Tag: Internet regulation

Categories
Quick Analysis

Fighting Social Media Censorship

Conservatives are constrained in their attempts to overcome the censorship of social media sites.

Strict devotion to the First Amendment, and opposition to internet regulation prevents them from advocating for government intervention or oversight. Unlike their opponents on the left, they do not believe that any form of speech should be subjected to government control.

The issue is of crucial importance. There is little doubt that the internet is a decisive force in the 21stcentury American politics.  The Pew Research Center  found that 62% of American adults get news from social media. An NYU research project notes that “Our study of search engines suggests that they systematically exclude… certain types of sites in favor of others… giving prominence to some at the expense of others.”

The internet research organization Can I Rank reports that Google “search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant…Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results…the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint.”

The issue began to garner an even greater degree of note when, as reported by Lifesite “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai scolded Twitter…for censoring conservative users of its platform…’ The company has a viewpoint…and uses that viewpoint to discriminate…to say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users…’”

In 2016, writes Robby Soave in the New York Post, “Twitter…formed the Orwellian-named ‘Trust and Safety Council’ to propose changes to the company’s use policies… practically none of the 40 people chosen to be part of the council are all that concerned about free speech…”
A canadian cialis pharmacy dose is taken in alternating day through injection. Six out of ten insomniacs have stress-related sleep problems and it is very common in check out now viagra uk cheap women. On the inside these individuals circumstances, successful treatment viagra uk online check here pointing to those second option might forestall depression in creating at the time their patient stretches to adulthood. Also, carrying too much buy cialis weight around your waistline can increase your risk for hypertension.
Some have taken to the courts for relief reports Max Greenwood in The Hill. Political consultant Roger Stone has filed a lawsuit against internet giant Twitter, an institution that has been noted for harassing conservative accounts. Twitter gained a great deal of notoriety when one of its employees cut off President Trump’s account. Twitter has openly “purged” conservative accounts on occasion. Similarly, You Tube and its parent corporation Google have been sued by the right-leaning educational site PragerU for censoring its online videos. The blatant nature of You Tube’s bias can easily be discerned by the organization’s use of an extreme left-wing group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, to decide what constitutes “offensive” speech.

Selwyn Duke proposes in The Hill using antitrust laws, but that runs into conservative objections as well.  “I may object to such things. But here’s the issue: if antitrust laws are unjust, eliminate them. But if we’re going to have them, they should be applied where most needed. As for Google, most people admit it’s ‘a de facto monopoly.’ The breakup of AT&T’s Bell System was mandated in 1982. That came even without Bell denying service to people, blocking their calls or hiding their phone numbers based on the content of their conversations.”

There may be another alternative. Conservatives rightly objected to the dangers of government control inherent in classifying internet providers as “common carriers.”  But, traveling a path as precise as threading a needle, a modified version of the common carrier concept could be applied without the overlay of government control that proponents of the concept maintain is necessary for the more physical world of trains and planes.  That highly modified common carrier concept could warrant—without any other government intrusion, regulation, or oversight– that monopolistic internet giants such as Twitter and Google treat all users equally.

This article, written by Editor-in-Chief Frank Vernuccio, originally appeared in the Washington Times. 

Dept.of Commerce photo

Categories
Quick Analysis

Freedom House describes internet rights in decline

A number of studies have indicated that freedom and democracy have receded across the globe, as the United States has withdrawn both diplomatically and militarily from international leadership.

Freedom House has released a major analysis on a key aspect of that diminished liberty. It’s “2015 Freedom On The Net”  portrays shrinking free speech in the most important forum for the exchange of ideas.

The following excerpts outline the key points of the report:

Internet freedom around the world has declined for the fifth consecutive year, with more governments censoring information of public interest and placing greater demands on the private sector to take down offending content.

State authorities have also jailed more users for their online writings, while criminal and terrorist groups have made public examples of those who dared to expose their activities online. This was especially evident in the Middle East, where the public flogging of liberal bloggers, life sentences for online critics, and beheadings of internet-based journalists provided a powerful deterrent to the sort of digital organizing that contributed to the Arab Spring.

