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.
"Without new protections," they warned, "today's supercharged, AI-powered algorithms risk reinforcing and magnifying the discrimination that marginalized communities already experience."
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Ed Markey on Monday sent a letter urging the Biden administration to pursue additional action to protect civil rights and liberties related to federal agencies' use of artificial intelligence.
While recognizing the "strong steps" that the administration has already taken—such as President Joe Biden's October 2023 executive order—Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Markey (D-Mass.) stressed to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shalanda Young that "more must be done" to mitigate, prevent, and eliminate algorithmic bias and discrimination.
Specifically, the pair is pushing OMB to "require all federal agencies that use AI for consequential decisions to establish a civil rights office, if they do not already have one; ensure all civil rights offices are staffed with experts in algorithmic discrimination; and encourage federal agencies to establish additional safeguards to prevent algorithmic discrimination."
As the Biden White House explained in its 2022 Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, "Algorithmic discrimination occurs when automated systems contribute to unjustified different treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their race, color, ethnicity, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, gender identity, intersex status, and sexual orientation), religion, age, national origin, disability, veteran status, genetic information, or any other classification protected by law."
"Biased algorithms have increasingly been used to make or influence decisions, imposing real harm on Black, Brown, immigrant, and other marginalized communities."
The ACLU earlier this year sued Biden's National Security Agency in hopes of uncovering how it is using AI, and emphasized concerns that the NSA's use of such tools could harm civil rights and liberties.
The senators wrote Monday that "by ensuring that agencies have the resources, personnel, and policies to detect and mitigate bias, we can ensure that the AI age does not come at the expense of already marginalized and vulnerable communities."
"Without new protections," they warned, "today's supercharged, AI-powered algorithms risk reinforcing and magnifying the discrimination that marginalized communities already experience due to poorly trained and tested algorithms."
The senators highlighted how "biased algorithms have increasingly been used to make or influence decisions, imposing real harm on Black, Brown, immigrant, and other marginalized communities," citing examples from mortgage applications, hiring and employment, government benefits, and healthcare.
Earlier this year, OMB issued guidance regarding government use of AI tools, which Damon T. Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called "a significant step to implement meaningful safeguards."
Noting that the guidance directs agencies to "cease use of any AI that the agency finds cannot adequately mitigate unlawful discrimination," the senators argued that "OMB should also work with agencies to set strict guidelines to prevent algorithmic discrimination within relevant agency jurisdiction."
The OMB, they said, should push agencies to require recipients of federal funds and contracts "to complete pre-development, pre-deployment, and ongoing impact assessments to identify, mitigate, prevent, and eliminate biased AI," as well as "to allow individuals to opt out of AI-powered algorithms used in consequential decisions and instead request human decision-makers."
The senators also urged the office to pressure U.S. agencies to "fund the development of common, accessible resources for auditing algorithms—including open-source tools—for bias, discrimination, and other harms," and to "develop guidance on best practices for mitigating the development and deployment of biased AI-powered algorithms."
"Finally, because a regulation is only as strong as its enforcement, OMB should support federal agencies that take robust enforcement against any company found to violate these rules," the senators wrote, calling on Young to convene inspectors general to coordinate on best practices.
Reporting on the letter, Axios noted Monday that "Schumer's bipartisan AI roadmap fell short for civil rights organizations that wanted stronger language on algorithmic bias and discrimination."
Meanwhile, Markey has been a key force behind both the Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act and the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act.
A new analysis and call for a constitutional amendment comes as reporting sheds light on Sen. JD Vance's ties to a right-wing group backed by tech and digital currency investors.
A report out Wednesday takes aim at how giants of the cryptocurrency industry are using the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which opened the floodgates for dark money in political campaigns, to make a massive deregulatory push ahead of this year's pivotal election.
Based on Public Citizen research director Rick Claypool's analysis of federal election data from OpenSecrets, the consumer advocacy group accused the crypto industry of "exploiting" the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling "to an unprecedented degree, dwarfing direct corporate spending by Big Oil and other corporate sectors in the 2024 elections."
Claypool found that crypto companies have dumped over $119 million into the 2024 federal elections so far, mostly through super political action committees (PACs) focused on elevating candidates that back their industry and opposing any skeptics.
"Nearly half (48%) of all corporate money contributed during this year's elections ($248 million so far) came from crypto backers," the report notes. Koch Industries, the conglomerate of the infamous Koch brothers, "is a distant second place," having put $25 million toward Americans for Prosperity Action and $3.25 million toward electing Republicans to Congress.
"That cryptocurrency companies like Coinbase and Ripple are able to spend over a hundred million dollars to silence crypto's critics and elevate its backers embodies everything that is wrong with the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision."
Since Citizens United, there has been at least $884 million in known corporate contributions to elections. Already, crypto corporations' spending for the past three cycles amounts to 15% of that total—and 92% has been during this cycle. The industry now only trails fossil fuel companies in election-related spending in the wake of the 2010 ruling.
"That cryptocurrency companies like Coinbase and Ripple are able to spend over a hundred million dollars to silence crypto's critics and elevate its backers embodies everything that is wrong with the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision," Claypool said in a statement.
Claypool stressed that "corporations can't vote. But the sole reason crypto is a hot-button topic in this election cycle is that crypto businesses are spending eye-popping sums to make themselves impossible to ignore."
"All this spending is a concern not just because the crypto companies may be able to buy deregulation," he warned. "This direct spending by crypto corporations is shattering a long-standing norm—and is likely to set a precedent for vastly more direct spending by corporations in upcoming elections."
Much of the industry's money from this cycle—nearly $114 million—has gone to the sector's Fairshake PAC and its affiliates. The report details how the group intervened in two Democratic primaries:
When Fairshake and its affiliates spend money to influence races, either by attacking crypto skeptics or boosting crypto supporters, the ads don't mention crypto at all. The super PAC spent $10 million on ads against Rep. Katie Porter in California's Senate primary and $2 million against Rep. Jamaal Bowman in a primary contest in New York. Rather than criticizing candidates for not sufficiently supporting crypto, both attack campaigns smeared the candidates' using unflattering claims having nothing to do with crypto policy.
In Bowman's case, he was also targeted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its affiliates for his criticism of U.S. support for Israel's assault of the Gaza Strip. Another target of both pro-Israel and crypto groups was fellow progressive Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), who lost her primary earlier this month.
Industry use of Fairshake is expected to continue through November. The report points out that "the super PAC recently pledged to spend $25 million backing 18 House candidates—nine Democrats and nine Republicans—in the general election."
The report also lays out how both major parties' presidential nominees—former Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris—and their allies have been courting the industry this cycle:
The new Public Citizen report—which concludes with a call for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United—was released a day after Reuters reported that before Vance joined the Republican ticket, "he co-founded a Silicon Valley-backed donor organization to finance right-wing news stories, voter turnout operations, and election polls."
"The existence of Rockbridge and Vance's link to it have been previously reported," the outlet detailed. "But three internal Rockbridge documents reviewed by Reuters and half a dozen sources familiar with the group reveal the scale of its ambitions, its roughly $75 million budget for 2024, and its role in seeking to influence November's presidential election."
"Rockbridge showcases how Trump's selection of Vance as his running mate could empower a new set of Republican businessmen: heavyweight tech investors who favor far-reaching deregulation," Reuters continued. "Many want to weaken the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates Wall Street, and reduce oversight of cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence."
Meanwhile, in remarks cheered by Bush, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night that there is an urgent "need to get big money out of our political process."
"Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections," he said. "For the sake of our democracy, we must overturn the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision and move toward public funding of elections."
OpenSecrets revealed last week that outside spending during the current election cycle has hit a record $1 billion.
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.
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.