's the rest of the world's collective shoulder shrug that is the issue here. Why is China continuing to take these actions? Because the rest of the world is not de-incentivizing those actions, of course. That we're all sitting back and allowing this to happen without even putting up a fight is and will be a stain on the democracies of the world. That the world let things get this far in the first place without any real pushback, all the more.

Democracy is over in Hong Kong because, in part, we sat back and watched it die. Shame on all of us.

Filed Under: china, democracy, denise ho, free speech, hong kong
Companies: stand news

Turkey's Dictator Erdogan, Who Has Sued Thousands Of Critics, Jailed More, Now Claims That 'Social Media' Is A 'Threat To Democracy'

from the takes-one-to-know-one dept

In the past we've pointed out how western politicians' attacks on social media are only serving to play into the hands of authoritarians around the globe, justifying their crackdowns on free speech and critics. And that doesn't seem to be slowing down any time soon. The latest is Turkey's President repeating the exact lines that US/EU politicians have been using to slam social media as "dangerous to democracy" in order to justify even more draconian crackdowns on speech and the press in his country.

We've written about Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for years -- mostly covering his regular attacks on free expression. Erdogan has sued thousands of people for "insulting" him online. Even more serious is his regular practice of jailing journalists by falsely calling them terrorists. He's also lead aggressive campaigns to ban any website that portrays him in an unflattering light.

So, you'd think that maybe US/EU politicians might recognize the problems of someone like Erdogan using their own words to further push his agenda. This weekend, Erdogan announced that social media is a "threat to democracy" and pushed for new laws that would criminalized "fake news" being spread on social media.

“Social media, which was described as a symbol of freedom when it first appeared, has turned into one of the main sources of threat to today’s democracy,” Erdogan said in a video message to a government-organised communications conference in Istanbul.

He added: “We try to protect our people, especially the vulnerable sections of our society, against lies and disinformation without violating our citizens’ right to receive accurate and impartial information.”

I mean, that sounds nearly identical to claims made by people like Senators Amy Klobuchar, Josh Hawley, Elizabeth Warren, or Ted Cruz. Of course, there is no actual democracy in Turkey right now, and Erdogan is just using these claims to justify even greater suppression of speech that criticizes him. As we've highlighted over and over again hate speech laws always turn into a mechanism for the government to punish people they don't like.

As the article notes, Turkey has already moved to have much great control over social media companies, and this new move will ratchet up the pressure:

Turkey passed a law last year requiring social media platforms that have more than 1 million users to maintain a legal representative and store data in the country. Major social media companies, including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, have since established offices in Turkey.

The new legislation would make the dissemination of “disinformation” and “fake news” criminal offences punishable by up to five years in prison, according to pro-government media reports. It also would establish a social media regulator.

It seems like those US social media companies may want to reconsider their local offices.

But, even more to the point, US and EU politicians going out of their way to exaggerate and slam social media as a "threat to democracy" might want to think a bit more about how their words are being used, almost verbatim, as a justification around the globe to suppress free speech and political criticism.

Filed Under: censorship, democracy, hate speech, recep tayyip erdogan, regulations, social media, turkey

Digital Democracies: How Liberal Governments Can Adapt In The Technological Age

from the embrace-the-technology dept

At the turn of the last millennium, there was a wave of optimism surrounding new technologies and the empowerment of the modern digital citizen. A decade later, protestors across North Africa and the Middle East leveraged platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to bring down authoritarian regimes during the revolutions of the Arab Spring and it was believed these technologies would bring about a new flourishing of the worldwide liberal democratic order.

Unfortunately, the emancipatory potential of the open internet has been undermined by the latest in a long line of authoritarian regimes hijacking the technology. Autocracies adapted, with China leading the way. Towards the end of the 20th century, the CCP introduced a new political-economic model revolving around centralized rule and a controlled market economy. With this new model, China has successfully broken common political-economic orthodoxy by limiting domestic desire for democracy while maintaining a sizable middle class. A key driver of this is a “comprehensive system of state repression, bolstered by the latest digital technologies.”

China has turned applications of key technologies such as artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and data analytics to usher in a new age of digital dictatorships which can spy on its citizens, predict dissent, and censure unwanted information, increasing regime resiliency through a virtually manufactured world safe for autocracy. Many leaders of the developing world have taken advantage of this, as China has exported its model to other countries, such as Venezuela, to restrict the freedoms of the modern citizen.

