January, 26 2023, 12:21pm EDT
Meta’s decision on Trump is a huge distraction from thoughtful debate about content moderation and how to address the harms of Big Tech
Meta has announced that they plan to reinstate the Facebook and Instagram accounts of former president Donald Trump. The news will undoubtedly lead to a breathless news cycle and renewed debate about large tech platforms' speech and moderation policies. Digital rights group Fight for the Future issued the following statement, which can be attributed to the group's director, Evan Greer (she/her):
Discussions about online content moderation and what policies are needed to ensure human rights, free expression and safety are some of the most important and consequential societal debates in human history. When we center these debates about specific moderation decisions, especially ones involving high profile, wealthy, politically powerful individuals like Donald Trump, we are utterly missing the point.
Donald Trump doesn't need social media to spread his hateful ideas. He has access to the mainstream press, who religiously cover his every move. And he can afford to hire public relations firms, pay for advertising, and leverage his notoriety and influence to gain attention, something he has shown himself to be uniquely good at.
The Donald Trumps of the world are not the people most impacted by deplatforming, censorship, and overreaching moderation. It is the most marginalized who are the most censored online. Arab and Muslim folks living outside the US routinely have their posts erroneously censored and their accounts unjustly banned by hamfisted “anti-terrorism” filters used by most of the largest platforms. LGBTQ content creators, sex workers, and sexual health educators face constant deplatforming, debanking, and demonetization. Abortion rights organizations consistently encounter obstacles placing online ads, and have seen an uptick in unjust account suspensions and post removals in the wake of the overturning of Roe v Wade.
Once again, Trump has made himself a huge distraction. By allowing the former president to remain the center of attention in world-changing debates about content regulation, free speech, and the harms of Big Tech, we're helping him accomplish his vile goals of silencing and oppressing the most vulnerable. We need to move past circular discussions over specific moderation decisions impacting high profile elites, and instead focus on putting in place transformative policies based in human rights, and regulations that strike at the root of Big Tech giants' harm. Passing a privacy law would do way more to slow the viral spread of hateful content and disinformation than keeping Trump off of any specific platform. Enacting antitrust reforms would do far more to protect our democracy from Trump and his ilk than banning any one account.
Let's refuse to let Trump derail the conversations we need to have. Let's keep fighting for policies that lead not just to the type of Internet we want to have, but the type of world we want to live in: a world where everyone has a voice, and decisions that impact our lives are made transparently and democratically, rather than in closed door corporate meetings.
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) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Fetterman Helps GOP Senators Sink Democrat Effort to Block Trump War on Cuba
"The last thing working Americans need right now is another war," said the Senate's top Democrat.
Apr 28, 2026
The US Senate on Tuesday defeated a Democrat-led bid to stop President Donald Trump from following through on his threat to wage war on Cuba, whose long-suffering people are reeling from the American administration's tightened economic stranglehold.
Upper chamber lawmakers voted 51-47 on a procedural motion to block further debate Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) SJ Res. 124, "a joint resolution to direct the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against the republic of Cuba that have not been authorized by Congress."
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted to advance the resolution, while John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joined his GOP colleagues in voting to sink the measure.
The vote effectively sidelines the measure, one of many failed attempts to curb Trump's ability to wage war on countries including Iran and Venezuela, as well as rein in his high seas boat bombing spree.
“The American people are not asking for another war," Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)—one of SJ Res. 124's dozen co-sponsors—said following Tuesday's vote. "They want us focused on building housing in Arizona, not bombing housing in Havana. They want us to lower the cost of healthcare not condemn a generation of veterans to a lifetime of hospital visits. They want us to make their lives more affordable, not spend their tax dollars on unnecessary wars."
Kaine called the GOP move "purely a regime change effort."
"Why do they want it? You'll have to ask them," he added. "What we're doing with respect to Cuba, if somebody was doing it to us, we would consider it an act of war. But because they don't pose a security threat to the United States, it's clearly an effort to change the regime."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who also co-sponsored the resolution, said, "The last thing working Americans need right now is another war—let alone one that’s 90 miles south of the US."
Resolution co-sponsor Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) said on Bluesky after the vote, "A conflict with Cuba would cost hardworking Americans billions of dollars, deepen the humanitarian crisis in Cuba, and put American service members in harm’s way."
"The Constitution is clear: Only Congress has the authority to declare war," Alsobrooks added.
Trump has attacked seven countries since returning to office and 10 since the start of his first term—more than any other president.
The situation in Cuba is dire, as a result of both the 65-year US economic chokehold on the island and mismanaged central planning by its socialist rulers.
Trump has been ramping up military threats and economic pressure on Cuba, whose people were already suffering from generations of US sanctions. His administration's tightened embargo has severely restricted fuel imports, worsening an energy emergency in which blackouts have become the norm, threatening the lives of vulnerable Cubans—especially sick people and children.
The US president said that “we may stop by Cuba after we’re finished" with the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran that’s killed thousands of people, including hundreds of children. Trump has also said that he believes he’ll “be having the honor of taking Cuba."
The United States already took Cuba once, during an 1898 war waged against Spain under highly dubious pretenses that ended with the US also acquiring Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam—with Hawaii also annexed that year under the guise of security.
American presidents have been trying to force out Cuba's socialist government since shortly after the revolution that overthrew a US-backed dictatorship in 1959. US efforts have included carrying out or backing an armed invasion, terrorist attacks, assassination attempts, and other acts of aggression.
Cuba commits no such acts against the United States or anyone else, yet Trump added the country to the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
Following Tuesday's vote, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "Trump should learn the law of holes: If you find yourself in one, stop digging."
"Instead of threatening that ‘Cuba is next,’ President Trump should remove his blockade against Cuba, which has devastated Havana’s economy and healthcare system, and has created a deepening humanitarian crisis," Markey added.
The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the blockade 33 times since 1992.
“With its catastrophic Iran war of choice, the Trump administration has lost all credibility on issues of war and peace," Markey asserted. "The American people do not want yet another endless war that will only costs more lives and more taxpayer dollars, and undermine US security.”
Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler warned Tuesday that "Trump is preparing military action against Cuba," calling the Senate vote possibly "the last chance for US Congress to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FCC Moves to Yank Disney Broadcast Licenses as Trumps Demand ABC Fire Kimmel
"This is a clear attack on the First Amendment and a political stunt designed to intimidate critics, retaliate against a comedian practicing free speech through satire, and send a message to anyone who dares to speak out."
Apr 28, 2026
Press freedom advocates on Tuesday forcefully condemned the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission—and FCC Chair Brendan Carr in particular—for moving to challenge Disney-owned ABC's broadcast licenses as President Donald Trump again pressures to network to fire late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel.
"The First Amendment and the FCC's mandate do not permit the agency to use broadcast licenses as weapons to punish broadcasters for constitutionally protected content they air," declared Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern.
"Brendan Carr was once a serious communications lawyer, and has repeatedly and correctly said that the FCC has no role in policing content, whether news reporting or comedians’ late night jokes," Stern pointed out. "Carr's decision to abandon his principles to kiss up to Trump to advance his career does not change the law that Carr knows full well applies."
"The FCC is neither the journalism police nor the humor police," he added. "This is nothing but illegal jawboning intended to intimidate ABC into kissing the ring."
Kimmel—whom ABC briefly suspended last year amid pressure from Carr over comments the comedian made about assassinated right-wing activist Charlie Kirk—joked last Thursday that the first lady, Melania Trump, had "a glow like an expectant widow." Two days later, a gunman attempted to enter the White House Correspondents' Dinner—and on Monday, he was charged with trying to assassinate the president.
Also on Monday, both Donald and Melania Trump separately took to social media, calling for Kimmel to be fired. The comedian, meanwhile, opened his Monday night monologue to crowd chants of "Jimmy" and defended his joke, highlighting the Trumps' age gap.
On Tuesday, Semafor reported the FCC's plans to challenge the ABC licenses, which weren't slated for review until at least 2028. Other outlets began confirming the reporting, citing unnamed sources, and the agency ultimately issued the anticipated order—which says that "the FCC has been investigating Disney's ABC stations for possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency's prohibition on unlawful discrimination."
The order, signed by David J. Brown, chief of the Video Division, directs ABC to "file license renewals for all of their licensed TV stations within 30 days—in other words, by May 28, 2026." Those stations are WABC-TV (New York), KABC-TV (Los Angeles), WLS-TV (Chicago), WPVI-TV (Philadelphia), KTRK-TV (Houston), KGO-TV (San Francisco), WTVD-TV (Raleigh-Durham), and KFSN-TV (Fresno).
As CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter explained: "The order will not affect the local stations right away. It is just the start of a protracted legal process, and ABC has broad legal protections. Nevertheless, the FCC order is an extraordinary escalation by the Trump administration."
"The FCC had not filed an early-renewal order in decades, according to a source familiar with the matter, until Monday, when the agency took action against a small station license holder called Bridge News," Stelter noted. "Both Bridge and Disney will now go through a lengthy hearing process, giving the stations multiple chances to respond."
Disney said in a statement that "we have received the Federal Communications Commission's order initiating an accelerated review of the licenses held by ABC's owned television stations. ABC and its stations have a long record of operating in full compliance with FCC rules and serving their local communities with trusted news, emergency information, and public‑interest programming."
"We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment, and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels," the company continued. "Our focus remains, as always, on serving viewers in the local communities where our stations operate."
Commissioner Anna Gomez—currently the FCC's only Democratic appointee—said that "the effort to challenge the licenses of ABC/Disney-owned stations is the FCC's most egregious attack on the First Amendment to date. But it will fail. This should be a lesson to media companies that no amount of capitulation to this administration will buy them protection."
Jessica J. González, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, was similarly optimistic. She said that "Carr will try to dress up this latest attack like a legitimate FCC procedure, but his motivations are clear. He is using his position of power to silence dissent at the president's beck and call. This extraordinary and unconstitutional attack on the media is nothing more than another favor to the most fragile president in U.S. history."
"The FCC’s ongoing attack on lawful and important diversity, equity, and inclusion programs is immoral," she argued. "The timing of this move suggests unconstitutional retribution for a joke Donald Trump didn't like. Either way, this dangerous attack on free speech won’t stand up to any First Amendment test. We've seen Carr violate his oath to uphold the Constitution again and again. It's time for Congress to impeach him."
González added that "for its part, ABC and Disney leadership need to stand strong on behalf of their First Amendment right to air content without government intrusion and censorship. Buckling in advance to pressure by this administration and its obsequious FCC chairman didn't work for the broadcaster when it suspended Kimmel last year. It would be a grave mistake to buckle in advance again to these kinds of chilling government threats from Trump's censorship czar."
The organization MoveOn has launched a petition in support of Kimmel, which already has over 257,000 signatures.
"The Trump administration's targeting of ABC's broadcast licenses sends a chilling message: Fall in line or face consequences," said MoveOn Civic Action chief communications officer Joel Payne. "This is a clear attack on the First Amendment and a political stunt designed to intimidate critics, retaliate against a comedian practicing free speech through satire, and send a message to anyone who dares to speak out."
"ABC and Disney must not back down to Donald Trump or any bureaucrat in his administration doing his bidding," Payne stressed. "This is bigger than just an attempt to bully Jimmy Kimmel—this is about telling the American people what to think, what to laugh at, what to say, and what to criticize. Our members will fight any efforts to weaponize the government to punish speech and will hold corporations who bow to this pressure accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Demands Release of Gaza's Dr. Abu Safiya After Israeli Court Extends Detention
“Dr. Abu Safiya is currently held in Negev Prison under harsh conditions, without access to his medication or receiving medical treatment, despite the deterioration of his health," said the Israeli-based Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
Apr 28, 2026
An Israeli human rights group is demanding the release of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza, after a court ordered his detention extended.
Physicians for Human Rights Israel on Tuesday blasted the Beersheba District Court for extending the detention of Abu Safiya, who has been held in prison since December 27, 2024, without being charged with any criminal offenses.
The court justified keeping Abu Saifya detained under Israel's Unlawful Combatants Law, which allows for the detention of Palestinians for long periods without trial.
“The court upheld the detention despite arguments that detaining a doctor while performing his medical duties constitutes unlawful detention,” said Physicians for Human Rights Israel. “Dr. Abu Safiya is currently held in Negev Prison under harsh conditions, without access to his medication or receiving medical treatment, despite the deterioration of his health."
The group added that it is demanding "the immediate release of Dr. Abu Safiya along with 13 other detained doctors, as well as all medical personnel currently held in Israel. We call on the international community to intervene and put an end to this abuse."
The US-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also slammed the court ruling, calling Abu Safiya's detention "a grave injustice and a blatant violation of fundamental human rights and due process."
"As a physician and hospital director, Dr. Abu Safiya dedicated his life to saving others," CAIR added, "yet he now faces indefinite imprisonment under conditions that credible reports indicate include torture, denial of medical care, and severe mistreatment."
A 2025 report from Amnesty International, which has also called for Abu Safiya's release, said that the Gaza-based physician "was detained in the course of caring for his patients and carrying out his medical duties."
Amnesty also noted that, prior to his detention, Abu Safiya and other colleagues at the Kamal Adwan Hospital had "provided human rights and humanitarian organizations with reliable information about the health situation" in Gaza, which has been left devastated by years of Israeli attacks that have killed at least 72,000 Palestinians.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular