Now Josh Hawley Is Threatening Google Over 1st Amendment Protected Expression
from the not-how-it-works-josh dept
As the Daily Beast recently detailed, this "treatment" is extremely sketchy, totally unproven, and extraordinarily dangerous. From a Washington Post article about these treatments:
But when researchers attempted to carry out a legitimate study of whether these “abortion reversal” treatments were effective and safe, they had to stop almost immediately — because some of the women who participated in the study experienced dangerous hemorrhaging that sent them to the hospital.
On top of that, remember that a decade ago the DOJ hit Google with a $500 forfeiture for advertising foreign online pharmacies, so it's not at all difficult to see how Google is going to be extra careful regarding advertisements regarding sketchy "medical" interventions.
Hawley's letter ignores all of this and insists this is proof of Google's ideological biases in moderating its ads:
Recently, while attempting to run ads for a client in the Washington, D.C. metro area, Choose Life Marketing realized that these ads were not running, even though Google designated them as eligible to run. Worse, Choose Life Marketing was unable to obtain an explanation from your company. Notably, even a cursory investigation reveals numerous examples of Planned Parenthood advertising directly to internet users that it offers abortions, contrary to Google’s stated policies.
All of this is alarming enough on its own, and the situation has only continued to escalate. Notably, Lila Rose—president of the pro-life organization Live Action—reported on September 14 that your company had pulled the plug on Live Action’s advertising campaigns, citing “Google Ads policy.”
Hawley also claims (without any evidence) that, "This would not be the first time that political considerations have influenced your company’s ad eligibility decisions" misleadingly citing Google's warning to the Federalist regarding ads on its site. As we explained then, Google sends those warnings to tons of sites, including ours (which is why we no longer have any ads on our site). I'm still waiting for Hawley to speak up in defense of Google threatening to demonetize ads on Techdirt, but I get the feeling I'll be waiting a very long time. If Hawley can't grandstand and lie about the reasons why these decisions are made, what good is it to him?
Either way, even if Google were making these decisions for ideological reasons (again, there is no proof to support this), that is its 1st Amendment protected right.
> The 1st Amendment's right of association means that if you don't want to be associated with ads promoting a sketchy, potentially dangerous medical procedure, you don't need to be. For Hawley to imply otherwise is just yet another attack on the 1st Amendment, and makes him just as bad as Elizabeth Warren on the other side of the Senate chamber.
It sure would be nice if Senators from both parties actually understood what it means to protect and defend the Constitution, and how that includes the 1st Amendment.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, advertising, content moderation, elizabeth warren, josh hawley, medical information
Companies: google, live action
=========================================================================
Chinese Government Decides It's Done Fucking Around, Forces Hong Kong To Engage In 'Patriot-Only' Elections
from the flag-humping-now-mandatory dept
It's been a steady erosion since China took possession of the region from the British government back in 1997.
Despite an agreement to steer clear of direct control of Hong Kong's government until 2047, the Chinese government immediately began meddling, amping things up when Hong Kong residents engaged in sustained pro-democracy protests.
> Over the past couple of years, the Chinese government has turned protesting into a crime with life sentences attached and restyled the Hong Kong government in its own image.
> It has also used the greatest excuse ever invented for governmental power grabs -- "national security" -- to make it easier to jail opponents, eject problematic government officials, and control the flow of information, along with the information itself.
Control of the internet has been handed over to Hong Kong police, an entity which is entirely subservient to its new masters. As if that wasn't enough, the Chinese government, with the assistance of the complicit remnants of Hong Kong's government, converted the burgeoning police state into a literal police state by making a police commissioner the region's Secretary of Security (the same police commissioner who presided over numerous acts of violence against pro-democracy activists) and elevating the former Secretary of Security to fully-compromised Chief Executive Carrie Lam's second-in-command.
The latest move -- enabled by a law passed earlier this year -- cuts Hong Kong residents out of the election loop. Only certain people are allowed to vote for their new representatives and officials, and they've been preapproved by the Chinese government. . .Carrie Lam, the current head of Hong Kong, made it clear she agrees with the new system inflicted on her region with a statement that sounds like it was crafted by a North Korean government official/Donald Trump speechwriter:
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam told reporters Sunday: "The Election Committee elections are very meaningful as it is the first elections held after we have improved the electoral system to ensure that only patriots can take office."
A caricature in a political satire couldn't have said it better. And that's all Lam is at this point. Unfortunately, she presides over a region that has to pay for this buffoonish kowtowing with their lives and liberties. To be sure, self-preservation is a powerful motivating force for most politicians, but Lam's abdication of her role as a servant of Hong Kong residents means people are going to end up dead at the hands of her new overseers.
And, to be sure, Lam herself wants to live an unencumbered life, but she's going to have to step over the bodies of the "non-patriots" she used to serve to do it. The same can be said for everyone in the Hong Kong government who has decided it's better to serve oppressors than fight to live free.
This bogus, jingoistic election is the end of Hong Kong as we know it. China will be more than happy to profit from the region's immense wealth, but it's never going to restore rights to the people who made Hong Kong what it is."
Filed Under: china, civil rights, elections, hong kong, patriots
ISPs Already Fighting FCC Plan To End Anti-Competitive Landlord Broadband Deals
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept
It's all a very stupid affair, and highlights not only the lengths ISPs are willing to go to to hamstring competition, but the perpetual failure of U.S. telecom regulators to maintain baseline levels of competency. Not only were the original rules terribly written and constructed, ISPs have been exploiting that initial failure for more than a decade with absolutely no meaningful penalty. And while FCC does occasionally admit there's a problem here, the net result is usually little more than a few meetings.
This time the FCC is opening up the public commenting system for input from the public and ISPs that are harmed by these practices.
But again, there's no guarantee the process actually survives ISP lobbying and ends with meaningful improvements to the rules. And because the Biden camp still hasn't appointed a permanent boss, the agency still lacks the voting majority necessary to implement actual reform anytime soon anyway. "
Filed Under: apartment buildings, broadband, competition, fcc, isps, landlords
Companies: charter, comcast, cox, ncta
No comments:
Post a Comment