As authoritarian governments increase regime resiliency by leveraging digital technologies, citizens of liberal democracies have trouble trusting these same technologies in no small part due to their exploitation by authoritarians and their agents at home and abroad. This understandable hesitancy may not only lead to a technology gap, but leave democratic institutions vulnerable to threats by these same technologies; one can simply look to Russia’s meddling attempts in recent U.S. elections. The pendulum has swung towards autocracy as digital technologies seem to have had an asymmetrical effect, bolstering authoritarian regimes as the tides turn against the previous post-Cold War wave of liberalism. Pessimists are looking backwards, opening that perhaps digital technologies are in tension with--or even pose a threat to--liberal democratic governments. This does not need to be the case.

As pointed out by Mike Masnick, when charting the future of the digital landscape, one should not automatically assume “progress towards a ‘good’ outcome is inevitable and easy,” but nor is the path towards a technological dystopia. Not all progress is good, but if we can’t move forward and can’t stay still, that leaves only one option. By rethinking how we apply these technologies, democracies around the world can find methods by which to both enhance the liberal democratic ideological values, and protect against weaknesses inherent to the political ideology, creating resilient “digital democracies'' to stand against the rising autocratic tide and reinforce their own struggling institutions.

Transparency through Technology

The main method by which democracies can enhance liberal principles is by creating more transparent governments. Transparency can act to limit the powers of government, promoting freedom and individualism, while making policy and officials more effective and accountable, respectively. An informed, educated citizenry is the cornerstone of any robust liberal democracy, and there’s no reason the technologies of the Third Industrial Revolution shouldn’t be employed in service of this goal. To do this, digital technologies should be leveraged to better illuminate the wants and needs of citizens for more informed policy making, create reliable metrics so constituents can directly measure the effects of politician’s policy decisions, and generally increase the transparency of actions of government officials, law enforcement agencies, and lobbyists.

Though digital technologies make it possible for countless data points to be gathered on individual citizens, the potential for these processes goes beyond delivering targeted ads without the development of a CCP-style social credit score. Data analysis allows for the ability to create policy options that better fit citizen’s needs, for example customizability. If insurance companies allow customers to select policy options based on their needs, why can national governments not do the same based on a person's location, age, family size, economic situation, etc? We already see this in tax policy, but with digital technologies, this can be applied more broadly. For example, the U.S. welfare state is notoriously difficult to navigate and runs on systems almost old enough to qualify for Social Security. An embrace of new developments could not only make programs more accessible to those who qualify, but more tailored to their specific needs. Policymaking can be reimagined to create options that incorporate different citizens' wants and needs, and advances in digital technologies allow for a larger, faster, and more diverse analysis of the data required to design and implement these complex solutions.

One of the main benefits of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and “big data” is the ability to uncover causal directions between different variables. By using these technologies, it will be easier to understand the direct effects of policy decisions across a number of variables. This level of transparency would create for a more informed citizen as they could see how their representatives' voting habits are directly affecting their bank accounts, the job market, their access to healthcare, etc. For example, governments could use the abundance of financial data to publish reports showcasing how specific tax laws actually affect different demographic groups, taking the guesswork out of evaluating policy decisions. The use of granular data to analyze mistakes in the designation of opportunity zones created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is one example. Digital technologies could also allow for simulations of different policy proposals to see how they might affect an individual, city, or state. Digital twin technologies created by companies like Deloitte and Dassault are already being leveraged by governments to understand how certain decisions on energy and logistics will change how cities operate. Another possible use case of these technologies is policy trials that would allow governments to study the effects of lawmaking for a given geographic area and time period, similar to how businesses run trials on different marketing plans. A “low fidelity” version of this could be seen in 2013 when the Obama administration allowed Colorado and Washington to experiment with legalizing recreational marijuana.

While reasonable steps should be taken to anonymize such information, it’s possible to publish it in a manner that’s transparent and easily digestible by the press, policy analysts, and public officials to make it harder for pie-in-the-sky policy proposals to be introduced and adopted without just taking the word of their proponents.

Lastly, digital democracy can shed light on the action of government and adjacent officials. The idea is similar to that of China’s surveillance system, but in reverse. If China can use digital technologies to monitor citizens, thereby dissuading populations from making certain choices, why can citizens not do the same to governments? Indeed the adoption of a social credit system was a deliberate, top-down choice by the CCP--not the natural evolution of “big data.” Who’s to say that a liberal democracy can’t flip the script? By capturing and sharing instances of government corruption, police abuse, and lobbying malpractice, society's officials will be dissuaded from making decisions against the public’s interests. Apart from Facebook, and Twitter, a number of specialized platforms are being deployed for that very purpose. Guatemalans have experimented with a social platform that allows users to share examples of police corruption. German made LobbyControl provides transparency on lobbying at the local and EU level. Working together, liberal democracies can share these platforms to create an international system of government accountability.

Defense through Digitization

Liberal democratic systems are not without their weaknesses. One such vulnerability is the slowness, as can be seen by America’s sedated and haphazard response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As they can be used to enhance tenets of liberal democracies, digital technologies can also protect against inherent weaknesses by accelerating government response in the face of crisis, preventing the spread of propaganda and polarization, and protecting citizen’s rights to freedom and privacy.

AI, ML, and big data can be leveraged in three key ways to help liberal democratic governments with crisis response. First before a crisis strikes, algorithms can analyze data to uncover vulnerabilities in a system before they take hold. This could have been useful in predicting the collapse of the housing market prior to the 2008 financial crisis. Once a crisis has struck, these technologies can ascertain the principal drivers of a crisis so resources can be deployed accordingly. Tools like this could have been useful during the ongoing hunger crisis in Burkina Faso, where the government may have chosen not to close key resources in the food supply chain had they realized that malnutrition has been a larger cause of death than COVID-19. Lastly, these tools can be used in the post-crisis period to understand which policies had the most beneficial impact, helping to prepare for future events, such as the next pandemic.

And again, openness with this information makes it possible for more parties to cry foul when something isn’t right. In the case of the 2008 financial crisis, there was a vocal minority sounding the alarm. Still, the talking heads and smartest guys in the room maintained a rosy view and were able to dismiss those critics as Cassandras. Open access by a larger swath of the public to warning signs from reliable sources makes it less likely that those who should know better can take a “nothing-to-see-here” line to be repeated by pundits, public intellectuals, and policymakers.

Sometimes weaknesses and vulnerabilities are driven by our own applications of technology and require course correction. In democracies across the globe, it seems as though the public is becoming more polarized. One driver of this is the ease of leveraging technology to sharpen divides in societies to subsequently weaponize public opinion. But it is not technology that is inherently at fault, but the applications of these algorithms to maximize views and profits. Studies show that a large percentage of citizens are less polarized than previously believed. Unfortunately, these moderates may choose to stay away from certain social platforms in order to avoid inflammatory media. But what if the algorithms were rewritten to prop up neutral voices rather than to spread inflammatory content? Moderates may be more willing to use these platforms, and populations would more readily see muted perspectives on an issue. By redesigning the algorithms we use to spread information, digital technologies may be able to turn the tide against tribalization, and subsequently polarization. There’s no neutral design, and the amplification of those who can bring more light than heat and turn down the temperature of online discourse more broadly deserve promotion.

As discussed in the previous section, recommendation systems operate on algorithms that we do not quite understand. These algorithms are not inherently undemocratic, but their applications can lead to unwanted side effects infringing on our freedoms and privacy. By understanding how to game these algorithmic recommendation engines, outside actors are able to create media which can influence perspectives and subsequently our decision-making process, in effect limiting our freedoms by breaking the integrity of our autonomy. What makes this even more dangerous is that we are seldom aware of this occurrence, as we scroll through videos, posts, and tweets on autopilot. A solution to this infringement on our online freedoms can be found by assessing these algorithms and redesigning them to serve the purposes we require.

Looking to privacy, a number of tools have been created that can provide noise to data, making it difficult for digital entities to uncover insights. As an example, a program on your computer could randomly jump to different websites during your downtime to prevent unwanted AI systems from making accurate recommendations based on your browsing history. Likewise, AI software can add similar noise to online pictures by changing a few pixels' colors. One could apply this noise to their Facebook or Instagram posts to prevent facial recognition software from recognizing the images, while allowing friends and family to see the pictures largely unchanged. These sorts of systems could be used in places like China to confuse digital surveillance technology. One key note to remember: if and when “digital democracies” start to appear, it is important to not cross thresholds into the authoritarian regime — the goal is to increase resiliency without further infringing on our rights to freedom and privacy through digital technologies.

Increasing Resiliency through Trust

The examples above serve as a start to the discussion of means through which democracies can become resilient through the usage of digital technologies. But “digital democracies” are not inevitable, as western liberal society has a certain mistrust towards big tech companies who are vital in driving such a transformation. In order to evolve into “digital democracies”, three main societal changes must occur.

The first is an establishing of trust between big, Western tech conglomerates and governments. In the US, mistrust of companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon have led some to call for a breaking up of these giants, but this is not the solution. Without these companies on our side, liberal democracies may not be able to keep up with the same advancements made by Eastern tech conglomerates such as Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Xaiomi. Instead, governments must partner with tech firms in order to more clearly define rules and regulations, as well as responsibilities between the two groups. Without an open, non-overreaching dialogue, the situation will remain hostile, making it difficult to establish technological resiliency.

Second is the trust between governments and the general public, in regards to the usage of digital technologies. Partnerships between big tech and governments, as discussed above, may lead to greater issues, as can be seen by China’s use of big tech to create a state-controlled market and social economy. This partnership itself would also be antithetical to principles of liberalism by placing too much power in the hands of the government. Just as the media was once seen as a watchdog over governments and politicians, there must be an independent body that serves as a watchdog over governments and their use of tech. There are nonprofits, such as the Center for Humane Technology that serve to advocate for mission-focused tech development. Similar organization will be necessary to serve as a guardian between governments and the abuse of digital technologies. It is with the existence of independent bodies such as this that populations may begin to trust governments to use technologies to only further ideals of liberalism.

The last piece is to establish trust between big tech and the general public. This ties back to transparency. As stakeholders in our own data, people should have a say, or at minimum an understanding of how our information is used. But many of the new AI, ML, and data models utilized by big tech are often seen as “black boxes.” Our data goes in, and a result in the form of a product recommendation, news story, or social media post comes out, without a clear understanding of how the outcome was reached. By opening up algorithms and making them fair, accountable, and transparent, people would feel more comfortable by understanding how their data is truly acquired, assessed, and leveraged. This could be a key step in making digital technologies democratic — it would allow citizens to claim a stake in technology, just as big tech has claimed a stake in our data.

Trust between citizens and governments is a fundamental principle of liberalism and democracy, but in today's ever-polarizing society, this can be hard to come by. The situation becomes even more complex when adding tech titans to the mix. Organizations exist to help establish this trust by guiding governments and big tech in more “humane” directions, but it will take cooperation by all stakeholders, along with NGO partners to increase outreach and communication for a more transparent relationship. This is the first step towards increasing resiliency of democracy, a necessary lever to swing the pendulum back to the people.

Ishpreet Singh is a recent engineering grad currently working as a strategy consultant.

Filed Under: democracy, governance, technology

Hong Kong Government Arrests Four Members Of Pro-Democracy Hong Kong Alliance, Shuts Down Its Online Presence

from the collect-them-all! dept

The Chinese government's national security law -- adopted/acquiesced to by Hong Kong politicians apparently handpicked to serve the country that agreed not to interfere in Hong Kong's government business until 2047 -- is still paying off for the region's impatient overseers.

The handover of Hong Kong to China has provoked an never-ending stream of pro-democracy protests. China doesn't care for democracy, nor does it care for any other form of autonomy. To combat its opponents, the Chinese government -- with an assist by a China-controlled Hong Kong government -- has declared advocating for democracy to be an act of terrorism. Dissent has been equated with undermining national security, and will be punished accordingly.

The latest news in this ongoing attack on Hong Kong's autonomy -- one that is being committed in broad daylight in front of a world full of witnesses -- is the arrest of even more pro-democracy activists and the shuttering of their website.

Earlier this month, the Hong Kong police state came for activists who ensured the Chinese government was never allowed to forget 1989's Tiananmen Square Massacre -- an act that made it clear what the government thought about people who demanded some say in their representation. In response to its annual Tiananmen-related rally and other demands for democracy, four activists were arrested.

Activist and barrister Chow Hang Tung of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China was arrested along with three others, the group said.

“I want to tell Hong Kongers that we need to continue to resist, don’t surrender to the unreasonable power quickly and easily," Chow told media on Tuesday when she went to police headquarters to tell officers she would not provide information they had requested.

Police sent a letter to the alliance in August requesting information about its membership, finances and activities by Sept. 7, according to a copy the group sent to reporters.

The letter accused the alliance of being "an agent of foreign forces". Failure to provide the information by the deadline could result in a HK$100,000 fine and six months in jail, the letter said.

The follow-up arrived a little later, with the Hong Kong police exercising new powers under the national security law that allow officers to literally police the internet.

If you can't see the tweet, it reads:

NEW: Hong Kong Alliance said police has invoked power to remove messages on its website and social media under NSL, and will comply starting from 10pm tonight. New FB to come, it added.

And the Hong Kong Alliance website is now offline as well, with a notice stating only that "the authors have deleted this site." This suggests some more demands made by Hong Kong law enforcement, as even the involuntary deletion of a site will trigger the same WordPress notice.

It's all far from subtle. The Chinese government is big enough and threatening-to-world-peace enough that things like this will go unchallenged until it has brought Hong Kong under its ideological as well as its physical control.

Filed Under: censorship, china, democracy, free speech, hong kong, hong kong alliance, national security, national security law

Hong Kong Kowtows To China Again, Turns Virtual Police State Into An Actual Police State

from the cutting-edge-advances-in-bootlicking dept

The Chinese government agreed to stay out of Hong Kong's (government) business until 2047 when it took possession of the region in 1997. It has refused to hold up its end of the bargain.

Its steady encroachment into Hong Kong's affairs has been met with increasingly intense pro-democracy protests. Realizing this wasn't going to make its eventual takeover any easier, the Chinese government increased its pressure on the local government. When that wasn't working fast enough, it started replacing legislators with handpicked pro-China representatives.

When all of that still wasn't enough to get the Hong Kong populace to bend the knee, it implemented a new national security law and imposed it on the region. Being anti-China meant being a threat to national security. Pro-democracy protesters were threatened with life sentences. Pro-democracy press outlets were hassled and their leaders arrested.

Apparently, giving Hong Kong the appearance of a police state just isn't enough. If Hong Kong is going to become China 2.0 far ahead of schedule, it needs to become an actual police state.

Hong Kong's leader Carrie Lam announced a reshuffle of her cabinet on Friday, placing two ex-cops in key cabinet positions, including the police commissioner who presided over the widespread use of violence against mostly peaceful demonstrators during the 2019 protest movement.

The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) approved the appointment of former secretary for security, John Lee, to replace Matthew Cheung as Lam's second-in-command, while former police commissioner Chris Tang was made secretary for security, the government said in a statement on its official website.

What's left of the Hong Kong government isn't willing to fight back against China's omnipresent imposition of its will. Handing the security of the nation over to police officials who encouraged the use of violence against protesters makes it clear the Chinese government is done fucking around. I mean, it never really was. But it's done making incremental changes.

The remnants of Hong Kong's government are on the side that has the power. Insect overlords are just what the region needs.

Asked if Hong Kong had become a police state, as evidenced by the new appointments, pro-Beijing lawmaker Alice Mak dismissed journalists' concerns.

"If it’s a police state, why not? I don’t think there’s any problem with a police state," Mak said. "When we say a police state, I will view the other side, that is the emphasis on security."

The only thing experiencing any insecurity is the Chinese government, which likely viewed the region as a pushover when it took control in 1997. It probably expected pockets of resistance, but whatever plans it had in place prior to its agreement-violating putsch apparently didn't scale well enough to keep Hong Kong's population silent and compliant.

With cops heading the national security team, there's nothing holding the police back. The national security law greatly expanded law enforcement's powers. Jackbootstrapping the government's national security oversight ensures officers will never have to fear reprisal for their actions, pushback for overstepping whatever boundaries remain, or any judicial roadblocks slowing them down as they inflict China's worst aspects on their fellow countrymen.

Filed Under: carrie lam, china, democracy, hong kong, national security law

No, Revoking Section 230 Would Not 'Save Democracy'

from the what-is-wrong-with-you-people? dept

Steven Hill, the former policy director with the Center for Humane Technologies -- the non-profit that everyone seems to look to as some sort of knowledgeable source on "anti-Big Tech" talking points -- has come out with one of the most ridiculous op-eds regarding Section 230. And I say that as someone who seems to wade through a dozen or so terrible Section 230 op-eds every day. The title alone, should already make you nervous, but honestly this piece is so bad, so wrong, and so disconnected from reality, it completely undermines the Center for Humane Technology's credibility, even though this guy is no longer associated with them.

The piece is titled: Biden should revoke Section 230 before we lose our democracy, which is just bizarre framing, but I'm open-minded enough to give any piece about Section 230 at least a chance to make its arguments.

Of course, it starts off on the wrong foot since, you know, Biden literally cannot revoke Section 230. That's not how any of this works. You'd think that at least someone would point out that the President doesn't get to just revoke laws that Congress passed and were signed into law. That's just not how any of it works. But... maybe it's just a clueless editor at the Chicago Tribune and the article itself is better... Or maybe not.

The 1st half of the article is basically one long "correlation / not causation" error. It talks about how we now have big internet companies and before we didn't -- and now we also have Trumpism, and before we didn't. Ergo, the theory goes, big tech is somehow responsible for Trumpism. There is not even any attempt to logically connect the two, it's just stated as if it's obvious:

Since the birth of the Big Tech media platforms 15 years ago, democracies around the world have been subjected to a grand experiment: Can a nation’s news and information infrastructure, which is the lifeblood of any democracy, be dependent on digital technologies that allow a global free speech zone of unlimited audience size, combined with algorithmic (nonhuman) curation of massive volumes of mis/disinformation, that can be spread with unprecedented ease and reach?

The evidence has become frighteningly clear that this experiment has veered off course, like a Frankenstein monster marauding across the landscape.

Hill seems totally unaware that we've gone through other periods in history in which nationalists/fascists/populists have become popular and taken over countries. I don't remember social media being to blame for Europe in the 1930s, but maybe I missed it in my history books.

