SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
social media
40 Groups Slam 'Deep Hypocrisy' of Saudi-Hosted Internet Governance Forum
"Is this a bad joke?" asked one campaigner.
Sep 06, 2024
As Saudi Arabia prepares to host a global internet summit in December, 40 human rights groups on Friday urged authorities in the kingdom to release everyone imprisoned for online expression, including an activist serving a 27-year prison sentence for criticizing her country's severe repression of women.
The 40 groups said in a joint statement that "Saudi Arabia must free all individuals arbitrarily detained solely for their online expression ahead of hosting the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Riyadh, which will take place from December 15-19."
"It is counter to the IGF's stated values for Saudi Arabia to host the IGF," the organizations asserted. "In 2024 it adopted a thematic focus on advancing human rights and inclusion in the digital age and Saudi Arabia continues to prosecute, lock up, forcibly disappear, and intimidate people into silence for expressing themselves on social media."
As Amnesty International—which accused Saudi Arabia of "deep hypocrisy"—noted:
Saudi authorities have waged a chilling crackdown against people who demonstrate even the slightest sign of dissenting or critical views online. Among those who have been convicted for their online expression is Salma al-Shehab. She was arrested in January 2021 and, after a grossly unfair trial, sentenced in January 2023 to a shocking 27-year prison term followed by a 27-year travel ban on trumped-up terrorism charges, simply because she tweeted in support of women's rights.
In another deeply disturbing case, in January 2024, Saudi Arabia's terrorism court sentenced Manahel al-Otaibi to 11 years in prison in connection with social media posts promoting women's rights and sharing images of herself online at a mall without wearing an abaya (a traditional loose-fitting long-sleeved robe).
Those targeted also include Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, a Red Crescent worker, who in April 2020, after a grossly unfair trial, was sentenced to 20 years, to be followed by a 20-year travel ban, for his satirical tweets, and Mohammad bin Nasser al-Ghamdi, a retired school teacher, who was sentenced to death in July 2023 for criticizing authorities on X (formerly Twitter) and his online activity on YouTube.
"These cases are emblematic of the Saudi authorities' chilling crackdown on freedom of expression, but they are not isolated examples," the 40 groups said in their statement. "Dozens of people in Saudi Arabia, including visitors to the country, have been detained solely for their online expression."
"Consequently," the signers added, "many civil society organizations and advocates, who would ordinarily attend the IGF, have chosen not to travel to Saudi Arabia, fearing that they cannot safely and freely participate in the conference."
Representatives of some of the 40 groups that signed the statement weighed in on Saudi Arabia hosting the IGF.
"Is this a bad joke?" asked Freedom Forward executive director Sunjeev Bery. "There's a phrase for this: 'rights-washing.' Rights-washing is when a human rights violator tries to hide their crimes by wrapping themselves in human rights language and causes."
"Saudi Arabia's dictatorship is one of the most repressive governments on the planet," Bery added. "Saudi internet users who dare to speak their minds are often arrested, tortured, and jailed for years."
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard said that "Saudi Arabia's authorities have 100 days before the IGF begins to demonstrate that they will ease their draconian crackdown on freedom of expression, and to show that they will use this event as an opportunity to carry out genuine reforms rather than as part of an image-washing campaign."
"In order to prove that their hosting of the conference about the internet's future is more than just a cynical PR exercise, the Saudi authorities must release all those arbitrarily detained solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression online before the IGF begins," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Brazilian Judge Orders Total Suspension of Elon Musk's X Social Network
"Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary," said Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.
Aug 30, 2024
Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes on Friday ordered the nationwide suspension of Elon Musk's X social media platform in response to the billionaire's failure to comply with the judge's directive to appoint a legal representative in the South American country.
Moraes ordered the "immediate, complete, and total suspension of X's operations" in the nation of 215 million people, "until the court's judicial decisions are complied with and the fines applied are paid" and "until a representative of the company in the country is appointed."
The judge also infuriated Musk by blocking his SpaceX company from conducting financial transactions in Brazil over millions of dollars in unpaid fines imposed on X—formerly known as Twitter—for breaking Brazilian laws.
"X Brazil failed to comply with several court orders, as well as the willful intention of evading responsibility for complying with the court orders issued."
Earlier this month, Musk withdrew X's staff from Brazil after Moraes threatened to arrest the company's legal representative if the platform did not delete user accounts spreading far-right misinformation and hate speech in violation of Brazilian law.
"Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country," Moraes said.
"The president of the National Telecommunications Agency, Carlos Manuel Baigorri, must take all measures to ensure the suspension," Moraes continued, adding that he "also ordered Apple and Google to take measures to block the use of the application by iOS and Android systems, in addition to removing it from their virtual stores."
Internet service providers and app stores have five days to comply with Moraes' ruling. People who use virtual public networks (VPNs) to skirt the new ban are subject to a roughly $8,900 fine.
Moraes stated that he "made every possible effort and granted every opportunity for X Brazil to comply with the judicial orders and pay the fines, which would have avoided the adoption of this more serious measure."
"Unfortunately," he added, "the illicit conduct was repeated in this investigation, making it clear that X Brazil failed to comply with several court orders, as well as the willful intention of evading responsibility for complying with the court orders issued."
