[ad_1]
Next time you’re about to make a post on social media, remember to ask yourself first: What would Chinese leader Xi Jinping or Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi say?
It seems far-fetched, but recent moves from big names in tech and social media paint a worrisome picture: Foreign censorship laws are dictating what people in free countries, including the United States, can do online.
It may not exist within the borders of China or India, but that doesn’t mean their censorship laws don’t affect what you write, watch and say — and some US-led companies are helping enforce those laws globally.
Congress should investigate Elon Musk’s business dealings with China.
Last week, investigative journalist Sarav Das It has been shared. Fact – In response to legal inquiries – Twitter blocked two tweets about India’s Home Minister Amit Shah. Censorship requests from the Indian government are nothing new, and Twitter boss Elon Musk has so far agreed to them, blocking the material from being viewed in India.
This is consistent with the misconception that “freedom of speech” is a simple reflection of individual country laws, no matter how oppressive.
But this time, Twitter did something different: it It is blocked The tweets are not limited to India where Indian law applies everywhere. As with many of Twitter’s moves of late, it’s unclear if this decision was prompted by Musk’s personal directives; Inadequate team slipshod, off-the-cuff policy making; or all three. Twitter has yet to provide an explanation despite requests from the suspended journalist.
Twitter’s international domestic law enforcement is serious enough on its own. But it appears that Twitter’s global ban may not be an isolated incident, but rather part of a more troubling trend of tech companies voluntarily choosing to lead content moderation.
Midjourney, another San Francisco-based company, is part of that trend. It has quickly risen through the ranks as one of the most popular AI image generators today, perhaps best known for being used to create embarrassing images of Pope Francis wearing a Balechiga puffer coat. But perhaps Midjourney should be known more for what it does than for what it does.
Midjourney CEO David Holmes announced last year that his program expressly prohibits users from making images of China’s Xi Jinping. Users attempting to do so will be banned. “Political satire in China is not good,” Holz posted on Discord, as The Washington Post. “People in China, your ability to use this technology is more important than your ability to generate satire,” he added.
The problem of blocking Russian information
While technology companies’ desire to remain accessible to the Chinese market should come as no surprise, Midjourney goes further than most of its peers. Instead of restricting political expression to users of the program in China, it restricts such expression to all of its international users. Not only does Xi Jinping censor what goes on behind the Great Firewall of China’s Internet, he controls what goes on here in the United States, at least midjourney.
At the Foundation for Individual Rights and Freedom of Expression (FIRE), where I work, we fight threats to the First Amendment and freedom of expression in the United States every day. Unfortunately, the business is booming. But while we are fighting the “failure to speak” that is flourishing within our own borders, we cannot ignore the challenges from outside them.
Imagine the future of the global internet if tech companies and social media platforms continue this trend and turn local censorship laws into global content moderation guidelines.
Today it could be tweets about Indian government officials and funny pictures of Xi Jinping. But tomorrow, what kind of words will be hidden from the international Internet, the criticism of the crown prince of Saudi Arabia? Support for anti-mandatory hijab protests in Iran? Protest against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Spin the wheel and see what political expression is next on the cutting board. It might just be yours.
The UK’s crackdown on anti-monarchy protests is good for American free speech
But this should not be the future. We can and should expect more from companies operating in free countries and the platforms we use to express ourselves online.
Dictators use a variety of tools, from brute force to draconian laws to subtle threats, in their campaigns to silence dissent and dissent within their own borders. Tech companies in free countries shouldn’t be armed any more. They already have not only the voice of their own subjects, but now they are increasing what anyone anywhere is saying about them.
That’s a recipe for disaster in a world that sadly continues to grow less free by the day.
Sarah McLaughlin is a senior fellow for global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Read more at The Daily Beast.
Get The Daily Beast’s biggest scandals and scandals delivered straight to your inbox. Register now.
Get informed and get unlimited access to The Daily Beast’s unparalleled reporting. Register now.
[ad_2]
Source link
