

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Today, Fight for the Future, Senator Ron Wyden, and a coalition of civil and human rights groups delivered a petition signed by over 24,000 people calling on Congress to pass a federal data privacy law. Coalition members urged lawmakers to protect against attacks like that on the Capitol last year by addressing Facebook's data-fueled algorithmic manipulation.
When Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before Congress in October, she named algorithmic manipulation as the platform's source of power. Algorithmic manipulation is only possible with invasive and copious personal data on individual people, harvested via mass surveillance.
The anniversary of January 6 falls at the beginning of the midterm election cycle, further highlighting how Facebook's algorithmic manipulation is a threat to our democracy and election integrity because it intensifies the far-right extremism that led to the attack on the Capitol. In order to #StopFacebook, lawmakers must focus on cutting off the fuel supply for Facebook's data weapon by passing a federal data privacy law.
Speakers at the petition delivery included Senator Wyden and representatives from Fight for the Future, Access Now, Public Citizen, and Open Media.
Senator Ron Wyden stated, "If we had a strong privacy law on the books, Mark Zuckerberg would already be in jail for his serial lying about Facebook's abuse of Americans' data. Congress has the opportunity to act now by passing a comprehensive privacy law that can cut off the flow of data to Facebook's outrage machine by setting strong new rules for how companies can collect, share and use Americans' personal information. That will go right to Facebook's business model and hit its bottom line, which seems to be the only thing that company cares about."
Erica Darragh, campaigner at Fight for the Future, added, "Facebook's business model has evolved into social engineering via psychological warfare. The platform weaponizes user data to fuel algorithmic manipulation in order to maximize ad sales - not just for products, but for ideas like the disinformation that led to the conspiracy theories associated with the January 6 Capitol attack. If Congress is serious about addressing the harms of social media, holding Big Tech accountable, and protecting our democracy, they must prioritize data privacy legislation in time to protect the integrity of the midterm elections."
Willmary Escoto, U.S. Policy Analyst at Access Now stated, "How many whistleblowers will it take for the U.S. Congress to rein in Silicon Valley? We need a federal data privacy law in the United States, and we need it now. Our data is harvested and weaponized against us, fueling algorithmic discrimination against the most marginalized communities and violating our right to privacy. People are fed up, and the tens of thousands of petition signatures urging Congress to pass a data protection law are a rallying cry for action."
Matt Hatfield, Campaigns Director at Open Media, said "The secretive collection, sale and algorithmic manipulation of our personal data by platforms like Facebook must end. It is a primary driver of the virality of the misinformation, hate speech, and online radicalization that people across the political spectrum are worried about. Congress passing a strong data protection law in 2022 that limits these practices will be one of the most important steps they can take to safeguard democracy and protect freedom of speech, both in America and around the world."
Public Citizen Executive Vice President Lisa Gilbert added, "As we approach the one year 'anniversary' of January 6th, we demand that Facebook be held accountable for the harm it has caused. Public Citizen stands with our allies to call on Congress to show the world its commitment to a transparent social media ecosystem that protects our digital civil rights and enhances, not hinders, democracy both at home and abroad."
Other coalition members and Congressional allies shared their perspectives as well:
Senator Richard Blumenthal stated, "We must put a stop to Big Tech's extreme exploitation of Americans' sensitive personal information. Unfettered access to troves of data that reveal private details of people's lives, identities, and preferences only fuels dangerous algorithms designed to divide us all. Comprehensive consumer privacy legislation is an essential component of reigning in Big Tech's power over American life."
Maaike van Dorssen, Managing Board Member of UK-based The London Story, noted, "Despite the progress of European data privacy laws, Big Tech remains able to use surveillance technologies to manipulate social and economic behaviours. In order to safeguard democracy and public debate in European Nations, the United States, and around the world, we urge governments to address algorithmic manipulation."
Jose Alonso Munoz, Deputy Communications Director of United We Dream, said, "Facebook has prioritized profit over the safety of its users, especially Black, brown and immigrant communities. Facebook's algorithm continues to amplify disinformation, hate speech, and conspiracy theories. This harmful disinformation played an outsized role in the attack on our democracy on January 6, and has continued to embolden Republican-led legislatures across the country to attack the voting rights of Black, brown, and immigrant communities. The 1 million members of United We Dream know all too well the importance of finding community online, including on UWD's pages on platforms like Facebook, which is why it is imperative for Congress to take action to impede Facebook's continued misuse of our data. It's time Congress ensures Facebook puts our safety over their profits."
Fight for the Future is the organization behind the coalition site HowToStopFacebook.org, which more than 70 organizations have signed onto calling for strong federal data privacy protections.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026In an interview with the New York Times, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey described "marauding gangs of guys just walking down the street indiscriminately picking people up."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is warning that the Trump administration has crossed a "terrifying line" with its use of federal immigration enforcement agents to brutalize and abduct people in his city.
In an interview with the New York Times published Saturday, Frey described operations that have taken place in his city as "marauding gangs of guys just walking down the street indiscriminately picking people up," likening it to a military "invasion."
During the interview, Frey was asked what he made of Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent offer to withdraw immigration enforcement forces from his city if Minnesota handed over its voter registration records to the federal government.
"That is wildly unconstitutional," Frey replied. "We should all be standing up and saying that’s not OK. Literally, listen to what they’re saying. Active threats like, Turn over the voter rolls or else, or we will continue to do what we’re doing. That’s something you can do in America now."
Frey was also asked about Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's comments from earlier in the week where he likened the administration's invasion of Minneapolis to the first battle that took place during the US Civil War in Fort Sumter.
"I don’t think he’s saying that the Civil War is going to happen," said Frey. "I think what he’s saying is that a significant and terrifying line is being crossed. And I would agree with that."
As Frey issued warnings about the federal government's actions in Minneapolis, more horror stories have emerged involving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minnesota.
The Associated Press reported on Saturday that staff at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis have been raising red flags over ICE agents' claims about Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, a Mexican immigrant whom they treated after he suffered a shattered skull earlier this month.
ICE agents who brought Castañeda Mondragón to the hospital told staffers that he had injured himself after he "purposefully ran headfirst into a brick wall" while trying to escape their custody.
Nurses who treated Castañeda Mondragón, however, said that there is no way that running headfirst into a wall could produce the sheer number of skull fractures he suffered, let alone the internal bleeding found throughout his brain.
“It was laughable, if there was something to laugh about," one nurse at the hospital told the Associated Press. “There was no way this person ran headfirst into a wall."
According to a Saturday report in the New York Times, concern over ICE's brutality has grown to such an extent that many Minnesota residents, including both documented immigrants and US citizens, have started wearing passports around their necks to avoid being potentially targeted.
Joua Tsu Thao, a 75-year-old US citizen who came to the country after aiding the American military during the Vietnam War, said the aggressive actions of immigration officers have left him with little choice but to display his passport whenever he walks outside his house.
"We need to be ready before they point a gun to us," Thao explained to the Times.
CNN on Friday reported that ICE has been rounding up refugees living in Minnesota who were allowed to enter the US after undergoing "a rigorous, years-long vetting process," and sending them to a facility in Texas where they are being prepared for deportation.
Lawyers representing the abducted refugees told CNN that their clients have been "forced to recount painful asylum claims with limited or no contact with family members or attorneys."
Some of the refugees taken to Texas have been released from custody. But instead of being flown back home, they were released in Texas "without money, identification, or phones," CNN reported.
Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president for US legal programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, told CNN that government agents abducting refugees who had previously been allowed into the US is part of "a campaign of terror" that "is designed to scare people."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," said one critic.
Critics have weighed in on Amazon MGM Studios' documentary about first lady Melania Trump, and their verdicts are overwhelmingly negative.
According to review aggregation website Metacritic, Melania—which Amazon paid $40 million to acquire and $35 million to market—so far has received a collective score of just 6 out of 100 from critics, which indicates "overwhelming dislike."
Similarly, Melania scores a mere 6% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomameter," indicating that 94% of reviews for the movie so far have been negative.
One particularly brutal review came from Nick Hilton, film critic for the Independent, who said that the first lady came off in the film as "a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness" who leads a "vulgar, gilded lifestyle."
Hilton added that the film is so terrible that it fails even at being effective propaganda and is likely to be remembered as "a striking artifact... of a time when Americans willingly subordinated themselves to a political and economic oligopoly."
The Guardian's Xan Brooks delivered a similarly scathing assessment, declaring the film "dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," Brooks elaborated. "I’m not even sure it qualifies as a documentary, exactly, so much as an elaborate piece of designer taxidermy, horribly overpriced and ice-cold to the touch and proffered like a medieval tribute to placate the greedy king on his throne."
Donald Clarke of the Irish Times also discussed the film's failure as a piece of propaganda, and he compared it unfavorably to the work of Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.
"Melania... appears keener on inducing narcolepsy in its viewers than energizing them into massed marching," he wrote. "Triumph of the Dull, perhaps."
Variety's Owen Gleiberman argued that the Melania documentary is utterly devoid of anything approaching dramatic stakes, which results in the film suffering from "staggering inertia."
"Mostly it’s inert," Gleiberman wrote of the film. "It feels like it’s been stitched together out of the most innocuous outtakes from a reality show. There’s no drama to it. It should have been called 'Day of the Living Tradwife.'"
Frank Scheck of the Hollywood Reporter found that the movie mostly exposes Melania Trump is an empty vessel without a single original thought or insight, instead deploying "an endless number of inspirational phrases seemingly cribbed from self-help books."
Kevin Fallon of the Daily Beast described Melania as "an unbelievable abomination of filmmaking" that reaches "a level of insipid propaganda that almost resists review."
"It's so expected," Fallon added, "and utterly pointless."
"This memo bends over backwards to say that ICE agents have nothing but green lights to make an arrest without even a supervisor’s approval," said one former ICE official.
An internal legal memo obtained by the New York Times reveals that federal immigration enforcement agents are claiming broad new powers to carry out warrantless arrests.
The Times reported on Friday that the memo, which was signed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons, "expands the ability of lower-level ICE agents to carry out sweeps rounding up people they encounter and suspect are undocumented immigrants, rather than targeted enforcement operations in which they set out, warrant in hand, to arrest a specific person."
In the past, agents have been granted the power to carry out warrantless arrests only in situations where they believe a suspected undocumented immigrant is a "flight risk" who is unlikely to comply with obligations such as appearing at court hearings.
However, the memo declares this standard to be “unreasoned” and “incorrect,” saying that agents should feel free to carry out arrests so long as the suspect is "unlikely to be located at the scene of the encounter or another clearly identifiable location once an administrative warrant is obtained."
Scott Shuchart, former head of policy at ICE under President Joe Biden, told the Times that the memo appears to open the door to give the agency incredibly broad arrest powers.
"This memo bends over backwards," Shuchart said, "to say that ICE agents have nothing but green lights to make an arrest without even a supervisor’s approval."
Claire Trickler-McNulty, former senior adviser at ICE during the Biden administration, said the memo's language was so broad that "it would cover essentially anyone they want to arrest without a warrant, making the general premise of ever getting a warrant pointless."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted in a social media post that the memo appears to be a way for ICE to "get around an increasing number of court orders requiring [US Department of Homeland Security] to follow the plain words of the law which says administrative warrantless arrests are only for people 'likely to escape.'"
The memo broadens the terms, Reichlin-Melnick added, so that "anyone who refuses to wait for a warrant to be issued" is deemed "likely to escape."
Stanford University political scientist Tom Clark questioned the validity of the memo, which appears to directly conflict with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which requires search warrants as a protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
"So, here’s how the law works," he wrote. "People on whom it imposes constraints don’t get to just write themselves a memo saying they don’t have to follow the law. Maybe I’ll write myself a memo saying that I don’t have to pay my taxes this year."