In April, Moraes
launched a criminal investigation into Musk's alleged obstruction of justice and incitement to crime.
Friday's decision comes amid a monthslong feud between Musk—the world's wealthiest person—and Moraes. Musk has accused the judge of "censorship" and of being a "tyrant."
"Alexandre de Moraes is an evil dictator cosplaying as a judge," Musk
said Thursday on X in one of several increasingly sophomoric posts.
However, as Brazil-based journalist Brian Mier
explained, "this is about sovereignty."
"Treating a system where the rich can buy more reach than normal citizens as if it were a democratic commons, as a 'free speech' issue, is ludicrous," Mier wrote on X. "In the Global South, U.S. social media corporations are coup machines."
In the 1960s, the United States played an instrumental role in overthrowing a democratically elected Brazilian government and installing a 21-year military dictatorship in which a young Jair Bolsonaro—the former right-wing Brazilian leader who is the target of multiple criminal probes led by Moraes—served as an army officer.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva offered thoughts on Musk and the case ahead of Friday's ruling during a television interview.
"Who does he think he is?" asked Lula. "He has to respect the rules of this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elon Musk Doesn't Know He's on the Wrong Side of George Orwell
The level of power and influence the world's richest man has amassed is a danger to all citizens, whether they like Musk or not. It is also, without a shadow of a doubt, a threat to democracy.
Aug 21, 2024
The following is the English translation of an essay that first appeared in the Swedish publication Dagens ETC and appears at Common Dreams with permission from the author.
Elon Musk is perhaps one of the purest examples in recent years of the conversion of raw economic power into informational, social, and political power. What makes Musk such a dangerous figure is those various forms of power combined with his willingness to openly lie about his personal and corporate relationships to issues of free speech and democracy.
The level of power and influence he has amassed is a danger to all citizens, whether they like Musk or not. It is also, without a shadow of a doubt, a threat to democracy.
After the riots that broke out in the UK following the murder of three young children in the town of Southport, a number of social media users were arrested and charged in relation to those riots. Musk amplified tweets that claimed the use of the law in this manner was “Orwellian.” In other words, a repressive state was cracking down on citizens for little more than expressing their opinions or thinking in the wrong way. But that argument hid the fact that many of those arrested were charged under UK law with inciting both violence and racial hatred: forms of speech rightly illegal in many countries.
Nevertheless, in “1984” terms Musk pitched himself as standing alongside the Winston Smiths of this world in battle against the Big Brothers. As the defender of the rights of the “ordinary person” in the face of a violent, elite, repressive machine.
You could cut the irony with a knife.
Musk’s rhetoric on free speech and democracy, and the willingness of so many of his followers to accept that rhetoric despite the obvious contradictions, is a perfect example of “doublethink.”
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, bought a communication platform that enables him to control information and messaging across the globe. With that platform he also gathers huge amounts of data on users. He uses his position to advocate for political candidates and political agendas he supports and cooperates with various authoritarian regimes to shut down messages and accounts critical of their power. His company literally pays individuals whose accounts spread and amplify proven disinformation, and has himself spread and amplified proven disinformation. He throttled access to news outlets he disagreed with. He threatened to sue individuals and organizations that have been nothing more than critical of his own communication platform and other business dealings. When advertisers decide that they no longer wish to spend money on his platform because of increasing levels of disinformation and hate speech, he threatened to sue them as well.
There is something Orwellian going on here, but not in the way Musk claims.
In “1984” Orwell came up with the term “doublethink” to refer to how the exercise of pure authoritarian power includes getting people to believe two things at the same time, even if those two things are in direct contradiction. The most classic examples from the book being the expressions War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.
Musk’s rhetoric on free speech and democracy, and the willingness of so many of his followers to accept that rhetoric despite the obvious contradictions, is a perfect example of “doublethink.”
With Musk, we see enormous economic, informational and political power in the hands of the richest man in the world. There is no rational argument for how such a situation cannot and will not damage informed citizenship and democracy in the long run.
Musk is the defender of free speech and democracy who censors opponents of authoritarian regimes. Musk is the advocate of free and open debate who sues people who criticize his platform. Musk is the lover of the free market who threatens to take advertisers who won’t give him money to court. Musk is the defender of workers who actively fights organized labor.
As an academic, I realize that my criticism of Musk will likely be dismissed along ideological grounds. But I can tell you that academics have been warning about the dangers of excessive concentration of private and corporate mainstream media ownership for decades, and that criticism was in relation to all media, including mainstream outlets people call “left-wing.” We warned that power would continue to concentrate and that the damage to democracy could be severe. Yet, when we made those warnings, mainstream journalists, editors and owners largely dismissed them as out of touch and irrelevant. What do academics know of the real world?
Well, here we are now with Musk.
With Musk, we see enormous economic, informational and political power in the hands of the richest man in the world. There is no rational argument for how such a situation cannot and will not damage informed citizenship and democracy in the long run. By his actions Musk has shown no indication that he has no real interest in freedom of speech or ordinary working people. This should be of grave concern to all citizens regardless of their political inclination.
Orwell, a social democrat, was ahead of his time in anticipating the use of technology in surveillance and disinformation in the service of power. Musk is right that Orwell is relevant to today’s society. He’s just wrong about what side of the fight he is on.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular