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
x com
'This Is Political,' Journalist Who Published Vance Dossier Says of Permanent X Ban
"It's not about a violation of X's policies," wrote Ken Klippenstein. "What else would you call this but politically motivated?"
Sep 27, 2024
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein said Friday that he was privately informed by the Elon Musk-owned social media platform X that his account has been permanently banned, a decision that Klippenstein argued was "politically motivated."
X, formerly Twitter, suspended Klippenstein on Thursday after he posted to the platform a link to his Substack article containing a download link for a 271-page dossier that Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign prepared to vet Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), who was ultimately chosen as the former president's running mate.
The dossier, Klippenstein noted, "reportedly comes from an alleged Iranian government hack of the Trump campaign," and major news outlets such as Politicodeclined opportunities to publish it. The U.S. Justice Department on Friday charged three men with allegedly carrying out a hack against the Trump campaign.
In a statement issued late Thursday afternoon as it faced backlash, X said that "Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance's physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number."
On Friday, Klippenstein—who has previously worked for The Intercept and The Nation—shared a private message from X informing him that his account is "permanently in read-only mode, which means you can't post, Repost, or Like content" or "create new accounts."
"The two-step dance X is doing here—avoiding further backlash by pretending like my suspension is just a temporary thing, no big deal, while privately suspending me permanently—only makes sense when you consider the political dimensions," Klippenstein wrote on his Substack. "Elon Musk is an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and JD Vance's political campaign. The Wall Street Journalreported that he promised $45 million a month for a pro-Trump Super PAC (Musk subsequently disputed this). So X clearly doesn't want to give the appearance that my ban was politically motivated. But a careful look at the pretext X cites for my suspension makes it obvious that this is political."
"The media is going to see the case of the Vance dossier and conclude that reporting on similar documents isn't worth losing their social media accounts over."
Observers have noted the obvious parallels between the social media platform's handling of the Vance dossier and a 2020 New York Post story on the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop. At the time, Twitter—not yet under Musk's ownership—placed restrictions on sharing of the Post story, limits that were reversed months later.
Klippenstein noted Friday that Musk—a self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist"—was "so incensed by Twitter's previous owners' decision to block the story on its platform that he took the extraordinary step of releasing Twitter's internal correspondence to independent journalist Matt Taibbi so he could report on how the decision came about. (I support his transparency, by the way.)"
"Now, anyone posting a link to my article finds their account locked, which is exactly how Twitter handled the Hunter Biden laptop story by the New York Post," Klippenstein wrote.
Journalist Lee Fang pointed out shortly after Klippenstein's ban that "the Hunter Biden laptop—which had newsworthy info that was fair game—also had personal dox info, far more than this Vance doc."
"The Biden laptop had bank/credit cards, personal addresses, nudity, etc," Fang added. "You can still link to those Biden docs on X, but Vance doc link banned?"
Klippenstein argued that "the biggest tell that this is political" is that X did not offer him a chance to restore his account by removing the post that resulted in his ban, as the platform typically does with users accused of violating its policies.
"As an experiment, last night my editor and I decided to redact all 'private' information from the Vance dossier in my story here at Substack," Klippenstein wrote Friday. "Despite filing an appeal in which I mention this, I remain banned. So it's not about a violation of X's policies. What else would you call this but politically motivated?"
"Boo hoo, poor me, I lost my account. That's not the point here," he continued. "If you were frustrated with the media's refusal to publish the Vance dossier, prepare for a future that's worse. The media is going to see the case of the Vance dossier and conclude that reporting on similar documents isn't worth losing their social media accounts over. Why take the risk when you can just blather on about the horse race? As always, it's the public that loses out the most."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'How Is This Legal?' Elon Musk's Pro-Trump Super PAC Accused of Voter Deception
"If you did not believe he was maniacal or evil, before this, well now you know," said a former congresswoman.
Aug 02, 2024
A super political action committee connected to billionaire Elon Musk is not only working to elect Republicans including former President Donald Trump but also collecting voter information in battleground states via a method that is setting off alarm bells, CNBCreported Friday.
CNBC political finance reporter Brian Schwartz explained how an online America PAC advertisement featuring footage of the recent assassination attempt targeting Trump sends viewers to different websites depending on their location.
"If a user lives in a state that is not considered competitive in the presidential election, like California or Wyoming for example, they'll be prompted to enter their email addresses and ZIP code and then directed quickly to a voter registration page for their state, or back to the original sign up section," he reported. "But for users who enter a ZIP code that indicates they live in a battleground state, like Pennsylvania or Georgia, the process is very different."
"Rather than be directed to their state's voter registration page, they instead are directed to a highly detailed personal information form, prompted to enter their address, cell phone number, and age," according to Schwartz. "If they agree to submit all that, the system still does not steer them to a voter registration page. Instead, it shows them a 'thank you' page."
One user on X—the Musk-owned social media platform formerly called Twitter—trialed the process and shared related screenshots:
"How is this legal!?" Veni Kunche of Diversify Tech asked on X in response to the reporting. "America PAC is misleading voters."
Georgetown University professor Don Moynihan also raised legal concerns, saying, "Getting people's personal information on the promise of helping them to register to vote, and then not helping them to register to vote definitely seems like election fraud."
Retired journalist Mary Beth Schneider said: "Scamming people into thinking they registered to vote? This should be illegal."
Jodi Jacobson, founder and executive director of Healthcare Across Borders, called for a federal investigation.
"Is anyone actually working over there?" she asked the U.S. Department of Justice on X. "Because here is something you should be investigating. Now."
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at Stetson University College of Law in Florida and fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, criticized the super PAC and offered guidance on registering to vote in the United States.
"This is so shitty," she said of the group's actions. "To avoid... a fake registration webpage problem: Google your local board of elections and register directly through them. Typically your local board of elections is the name of the county you live in and 'board of elections.'"
Former Congresswoman Marie Newman (D-Ill.) took aim at Musk, saying, "If you did not believe he was maniacal or evil, before this, well now you know."
While a spokesperson for America PAC declined to comment and Musk did not reply to Schwartz's emails, the billionaire confirmed he created the political group during a July 22 video interview on X with right-wing commentator Jordan Peterson. Musk also denied a recent Wall Street Journal report that he is putting $45 million a month toward sending Trump back to the White House.
"I am making some donations to America PAC, but at a much lower level and the key values of the PAC are supporting a meritocracy and individual freedom," Musk wrote on X the following day. "Republicans are mostly, but not entirely, on the side of merit and freedom."
Super PACs are not subject to the same legal restrictions as campaigns and traditional political committees; they can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and groups. There are limits for coordinating with campaigns, but they can coordinate on canvassing, thanks to a Federal Election Commission advisory opinion from earlier this year.
America PAC has already raised millions of dollars, with donations from venture capitalists and cryptocurrency investors.
Last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) publicly thanked Musk for doing "an exceptional job of demonstrating a point that we have made for years—and that is the fact we live in an oligarchic society in which billionaires dominate not only our economic life and the information we consume, but our politics as well."
As
The New York Timesdetailed Thursday, America PAC is off to "a rocky start" and now "shaking up its field operation." Still, the group's potential impact on the presidential election—in which Trump is expected to face Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris—is generating concerns, particularly given the new revelations from CNBC.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Says EU Digital Services Act 'Must Be Robustly Enforced'
With the act now in effect for most platforms, the European Commission and member states "must resist any attempts by Big Tech companies to water down implementation," said one expert.
Feb 17, 2024
As the European Union's Digital Services Act expanded to cover nearly all online platforms in the bloc on Saturday, Amnesty International stressed the importance of robust enforcement.
"It's a historic day for tech accountability," said Alia Al Ghussain, researcher and adviser on technology and human rights at Amnesty Tech, in a statement. "Today must mark the end of the era of unregulated Big Tech, and for that to happen, the DSA must be robustly enforced to avoid it becoming a paper tiger."
"Today must mark the end of the era of unregulated Big Tech."
E.U. member states and the European Commission "are primarily responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of the additional obligations that apply to Big Tech companies under the DSA," Al Ghussain added. "They must resist any attempts by Big Tech companies to water down implementation and enforcement efforts, and insist on putting human rights at the forefront of this new digital landscape."
Some of the E.U.'s online rulebook took effect in August for 19 major platforms and search engines: Alibaba AliExpress; Amazon; Bing; Booking.com; Apple's AppStore; Google's Play, Maps, Search, Shopping, and YouTube; LinkedIn; Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram; Pinterest; Snapchat; TikTok; Wikipedia; X, formerly called Twitter; and Zalando.
The European Commission took its first formal action under the DSA in December, announcing an investigation into X—which is owned by billionaire Elon Musk—for "suspected breach of obligations to counter illegal content and disinformation, suspected breach of transparency obligations, and suspected deceptive design of user interface."
As of Saturday, the DSA applies to all online platforms, with some exceptions for firms that have fewer than 50 employees and an annual turnover below €10 million ($10.78 million)—though those companies must still designate a point of contact for authorities and users as well as have clear terms and conditions.
The DSA bans targeting minors with advertisements based on personal data and targeting all users with ads based on sensitive data such as religion or sexual preference. The act also requires platforms to provide users with: information about advertising they see; a tool to flag illegal content; explanations for content moderation decisions; and a way to challenge such decisions. Platforms are further required to publish a report about content moderation procedures at least once a year.
While companies that violate the DSA could be fined up to 6% of their global annual turnover or even banned in the E.U., imposing such penalties isn't the ultimate goal. According toAgence France-Presse:
Beyond the prospect of fines, Alexandre de Streel of the think tank Centre on Regulation in Europe, said the law aimed ultimately to change the culture of digital firms.
"The DSA is a gradual system, everything is not going to change in one minute and not on February 17," he said. "The goal isn't to impose fines, it's that platforms change their practices."
Still, Thierry Breton, a former French tech CEO now serving as the European commissioner for the internal market, said in a statement that "we encourage all member states to make the most out of our new rulebook."
Like Amnesty's Al Ghussain, he stressed that "effective enforcement is key to protect our citizens from illegal content and to uphold their rights."
Earlier this week, Politicoreported that "senior E.U. officials like Breton and Věra Jourová, commission vice president for values and transparency, have butted heads over how to sell the rulebook to both companies and the wider public." Internal battles and industry pushback aren't the only barriers to effectively implementing the DSA.
"At the national level, member countries are expected to nominate local regulators by February 17 to coordinate the pan-E.U. rules via a European Board for Digital Services," Politico noted. "That group will hold its first meeting in Brussels early next week. But as of mid-February, only a third of those agencies were in place, based on the commission's own data, although existing regulators in Brussels, Paris, and Dublin are already cooperating."
Campaigners are also acknowledging the shortcomings of the DSA. European Digital Rights on Saturday recirculated a November 2022 essay in which EDRi policy advisers Sebastian Becker Castellaro Jan Penfrat argued that "the DSA is a positive step forward" but "no content moderation policy in the world will protect us from harmful online content as long as we do not address the dominant, yet incredibly damaging surveillance business model of most large tech firms."
Meanwhile, Al Ghussain said that "to mitigate the human rights risks posed by social media platforms, the European Commission must tackle the addictive and harmful design of these platforms, including changes to recommender systems so that they are no longer hardwired for engagement at all costs, nor based on user profiling by default."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular