Federal Reserve Must Protect Economy and Consumers from Facebook’s Monopoly Money

Washington, D.C. - July 11, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) – ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs – is demanding the Federal Reserve provide detailed answers to how they will upgrade the payments system to prevent critical economic infrastructure from being controlled by powerful special interests.

In June, Facebook unveiled details of its proposed currency, Libra. This new currency will give Facebook competitive advantages with regard to collecting data about financial transactions, as well as control over fees and functionality. On May 9th, Ranking Member Brown and Chairman Crapo sent a letter to Facebook requesting information about their privacy practices as well as their currency announcement.

“For example, Facebook recently announced its plans for “Libra,” a digital currency backed by a basket of global currencies and other assets to be governed by a group of private companies, including Facebook. This could have far-reaching consequences for billions of individual consumers and the broader financial system, raising data privacy, systemic risk, and anti-competitive concerns,” wrote Brown.

Brown went on to write, “We cannot allow giant companies to assert their power over critical public infrastructure. The largest banks and the largest tech companies do not act in the interest of working Americans, but in the interest of themselves and their investors. The Fed must take a proactive role to ensure that the payments system remains accountable to the public.”

Ranking Member Brown has raised concerns in the past over technology companies getting involved in the business of banking, including opposing the OCC’s plan to create a special charter for financial technology companies that would provide them the benefits of a bank charter without requiring the strict regulations other banks face.

Read the letter here

Sasse: Pro-Life Speech Is Not Hate Speech

======


======

by: Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE)

Washington, D.C. - April 17, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Last week, at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S. Senator Ben Sasse pressed social media companies on the definition of hate speech and how pro-life advocacy is not violence.

Senator Sasse’s full exchange can be found here and a partial transcript is found below:

Senator Sasse: Can you define hate speech?

Mr. Neil Potts (Facebook): Senator, thank you, I'll take a stab at it. Both giving you the definition from a Facebook position, but I - we’re also recognizing there's not a universal definition of hate speech across the globe. So, to Facebook the way we define hate speech is an attack against a person or a group of people based on their protected characteristic like race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, as well as serious disability. We define attack to mean, something like, using words that are dehumanizing, cause for violence, contempt or disgust, exclusion or segregation. But I think your point is...is the accurate one, is to how do you draw those lines to allow a free flow of ideas, to allow debate, but also for us to keep the community safe. So, we on my team, and the teams that we work with, we really fight through that, that struggle abounds in voice vs. safety. So, we want to give voice to more people. We err on the side of giving voice. There is a lot of content that I find, perhaps, offensive - and maybe some of you all would find offensive as well - that we allow on the platform because it doesn't violate our policies. But, when we draw the line, and we say that that this type of speech is going to lead to violence, it is dehumanizing, we do remove it under our policies. And...

Sen. Sasse: I don't mean to be rude. I don't want to interrupt you, if we had a lot more time here. But I just want to ask a precise point here because I'm well over time right now. A lot of the context of this debate is around the pro-life movement and when you bring up violence, I mean, there's violence in abortion. It's in the abortion. Can you explain to me how the pro-life position is in any way violent, and how any community standards could ever say a pro-life person's speech should be shut down because somehow…

I don't follow from this...I could understand how you could say that a whole bunch of positions advocating the most extreme abortion laws that exist on earth: the U.S., China, North Korea, and Vietnam are the only nations that allow abortion until moments before delivery. Out of 200 countries there are four on Earth that do that. We're one of those four. There's clearly violence associated with that conversation. It's on the abortion advocates' side of the debate. How is the pro-life side ever guilty of something that equates to violence? Like, how could a pro-life position ever be shut down because of safety?

Mr. Potts: That's a great question Senator. And, to be clear, a lot of this depends on intent...and in the context of statements or images or video as are shared so it's hard to do the hypothetical. But a general pro-life position would not be violating our community standards for hate speech.

Zuckerberg Comments on Hateful Activities Are First Step Toward Changing the Terms

======Support The Ponder======
Get $15 off Duralo struts and shocks orders over $100 at BuyAutoParts.com use code DURALO (Offer Good until December 31, 2020)
======Support The Ponder======

by: Free Press

Washington, D.C. - April 1, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Over the weekend, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called for internet rules to better govern harmful content on social media. In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Zuckerberg wrote, “we have a responsibility to keep people safe on our services. That means deciding what counts as terrorist propaganda, hate speech and more.”

Zuckerberg added that Facebook alone shouldn’t make important decisions about harmful speech. Earlier this year, the founder of the world’s largest social network proposed the creation of an independent oversight board that would operate free of Facebook to oversee critical content-blocking decisions but whose decisions are binding.

In past years, Free Press and other public-interest advocates proposed that Facebook create an expanded version of a public editor to assess the platform’s many content-related decisions. Late last year, Free Press and other civil- and human-rights organizations and free-speech advocates launched Change the Terms, a campaign urging tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to combat hateful activities on their platforms.

Change the Terms has created model corporate policies to help internet companies stop hate and extremism online and ensure that they do more to protect people of color, women, LGBTQIA people, religious minorities and other marginalized communities.

Free Press Senior Policy Counsel Carmen Scurato made the following statement:

“We agree with Mark Zuckerberg that online platforms need to do much more to address the spread of hatred across their networks. The good news is that some companies have taken concrete efforts to curb hateful activities on their websites and services. But it’s time to move from words to action: to invest the time and effort it takes to listen to the concerns of people that online extremism most harms.

“We’ve outlined this approach in detail at ChangetheTerms.org with a set of recommended policies and terms of service that could serve as the roadmap to disrupt hateful activities online. Included in the Change the Terms recommendations is guidance on enforcement, transparency, staff training, governance and appeal rights.

“It’s time to start this process in earnest. Coordinated online attacks by White supremacists have sparked violence offline everywhere from Charlottesville to Pittsburgh to Christchurch and beyond. These attacks chill the online speech of those of us who are members of targeted groups, threatening our safety and freedom in real life. Silicon Valley must do more to ensure that it’s taking the spread of extremism on these platforms seriously.

“Zuckerberg’s words this weekend may indicate a willingness among tech leaders to confront the forces of hate that threaten our democracies. We hope this is more than a public-relations ploy. Facebook and the rest of Silicon Valley can show they’re serious by committing to change the terms now.”

FaceBook Discrimination?, FBI Director

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, II joined Congresswoman Robin Kelly and other Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Members in sending a letter to Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. The letter addresses reports of advertisers on Facebook, using a customization feature that excludes racial and ethnic groups when placing housing advertisements online. The customization feature allows for an “Ethnic Affinities” selection. By allowing online advertisers to promote or market a certain community for home sales, Facebook is therefore promoting restrictive housing practices. “This is a direct violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and it is our strong desire to see Facebook address this issue immediately,” stated the letter, signed by Congressman Cleaver, CBC Chairman G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Congresswoman Robin Kelly (D-IL), and Congresswoman Yvette Clark (D-NY). “Facebook may not have intentionally created this feature to separate communities, but there are minority families who have not seen or heard of the housing opportunities and sales that are being marketed and made available to others. Everyone should have the same opportunity to see what’s available to them,” said Congressman Cleaver. The Members are asking Mr. Zuckerberg to correct this customization feature in online housing advertisements. It is also important that technology industries like Facebook include more African Americans and minorities within their workforce to promote diversity and prevent future discriminatory practices.

============

Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, today called on James Comey to resign as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Read more...