Big Brother Watching

For John, BLUF:  The referenced Blog Post is complicated by the legal argot, but the question is, will our "devices" feed data on us and our activities to Big Tech or Government Minders?  This relates to the Chinese Government's Social Credit System (The Link is to a Wikipedia White Wash of the topic).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Will Your "Smart" Devices and AI Apps Have a Legal Duty to Report on You?

From The Volokh Comspiracy, by Professor Eugene Volokh, 18 June 2022, 1:30 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

I just ran across an interesting article, "Should AI Psychotherapy App Marketers Have a Tarasoff Duty?," which answers the question in its title "yes":  Just as human psychotherapists in most states have a legal obligation to warn potential victims of a patient if the patient says something that suggests a plan to harm the victim (that's the Tarasoff duty, so named after a 1976 California Supreme Court case), so AI programs being used by the patient must do the same.

It's a legally plausible argument—given that the duty has been recognized as a matter of state common law, a court could plausibly interpret it as applying to AI psychotherapists as well as to other psychotherapists—but it seems to me to highlight a broader question:

To what extent will various "smart" products, whether apps or cars or Alexas or various Internet-of-Things devices, be mandated to monitor and report potentially dangerous behavior by their users (or even by their ostensible "owners")?

To be sure, the Tarasoff duty is somewhat unusual in being a duty that is triggered even in the absence of the defendant's affirmative contribution to the harm.  Normally, a psychotherapist wouldn't have a duty to prevent harm caused by his patient, just as you don't have a duty to prevent harm caused by your friends or adult family members; Tarasoff was a considerable step beyond the traditional tort law rules, though one that many states have indeed taken.  Indeed, I'm skeptical about Tarasoff, though most judges that have considered the matter don't share my skepticism.

I fear the Woke mobwill say yes, your devices must report you.

This is not good for the First Amendment Rights of those in the United States.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Internet and Freedom

For John, BLUF:  When I first cmer scross the Internet the watchword was "Informstion Wants to be free."  Todaay the industry leaders, and their academic supporters, are dvocztes for "Information needs to be curated."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Elon Musk’s vision for the internet is dangerous nonsense

Here is the sub-headline:

Musk now faces no limit on how much of Twitter’s stock he can buy. He’ll buy as much as he needs to gain total control

From The Guardian (UK), Professor Robert Reich, 12 April 2022, 06.31 EDT.

Here is the lede plus three:

The Russian people know little about Putin’s war on Ukraine because Putin has blocked their access to the truth, substituting propaganda and lies.

Years ago, pundits assumed the internet would open a new era of democracy, giving everyone access to the truth.  But dictators like Putin and demagogues like Trump have demonstrated how naive that assumption was.

At least the US responded to Trump’s lies.  Trump had 88 million Twitter followers before Twitter took him off its platform – just two days after the attack on the Capitol, which he provoked, in part, with his tweets. (Trump’s social media accounts were also suspended on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch and TikTok.)

These moves were necessary to protect American democracy.  But Elon Musk – the richest man in the world, with 80 million Twitter followers – wasn’t pleased.  Musk tweeted that US tech companies shouldn’t be acting “as the de facto arbiter of free speech”.

Reviewing the fourth pargraph, Mr Musk is correct. "US tech companies shouldn’t be acting 'as the de facto arbiter of free speech.'"  Isn't that how dictatorships work?  As Citizens, we get to decide who is telling the truth.  For example, every four years, when we vote for President.  We don't need tech compnies telling us how to vote.

This is from Mr Ed Driscoll, blogging at the InstaPundit:

ROBERT REICH IN THE GRAUNIAD:  Elon Musk’s vision for the internet is dangerous nonsense. “Musk has long advocated a libertarian vision of an ‘uncontrolled’ internet.  That’s also the dream of every dictator, strongman and demagogue.”

Because if there is one thing that Iran, CCP China, North Korea, and Putin’s wartime Russia are all famous for, it’s the sweet, unfettered, free flow of information.

Sadly, Professor Reich sounds like a member of the elite who is now affraid that the masses are about to turn out the politicians he favors.

In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, author Jared Diamond says that early on in writing language the way of writing was complicated and restricted to a small group of scribes and was a system for keeping the mjority down.  However, when writing came back with Guttenburg's printing press it turned into a tool for democracy for the maasses.  People like Professor Reich and their Lordships in high tech want to go back to the scribe mode, to control the masses.  As a member of the masses I oppose and resent this way of doing business.

And this assault on the Internet, and on free speech, will impact how I vote.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Reforming High Tech

For John, BLUF:  This is a longish read about how the Federal Government got it right about auto safety (GSA) and got it wrong (Congress)  The question is, will they do for high tech what they did for Detroit?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lessons for Big Tech from Ralph Nader’s ‘Sack of Detroit’

From Quillette, by Writer Kenneth Whyte, 16 Sep 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

Until recently, Silicon Valley enjoyed a relatively high degree of freedom from US government regulation.  That was a deliberate policy choice.  Responding to public enthusiasm for the possibilities of global interconnectedness and an endless stream of easily accessible information, Congress decreed early that online platforms would have no liability for third-party content flowing through their pipes.  As a tool of progress, the Internet would be free.

Tech companies harnessed the massive energy exerted by billions of people eager to gain a presence online, to share, to learn, to be entertained, to work, to shop.  The web remade the United States physically, economically, and socially. Web culture became American culture and, increasingly, global culture.

It was only when the wonders of the Internet grew familiar, and tech companies became huge and powerful, that the adverse consequences of connecting everyone without appropriate oversight became glaringly apparent.  The Internet was used for pornography, sex trafficking, terrorist recruiting, an infinite variety of scams, the evasion of laws and regulations, the invasion of privacy, harassment and defamation, foreign propaganda, and fake news.

Tech giants were slow to confront the regrettable purposes to which their platforms and systems were being put, preferring to single-mindedly pursue growth and profits.  This was predictable.  That capitalists will “esteem [their] immediate interests … to be the common Measure of Good and Evil” was a truism remarked by Restoration-era English economist Dudley North a century before the American Revolution.

The government response, too, has been predictable.  Never mind that massive subsidies from the defense establishment have been critical to tech’s progress.  Never mind that Congress’s hands-off policy was instrumental in helping Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and other online giants scale up massively. Politicians are now tripping over one another in a race to investigate, indict, regulate, and dismember tech companies, as if they were solely responsible for the Internet’s ills.

I worry that the Congress will be barking up the wrong tree in going after high tech.  Yes, I worry about a sort of Silicon Valley "Social Credit" tyranny creaping in.  My concern is that the solutions to the perceived problems will just lock in the real problems.  What we need is more like an AT&T breakup, where more voices will flourish.

Frankly, I don't think Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer, is capable of not messing this up.  And Presidents who think of themselves as being along the lines of FDR or LBJ are not helpful to this kind of correction.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Censorship in America

For John, BLUF:  Social Media is becoming an American version of China's Social Credit system, with censorship of unwoke ideas being used liberally.  Perhaps the most celebrated was Mr Hunter Biden's misplaced laptop, just before last November's Election.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mike Lindell:  Free, Clean Speech Social Media Site Set to Launch Monday

From The Epoch Times, by Reporter Masooma Haq, 15 April 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

MyPillow’s Mike Lindell announced on April 15 that his new social media platform called “Frank,” with the mission of providing a place for free speech as laid out in the U.S. Constitution, will launch on April 19.

In a video statement, Lindell said he’s taken steps to make sure the site is most secure, with his own servers, and will not be subject to censorship on the whims of big tech companies such as Amazon and Google.

“And we are going to get our voice of free speech out there,” Lindell said. “On Monday morning at 9 a.m., we’re going to have the biggest launch. … I call it a Frank-a-thon.”

With Big Tech censoring news items in ways that appear to be censorship of conservative or liberal ideas and news items, there is a desire out there for alternative outlets for people's ideas.  Government censorship and sanctions seems not to be the solution.  Perhaps the free market is the solution.

Good luck to Mr Mike Lindell.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Right to be Wrong

For John, BLUF:  We are facing a crackdown on dissident views the Victorians or the Puritans would be proud of.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

YouTube pulls Spectator editor interview with Trump lawyer John Eastman

Here is the sub-headline:

Big Tech threatens to ban nonprofit for discussing alleged election fraud

From The Spectator US, by "Cockburn", 5 April 2021, 9:54 am.

Here is the lede plus one:

Over three-quarters of Republicans believe that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election and about a third of all Americans believe that President Biden’s win was illegitimate.  When tens of millions of Americans lose faith in the system, that spells serious trouble for democracy.  A normal and healthy country would allow a fair and open debate about whether or not fraud occurred, and, if so, how much fraud and what evidence exists to back up these claims.  Instead, Big Tech platforms have repeatedly censored any mention of voter fraud at all.

Such was the case late last week when YouTube and Vimeo pulled a video interview with Trump lawyer John Eastman.  Cockburn’s colleague and The Spectator‘s Washington editor, Amber Athey, is a fellow at the Steamboat Institute and was invited to conduct the interview with Eastman at an event in Colorado.  The event was called, ‘What Really Happened?  An Insider’s Perspective on Representing the President and Claims of Election Fraud.’

Information does want to be free, but Big Tech is going to try to stifle it.  Thus the old fashioned sin of gossip will still flourish in the age of electronics.  Unless we go to a totalitarian regime, where all fear being reported to "the authorities" by friends and relatives, people will exchange information on the side.  It is slower that the Main Stream Media, but works as well.  It is what fueled the exchange of ideas in pre-Revolutionary War America.  Even in the Soviet Union there was the Samizdat Press.

However, today we do face the practice of Social Credit, as practiced in China.  To quote Wikipedia,

The social credit initiative calls for the establishments of unified record system for individuals, businesses and the government to be tracked and evaluated for trustworthiness.  Initial reports suggested that the system utilized numerical score as the reward and punishment mechanism; recent reports suggest there are in fact multiple, different forms of the social credit system being experimented with.  Numerical system has been implemented only in several regional pilot programs, while the nationwide regulatory method has been based primarily on blacklisting and whitelisting.  The credit system is closely related to China's mass surveillance systems such as Skynet, which incorporates facial recognition system, big data analysis technology, AI and Project Maven.

But, back in the United States, we are doing a cancel culture thing, where one is considered PNG (persona non grata) for holding the wrong views.  Thus Big Tech censoring certain produced materials.  Until we rebuild a concensus that information needs to be free, so that approaches to problems can be democratically determined, we will have censorship,  Until we learn to tolerate the views of others we will not be a Democracy in the best sense of the world.  We need to learn that people have the right to be wrong.  They don't have the right to impose their wrong thinking on others, but they have the right to hold wrong views.

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

Terms of Service

For John, BLUF:  Some of us have dropped out of Twitter and Facebook, and it is an inconvenience, but then Big Tech makes us feel unwelcome.  How do we fight back?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What If Deplorables Start “De-Platforming” Leftists From Receiving Skilled Trade Services?

From Ace of Spades Headquarters, by Bloggr Buck Throckmorton, 25 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

If Monster Tech can aggressively de-platform businesses and individuals for expressing forbidden opinions, then maybe it’s time for skilled tradesmen to respond in kind against the woke left.

Leftists despise working class “deplorables” and seek to punish them for all their disapproved habits – you know - God, guns, motorized vehicles, and voting MAGA.  Well, the tradesmen I know are swamped with business right now, so it might be a good time for them to establish their own “terms of service” enabling them to deny services to advocates of cancel culture.  We’ve learned from Monster Tech that all you have to do is declare someone’s speech to be “hateful” or state that their speech might “incite violence” to banish someone from receiving service.  If a deplorable can be targeted as hate-filled for simply supporting Trump, then a tradesman’s Terms of Service can in turn declare that any visible support for Democrats constitutes hate speech.

Broken down on the side of the road with a Bernie or Biden bumper sticker?  Sorry – you’re going to have to find a wrecker that employs all 57 genders and declares all their pronouns.  But Earl’s 24-Hour Wrecker won’t be towing your car today.  Terms of service, you know.

I like it.  I know it is wrong, at some level, but I like it.  I would be happy with Earl carrying a roll of hundred mile an hour tape♠ for covvering up the violent, offending, sticker for the duration.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  If you search for hundred mile an hour tape, Amazon has a page of offerings, including at least one example being sold as hundred mile an hour tape.

Concern For Social Media

For John, BLUF:  California House of Representative Member Devin Nunes is concerned about Big Tech and its throttling of the Internet, thus stiffling free speech.  Remember when the Internet was going to enhance free speech and political discourse?.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Social-ist Media

Here is the sub-headline:

Biden’s digital lackeys threaten to turn out the lights on our republic.

From American Mind, Rep Devin Nunes, 16 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

Socialist regimes typically don’t excel at good government or economic stewardship, but they do tend to be experts at one thing—propaganda. Under regimes like the Soviet Union and countless other socialist monstrosities, citizens may not have been able to buy bread without waiting an entire day in line, but they could easily access a galaxy of reports via virtually any medium—print, TV, radio, billboards, schoolbooks, etc.—informing them of the glories of socialism in general and their own leaders in particular.

Americans do not have to wait in line to buy bread yet, but make no mistake: In America today, the socialist propaganda network is already in place.

The mainstream media has proven that Americans can no longer rely on them for unbiased news. Having always leaned left, reporters abandoned all pretense of objectivity following President Trump’s election, turning their outlets into unabashed organs of the anti-Trump movement and every associated leftwing cause. This was amply demonstrated by the years-long Russia collusion hoax, in which every mainstream outlet scrapped journalistic norms on sourcing, anonymity, fact-checking, and other longstanding practices in order to advance the false narrative that Trump colluded with Russians to hack the 2016 election.

Increasingly, however, Americans are no longer accessing news reports through physical newspapers and magazines but through social media. In theory, social media is a democratizing force—people no longer need to own a media company or write for the New York Times in order to reach a potential audience of millions. But it’s now clear that the tech giants who control the digital infrastructure are not providing a neutral platform for all points of view. Instead, they have weaponized their platforms to help the Democrats.

Yes, this is from a month ago, but it is still relevant.

I think the signal that we are in real trouble will be when blog sites, such as this one, start to be shut down.  Then EMail will be checked and censored.  At that point we will be in serious trouble.  On the other hand, it may never come to that.  The Government, and Big Tech will, individually or collectively, realize that they are killing the Goose that laid the Golden Egg.  That is if they are long term thinkers.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff