Facebook

My historical re-enactment group’s battle with Silicon Valley

From our UK edition

The Wimborne Militia of Dorset prides itself on being the only formally commissioned ‘private army’ in England. We’re well known locally but less well known in California, which is perhaps why Facebook banned our homepage a few weeks ago, thinking we were a right-wing Trumpian ‘militia’. Its algorithm seems not to recognise historical re-enactment societies, which is a shame. They are an important part of British cultural life. I’ve been a historical re-enactor since 1983 and I’ve found that my fellow amateur historians are happy with the moniker of ‘mostly harmless’ eccentrics.

Shame on the ‘four lads’ meme snobs

From our UK edition

We need to talk about the ‘four lads’ meme. Specifically we need to talk about the undercurrent of prejudice, and on occasion outright class hatred, that propelled these four unsuspecting young men from Birmingham and Coventry into the internet spotlight. Anyone who has been online in the past year will know about the four lads. It’s a photograph of four young men looking hyper-preened for a night on the town. Their trousers are painfully tight, their tattooed arms are bulging out of their short-sleeved shirts. This is the fashion among the male youths of aspirant working-class communities. They take pride in their appearance. They look good, and they know they look good. The photo was taken in Birmingham city centre last year.

The tech supremacy: Silicon Valley can no longer conceal its power

From our UK edition

‘To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,’ George Orwell famously observed. He was talking not about everyday life but about politics, where it is ‘quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously’. The examples he gave in his 1946 essay included the paradox that ‘for years before the war, nearly all enlightened people were in favour of standing up to Germany: the majority of them were also against having enough armaments to make such a stand effective’. Last week provided a near-perfect analogy.

Trump’s social media ban creates a host of problems for Big Tech

From our UK edition

Facebook and Twitter's decision to suspend Donald Trump is, legally speaking, fairly clear-cut. Both are private companies which set the rules on who is – and isn't – allowed to use their sites. Even if you're the leader of the free world you have no automatic right to a Twitter account. The same logic applies to Parler – the self-described ‘unbiased’ social media platform – which has been booted off Google's app store over its refusal to remove 'egregious content'. As with Facebook and Twitter, Google Play is perfectly within its rights to select what apps it will and will not host. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be serious consequences that arise from these decisions.

Should this actress have been fired over a Facebook post?

From our UK edition

Here’s what happened. Last year, a young actress, Seyi Omooba, was cast as Celie in a musical version of The Color Purple at Leicester's Curve Theatre. Celie is a victim of sexual abuse who later finds comfort in a lesbian tryst with a nightclub singer. In the 1985 film, directed by Steven Spielberg, the role was played by Whoopi Goldberg. Miss Omooba is a practising Christian who believes that gay sex is sinful. Back in 2014, when she was just 20, she posted a statement on Facebook citing 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. She said:  ‘I do not believe homosexuality is right, though the law of this land has made it legal doesn’t mean it is right.

Was what I said on Facebook really ‘hate speech’?

From our UK edition

Facebook has been accused of failing to combat extremism and hate-speech among its users. But as I found out this week, sometimes it does far too much to take down controversial opinions. Coffee House recently published an article by me with the headline 'Michael Parkinson is right: men are funnier than women'. In the piece, I argued that men are more adapted to and adept at humour because they are less grounded in reality and more at home with incongruence. I said that because humour is often based on cruelty and schadenfreude it is also suited to the typically more aggressive male mindset. In short, I said that men and women were different. I did not say than men were better than woman. If anything, I actually implied the opposite.

Unanswered questions for Big Tech

It’s been a full week since the New York Post published their first story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, which is currently in FBI possession. The purported contents of the laptop which were released selectively in several news stories by the Post include private emails and photographs. These have yet to be proven as forgeries or inauthentic. Swiftly cable news pundits and liberal-leaning journalists began wondering whether the laptop, the repair service in Delaware, or the source of the leak to the Post were part of a foreign campaign to influence the presidential election. But the DNI, FBI, DOJ and State Department all said there was no evidence to support those theories.

new york post big tech

House Republicans accuse Democrats of ignoring censorship in Big Tech report

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are releasing their own report on Big Tech on Tuesday, countering a Democratic report that they accuse of being too radical in its antitrust proposals. The Democrats' draft report, which leaked on Twitter earlier in the day, accused Big Tech companies of engaging in anti-competitive behavior and called for a massive antitrust shakeup of the industry, including preventing Google from owning YouTube and prohibiting Amazon from selling its own products on its marketplace platform. Rep. Ken Buck called these proposals 'non-starters for conservatives'. The Republicans' report, which is signed by Ranking Member Jim Jordan and Reps.

big tech

Bovard: yes, big tech censorship affects election outcomes

Cockburn had just returned home from his Wednesday evening stroll when he found something curious in his inbox. There tucked away was Rachel Bovard's prepared testimony for Thursday's hearing on internet antitrust laws in front of the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. The Conservative Policy Institute senior director's testimony focuses on the gatekeeping power of Big Tech companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter who suppress political content in ways that is harmful to free speech and democracy. Cockburn felt a sense of duty to share his scoop with readers of The Spectator, who have surely felt the sting of social media censorship.

bovard

Mark Zuckerberg’s quest for redemption

Stung by recent criticism, and fearing major regulation, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, has announced the establishment of a kind of ‘Supreme Court’ for his company. Selected and paid by Facebook, the members of this ‘Oversight Board’ will in theory behave as independent adjudicators capable of making rulings over content moderation and other important aspects of the business. No doubt Mr Zuckerberg is looking at the example being set by the US Supreme Court and thinking, ‘What could go wrong?’ It's hard to believe now but in 2017, it seemed plausible that Mark Zuckerberg might become president.

zuckerberg

The creep of internet censorship

From our UK edition

Kristie Higgs, a 44-year-old school assistant, didn’t realise that criticising the sex education curriculum at her son’s school on Facebook would get her fired. For one thing, her account was set to ‘private’, so only her family and friends could read it. For another, she was posting under her maiden name, so no one could connect her with her employer. Finally, the school that sacked her for expressing these views wasn’t actually her son’s, but another one altogether. This seems a pretty clear case of a person losing her livelihood for dissenting from progressive orthodoxy. Kristie’s case is being heard at an employment tribunal in Bristol this week. The dispute relates to two Facebook posts from two years ago.

President Trump should bend — but not break — Big Tech

Americans’ increasing focus on this fall’s elections has awakened in me a tinge of nostalgia for the good old days of campaigning — before the internet changed everything. As a conservative running for the US Senate in 1994, I remember being able to connect with thousands of voters to respond to my opponents’ dishonest attacks, the press’s deceitful characterizations of my positions, local television refusing to cover my campaign events, and the character assassinations by the newspaper editorial boards. Actually, I don’t remember that, because I had no way to reach thousands of voters except by paying those same media outlets millions of dollars to buy ads.

trump

Four main takeaways from the House’s Big Tech antitrust sideshow

Here’s a terrifying thought: Mark Zuckerberg is the only person in Silicon Valley that the political and intellectual right can trust when it comes to ‘Big Tech’. Wednesday’s ‘Antitrust’ House hearing resembled a group of Neanderthals trying to reason with Data from Star Trek. The worst of both sides was on show as Democrats and Republicans jockeyed for the news cameras, rather than getting real answers on antitrust practices or how Silicon Valley bows to the authoritarian regime in China. I watched the grueling insurance seminar so you don’t have to: here are the four big lessons.1.

big tech

So, you wanted to be famous?

For decades, people worldwide have dreamed about being famous. What would it be like to live like a celebrity? To have even a glimpse of celebrity life? Well, as technology has been democratized, so has fame and the many trappings that come with it. People flock to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitch, and YouTube to share their random thoughts, uninformed opinions, dance moves, animal photos, children’s names, and much more. The masses want to feel special. They want to be celebrated. They seek out an R.O.E. — return on ego — which comes with digital likes, comments and a hit of dopamine, instead of an R.O.I. —  return on investment — which allows you to pay your mortgage.

famous

The danger of the Facebook boycotts

From our UK edition

The printed press is not a natural ally of Facebook. Silicon Valley publishers have hoovered up so much advertising that they are seen by newspapers as a mortal enemy. Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has ended up with more power over people’s attention than any press mogul. A slight change in his algorithms can direct millions towards any publication or argument. Facebook might not want to be seen as a publisher (especially one that did so much to enable Donald Trump, for instance) but it has ended up becoming the biggest player in the information wars. So when certain advertisers started to pull out of the social media platform — citing the ‘divisive’ content it hosts — newspapers were thrilled. The reaction is understandable, but misguided.

corporations

Why corporations should not bow to the mob

Some of America’s biggest businesses are withholding their ad spending from social media sites, in order to pressure these platforms into restricting or fact-checking posts from conservative users — under the guise of ‘opposing hate online’. On Friday, Unilever, the company behind household brands Lipton, Dove, and Axe, announced it would stop buying ads on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to encourage those sites to be a ‘trusted and safe digital ecosystem’. Unilever joined several other major brands boycotting social media advertising, such as Coca Cola, Denny’s, Honda, and Starbucks. This corporate pressure campaign is an unfortunate example of businesses bowing to the online mob.

The Facebook ad boycott is a convenient virtue-signal

When the coronavirus pandemic hit, some industry pundits predicted that the ‘techlash’ — the souring of public opinion on huge technology companies like Facebook and Google — would cool off or even disappear entirely. After all, with everyone cooped up at home, surely we’d develop a newfound appreciation for the technologies that became the only way to connect with others?That was short-lived. Following extraordinary social pressure amid this summer’s heated civil unrest, an advertiser boycott of Facebook has taken hold. Under the moniker Stop Hate For Profit and backed by the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP, brands from Starbucks to Unilever to Coca-Cola have bravely pulled ads from Facebook for the month of July.

facebook

The trouble with Brad Parscale

What Donald Trump hates more than anything is someone making money from his name without cutting him in for a share of the profits. Roger Stone told me that once and he should know, having spent decades advising Trump. With this in mind, the anti-Trump Republicans of the Lincoln Project made a video perfectly designed to needle Trump and damage his 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale. It shows some of the things Parscale has bought since he joined the campaign back in 2016: a ‘gorgeous’ red Ferrari, a ‘sleek’ black Range Rover, a $2.3 million home in Fort Lauderdale, two more Florida condos worth $1 million each, and a yacht, one seemingly packed with jiggling, bikini clad flesh, though that might be the Lincoln Project’s artistic license.

brad parscale

Facebook is right. Twitter is wrong

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey opened up a Pandora’s box two days ago by dropping a fact-check on a tweet by Donald Trump regarding mail-in ballots. That raised all sorts of hell from a bombastic President, as well as more questions than answers. There are several problems with Twitter deciding to put its thumb on the scale of ‘truth’ on its social platform. The site has previously come under enormous scrutiny over widely perceived political and ideological bias. The charges against the company include its unfair and unbalanced actions in banning conservative or politically right-leaning accounts, as well as shadow-banning and limiting views and engagements on trending topics which it deems problematic.

facebook

Obviously Boris doesn’t deserve coronavirus – but do those who say so deserve to lose their jobs?

From our UK edition

Not for the first time since the coronavirus crisis began, controversy has hit Derbyshire. While the other week it was the county’s finest sending up drones to spy on and shame people walking in the Peak District, this week it's a Labour councillor who has had the whip withdrawn and lost her job at a law firm for saying something nasty about Boris Johnson on the internet. Sheila Oakes, who is also the mayor of the Derbyshire town of Heanor, made a fool of herself the other day on Facebook. In response to another post, encouraging people to pray for the PM, she said that Johnson, who has just come out of intensive care with coronavirus, ‘completely deserves’ to be laid up because he is ‘one of the worst PMs we’ve ever had’.