Ownership

President Trump blames the media for nearly all of his problems as president

President Donald Trump stepped on stage in Phoenix (AZ) on Aug 22 with something clearly eating at him. Minutes into his style rally, we learned what: It wasn't the white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis who threw the nation into chaos and allegedly killed a woman in Virginia. Or the intractable 16-year war in Afghanistan that he just announced he's revving up. It's the media.

President Trump spent nearly a third — if not more— of his 90-minute rally rehashing his public remarks in the wake of Charlottesville and complaining that he was widely criticized for them. In fact, about the only time he mentioned the racial tensions and violence stirred up last week was in the context of defending himself. The president was so frustrated with media coverage of him that he printed out copies of some of the remarks he gave in the wake of the violence. He read them aloud to the crowd, pausing to express total disbelief that the tone of the coverage wasn't more positive.

Sinclair Fires Back at Deal Critics

Sinclair is vigorously defending its proposed merger with Tribune to the Federal Communications Commission as both in the interest of the public and of its company, which it says needs to scale up to be better able to compete with a growing number of less-regulated competitors. In fact, it says what deal opponents don't understand is that the deal will help "save" free, over-the-air TV. That came in a filing in opposition to the petitions to deny the deal, which was due by end of day Aug 22.

In the comments, Sinclair alternated between providing data to support its assertion the deal is in the public interest, countering some of the criticisms, and dismissing others as not transaction specific, or not relevant to the merger review. “Sinclair firmly believes in the mission of local broadcasting and this filing fully explains the public interest benefits that this transaction will provide as a result of the efficiencies and scale created by the combination of Sinclair and Tribune," said Chris Ripley, president and CEO of Sinclair. "This acquisition will help to ensure the future of the free and local television model for both Tribune and Sinclair’s local communities.” In the comments, Sinclair said, "At bottom, each of the petitioners is either trying to use this proceeding to stifle competition for its own economic interests or is still living in a pre-cable, pre-internet, pre-smartphone world, untethered from the economic realities of the current media market. Sinclair and Tribune ask the Commission to see these transparent and/or naïve attempts for what they are, dismiss or deny the petitions in full, and grant consent to the proposed transaction."

Sinclair-Tribune Critics Pan Broadcaster's Deal Defense

The Coalition to Save Local Media, comprising companies that want the Federal Communications Commission to block the deal, said Sinclair and Tribune have still failed to justify its approval. That came in response to Sinclair's 47-page, plus exhibits, response to petitions to deny the deal, which Sinclair filed with the FCC Aug 22 in response to those critics. That response basically restated the criticisms they leveled in their petitions to deny and Sinclair addressed in its filing. "Sinclair-Tribune has failed to explain how this multi-billion-dollar merger is in the public interest," the coalition said. "This merger continues to raise substantial legal and policy questions — including compliance with Federal Communications Commission rules — that remain unanswered by Sinclair-Tribune." Coalition members include the American Cable Association, A Wealth of Entertainment channel, Cinemoi, Common Cause, Competitive Carriers Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, DISH, ITTA – the Voice of America’s Broadband Providers, Latino Victory Project, NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, One America News Network, Public Knowledge, RIDE TV, the Sports Fans Coalition and The Blaze. “A combined Sinclair-Tribune would create the single largest operator of local broadcast stations in the country, reaching 72 percent of American households, and lead to higher prices and fewer choices for consumers," the group added. "Additionally, the combined company would effectively control the market for certain broadcast equipment and impede deployment of mobile broadband, limiting competition and choice for the distribution of content and broadband services nationwide."

Defending Internet Freedom through Decentralization: Back to the Future?

The Web is a key space for civic debate and the current battleground for protecting freedom of expression. However, since its development, the Web has steadily evolved into an ecosystem of large, corporate-controlled mega-platforms which intermediate speech online.

In this report, we explore two important ways structurally decentralized systems could help address the risks of mega-platform consolidation: First, these systems can help users directly publish and discover content directly, without intermediaries, and thus without censorship. All of the systems we evaluate advertise censorship-resistance as a major benefit. Second, these systems could indirectly enable greater competition and user choice, by lowering the barrier to entry for new platforms. As it stands, it is difficult for users to switch between platforms (they must recreate all their data when moving to a new service) and most mega-platforms do not interoperate, so switching means leaving behind your social network. Some systems we evaluate directly address the issues of data portability and interoperability in an effort to support greater competition.

Silicon Valley siphons our data like oil. But the deepest drilling has just begun

[Commentary] Silicon Valley is an extractive industry. Its resource isn’t oil or copper, but data. Companies harvest this data by observing as much of our online activity as they can. This activity might take the form of a Facebook like, a Google search, or even how long your mouse hovers in a particular part of your screen. Alone, these traces may not be particularly meaningful. By pairing them with those of millions of others, however, companies can discover patterns that help determine what kind of person you are – and what kind of things you might buy.

These patterns are highly profitable. Silicon Valley uses them to sell you products or to sell you to advertisers. But feeding the algorithms that produce these patterns requires a steady stream of data. And while that data is certainly abundant, it’s not infinite. To increase profits, Silicon Valley must extract more data. One method is to get people to spend more time online: build new apps, and make them as addictive as possible. Another is to get more people online. This is the motivation for Facebook’s Free Basics program, which provides a limited set of internet services for free in underdeveloped regions across the globe, in the hopes of harvesting data from the world’s poor.

Democratic Reps Seek to Eliminate UHF Discount

Reps David Price (D-NC) and Jared Huffman (D-CA) have collected more than a half dozen co-sponsors for a bill that would eliminate the Federal Communications Commission's UHF discount, which would in turn make it tougher for Sinclair Broadcasting and Tribune Media to merge. Co-sponsors of the Local and Independent Television Protection Act include by Reps Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Jackie Speier (D-CA). The bill "requires the FCC to act within 90 days to permanently end the UHF discount; and grandfathers any stations owned prior to Sept. 26, 2013," as the FCC had when it eliminated the discount under previous chairman Tom Wheeler, who has weighed in from his post-FCC perch to say the FCC was bending the rules to benefit Sinclair.

Who Owns the Internet?

Journalists, congressional committees, and a special counsel are probing the details of what happened during the 2016 election. But two new books contend that the large lines of the problem are already clear. As in the eighteen-seventies, we are in the midst of a technological revolution that has altered the flow of information. Now, as then, just a few companies have taken control, and this concentration of power—which Americans have acquiesced to without ever really intending to, simply by clicking away—is subverting our democracy.

Verizon’s good unlimited data plan is now three bad unlimited plans

Verizon announced that its existing unlimited data plan is being divided into three new options: Go Unlimited (starting at $75 for a single line), Beyond Unlimited ($85 for first line), and Business Unlimited. Unlike the relatively straightforward unlimited plan that Verizon surprised customers with in February, these new monthly plans are chock-full of fine print and caveats. And in a move sure to anger network neutrality advocates, the regular “Go Unlimited” plan throttles all smartphone video streaming to 480p / DVD-quality. The new plans go into effect beginning tomorrow, August 23rd, so this change is happening fast. Existing postpaid customers can keep their current plan, but some things will change even for them.

Univision Says Lawsuit Over Deadspin Story Intended to Scare Journalists

A division of Univision Communications has sought to quickly defeat a defamation lawsuit brought over an article published on the sports website Deadspin, saying the complaint is intended to intimidate journalists. Gizmodo Media Group, the Univision unit that runs Deadspin and other blogs the company acquired in 2016 from Gawker Media, filed court papers Aug 21 in New York that seek to dispose of a lawsuit brought by Las Vegas oddsmaker RJ Bell who alleges a story critical of him and his website, Pregame, includes false and libelous statements. Bell is seeking at least $10 million. The article, “How America’s Favorite Sports Betting Expert Turned a Sucker’s Game Into an Industry”, was published in June 2016, months before Univision purchased Gawker Media blogs in a bankruptcy auction.

Lawyers for Gizmodo Media Group argue the sale and Gawker Media’s chapter 11 liquidation plan shield the company and the author of the story, freelance reporter Ryan Goldberg, who has been sued individually. “This meritless lawsuit should not have been brought in the first place and it is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate journalists,” said Gizmodo Media Group spokesman David Ford. Goldberg said in a statement that his article was the result of a monthslong investigation and that allowing the lawsuit to proceed “will chill my work and threaten investigative reporting by freelance journalists across the country.”

Why It's So Hard to Define What Online Hate Speech Is

Arbitrating the bounds of acceptable content on global tech platforms is an enormous task. Roughly 400 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube each minute. Facebook has more than 2 billion users posting updates, comments, and videos. Increasingly, these companies rely on software. Facebook-owned Instagram recently introduced an algorithm to zap comments from trolls. Both YouTube and Facebook have deployed software to filter terrorism-related content. YouTube delivers anti-ISIS content to users searching for ISIS-related videos with a tool known as the Redirect Method. Facebook says it can identify and wipe out clusters of users that might have terrorist ties. But the software remains imperfect, and so people are almost always involved, too.

Can Anyone Stop Trump’s FCC From Approving a Conservative Local News Empire?

President Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission, under chairman Ajit Pai, has been clearing the way for a merger between Sinclair Broadcasting and Tribune Media, two television companies that together own hundreds of local news stations. However, the situation may soon become more complicated for Sinclair and its ally at the FCC. The company’s competitors, such as DishTV, are speaking out. Perhaps more important to the Trump administration are other conservative news outlets, who, recognizing the threat that Sinclair could pose to their business, are taking a stand. As this crony capitalist drama plays out, watchdog groups, meanwhile, are looking for holes in the Trump administration’s approach.

How Hate Groups Forced Online Platforms to Reveal Their True Nature

The recent rise of all-encompassing internet platforms promised something unprecedented and invigorating: venues that unite all manner of actors — politicians, media, lobbyists, citizens, experts, corporations — under one roof. These companies promised something that no previous vision of the public sphere could offer: real, billion-strong mass participation; a means for affinity groups to find one another and mobilize, gain visibility and influence. This felt and functioned like freedom, but it was always a commercial simulation. This contradiction is foundational to what these internet companies are. ]

These platforms draw arbitrary boundaries constantly and with much less controversy — against spammers, concerning profanity or in response to government demands. These fringe groups saw an opportunity in the gap between the platforms’ strained public dedication to discourse stewardship and their actual existence as profit-driven entities, free to do as they please. Despite their participatory rhetoric, social platforms are closer to authoritarian spaces than democratic ones. It makes some sense that people with authoritarian tendencies would have an intuitive understanding of how they work and how to take advantage of them.

Behind the Bluster of Steve Bannon’s War Cry

In a conversation with Peter J. Boyer of The Weekly Standard, Steve Bannon said, “I have my hands back on my weapons,” the most important being his conservative website, Breitbart News — a “machine” he promised to “rev up” for what the site’s editor-at-large Joel Pollak described in a hashtag on Twitter as “#War.” The reported target list included President Trump’s opponents “on Capitol Hill, in the media and in corporate America,” Bannon said. If Bannon does move forward with a rival to Fox News, he will face the herculean task required to get a new channel onto cable systems, especially as people increasingly give up cable for online streaming services. If he were to acquire an existing channel, he would still have to persuade cable operators to carry it as Breitbart TV. Bannon could team up with smaller competitors on cable, Newsmax or One America News Network. This much is certain: With Bannon out, expect more informational chaos, more sound and more fury, but signifying what?

Why Tech Giants Like Google and Amazon Are Spending Big On TV Ads

In recent months, industry pundits sat up and took notice when online advertising giant Google started doubling down on its TV advertising investment. The tech company more than doubled its TV ad spend during the 2016 holiday quarter, laying out $109.8 million for ads promoting its Google Pixel mobile device. Launching Google Home meant a further $5 million for a single 30-second spot in January.

What’s remarkable is that Google is one of the most prominent TV spenders. The company built on digital advertising seems to know something about TV advertising that other brands don’t: In many cases, there’s just no substitute for it.

Despite Disavowals, Leading Tech Companies Help Extremist Sites Monetize Hate

Because of its “extreme hostility toward Muslims,” the website Jihadwatch.org is considered an active hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The views of the site’s director, Robert Spencer, on Islam led the British Home Office to ban him from entering the country in 2013. But its designation as a hate site hasn’t stopped tech companies — including PayPal, Amazon and Newsmax — from maintaining partnerships with Jihad Watch that help to sustain it financially.

PayPal facilitates donations to the site. Newsmax — the online news network run by President Donald Trump’s close friend Chris Ruddy — pays Jihad Watch in return for users clicking on its headlines. Until recently, Amazon allowed Jihad Watch to participate in a program that promised a cut of any book sales that the site generated. All three companies have policies that say they don’t do business with hate groups

Supreme Court asked to nullify the Google trademark

Is the term "google" too generic and therefore unworthy of its trademark protection? That's the question before the US Supreme Court. Words like teleprompter, thermos, hoover, aspirin, and videotape were once trademarked. They lost the status after their names became too generic and fell victim to what is known as "genericide."

What's before the Supreme Court is a trademark lawsuit that Google already defeated in a lower court. The lawsuit claims that Google should no longer be trademarked because the word "google" is synonymous to the public with the term "search the Internet." "There is no single word other than google that conveys the action of searching the Internet using any search engine," according to the petition to the Supreme Court. It's perhaps one of the most consequential trademark case before the justices since they ruled in June that offensive trademarks must be allowed.

Bannon Returns to Breitbart News

Stephen K. Bannon, who left his post on Aug 18 as President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, has resumed his role as chairman of Breitbart News, the provocative right-wing website that propelled him to national fame. Hours after his departure from the White House was announced, Bannon led the evening editorial meeting of his former publication, Breitbart said on its website. “The populist-nationalist movement got a lot stronger today,” the editor in chief of Breitbart, Alex Marlow, said in a statement. Bannon’s previous tenure as chairman of Breitbart coincided with the site’s move to the epicenter of the nationalist brand of right-wing conservatism that swept Trump into office last year. His return to the site is likely to reinvigorate Breitbart’s role as a gathering spot for Trump’s most ardent populist supporters.

Tech’s Swift Reaction To Hate Groups Was Years In The Making

While tech’s crackdown on violence-inciting white nationalist sites came rapidly following the turmoil in Virginia, it took years of cajoling by activists and advocates to get Silicon Valley ready for action. “We put out our first report about cyberhate in 1985,” says Brittan Heller, director of technology and society for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In 2012, the ADL inaugurated its Working Group on Cyberhate. “This was one of the first bodies to get organizations across the tech industry to talk about these issues,” says Heller. The ADL doesn’t publish a list of its members, but Heller says it includes “all the major tech companies like Facebook and Google, Apple and Microsoft, Twitter.”

In 2014, the Working Group put out best-practice guidelines for tech companies to handle online hate—like clearly explaining terms of service for users and providing mechanisms for people to report abuse. That same year, the Southern Poverty Law Center began its Silicon Valley push. “In 2014, we decided that we needed to at least make an effort to work with the tech companies to de-monetize hate,” says Heidi Beirich, director of SPLC’s Intelligence Project.

Can Silicon Valley Disrupt Its Neo-Nazi Problem?

Tech leaders still have no coherent vision for how to police hate speech without becoming tyrants, themselves.

Where Is the Line? Charlottesville Forces Media and Tech Companies to Decide

[Commentary] It took the death of a young woman at the hands of one of the neo-Nazis she was protesting to force the ever-expanding media universe to face a question it has been evading for years: Where’s the line?

Unlike the last big communications revolutions — brought about with radio and then television — this one came with no barrier to entry in terms of expensive equipment like towers and studios. There have been no governmental limits like broadcasting standards and licensing requirements. But as the downsides of informational democratization become more evident — the opening it has provided for nefarious state actors, terrorists and hate mongers — those who have some control over the web’s content stream have had a hard time figuring out where to build some much-needed dams. The trouble has come in finding the line between what some may find offensive and what is objectively dangerous speech. But at this point, if we can’t set a line at neo-Nazis and white nationalists inciting hatred and violence, can we set any line at all?

Must We Feud Over Network Rep Rule Again?

[Commentary] To the dismay of their affiliates, CBS, Disney and Fox included in their lists of "regulatory underbrush" that the Federal Communications Commission should chop out a request to do away with the 59-year-old network rep rule. Bad move. FCC Chairman Pai has presented broadcasting with a rare opportunity to get rid of some truly useless rules and to streamline others. The networks and the affiliates need to avoid mucking things up with an internecine fight.

Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

[Commentary] In the wake of Charlottesville, both GoDaddy and Google have refused to manage the domain registration for the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website. Subsequently Cloudflare, whose service was used to protect the site from denial-of-service attacks, has also dropped them as a customer, with a telling quote from Cloudflare’s CEO: “Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power.” We agree.

Even for free speech advocates, this situation is deeply fraught with emotional, logistical, and legal twists and turns. All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country. But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with. Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group. In the Civil Rights Era cases that formed the basis of today’s protections of freedom of speech, the NAACP’s voice was the one attacked. Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t. For any content hosts that do reject content as part of the enforcement of their terms of service, we have long recommended that they implement procedural protections to mitigate mistakes. These are methods that protect us all against overbroad or arbitrary takedowns.

AT&T-Time Warner Deal, an Early Trump Target, Reaches Advanced Stage

Apparently, the government review of AT&T’s $85 billion takeover of Time Warner has reached an advanced stage, people close to the situation said, a significant milestone in a deal that was closely watched for signs of how the Trump administration would view large mergers.

The deal’s regulatory review has hit a late-stage point where AT&T lawyers are discussing merger conditions with the Justice Department. The review process has reached that point despite a vacant seat atop the department’s antitrust division. An approval could underscore the administration’s pro-business credentials. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump attacked the proposed deal. “AT&T is buying Time Warner, and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” he said. President Trump has since avoided talking publicly about the transaction but frequently complained on Twitter about the way CNN, a unit of Time Warner, has reported on him.

Google Brand Remains Unscathed After Anti-Diversity Memo

Google was rocked by condemnation from both left and right after firing an employee who highlighted gender differences to explain women’s under-representation in tech. But the scandal over Silicon Valley’s diversity shortcomings did little to shake the Alphabet Inc company’s positive public image, nor its stock price. According to Morning Consult Brand Intelligence, it dipped four percentage points to 86 percent favorability in the days after Damore’s memo circulated, but remained solidly within its long-term average. By comparison, the industry average hovers around 40 percent.