But, even if this was accurate (and it's not), it's still not clear Section 230 has anything to do with any of this (because it doesn't, even in this fantasy world in which social media is responsible for Trumpism/nationalism). The connection to 230, like his connection between social media and growing nationalism is just some random weak correlation bullshit: these companies like Section 230, ergo, any bad things I think have come from these companies, must be the fault of Section 230.

Notably, of course, the essay makes no effort to engage with what problem he's actually trying to solve other than hand-wavey "threats to democracy," nor any attempt to explore how Section 230 works or what role it has here. It just seems to assume that if you removed Section 230, these non-defined problems would be fix.

It is time to push reset in a major way. President Joe Biden should start by revoking Section 230 of 1996′s Communications Decency Act. That’s the law that grants Big Tech Media “blank check” immunity for the mass content that is published and broadcast across their platforms. Revoking Section 230 is not a perfect solution, but it would make these companies somewhat more responsible, deliberative and potentially liable for the worst of their toxic content, including illegal content. Just like traditional media is liable.

No, Steven, that's not how any of this works. They would be "liable" for what, exactly? What is illegal about "toxic" content? What toxic content violates the law, that would somehow make the platforms liable? What is the actual cause of action? He doesn't answer that because the answer is none, whatsoever.

Also it's an ignorant fool's pipedream to believe that removing Section 230 would make companies "more responsible" or "deliberative." How do I know? Because unlike Steven, I actually study this stuff, and look at other areas of the law and the world where they don't have Section 230. For example, even in the US, we already have the DMCA for copyright, which has a regime (notice-and-takedown) that is what most people assume would develop in a world absent Section 230. And how's that working out? Do we see platforms dealing with user-generated content being "more responsible and deliberate" regarding copyright claims?

[insert uproarious laughter here]

No, of course not. What we have instead are companies who are quick to pull down all sorts of perfectly legitimate content to avoid any threat of liability. They practically knock themselves over to takedown content. And studies have shown that a huge number of DMCA takedowns are abusive and not about legitimate copyright claims. Remove 230 and we'll get a lot more of that, and a huge amount of stifling of perfectly fine speech based on a legalistic heckler's veto.

Why do newspapers like the Chicago Tribune let people who clearly have no understanding of this issue write op-eds for them?

Of course, immediately after that Hill recognizes that it wasn't social media that incited the mob to invade the Capitol, but the President, and admits that his own proposed solution is really kinda... not going to help.

But let’s be clear: Some of the worst past outrages would not likely be affected by 230′s revocation. While President Donald Trump’s inciting speech to the mob about a stolen election was false and provocative, other media outlets publish untrue nonsense all the time. It would be difficult to prove legally that any particular individuals or institutions were harmed or motivated by the president’s many outrageous statements.

So revoking Section 230 will likely not have as much impact as its proponents wish or its critics fear.

So then why did you write a whole essay calling for the revocation when you admit it won't actually work?

Then he switches arguments, like he's a Twitter troll and people have called him out for not knowing what he's talking about. Instead of talking about 230, he jumps to another dumb argument: that internet companies should be regulated like public utilities.

The Biden administration should treat these companies more like investor-owned utilities, as the U.S. previously did with telephone, railroad and power companies. (Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has suggested such an approach.)

As utilities, they would be guided by a digital license — just like traditional bricks-and-mortar companies must apply for various licenses and permits — that defines the rules and regulations of the business model according to a “duty of care” obligation, a kind of Hippocratic oath that says “first, do no harm.”

That... is also not how any of this works. First of all, utilities tend to have "must carry" rules, which would do the opposite of what Hill himself claimed was the reason we needed 230 in the first place! Second of all, the entire point of having utilities is when you have natural monopolies over commodity style, non-differentiated products. That's not true of social media. Third, if they were regulated by the government in the manner that Hill seems to want, you'd run into serious state actor problems, potentially making any "duty of care" obligations to be subject to a 1st Amendment analysis, meaning that all of the speech Hill wants them to take down to "protect democracy" would have to be left up because it's mostly protected by the 1st Amendment.

This isn't just an ignorant argument from someone who doesn't understand the issues. It's a self-contradicting one!

And then he totally shifts arguments again!

One abuse that is ripe for stricter rules is “data grabs” of users’ personal info. These companies never asked for permission to start sucking up our private data, or to track our physical locations, or mass collect every “like,” “share” and “follow” into psychographic profiles of each user that can be targeted and manipulated by advertisers and bad political actors. The platforms started that sneaky practice secretly, forging their destructive brand of “surveillance capitalism.”

Surveillance capitalism! Drink! So he's gone from a "they've allowed bad people online" argument, to "they're a utility" argument (which contradicts the first argument) to now a privacy argument... which has nothing at all to do with Section 230.

Why would anyone ever trust this guy to opine on anything related to this subject?

These companies’ frequent outrages against our humanity are supposedly the price we must pay for being able to post our summer vacation and new puppy pics to our “friends,” or for political dissidents and whistleblowers to alert the world to their just causes. Those are all important uses, but the price paid is very high. We can do better.

I think the Chicago Tribune can do a lot better and maybe find someone who actually knows what they're talking about to opine on this stuff?

Though, at least, the paper did juxtapose this utter dumpster fire of an op-ed with a much better one from Will Duffield talking about the dangers of repealing Section 230, but it's stunning that the first one made it to print at all.

Filed Under: democracy, joe biden, privacy, section 230, steven hill
Companies: center for humane technologies

The Beijing Arrests In Hong Kong Expand As America Loses Its Ability To Credibly Respond

from the democracy-on-decline dept

While we've been discussing the troubling actions the Chinese government has undertaken against Hong Kong for some time now, the movements are starting to reach a rapid pace. It was only in July that Beijing unveiled a sparkling new and impossibly vague "national security" law that was perfectly tuned to make any pro-democracy talk or demonstrations in Hong Kong offenses that would result in lengthy prison time. This was the result of months of protests that served to embarrass a Communist government that prides itself on full control. Again, that was only June. In August, the arrests of media members who were pro-democracy began, followed by the ouster and then arrest of pro-democracy lawmakers in November.

And while one can imagine the Chinese government doing a bit of breath-holding in December as the American political system buried itself in bullshit thanks to one man's inability to admit defeat, it appears January was the start date to re-kick off the attacks on Hong Kong. In the early morning hours of Wednesday, 53 Hong Kong citizens were arrested under the national security law, all accused of, well...

By late morning on Wednesday, at least 53 Hong Kong residents — former lawmakers, activists and an American lawyer among them — had been detained under Beijing’s new national security law, and their offices and homes raided. Accused of subversion, they face up to life in prison for holding a primary vote last year ahead of legislative elections that were ultimately postponed and which many of them were barred from contesting.

The raids, which involved more than 1,000 officers, marked the most dramatic onslaught in Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s transformation of once-freewheeling Hong Kong into a city gripped by fear under authoritarian rule.

This was predicted by many, me included. With Trump never all that concerned with human rights in China and now all the more distracted with a combination of rounds of golf to be played and living in some aggrieved fantasy land, the Chinese government is quite clearly going to take every authoritarian action it can now, before the new administration is in place. This should also serve as a lovely indication of just how dumb the claims are that Biden and Harris are somehow compromised by China. Were that true, China would be holding off until January 20th, and yet they are not.

The Hong Kong authorities are, as ever, playing along with their puppet-masters.

John Lee, Hong Kong’s secretary for security, lauded the police operation as “necessary” and accused those involved in the primary of attempting to paralyze the government by seeking to win a majority in the legislature.

I'll give you a moment to reread that last bit again. Those arrested are accused of trying to "paralyze" Hong Kong's government by winning elections. The argument, in other words, is that pro-democracy advocates are too dangerous to be allowed to be elected, so they are being forcibly removed from society via aggressive actions instead.

It's almost poetic, then, that these arrests came on the same day that Donald Trump and his enablers fostered and promoted an insurrection by his supporters at the Capitol, all to achieve precisely the same goal. That it failed is good, but of no material importance when it comes to America's current and future standing to apply pressure on China to cease its actions in Hong Kong. You can be damned sure that Chinese state television will be playing the videos and images of the chaos that occurred in DC on Wednesday on loop for its citizens as a way to rebut any words Joe Biden might have on the topic of Hong Kong.

And so, as authoritarian regimes light fires around the world, it's worth pausing and reflecting on just how much was lost on Wednesday in America. Our dignity. Our peace. Our moral authority. Our standing.

Filed Under: arrests, china, democracy, donald trump, free speech, hong kong

Hong Kong Court Revokes Bail For Jimmy Lai After Deciding It Didn't Interpret Vague National Security Law Vaguely Enough

from the criminalizing-impolite-disagreement dept

The Chinese government has been showing its impatience over its impending takeover of Hong Kong. China agreed to allow Hong Kong to run under its own government until 2047, but the last couple of years have seen the Chinese government indicating its willingness to perpetually violate this agreement with the region.

As pro-democracy protests continue to rage against the Chinese machine, the Chinese government has begun forcing its will on Hong Kong residents. This has been greatly aided by complicit Hong Kong government legislators, who have basically agreed to all the Chinese government's demands. The latest attempt to undermine the will of the people came packaged in a "national security" law -- one that outlawed demonstrations against the Chinese government's early and uninvited interloping, threatening dissenters with a lifetime of imprisonment.

Since then, the Chinese government (again with the assistance of Hong Kong's supposedly-independent government) has been arresting and jailing prominent critics, along with dozens of other vocal protesters. One of the most famous arrestees is Jimmy Lai, a vociferously pro-democracy media tycoon -- one with the power and reach to do serious damage to the Chinese government's unwanted advances.

Lai was arrested under the new national security law last August. The Chinese government -- via its Hong Kong mouthpiece -- claimed Lai's pro-democracy agitation was an illegal "collusion" with "foreign governments." This vague assertion likely referred to Lai's visits with world leaders -- visits in which he expressed his displeasure with the Chinese government.

In late December, Lai was granted bail by a Hong Kong court, reversing its earlier denial. It came with very tight strings attached. Lai was placed on house arrest and, more importantly, forbidden from doing anything that might make the two governments engaged in his prosecution look bad.

[Lai was] banned from meeting officials from foreign governments, attending or hosting media interviews or programmes, publishing articles in any media, and posting messages or comments on social media, including Twitter.

He was also hit with a $10 million HKD fine ($1.3 million USD) and ordered to surrender all travel documents.

The government apparently felt this punishment wasn't heinous enough. Or, at the very least, unlikely to silence the outspoken government critic. It went back to the court and got the reversal reversed, putting Lai back behind bars. This time around, the court bought the government's national security arguments, relying on unexplored areas of the brand new law to deprive Lai of his very limited freedom.

In its determination, the court held that it was “reasonably arguable … that the learned judge may have erred in his construction or application” of Article 42(2) of the national security law, under which bail can only be granted to a criminal defendant if a judge has sufficient grounds to believe that the defendant will not commit acts endangering national security.

The new law apparently makes speaking out against the Chinese and Hong Kong governments a national security issue, even if it's nothing more than speaking out against the Chinese government's violation of an agreement it struck with the UK back in 1997. This is the problem with national security laws, no matter where they're deployed. A little imagination is all it takes to turn dissent into a threat and outspoken criticism into a criminal act. That's why there's so many of these laws in countries that thrive on punishing dissent. And that's why countries that are considered more "free" find them handy to have around, just in case.

Filed Under: authoritarianism, china, democracy, hong kong, jimmy lai, national security

Beijing Tightens Grip On Hong Kong With Arrest Of Pro-Democracy Lawmakers

from the seeing-red dept

Literally everyone saw this coming. On the heels of a rushed through resolution out of mainland China that ousted four pro-democracy Hong Kong lawmakers, leading to the resignation of every other pro-democracy lawmaker as well, the question was when, not if, Beijing would continue to tighten its communist grip. The answer to that question appears to be "almost immediately", with China announcing the arrest of three pro-democracy former lawmakers, likely a signal to any other opposition forces who might want to make any noise.

Posts on the Facebook accounts of Ted Hui, Eddie Chu and Raymond Chan said they were arrested in relation to the incidents in the legislature’s main chamber. The trio separately disrupted legislative meetings by splashing pungent liquids and other items on two occasions.

Hong Kong police said in a statement that they arrested three former lawmakers on charges of contempt in the legislature and intent to cause harm to others. Police did not identify them by name.

The information offered up by Beijing is made to make all of this sound like it is arresting lawmakers for putting other legislators in danger. Given the source, that accusation should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, Chi-Fung (Ted) Hui's antics in disrupting the legislature were very much about the disruption and nothing to do with putting anyone in danger. For Christ's sake, the "weapon" for his intent to cause harm to others appears to be some rotted plant material.

On 28 May 2020, Hui disrupted the second reading of the National Anthem Bill in the Legislative Council by dropping a container containing rotten plant matter inside the chamber. A fellow lawmaker was taken to hospital after being exposed to the smell. On 4 June 2020, Hui and two other lawmakers, Eddie Chu and Raymond Chan, were alleged with hindering the business of the Legislative Council and violating the Powers and Privileges Ordinance, with Hui having dropped foul smelling liquid during the LegCo session on that day.

For this, apparently, Hui is under arrest. But what should really be striking you about all of this is the complete absence of international pushback generally and the dereliction of American leadership in promoting democracy specifically. Our government is all but absent on the international stage at the moment, with the gears of government mostly churning out a plan for COVID-19 vaccination while senior leadership is focused on promoting nonsense conspiracy theories over an election it lost and otherwise sulking.

It appears that China views the remaining few weeks of the current administration as its window for the takeover of Hong Kong. And, given the absence of leadership at the present, it's not hard to see why. The only remaining question is just what the state of affairs in Hong Kong will be when Joe Biden is sworn in as President.

Filed Under: arrests, china, democracy, eddie chu, free speech, hong kong, protests, raymond chan, ted hui