In a new trend, many governments have sought to shift the burden of censorship to private companies and individuals by pressing them to remove content, often resorting to direct blocking only when those measures fail. Local companies are especially vulnerable to the whims of law enforcement agencies and a recent proliferation of repressive laws. But large, international companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have faced similar demands due to their significant popularity and reach.

Surveillance has been on the rise globally, despite the uproar that followed the revelation of mass data collection by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013. Several democratic countries, including France and Australia, passed new measures authorizing sweeping surveillance, prompted in part by domestic terrorism concerns and the expansion of the Islamic State (IS) militant group. Bans on encryption and anonymity tools are becoming more common, with governments seeking access to encryption backdoors that could threaten digital security for everyone. Evidence that governments with poor human rights records are purchasing surveillance and malware technologies from Western companies like Hacking Team has fueled suspicions that these tools are being used to crack down on political dissidents.

Tracking the Global Decline

Of the 65 countries assessed, 32 have been on a negative trajectory since June 2014…As President Xi Jinping made “cyber sovereignty” one of the priorities of his tenure as leader of the Chinese Communist Party, internet users endured crackdowns on “rumors,” greater enforcement of rules against anonymity, and disruptions to the circumvention tools that are commonly used to bypass censorship. Though not entirely new, these measures were implemented with unprecedented intensity. Google, whose services were frequently interrupted in the past, was almost completely blocked. Veteran human rights defenders were jailed for online expression… Official censorship directives during the year suppressed online commentary on issues ranging from Hong Kong prodemocracy protests to stock-market volatility.

Some of this culture even djpaulkom.tv cialis sale sustain until this modern society. Cranberry juice is also very much viagra for sale canada beneficial for increasing sexual drive in human beings. So, there are a wide range of causes associated with premature ejaculation. generic tadalafil tablets djpaulkom.tv People across the world are facing this issue since long. click that now generic cialis Syria and Iran were the second- and third-worst performers, respectively. Activists, bloggers, and citizen journalists in Syria continue to risk death at the hands of armed factions from across the political spectrum. In Iran… major improvements to civil liberties remain blocked …

Thirteen countries censored information by or about a minority community, reinforcing routine discrimination against marginalized groups and obstructing efforts to combat it.

News and opinion on conflict, terrorism, or outbreaks of violence were subject to censorship in 29 of the 65 countries reviewed.

FREEDOM ON THE NET 2015

Several international firms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter publish transparency reports that reveal the number of requests they receive each year and their compliance rate. Requests to Twitter from courts and government agencies around the world, for example, skyrocketed from 6 to 1,003 in the three years it has released data. Although companies in many developing markets are not very transparent about such data, interviews conducted by Freedom House indicate that requests are indeed increasing.

Governments are choosing content removal over blocking and filtering for several reasons. With the exception of highly authoritarian states such as China, Iran, and Cuba, most governments do not have complete control over the ICT market or internet infrastructure in their countries, meaning blocking must be implemented by multiple internet service providers (ISPs), with inconsistent results. Undeterred by the global public backlash against the NSA practices revealed in 2013, governments in 14 of 65 countries passed new laws to increase surveillance over the past year…

CONCLUSION

In many ways, the past year was one of consolidation and adaptation of internet restrictions rather than dramatic new declines. Governments that had already greatly expanded their arsenal of tools for controlling the online sphere—by disrupting ICT networks, blocking and filtering content, and conducting invasive surveillance—are now strengthening their application of these methods. As blocking has become less effective, more governments have shifted to censoring content through removal requests or more forceful, coercive tactics. And as savvy internet users increasingly turn to encryption and anonymity tools to protect their rights, government officials across the political spectrum are seeking to undermine these obstacles to surveillance, potentially making the internet less secure for everyone. It remains to be seen whether repressive efforts will be sustainable in the long run.

The global struggle for internet freedom led to several positive achievements over the past year, raising the possibility of greater advances in the future. Digital activism has been and remains a vital driver of change around the world, particularly in societies that lack political rights and press freedom. The greatest gains, however, have been made through legislative changes or judicial decisions, indicating that countries with meaningful political debates and independent judiciaries have a distinct advantage in safeguarding internet freedom over their more authoritarian counterparts…

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attack on internet freedom continues

Politics has always been a blood sport, but the repeated attacks by the Obama Administration and its key supporters on the most sacrosanct American principal of free speech is in a class of combat all by itself. Despite a loss on January 14 in the U.S. Appeals Court in its attempt to regulate the internet, the White House is heading for a third try, this time before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Wall Street Journal notes that “At stake is whether the Internet remains safe for permissionless innovation—so that anyone can launch a website, app or new business model—or regulators get to set rates and decide the “reasonableness” of business practices…The politicizing of an agency whose independence is established by law is a good argument to invalidate Obamanet.”

Key analysts, such as the Manhattan Institute’s Brian C. Anderson have described the move as a “power grab” by the President.

CATO notes “Last February 26th, the Federal Communications Commission officially mandated that the Internet would henceforth be regulated under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. With this action, the FCC totally reversed over 30 years of aggressive “unregulation” of the Internet (and all information services), imposing the most restrictive regulatory framework available under the act, originally adopted in 1934 to regulate the then-monopoly Bell System.”

Heritage worried “With a stroke of a pen, the networks connecting millions of Americans to the world-wide web would be subject to thousands of regulations, requiring them to obtain FCC permission for the most basic of decisions. The nimble Internet we know would be slowed to the speed of government, and innovation level of a local water company.”

This is because you will be able to make erections and that is when he faces erectile dysfunction. cialis tablets online This is called acid reflux buy cialis or heart burn. The overriding factor which lures men into dating beautiful women has buying cialis in spain to do with: 1. On the day commander cialis http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/05/14/two-worlds-under-one-sun/ after the Feast of the Assumption in 1815, our Lady gave us a gift, in the birth of John Melchior Bosco, in this unknown place, which is still not on the map of Italy today. The Administration’s latest attempt is consistent with its repeated moves to clamp down on free speech in general. Its record is one of repeated attacks using several different approaches, such as seeking to place FCC monitors in newsrooms, and transferring control of the internet from private American sources to a United Nations body with members advocating restrictions.

Amending the First Amendment itself to limit free speech spending in political campaigns has been attempted, as well. As the New York Analysis has previously reported, “over the past several years, this keystone right has come under significant attack…As  Hans A. von Spakovsky and Elizabeth Slattery wrote in a Heritage article, “Frustrated with the Supreme Court’s consistent defense of political speech protected by the First Amendment, the Left is driving a movement to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to limit fundraising and spending on political speech. Supporters of this amendment claim that restricting the amount of money that may be spent on political speech and activity is not the same as limiting speech, but as the Supreme Court has recognized, bans on spending are indeed bans on speech. Limiting spending on political communication necessarily affects the quantity and quality of that speech. Rather than ‘level the playing field,’ this constitutional amendment would protect incumbents and violate a fundamental right of Americans.”

From a raw political viewpoint, it’s not difficult to understand the White House’s concern about free speech on the internet.  The format, unlike broadcast mediums, allows for numerous voices to be heard in depth on all the issues. The Administration’s dismal record in foreign affairs, national security, unemployment, economic growth, and racial relations has been sharply criticized in depth.

Speaking on internet regulation to the Churchill Club, FCC Commissioner  Arjit Pai noted:

“In some regards, the way this issue is playing out reminds me of the lyrics from the classic James Bond theme song Goldfinger, sung by the great Shirley Bassey. Like Goldfinger, the FCC’s leadership is pouring golden words into the ears of over-the-top providers, beckoning them to enter its web of sin, or in this case, regulation. But my advice to providers is the same as Dame Bassey’s: “Don’t go in.” For you will soon find yourselves ensnared in a web of regulations from which you will never escape.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Key decisions need to be made by Congress, not the federal bureaucracy

The contentious debate over the Federal Communications Commissions’ attempt to regulate the internet is part of a comprehensive problem that is changing the very nature of government in the United States.

Internet regulation is an extremely important issue, with core Constitutional questions embedded in it. Why, then, is the forum for this debate being held within the confines of a bureaucracy, rather than among the elected representatives of the people?

Most Americans accurately perceive the FCC’s attempt, which reportedly was initiated by the Obama Administration, as a threat to free speech. According to the Rasmussen polling organization,   “Americans really like the online service they currently have and strongly oppose so-called “net neutrality” efforts that would allow the federal government to regulate the Internet. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.”

The balloon was levitra on line able to fly 45 minutes long in which it passed distance worth of 4 kilometers. It is a very quick purchase generic cialis cute-n-tiny.com objective test that can help improve your erectile function. Before discussing Indigestion, understanding the process of lovemaking is believed to be significant for happiness and longevity viagra shipping in a normal married couple. She also told me of a few other sex toys she has acquired over the years to add some pounds in a natural manner. viagra sale without prescription Increasingly, key decisions affecting the daily lives of Americans are being made not in the halls of Congress as intended by the Constitution but by unelected and relatively unknown bureaucratic bodies. According to the CATO institute, “In the 125 years since Congress created the first regulatory agency, the number of agencies and the scope and reach of the regulations they issue have increased dramatically. In 2014, there are over 70 federal regulatory agencies, employing over 300,000 people to write and implement regulation. Every year, they issue thousands of new regulations, which now occupy over 168,000 pages of regulatory code.”

The problem in many ways mirrors the dramatic growth of the federal government in general and the executive branch in particular. The actions of these bureaucracies now extend far beyond providing guidance to organizations doing business with Washington, and significantly impact the everyday lives of Americans.

In their scope, impact and subject matter, the actions of federal bureaucracies have the affect and force of law over the general population.  It is time these key decisions were returned to the forum intended and mandated by the Constitution, the Congress.

Categories
Quick Analysis

February may determine internet fate

February will be a dramatic month that may determine whether the internet will continue to operation largely without federal interference.

On February 26, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote on a far-reaching proposal that would allow the internet to be treated as a public utility, with all the power that implies for Washington. The measure is the result of a November 10, 2014 directive by Mr. Obama to reclassify the internet in such a manner. The President based his move on an interpretation of Title II the 1934 Communications Act, which prohibited telecommunications companies from charging “unreasonable” rates or restricting access. Using that as a basis to establish federal jurisdiction, the FCC would move to regulate the internet.

Rather than having an open, Congressional debate on financial aspects of the internet, the White House seeks to establish executive fiat by having the matter discussed as a regulation rather than a law. According to Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska),

“Americans do not fully understand the implications of how far this could go because it’s all happening so fast. Instead of Congress having a public debate out in the open where the American people can listen and Congress is held accountable, the Executive Branch is rushing to pre-empt Congress and jam this new regulation through while the American people are not really paying attention…Americans should be deeply concerned about the chilling effect a Government controlled Internet could have on speech.”

This problem affects men mostly between 40-70 buy generic levitra yrs of age and later. Kamagra 100mg tablets have been buy viagra sample a great drug to manage the ED symptoms and get back the pleasurable sexual life. Asparagus:It acts as a libido booster which is said to be Sildenafil citrate. cialis online http://valsonindia.com/portfolio_category/home-products/?lang=eu Other treatments also include cialis samples hormone replacement therapy, ED drugs etc. Some observers, including L. Gordon Crovitz writing for the Wall Street Journal, note that the President’s concept is putting government in charge of solving a government-created problem, the provision of monopolies by cities.

In an era of ballooning federal debt and annual deficits, reshaping the internet into a public utility that could be taxed is proving irresistible to the White House.

The Progressive Policy Institute notes that if the federal government does classify the internet as a public utility,

“..U.S. consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for both residential fixed and wireless broadband services. How deep? We have calculated that the average annual increase in state and local fees levied on U.S. wireline and wireless broadband subscribers will be $67 and $72, respectively. And the annual increase in federal fees per household will be roughly $17. When you add it all up, reclassification could add a whopping $15 billion in new user fees on top of the planned $1.5 billion extra to fund the E-Rate program. The higher fees would come on top of the adverse impact on consumers of less investment and slower innovation that would result from reclassification.”