Connect with us

Industry

Appeals Court Rules YouTube Can Censor Content in PragerU Case

Published

on

  • A federal appeals court ruled YouTube is not subject to the First Amendment and can censor content on its platform as part of a long-running lawsuit filed by conservative nonprofit PragerU.
  • The lawsuit alleged that YouTube demonetized and limited some of PragerU’s videos because it is biased against conservatives.
  • PragerU called the move censorship and discrimination, arguing that YouTube should be treated like the government, not a private company, in matters of free speech.

PragerU Lawsuit

A federal appeals court in California ruled that privately-owned tech companies like YouTube are not bound to the First Amendment and can censor content.

The decision comes from a 2017 lawsuit against YouTube and its parent company Google that was filed by PragerU, a nonprofit headed by Dennis Prager. The company filed its complaint after YouTube demonetized and restricted some of its videos. 

PragerU accused YouTube of being biased against conservative views, arguing that the decision amounted to discrimination and censorship. The lawsuit claims that YouTube had intentionally demonetized and restricted the videos “as a political gag mechanism to silence PragerU.”

The lawsuit also argued that YouTube regulates free speech on a “public forum,” and so it should be subject to the same scrutiny that the government is under the First Amendment.

To argue this point, the lawsuit cited the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Alabama. In that case, the court ruled that a Jehovah’s Witness had the right to give out leaflets in a town fully owned by a corporation.

A District judge dismissed the lawsuit in March 2018. In her decision, Judge Lucy Koh cited a more recent Supreme Court ruling in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, where the court decided that a mall could ban people from distributing anti-Vietnam War fliers on its property. 

In that ruling, the Supreme Court also clarified that Marsh v. Alabama could be only be applied to the town in the case.

Appeals Court

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Koh’s decision, again ruling against PragerU.

“Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in the panel’s decision.

“PragerU’s claim that YouTube censored PragerU’s speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government— not a private party— from abridging speech.”

In their decision, the appellate judges pointed to a Supreme Court ruling from last year, where the highest court found that, “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”

The judges also shot down a claim that YouTube was guilty of false advertising. 

Response

A YouTube spokesperson defended the social media platform and its parent company in a statement following the court’s ruling.

“Google’s products are not politically biased,” the spokesperson said. “PragerU’s allegations were meritless, both factually and legally, and the court’s ruling vindicates important legal principles that allow us to provide different choices and settings to users.”

PragerU, however, appears to believe the fight is not over.

“Obviously, we are disappointed,” the organization’s lawyer told the Wall Street Journal. “We will continue to pursue PragerU’s claims of overt discrimination on YouTube in the state court case under California’s heightened antidiscrimination, free-speech and consumer-contract law.”

But many have noted, that the ruling was not unexpected at all. According to the Journal, no court has supported PragerU’s legal argument, as it is widely accepted that free speech constraints are applied only to the government and not private entities.

The argument that social media companies like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook should be pinned to the First Amendment is one that has been growing more and more prominent, especially among conservative circles. 

Those who support this argument often believe that certain efforts by large tech companies to regulate content on their platforms are tantamount to censorship.

These arguments are almost certainly going to remain in the polarizing political discourses around free speech and social media. However, as the Journal argues, the appellate court’s decision is “the most emphatic rejection of the argument advanced in some conservative circles that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other giant tech platforms are bound by the First Amendment.”

See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (Ars Technica) (The Washington Examiner)

Industry

Chinese State Media Calls TikTok-Oracle Deal “Reasonable” as Trump Signals Approval

Published

on

  • On Friday, the United States Commerce Department issued an order that would ban U.S. downloads of TikTok and WeChat starting Sunday night.
  • The order for TikTok was delayed for one week on Saturday after President Donald Trump gave his preliminary approval on a deal between TikTok and the software company Oracle.
  • A federal judge also issued a temporary injunction Sunday against the WeChat ban, which would have largely destroyed the app’s functionality.
  • Oracle and Walmart have since released more details of the deal, including that TikTok Global will likely pay $5 billion in U.S. taxes. This does not seem to be the same as a commission from the deal, even though Trump suggested such.
  • On Monday, Chinese state media called the deal “unfair” on ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company. However, it also described it as “reasonable,” suggesting the Chinese government may approve the deal.

U.S. and China Signal Support for Deal

What began as a tumultuous weekend for TikTok ended with both the U.S. and Chinese governments potentially signaling approval of its deal with Oracle. 

Last week, TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, struck a deal with Oracle to avoid a U.S. ban. On Monday, Chinese state media called the deal “more reasonable to ByteDance,” and said it’s less costly than a shutdown.

“The plan shows that ByteDance’s moves to defend its legitimate rights have, to some extent, worked,” it added.

While not officially confirmed, this seems to suggest that the Chinese government may approve the deal. 

It also came off the heels of Saturday, when President Donald Trump, after having suggested unhappiness with the deal last week, said he has given his approval “in concept.” He will still need to officially sign off on it before the deal is set into motion.

Because of that, the U.S. Commerce Department staved off a download ban that was set for Sunday, now pushing it back to this coming Sunday, Sept. 27.

Some Republicans, such as Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), have still expressed concern because ByteDance won’t be handing over its secretive algorithm as part of the deal.

What’s in the Deal?

On Saturday, Oracle released more details of its deal with TikTok. Under it, Oracle and Walmart would take a combined 20% stake in TikTok Global.

Still, there’s been much back and forth over how much control ByteDance, will have under the agreement. For his part, Trump has claimed that TikTok Global will “be a brand new company… It will have nothing to do with China.”

However, ByteDance has maintained that it will retain 80% of the stake. The discrepancy here seems to be because 40% of ByteDance is owned by U.S. venture capital firms. Therefore, Trump could technically claim that TikTok Global will be majority-owned by U.S. money.

Trump doubled down Monday and said that he would not approve the deal if ByteDance retained ownership. He added that the Chinese-owned company will “have nothing to do with it, and if they do, we just won’t make the deal.”

Later, Oracle announced that ByteDance will not have any stake in TikTok Global, though this statement heavily conflicts with what is being reported in China.

“Upon creation of TikTok Global, Oracle/Walmart will make their investment and the TikTok Global shares will be distributed to their owners, Americans will be the majority and ByteDance will have no ownership in TikTok Global,” the company said.

According to Walmart and Oracle, if this deal goes through, TikTok Global will pay $5 billion in new tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury over the next few years. As both companies noted, this is just a projection of future corporate taxes, and that estimate could change.

The water around that $5 billion figure was later muddied as Trump claimed that TikTok Global would be donating “$5 billion into a fund for education so we can educate people as to [the] real history of our country — the real history, not the fake history.”

To be clear, Trump is referring to his plans to establish a “patriotic education” commission.

On Sunday, ByteDance said in a statement that this was the first it had heard about a $5 billion education fund.

In fact, TikTok Global never promised to start an education fund. Instead, it promised to create an “educational initiative to develop and deliver an AI-driven online video curriculum to teach children from inner cities to the suburbs a variety of courses from basic reading and math to science, history and computer engineering.” 

That initiative doesn’t seem to have anything to do with that $5 billion tax figure. Since he began pursuing a ban, Trump has vowed that the U.S. will receive some form of commission from a deal with TikTok. As far as it is known, this $5 billion figure is also not that commission.

As previously reported, this deal will allow Oracle to host TikTok’s user data on its cloud service and review TikTok’s code for security. According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, it would also shift TikTok’s global headquarters from China to the U.S.

On top of that, TikTok’s board members would reportedly have to be approved by the U.S. government, with one being an expert in data security. That person would also hold a top-secret security clearance.

Commerce Department Announces Download Ban

Friday seemed like the beginning of the end for TikTok. That morning, the Commerce Department issued an order that would ban U.S. downloads of not only TikTok but also WeChat starting Sunday night.

Both bans were a result of concerns the Trump administration has that ByteDance and WeChat’s parent company, Tencent, are either already giving or could give U.S. user data to the Chinese government.

The Trump administration has repeatedly said that both apps pose a national security threat.

TikTok and ByteDance have consistently denied these claims, saying that U.S. user data is stored domestically with a backup in Singapore. WeChat, for its part, has also made similar statements.

The download ban was announced in response to two Aug. 6 executive orders from Trump. Those orders ban any U.S.-based transactions with TikTok and WeChat starting on Sept. 20, which is why the Commerce Department set the deadline for this past Sunday.

While this ban would have been much more restrictive for WeChat because a large part of its functionality relies heavily on in-app transactions, for TikTok at least, it would only affect new downloads and updates to the app.

“So if that were to continue over a long period of time, there might be a gradual degradation of services, but the basic TikTok will stay intact until Nov. 12,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox Business on Friday.

“If there’s not a deal by Nov. 12, under the provisions of the old order, then TikTok would also be, for all practical purposes, shut down.” 

What Happens on Nov. 12?

Ross is referring to another executive order, this one signed on Aug. 14. Notably, it gives ByteDance 90 days to divest from its American assets and any data that TikTok had gathered in the U.S. As Ross pointed out, that requirement could be satisfied if a deal is reached before the deadline.

If that doesn’t happen, the TikTok app could begin to see lags, lack of functionality, and sporadic outages.

However, it’s not just the U.S. One of the big questions that loomed after Oracle and ByteDance confirmed their deal last week was whether or not China would also need to approve it. ByteDance later confirmed that it will need the confirmation of the Chinese government, despite the deal not involving a technology transfer. 

Downloads Soar and TikTok Sues

On Friday, downloads for both apps soared. TikTok was downloaded nearly a quarter of a million times that day, up 12% from the previous day. WeChat was downloaded 10,000 times, up 150%.

The same Friday, TikTok as a company criticized the Commerce Department order, saying it had already committed to “unprecedented levels of additional transparency.”

TikTok added that the order “threatens to deprive the American people and small businesses across the US of a significant platform for both a voice and livelihoods.”

Later Friday, TikTok sued the Trump Administration to stop the download ban. 

On Sunday, a federal judge also halted the download ban for WeChat with a preliminary injunction. The injunction additionally blocks the Commerce Department’s attempt to bar transactions on the app.  

The Commerce Department responded by saying that it’s preparing for a long legal battle.

TikTokers: “Scared, angry, and confused”

“I’ve mostly just been feeling scared, angry, and confused,” TikToker Isabella Avila, known online as onlyjayus, told Rogue Rocket on Monday. “Those are just the main things.” 

Avila has amassed a following of 8.7 million followers on TikTok in a relatively short amount of time. She’s also gained about half a million followers on YouTube and Instagram each.

A couple of months ago, Avila said she thought a potential ban was all just talk; however, as the situation progressed, she said she became more worried.

While she said that she personally thought her career could survive a TikTok ban (thanks in part to a Netflix podcast deal), she added, “The people in-between a 100,000 to a million [followers], they have a platform right now, and if TikTok’s were to be gone, their platform’s pretty much gone if they haven’t built an audience on anything else. 

“This is where we go to express ourselves,” she said. “This is where we go to make videos. I don’t know, TikTok gave everybody a chance to kind of get famous and have a following. That’s what people liked about it. YouTube, it’s really hard to get followers and subscribers. TikTok was a lot easier.” 

Avila also expressed that a ban wouldn’t just be detrimental to creators. 

“I feel like my generation needed an app,” Avila said. “There was Instagram and Twitter, but it was kind of like for the millennials. Gen Z didn’t really have an app, and TikTok kind of fit that spot, so if TikTok’s gone, I don’t know, I feel like Gen Z isn’t really going to have a place.” 

Avila now says she is largely hopeful that TikTok will not be banned in the U.S.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (NBC News) (Axios)

Continue Reading

Industry

Spotify CEO Defends Keeping Joe Rogan Podcast Episodes That Some Employees Slammed as Transphobic

Published

on

  • Spotify reportedly held a company-wide meeting Wednesday where several employees expressed disdain for the fact that the platform carries certain episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience which they say include “transphobic” remarks.
  • “You realize that people are not looking at this objectively,” Rogan said in a July podcast. “They are activists. they have this agenda, and the agenda is very ideologically driven that anybody who even thinks they might be trans should be trans, are trans, and the more trans people the better. And the more kids that transition, the better.”
  • In another episode, Rogan deadnamed and misgendered Caitlin Jenner when describing a joke he performed in 2016 that suggested Jenner had been “[talked] into” becoming a woman by the Kardashian-Jenner’s. 
  • According to Vice’s Motherboard, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said the company heard its staff’s concerns but has decided that the content in question will not be removed. A spokesperson later said that the content did not violate the platform’s policies.

Spotify Employees Want Certain JRE Podcasts Pulled

At an internal company-wide meeting on Wednesday, Spotify employees reportedly voiced concerns about the platform carrying episodes of Joe Rogan’s podcast which include comments they found“transphobic.”

Vice’s Motherboard first reported on the news, citing three sources who provided details of the meeting. All remained anonymous because they aren’t authorized to discuss internal Spotify issues with the press. 

According to these sources, several employees reportedly asked CEO Daniel Ek why these episodes remained on the platform, with one employee saying LGBTQ+ employees “feel unwelcome and alienated because of leadership’s response in JRE conversations.”

“Why has Spotify chosen to ignore Spectrum [Employee Resource Group’s] guidance about transphobic content in the [Joe Rogan Experience] catalog?” another employee allegedly asked Ek.

One of the moments the employees are referring to stems from a podcast in July. In it, Rogan spoke with Abigail Shrier, author of the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. 

“And by the resistance to your book and the resistance to these conversations, we realize that people are not looking at this objectively,” Rogan said of transgender issues. “This is not something that everyone’s looking at all sides of it. They are activists. They have this agenda, and the agenda is very ideologically driven that anybody who even thinks they might be trans should be trans, are trans, and the more trans people the better. And the more kids that transition, the better.”

Ek Defends Keeping Controversial Podcasts

For now, Spotify has taken the stance that this episode can remain on the platform.

“In the case of Joe Rogan, a total of 10 meetings have been held with various groups and individuals to hear their respective concerns,” Ek said at the meeting, according to Motherboard’s sources. “And some of them want Rogan removed because of things he’s said in the past.”

“Others have concerns specifically over a recent episode,” Ek reportedly added in reference to Rogan’s July podcast with Shrier. “And Joe Rogan and the episode in question have been reviewed extensively. The fact that we aren’t changing our position doesn’t mean we aren’t listening. It just means we made a different judgment call.”

Notably, those three internal sources also told Motherboard that Ek instructed employees not to leak this discussion to the media, reportedly saying “If we can’t have open, confidential debates, we will have to move those discussions to closed doors.”

Once this story did reach the media, however, a Spotify spokesperson told Motherboard: “At Spotify, we are strongly committed to the LGBTQ+ community and diversity in all of its forms. All employees are respected and we believe that everyone has a right to be heard.”

“All content on Spotify is subject to our long-standing content guidelines. Our diverse team of experts reviewed the content in question and determined that it did not meet the criteria for removal from our platform.”

Rogan’s Comments About Caitlyn Jenner

In addition to Rogan’s podcast featuring Shrier, Rogan has also come under fire for a Sept. 11 podcast with mixed martial artist Tim Kennedy. In that episode, Rogan deadnames and misgenders Caitlyn Jenner.

He also Rogan breaks down his writing process for a joke he made about Jenner in his 2016 Netflix special, “Triggered.”

“I wanted to get to, people are saying, ‘He was born a woman. He’s always been a woman,’” Rogan said of Jenner. “I was like, ‘Maybe, or maybe if you live with crazy bitches long enough, they fucking turn you into one.’ Maybe you go crazy. Maybe that, too.”

After calling the Kardashian-Jenner family “crazy bitches,” Rogan proceeded to continue breaking down his joke.

“And so I came up with this thing where they’re demons and they whisper in his ear in the middle of the night, and they talk him into being a woman, but it took forever to figure out a way — but it worked.”

“Like, it worked, and people didn’t even get mad at me for it. I just had to figure out a way to do it, where first of all, I belittle myself, and then, I explain it in a way where it’s not dehumanizing trans people. It’s just like saying, ‘Are we sure?’” 

However, a number of people have now criticized those comments, including Jenner herself, who told TMZ Wednesday, “This is not the first time he’s said things like this.”

“He’s a homophobic, transphobic ass.”

“Joe Rogan has absolutely no idea when it comes to trans issues,” she continued. “He says maybe because I was around all these ‘crazy bitches’ that I, you know, transitioned. It’s not even close. I’ve had these — I’ve been gender dysphoric my entire life.”

Some have pushed back on the idea that Rogan’s comments about Jenner were deliberately malicious, arguing that they began and ended as a joke. 

“Being gender dysphoric, transitioning, all of that is not a joke,” Jenner said in response to such defense of Rogan. “It’s very serious stuff. You’re concerning family, friends, society, all of these types of things, and I just feel like Joe Rogan has a lot to learn.” 

In 2018, Twitter banned the misgendering or deadnaming transgender people — a move Rogan has been critical of. 

Previous Accusations of Censorship

At the beginning of the month, Rogan’s exclusive streaming deal with Spotify officially began. Almost immediately after the platform started hosting his old podcasts, users noticed that some old episodes didn’t appear. That’s despite the fact that Rogan had said that his entire library would be available to stream.

Notably, at the time, it also seemed like the missing podcasts had a common link: they all featured controversial figures such as Alex Jones, Chris D’Elia, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes.

However, people later began to notice that several other missing episodes featured far less controversial figures such as actor Tommy Chong and comedian Nick Kroll.

Nonetheless, many accused Spotify of censoring controversial voices, especially since Rogan is known for talking to people across the political spectrum.

Later, Alex Jones, who said he spoke with Rogan about the matter, claimed Spotify needed to migrate over 1,500+ files, some of which were corrupted. He also said that Spotify wanted a second rollout of episodes.

Here’s the key,” Jones added. “Joe Rogan’s favorite 100 episodes of the last 10 years or so will be left on YouTube starting December 31 when he goes exclusively to Spotify. For this couple months no man’s land the content will be on both platforms and will be migrating over.”

“And so that’s why the Alex Jones interview is not there. That’s why some of the other interviews aren’t there. Because those are going to be the exclusive interviews that are left on YouTube where, in Joe’s words, they’ll probably get more views than if they were on Spotify.”

See what others are saying: (Vice Motherboard) (Insider) (Fox News)

Continue Reading

Industry

Celebs Quit Instagram for a Day To Protest Facebook’s “Failures” in Stopping Hate Speech and Misinformation, Critics Call It Performative

Published

on

  • On Monday and Tuesday, a host of celebrities said they would be joining the Stop Hate for Profit campaign by freezing their Instagram accounts for 24 hours on Wednesday. 
  • The move is an attempt to pressure Facebook to better combat misinformation and hate speech on the platform, which owns Instagram.
  • The list of celebrities involved includes Kim Kardashian West, Mark Ruffalo, Demi Lovato, Jennifer Lawrence, Katy Perry, Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael B. Jordan, and Rosario Dawson, among others. 
  • Many online have criticized this movement as simply performative, saying such as short freeze won’t actually accomplish anything. 
  • Jim Steyer, the chief executive of Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that’s part of the campaign, has said the freeze is only the first part of a larger round of messaging.

Stars Join Stop Hate for Profit Campaign

A host of celebrities paused their Instagram accounts for 24 hours starting Wednesday to demand that Facebook take better action against misinformation and hate speech.

Though the protest is mainly taking place on Instagram, Facebook is the main focus of the movement because it owns the photo-sharing platform.

On Monday, celebrities such as Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Lawrence, and Sasha Baron Cohen announced that they would be taking part in the campaign known as Stop Hate for Profit.

“Facebook claims they address hate, yet they continue to look the other way as racist, violent groups and posts sow division and split America apart – only taking steps after people are killed,” Ruffalo said. 

“While they share empty talk about voting, they continue allowing blatant lies and misinformation on election to spread–undermining our democracy. That’s why this Wednesday, I am “freezing” my Instagram account to tell Facebook to #StopHateForProfit.” 

On Tuesday, a host of other celebrities joined the boycott, including Kim Kardashian West, who made a very similar statement to that of Ruffalo’s. In addition to Instagram, Kardashian West said she would also be freezing her Facebook page for 24 hours. 

Other celebrities now involved in the campaign include Demi Lovato, Katy Perry, Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Rosario Dawson, and Michael B. Jordan, among others. 

What is Stop Hate for Profit?

According to Stop Hate for Profit’s website, it is a campaign aimed at holding “social media companies accountable for hate on their platforms.”  

“Social media must prioritize people over profit, and they must do it now,” the campaign added.

Notably, the campaign is made up of several civil rights organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the NAACP. 

On its website, the campaign cites several recent controversies on Facebook, including one involving a militia event for counterprotests in Kenosha, Washington. That event was flagged by users for promoting violence after the police shooting of Jacob Blake. When the page originally vanished, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the platform had removed the event; however, BuzzFeed News later reported that the militia group itself had taken down the event first. 

As for why this campaign is targetting Facebook and Instagram specifically, it said, “Other social media companies have heard our message and started to step up.”

It then went on to list examples of how it believes Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube have addressed misinformation and hate speech, adding, “While these steps are not sufficient, they show a commitment toward real progress.”

“More importantly, these companies are sitting at the table with us and actively working to take additional steps to protect the civil rights of their users, tackle hate and harassment on their platforms, and safeguard our democracy.”

Social Media Rips into Celeb-Driven Campaign

The Instagram freeze has been met with a hefty amount of criticism and sarcasm from social media users online. 

For instance, below Mark Ruffalo’s Monday tweet, many were skeptical that the protest’s short time frame would ever result in lasting change. 

In a similar post Ruffalo made to Facebook Thursday morning, one user said:

“How about you make some really big statement and just delete and get off of these social media platforms all together! They’re making billions of dollars and if you think boycotting for a 24 hour period is going to make even the slightest dent, I think you’re sadly mistaken. I’m in the process of deleting all my social media accounts even though I have a Business and it will hurt. Doing it anyway because there has to be a better and more responsible way to promote my business.”

Source: Facebook 

Stop Hate for Profit’s July Campaign

Encouraging businesses to pull out of Facebook is actually an effort the Stop Hate for Profit campaign has already engaged in. 

In July, the campaign persuaded more than 1,000 advertisers to pause their ad spending on the platform. Notably, that included big names like Adidas, Reebok, Best Buy, Chipotle, Coca-Cola, Target; however, a later report showed that even between boycotters and other reduced spenders, Facebook’s ad revenue in July didn’t really suffer all that much. 

Source: The New York Times

Because of that, some have continued to question how a single-day Instagram boycott will pressure Facebook. Some have also drawn parallels between this movement and June’s one-day #BlackoutTuesday Instagram trend, which was understood as a way to show solidarity with Black victims of police brutality and racism. During that event, some on social media accused others of simply engaging in a “performative” stunt. Others argued that such posts could actually hurt the Black Lives Matter movement by silencing critical hashtags and Black voices behind the initial campaign.

Now, people like Jenna Golden, the head of a consulting firm in Washington, have denounced the Stop Hate for Profit campaign as “worthless if temporary and short-lived (which they always are.)” 

If anything, they shine a light on the fact that we cannot live without these platforms since everyone always comes back (brands included.),” she added.

While there has been serious concern from many, others have been supportive of celebrities taking part in the campaign. 

“I’m in!! Facebook is destroying minds, friendships, families, businesses,” one person tweeted in reply to Sasha Baron Cohen. “The false information that is being believed by previously rational people is destructive beyond belief. It has to stop.” 

What’s Next?

Jim Steyer, the chief executive of Common Sense Media, a nonprofit group that has joined the campaign, told The New York Times on Tuesday that the Instagram freeze is just the beginning of a larger awareness campaign.

Steyer added that once the 24-hour expires on Thursday, celebrities will begin sharing educational messages aimed specifically at their younger followers. He said those messages will promote democracy and will offer explanations into how social media platforms spread misinformation,  broadcast hate speech, and allow far-right groups to form online.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Axios) (CNBC)

Continue Reading