If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The US government is linking the issue of free speech with that of free trade, and that goes for the UK, too; but while the Trump administration treats free speech as a key democratic value, London is trying to make light of the warnings as, essentially, a negotiable issue. “We know it (free speech) is something they have a bugbear about. We are happy to have discussions on our broader, wide-ranging relationship,” The Telegraph is quoting a UK government source. More: When One Island Demands to Muzzle the World Such reactions were provoked by a statement from the State Department’ Democracy, Human Rights & Labor (DRL), saying that the US was “concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.” The statement noted that the bureau was monitoring the case against pro-life activist Livia Tossici-Bolt, who was taken to court for holding a sign reading, “Here to talk if you want” in a so-called buffer zone near an abortion clinic. Tossici-Bolt was found guilty. While recently visiting the UK, DRL Senior Advisor Sam Samson met with Tossici-Bolt, who is facing criminal charges. The State Department’s decision to openly comment in this instance is seen as “highly unusual.” However, the concerns of the Trump White House are not limited to one case, and have not been expressed for the first time. The State Department’s statement also read, “US-UK relations share a mutual respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” – but added, “However, as Vice President Vance has said, we are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.” The UK authorities seem eager to present this emerging problem as something that is insignificant in the grand scheme of the overall economic cooperation between the two countries, which, the Telegraph’s source suggested, cannot be “contingent on this particular issue.” However, another source close to the trade negotiations spelled out the US position as, “no free trade without free speech.” In February, Vance addressed the Munich Security Conference to state that in Britain, but also elsewhere across Europe, “free speech is in retreat,” while at the same time acknowledging that during the previous administration, censorship was mainly pushed by the US, not Europe, by means of “bullying social media companies to censor misinformation.” Vance said at the time that while the Biden administration “seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds” the Trump administration “will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that.” That policy appears to be playing out now in US-UK relations, in the context of trade negotiations. However, the UK authorities’ reaction so far does not seem to indicate they are taking these messages seriously enough or are willing to “work together” to rectify the problem. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK-US Trade Deal May Trigger Review of UK Online Censorship Law Amid US Free Speech Concerns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. US lawmakers have opened an investigation into Meta Platforms over longstanding allegations that the company explored ways to collaborate with the Chinese government in order to break into the country’s heavily restricted digital market. The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is demanding internal records and communications dating back over a decade, including those tied to efforts that reportedly involved censorship mechanisms designed to comply with Beijing’s demands. The inquiry, announced Tuesday, is being led by Senator Ron Johnson, with support from Senators Richard Blumenthal and Josh Hawley. In a formal request to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the senators are asking Meta to turn over documents by April 21. The scope includes any interactions between Meta and Chinese officials, as well as company discussions surrounding potential market entry strategies. We obtained a copy of the full letter for you here. This renewed scrutiny follows revelations published in Careless People, a memoir by former Facebook executive Sarah Wynn-Williams. The book outlines a covert initiative allegedly pursued by Meta, internally referred to as “Project Aldrin,” which was reportedly developed in 2014 as a three-year plan to establish a presence in China. According to the Senate letter, internal Meta materials reviewed by the subcommittee corroborate Wynn-Williams’ account. Among the records being sought are details on Meta’s China-linked subsidiaries, app launches in the country, including platforms like Colorful Balloons, Flash, Boomerang, and MSQRD, and any actions taken by the company to suppress or remove content at the request of foreign governments. Lawmakers are also probing Meta’s abandoned attempt to establish a submarine data cable connecting California and Hong Kong. Meta has issued a firm denial, dismissing the claims as outdated and unreliable. “This is all pushed by an employee terminated eight years ago for poor performance. We do not operate our services in China today. It is no secret we were once interested in doing so as part of Facebook’s effort to connect the world,” a Meta spokesperson said. “We ultimately opted not to go through with the ideas we’d explored, which Mark Zuckerberg announced in 2019.” Despite those assertions, Senator Blumenthal said the internal documents reviewed by the subcommittee raise deep concerns. “Chilling whistleblower documents reviewed by the Subcommittee paint a damning portrait of a company that would censor, conceal, and deceive, to obtain access to the Chinese market,” he stated. Further fueling the controversy are Meta’s legal moves to silence Wynn-Williams. On the day Careless People was released, the company filed for arbitration, citing a voluntary non-disparagement agreement she had signed upon her departure. Within 24 hours, an arbitrator issued a temporary gag order that barred her from making “disparaging, critical or otherwise detrimental comments” about Meta and from promoting the book. Wynn-Williams’ legal team has since pushed to overturn that decision, arguing the order prevents her from responding to inquiries from members of Congress and foreign governments. Her lawyers say the silence being enforced through arbitration is cutting off access to key testimony about corporate behavior that has real-world public policy implications. Meta, for its part, has claimed it does not intend to interfere with her legal rights. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Senate Probes Meta Over Alleged China Collaboration and Censorship Project “Aldrin” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Nearly five years after games and software developer Epic Games launched its legal battle against Apple and Google, accusing them of engaging in monopolistic app store practices – CEO Tim Sweeney continues the “epic crusade” against the giants, blasting them as “gangster-style businesses.” Sweeney’s company won against Google, but for the most part lost to Apple, even though this case is still ongoing regarding an alleged violation by Apple of a component of the ruling favorable to Epic. “Malicious compliance” is how Sweeney formulated this during a Wednesday Y Combinator event and went on to declare both Apple and Google as “no longer good-faith, law-abiding companies.” “Crime pays for big tech companies,” he said, and added that this will not change without “much more rigorous” enforcement of laws. The Epic CEO believes the behemoths’ financial power allows them to continue with lucrative illegal practices, knowing that the fine will be less than the money they would lose by abandoning those practices. Sweeney continued with other examples of anti-competitive and self-preferential behavior by Apple and Google that affects Epic, and of the the giants’ not-so-subtle scare tactics. Unlike in the US, in the EU Apple has been forced to allow the Epic Games Store, but users who want to install it are presented with a warning, as are Android users (it would appear, globally). Google’s warning claims that the Epic Games Store comes from “an unknown source.” This “scare screen,” as Sweeney calls it, causes 50 to 60 percent to abandon installing the store, and the same is happening with Apple users in Europe. The Epic CEO also accused Apple of other underhanded practices, such as charging fees high enough to dissuade any but the most monetarily successful iOS app developers from distributing via the Epic Games Store. For the majority of others, this would prove too expensive, he asserted. “Apple would bankrupt them if they did that,” Sweeney said. In January, Epic announced on its site that up until that point, none of the 100 highest-grossing mobile game developers were willing to distribute their games on the Epic Games Store, and blamed the Core Technology Fee and Apple and Google’s “onerous restrictions and scare screens” for this. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney Renews Attacks on Apple and Google Over Alleged Monopolistic and Anti-Competitive App Store Practices appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. When the European Commission goes to war, it doesn’t send tanks. It dispatches compliance officers with angry emails and billion-dollar fines. The European Union’s eurocrats’s next target is Elon Musk’s social media fixer-upper, X. According to the New York Times, four anonymous whisperers from inside the EU machine say the bloc is loading up a billion-dollar bazooka aimed squarely at X, citing violations of their shiny new Digital Services Act, the latest attempt to regulate speech by committee. And what better way to showcase the importance of online civility than by dragging the world’s loudest billionaire into court? The DSA, which was sold to the public as a digital hygiene law to make the internet a kinder, gentler place, has become a blunt instrument in the hands of bureaucrats who never met a control lever they didn’t want to pull. They’ve apparently decided that Musk’s flavor of digital chaos — too many unregulated opinions, not enough “fact-checking,” and a stubborn refusal to grovel — is a clear and present danger to the European project. Among X’s alleged crimes against the algorithmic gods: refusing to hand over data to “independent researchers” (friendly academics who publish pro-censorship PDFs no one reads), hiding the secrets behind those little blue check marks, and failing to spill the tea on who’s advertising to whom. Naturally, this has prompted Brussels to threaten a fine that could “top $1 billion,” a figure clearly pulled from the same place all government fines originate — an angry dartboard. One idea floating through the regulatory fog? That if X itself can’t pay up, maybe SpaceX can. Because when you’re short on jurisdiction, why not go fishing in another company’s wallet? Of course, none of this is happening in a vacuum. As US–EU relations circle the drain — thanks to tariffs, Ukraine, and now Trump 2.0 criticizing international censorship demands — Brussels wants to make clear this action is totally unrelated to broader geopolitics. The timing reeks of old-fashioned power politics dressed up in GDPR-scented legalese. The EU insists its laws are enforced “fairly and without discrimination,” which is what they always say before aiming the legislative cannon at Silicon Valley and lighting the fuse with a French match. Musk, in typical Musk fashion, responded to the EU’s preliminary ruling last year with the digital equivalent of “bring it on.” He promised “a very public battle in court.” And it’s not hard to see why he’s relishing the fight. The EU wants centralized moderation, algorithmic babysitters, and data transparency so aggressive it makes Chinese regulators blush. X, on the other hand, has adopted the philosophy of moderate little, regret less. That’s a bold stance in a world where a rogue tweet can get you banned in six languages. Behind the scenes, X has reportedly dumped “hundreds of counterarguments” onto the EU’s desk. But Brussels, not known for its flexibility, seems unimpressed. They’re about as open to negotiation as a vending machine that ate your coins. Meanwhile, back in Washington, lawmakers are beginning to catch on. A February memo from the White House muttered something about “unfair burdens,” which is Washingtonese for why are our companies always getting slapped around while China’s Huawei builds smart cities in peace? Days later, the US announced new tariffs, hinting that Brussels might want to tread lightly before it regulates America out of patience. This is about control. About who gets to shape the public square: elected officials and their tech-literate assistants, or a meme-loving CEO who thinks free speech includes letting people challenge authority alongside cat gifs. The answer will come soon enough. But if the EU thinks a billion-dollar fine and a few regulatory demands are going to turn Musk into a compliant digital landlord, they haven’t been paying attention. Musk sees himself as the messiah of digital discourse, and Brussels? Well, they still think fines are a persuasive form of poetry. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post EU Targets Elon Musk’s X with Potential $1 Billion Fine Under Censorship Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Nina Jankowicz – former head of the disbanded Disinformation Governance Board and CEO of the American Sunlight Project – and Democrats who this week spoke during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, continued to deny and defend the Big Tech-government censorship collusion. The hearing – “Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Need for First Amendment Safeguards at the State Department” – also saw Jankowicz, who appeared as a witness, and Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Democrat, attempt to paint the actions taken by the new Trump White House as worse that what was happening during the previous US administration. Both Jankowicz and Kamlager-Dove referred to the system known as the Censorship-Industrial Complex, and its elements, as “fiction,” “lies,” “tall tales,” and, “a conspiracy theory,” with Jankowicz trying to frame the new government’s moves as “an assault on the First Amendment” and “suppressing speech.” Despite the fact these are some of the key accusations against the Biden administration – and at this point, fairly well backed up by batches of internal documents, but also testimonies from Big Tech execs – Jankowicz chose to call it “the imagined actions of the Biden administration.” As for her own role in this “imagined” system – namely, the brief stint at the helm of the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board (that was part of the Department of Homeland Security) – Jankowicz maintained that it was not meant to be a censorship body. Instead, Jankowicz would have the Committee and the public believe the Board was true to its mission statement, which was “to protect civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and the First Amendment.” (DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) also had a reasonable mission statement – to protect critical infrastructure from cyberattacks – only to then, according to the findings of the House Judiciary Committee, switch to surveillance and censorship of Americans’ online speech.) Jankowicz tried to dismiss the validity, and value of the Twitter Files, which have proven to be crucial in shedding light on the inner workings of the “fictitious” Censorship-Industrial Complex. But to her mind, the Twitter Files are “almost endless fiction” and, somehow – “a conspiracy.” Another place where “no censorship was going on” was the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard from Jankowicz. And, she doesn’t detect any problems with the scandalous actions taken by the former government to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, suggesting that Twitter “adding friction” resulted in “more views.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Democrats, Former Disinfo Board Chief, Defend Government-Big Tech Ties, Dismiss Censorship-Industrial Complex at House Hearing on First Amendment Safeguards appeared first on Reclaim The Net.