Techdirt

What the hell is going on in the EU these days? The EU Commission put out a Medium post that literally mocked the public as an "angry mob" for raising legitimate concerns about the EU's proposed Copyright Directive. And that followed a bizarrely incoherent "Q & A" page put out by the EU Parliament's Legislative Affairs Committee (JURI), spewing pure nonsense about the Copyright Directive. In both cases, those involved were publicly mocked for this (to the point that the Commission even took down its post, but blaming others for misunderstanding it as the reason).But now the EU Parliament is doubling down on this absurdity. Its official Twitter feed posted this bit of pure propaganda:

When it comes to the art of copyright trolling, part of that art necessarily pretends that all potential victims of the trolling effort are assumed to be masters of both technology and copyright law, such that they are both responsible for what goes on with their internet connections and that no action they take could possibly be a forgivable accident. These assumptions operate across the victim spectrum without regard to the the victim being of advanced age or incredibly young, or even whether the victim is sick or lacks the mental capacity to carry out the supposed infringement. The assumption in just about every case is that the accused is fully responsible.Which is the standard that then should be applied to Strike 3 Holding's lawyer, Lincoln Bandlow, who had to go to court to explain why he and his firm failed to provide a status update on 25 cases, despite the court ordering he do so, and was forced to explain why he thinks the court shouldn't just sanction him. Barlow attempts to explain this all away as a simple matter of he and his firm not being able to make their technology work.

Back in December, we wrote about the insane attack on free speech perpetrated by the Australian court system, barring anyone from reporting on the fact that "third most powerful person in the Vatican," its CFO, George Pell, had been convicted of molesting choir boys in Australia in the 1990s. Only a very small number of news sites reported on this at all, out of fear of the Australian government going after them. Even the NY Times (of all sites) only published the story in its physical paper, and not online, to avoid the possibility that readers down under might see the story. We even got some pushback from some people for publishing the story, with them saying it was necessary to make sure Pell's second trial on similar charges was "fair." Of course, we've handled these issues differently in the US for decades, in a way that seems to work just fine: the press is free to report, but jurors are restricted from researching or reading about the case. That system inconveniences the fewest number of people, retains a system of fairness, and does not stifle a free and open press.Either way, on Tuesday, the Australian court system finally lifted the gag order allowing official reports to finally be written. As for why the gag order was finally lifted? Apparently that all important second trial? It's been called off.The Washington Post story above has many more details about the case that were kept secret, including the fairly graphic and horrifying details of what Pell did to some choir boys in the 1990s. It remains an insult to the work of the media that so many were forced to stay silent over these details. I recognize that not everywhere else has a First Amendment like the US does, and that protections for freedom of expression and freedom of the press vary from country to country, but Australia's press gag here is notable for keeping such important details secret and for scaring the media in other nations, including the US, from publishing their stories as well.

With recent focus on disinformation and “fake news,” new technologies used to deceive people online have sparked concerns among the public. While in the past, only an expert forger could create realistic fake media, deceptive techniques using the latest research in machine-learning allow anyone with a smartphone to generate high-quality fake videos, or “deep fakes.”Like other forms of disinformation, deep fakes can be designed to incite panic, sow distrust in political institutions, or produce myriad other harmful outcomes. Because of these potential harms, lawmakers and others have begun expressing concerns about deep-fake technology.Underlying these concerns is the superficially reasonable assumption that deep fakes represent an unprecedented development in the ecosystem of disinformation, largely because deep-fake technology can create such realistic-looking content. Yet this argument assumes that the quality of the content carries the most weight in the trust evaluation. In other words, people making this argument believe that the highly realistic content of a deep fake will induce the viewer to trust it — and share it with other people in a social network — thus hastening the spread of disinformation.But there are several reasons to be suspicious of that assumption. In reality, deep-fake technology operates similarly to other media that people use to spread disinformation. Whether content will be believed and shared may not be derived primarily from the content’s quality, but from psychological factors that any type of deceptive media can exploit. Thus, contrary to the hype, deep fakes may not be the techno-boogeyman some claim them to be.Deceiving with a deep fake.When presented with any piece of information — be it a photograph, a news story, a video, etc. — people do not simply take that information at face value. Instead, individuals in today’s internet ecosystem rely heavily on their network of social contacts when deciding whether to trust content online. In one study, for example, researchers found that participants were more likely to trust an article when it had been shared by people whom the individual already trusted.This conclusion comports with an evolutionary understanding of human trust. In fact, humans likely evolved to believe information that comes from within their social networks, regardless of its content or quality.At a basic level, one would expect such trust would be unfounded; individuals usually try to maximize their fitness (the likelihood they will survive and reproduce) at the expense of others. If an individual sees an incoming danger and fails to alert anyone else, that individual may have a better chance of surviving that specific interaction.However, life is more complex than that. Studies suggest that in repeated interactions with the same individual, a person is more likely to place trust in the other individual because, without any trust, neither party would gain in the long term. When members of a group can rely on other members, individuals within the group gain a net benefit on average.Of course, a single lie or selfish action could help an individual survive an individual encounter. But if all members of the group acted that way, the overall fitness of the group would decrease. And because groups with more cooperation and trust among their members are more successful, these traits were more likely to survive on an aggregate level.Humans today, therefore, tend to trust those close to them in a social network because such behavior helped the species survive in the past. For a deep fake, then, the apparent authenticity of the video may be less of a factor in deciding whether to trust that information than whether the individual trusts who shares it.Further, even the most realistic, truthful-sounding information can fail to produce trust when the individual holds beliefs that contradict the presented information. The theory of cognitive dissonance contends that when an individual’s beliefs contradict his or her perception, mental tension — or cognitive dissonance — is created. The individual will attempt to resolve this dissonance in several ways, one of which is to accept evidence that supports his or her existing beliefs and dismissing evidence that does not. This leads to what is known as confirmation bias.One fascinating example of confirmation bias in action came in the wake of President Donald Trump’s press secretary claiming that more people watched Trump’s inauguration than any other inauguration in history. Despite the video evidence and a side-by-side photo comparison of the National Mall indicating the contrary, many Trump supporters claimed that a photo depicting turnout on Jan. 20, 2017, showed a fuller crowd than it actually did because they knew it was a photo of Trump’s inauguration (Sean Spicer later clarified that he was including the television audience as well as the in-person audience, but the accuracy of that characterization is also debatable.) In other words, the Trump supporters either convinced themselves that the crowd size was larger despite observable evidence to the contrary, or they knowingly lied to support — or confirm — their bias.The simple fact is that it does not require much convincing to deceive the human mind. For instance, multiple studies have shown that rudimentary disinformation can generate inaccurate memories in the targeted individual. In one study, researchers were able to implant fake childhood memories in subjects by simply providing a textual description of an event that never occurred.According to these theories, then, when it comes to whether a person believes a deep fake is real, the quality matters less than whether an individual has pre-existing biases or trusts the person who shared it. In other words, existing beliefs, not the perceived “realness” of a medium, drives whether new information is believed. And, given the diminished role that the quality of a medium plays in the believability calculus, more rudimentary methods — like using Photoshop to alter photographs — can achieve the same results as a deep fake in terms of spreading disinformation. Thus, while deep fakes present a challenge generally, deep fakes as a class of disinformation do not present an altogether new problem as far as believability is concerned.Sharing Deep Fakes Online.With the rise of social media and the fundamental change in how we share information, some worry that the unique characteristics of deep fakes could make them more likely to be shared online regardless of whether they deceive the target audience.People share information — whether it be in written, picture or video form — online for many different reasons. Some may share it because it is amusing or pleasing. Others may do so because it offers partisan political advantage. Sometimes the sharer knows the information is false. Other times, the sharer does not know whether the information is accurate but simply does not care enough to correct the record.People also tend to display a form of herd behavior in which seeing others share content drives the individual to share the content themselves. This allows disinformation to spread across larger platforms like Facebook or Twitter as the content builds up a base of sharing. The number of people who receive disinformation, then, can grow exponentially at a very rapid pace. As the popularity of a given piece of content increases, so too does its credibility as it reaches the edges of a network, exploiting the trust that individuals have in their social networks. And even if the target audience does not believe a given deep fake, widespread propagation of the content can still cause damage; simply viewing false content can reinforce beliefs that the user already has, even if the individual knows that the content is an exaggeration or a parody.Deep fakes, in particular, present the audience with rich sound and video that engage the viewer. A realistic deep fake that can target the user’s existing beliefs and exploit his or her social ties, therefore, may spread rapidly online. But so, too, do news articles and simple image-based memes. Even without the richness of a deep fake, still images and written text can target the psychological factors that drive content-sharing online. In fact, image-based memes already spread at alarming rates due to their simplicity and the ease with which they convey information. And while herd-behavior tendencies will drive more people to share content, this applies to all forms of disinformation, not just deep fakes.Currently, a video still represents an undeniable record of events for many people. But as this technology becomes more commonplace and the limitations of video become more apparent, the psychological factors above will drive trust and sharing. And the tactics that bad actors use to deceive will exploit these social patterns regardless of medium.When viewed in this context, deep fakes are not some unprecedented challenge society cannot adapt to; they are simply another tool of disinformation. We should of course remain vigilant and understand that deep fakes will be used to spread disinformation. But we also need to consider that deep fakes may not live up to the hype.Jeffrey Westling (@jeffreywestling) is a Technology and Innovation Research Associate at the R Street Institute.

Despite unanimous warnings from experts that it was a really bad idea, the Australian government went ahead and passed its law enabling compelled access to encrypted devices and communications. Apparently, the powers have already been used. Because of the way the Australian government rammed the legislation through without proper scrutiny, the country's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has commenced a review of the new law. That's the good news. The bad news is that Andrew Hastie, the Chair of the Committee, still thinks fairy tales are true:

For years, we've talked about bullshit Hollywood Accounting, in which the big studios make boatloads of money on films and TV shows while declaring publicly that those works never made a dime in profit. As we've discussed, in its simplest terms, the studios set up a separate "corporation" for the film or TV project, which then it charges massive fees -- and the sole purpose of those fees seem to be to send all the money to the studio, while claiming that the film or TV project is "losing money" and thus they don't have to pay out any profits to the actual creative people.Remember this the next time the MPAA goes around talking about how its mission is to "protect creators."Over at the Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has the latest bombshell example of Hollywood Accounting, which has resulted in Fox being told by an arbitrator to pay $179 million for repeated and obviously intentional dishonesty in reporting on the profits of the TV show Bones:

Clip Studio Paint PRO, the successor to Manga Studio, is used by more than 4 million illustrators, comic artists, and creators around the world to create groundbreaking work. This new and improved software offers better-specialized features for drawing comics and cartoons and has improved coloring features to offer a complete suite of creative tools. You have access to more than 10,000 free downloadable brushes, tones, 3D models and other content, and it has Photoshop integration. It's on sale for $30.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

For years, now, we've been writing about the general impossibility of moderating content at scale on the internet. And, yet, lots of people keep demanding that various internet platforms "do more." Often those demands to do more come from politicians and regulators who are threatening much stricter regulations or even fines if companies fail to wave a magic wand and make "bad" content disappear. The big companies have felt compelled to staff up to show the world that they're taking this issue seriously. It's not difficult to find the headlines: Facebook pledges to double its 10,000-person safety and security staff and Google to hire thousands of moderators after outcry over YouTube abuse videos.Most of the demands for more content moderation come from people who claim to be well-meaning, hoping to protect innocent viewers (often "think of the children!") from awful, awful content. But, of course, it also means making these thousands of employees continuously look at highly questionable, offensive, horrific or incomprehensible content for hours on end. Over the last few years, there's been quite a reasonable and growing concern about the lives of all of those content moderators. Last fall, I briefly mentioned a wonderful documentary, called The Cleaners,focused on a bunch of Facebook's contract content moderators working out of the Philippines. The film is quite powerful in showing not just how impossible a job content moderation can be, but the human impact on the individuals who do it.Of course, there have been lots of other people raising this issue in the past as well, including articles in Inc. and Wired and Gizmodo among other places. And these are not new issues. Those last two articles are from 2014. Academics have been exploring this issue as well, led by Professor Sarah Roberts at UCLA (who even posted a piece on this issue here at Techdirt). Last year, there was another paper at Harvard by Andrew Arsht and Daniel Etcovitch on the Human Cost of Online Content Moderation. In short, none of this is a new issue.That said, it's still somewhat shocking to read through a big report by Casey Newton at the Verge, about the "secret lives" of Facebook content moderators. Some of the stories are pretty upsetting.

This week the FTC turned a few heads by announcing that the agency would be creating a new "task force" designed specifically to monitor large technology companies. According to the agency's announcement, this new task force will feature approximately 17 staff attorneys whose mandate will be to more closely examine the competitive tech landscape, and take action if necessary. According to the FTC, this includes taking a closer look at both pending mergers, and large technology mergers that have already happened.

Pissed Consumer has uncovered more fraudulent behavior by companies hoping to scrub critical reviews from its site. The site first uncovered the use of bogus court orders to delist content -- something Eugene Volokh and Paul Levy have turned into a small-time crusade. These fraudulent court documents resulted in some genuine legal action. Questionable reputation management firms are now facing lawsuits from Pissed Consumer and the attorney general of Texas.The latest twist in reputation management also includes forged legal documents. The stakes are a bit lower because no one's directly defrauding a court or forging a judge's signature. But the underlying tactic is still comparable: the misuse of fake legal documents to remove criticism from the internet.

Over the course of the last year or so, coverage of copyright trolling stories turned up a common movie multiple times. That film was The Hitman's Bodyguard, and the outfits contracted to push for fees via settlement letters were both prolific and devious in trying to manipulate the settlement offer amounts to achieve the highest conversion rates. Whatever the level of intelligence that goes into these operations, however, there will almost always be a misfire, with a wrong target picked in the wrong court in such a way that makes the troll look like, well, a troll.Such appears to be the case when Bodyguard Productions went after Ernesto Mendoza in court, claiming that he downloaded the film via bittorrent. The problem with the case is that Mendoza is both very, very insistent on his innocence and also manages to cast about as sympathetic a figure as one might be able to find. Mendoza is in his 70s and has end-stage cancer. When Bodyguard Productions attempted to voluntarily dismiss the case when it became clear that Mendoza wasn't going to settle, he tried to push the court to force the case to go forward so that he could recover his legal expenses. Sadly, the court refused.

The Houston Police Department has a huge problem. A recent no-knock drug raid ended with two "suspects" killed and four officers wounded. The PD says no-knock entrances are safer for officers, not that you'd draw that conclusion from this raid.The problem the PD has is its drug warriors are dirty. The raid was predicated on a tip from a confidential informant who doesn't appear to exist. The warrant contained sworn statements about a heroin purchase that never happened and a large quantity of heroin packaged for sale that was not among the things seized from the dead couple's residence. The heroin central to the raid appears to have been taken from the console of an officer's squad car and run to the lab for some very unnecessary testing.Houston police officer Gerald Goines is the person behind this completely avoidable chain of events. After initially backing his officers, Police Chief Art Acevedo has reversed course in the face of contrary evidence he's unable to ignore. His initial defense of officers who participated in a drug raid that only turned up personal use amounts of cocaine and marijuana was perhaps understandable, given his position. But it went against the image he'd made for himself as a reformer -- someone who would clean up the department and repair its reputation.A leaked recording of Acevedo speaking to officers after the killing of an unarmed, mentally ill man seemed to make it clear there was zero tolerance for the usual cop bullshit. Acevedo criticized his officers for needlessly escalating interactions, bullying citizens for failing to show the respect officers feel is owed to them, and teaming up on post-incident paperwork to ensure most bad deeds went unpunished.But in the three years since that recording leaked, it appears little has changed. Officer Goines' willingness to fabricate a story to engage in a no-knock drug raid -- a narrative that included a nonexistent informant and drugs not purchased from the raided residence -- shows he had little worry of being outed by other officers, much less criticized for his lawless behavior. Here's how defense lawyer Mark Bennett phrased it after it was discovered Goines used a fictional informant and drugs from his own vehicle to craft a search warrant:

Over the years, there have been a few attempts -- usually by companies that most of us would call patent trolls -- to argue that calling a company a patent troll is defamatory. These arguments rarely get very far, because they completely misunderstand how defamation works. However, a company with some questionable patents around bank ATMs, called ATL, tried a few years back to sue a bunch of its critics over the "patent troll" name. Thankfully, the local court in New Hampshire correctly noted that calling someone a patent troll is protected speech under the First Amendment and is not defamatory.ATL decided it was going to keep trying. Tim Lee, over at Ars Technica, recently wrote about oral arguments in front of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in this case.

Ever since SESTA was a gleam in the Senate’s eye, we’ve been warning about the harmful effects it stood to have on online speech. The law that was finally birthed, FOSTA, has lived up to its terrifying billing. So, last year, EFF and its partners brought a lawsuit on behalf of several plaintiffs – online speakers, platforms, or both – to challenge its constitutionality. Unfortunately, and strangely, the district court dismissed the Woodhull Freedom Foundation et al v. U.S. case for lack of standing. It reached this decision despite the chilling effects that had already been observed and thanks to a very narrow read of the law that found precision and clarity in FOSTA's language where in reality there is none. The plaintiffs then appealed, and last week I filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Copia Institute, Engine, and Reddit in support of the appeal.The overarching point we made is that speech is chilled by fear. And FOSTA replaced the statutory protection platforms relied on to be able to confidently intermediate speech with the fear of it. Moreover, it didn't just cause platforms to have only a little bit of fear of only a little bit of legal risk: thanks to the vague and overbroad terms of the statutory language, it stoked fear of nearly unlimited scope. And not just a fear of civil liability but now also criminal liability and liability subject to the disparate statutory interpretations of every state authority.We have often praised the statutory wisdom of Section 230 before it was modified by FOSTA. By going with an approach that was “all carrot, no stick,” Congress was able to conscript platforms into meeting the basic objectives it listed in the opening sections of the statute: get the most good content online, and the least bad. But FOSTA replaced these carrots with sticks, and left platforms, instead of incented to allow the most good speech and restrict the most bad, now afraid to do either.As a result of this fear, platforms have become vastly less accommodating towards the speech they allow on their systems, which has led to the removal (if not outright prohibition) of plenty of good (and perfectly lawful) speech. They have also been deterred from fully policing their forums, which has led to more of the worst speech persisting online. Notably, nothing in FOSTA actually modified the stated objectives of Section 230 to get the most good and least bad expression online, yet what it did modify nevertheless made achieving either goal impossible.And in a way that the Constitution does not allow. What we learned in Reno v. ACLU, where the Supreme Court found much of the non-Section 230 parts of Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, is that online speech is just as protected as offline speech. Congress does not get to pass laws affecting speech in ways that don’t meet the exacting standards the First Amendment requires. In particular, if speech is impacted, it can only be by a law that is narrowly tailored to the problem it is trying to solve. Yet, as fellow amici wrote, speech is indeed being affected, deliberately, and, as we've seen from the harm that has accrued, by a law poorly tailored to the problem it is ostensibly intended to solve. As we explained in our brief, FOSTA has led to this result by creating a real and palpable fear of significant liability for platforms, and thus already driven them to make choices that have harmed online speakers and their speech.

California journalists legally obtained a document no law enforcement agency wants them to have. Naturally, the state's best friend to bad cops, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, is claiming it's illegal for these journalists to possess a document handed to them in response to a public records request.

Destress, reduce distractions, and improve your relationships with MindFi, the innovative app that helps bring mindfulness into your busy life. Created by top meditation teachers and neuroscientists, MindFi helps you stay mindful with open eyes, so you can recharge wherever and whenever you want. It suggests 4 different mindfulness modes based on your local time of day. You can take a quick break with a silent breathing session, practice short, relevant meditations to make rough days better, focus on your to-dos with the Pomodoro timer, or, if you have time, decompress with 10 minutes of closed-eye meditation. MindFi is on sale for $39.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Here's another one in the "be careful what you wish for" category. Over the last few years, under tons of pressure from politicians and many users, various internet platforms have gotten more and more aggressive in removing content and accounts that were credibly accused of spreading disinformation and propaganda. Most people cheered over this, and you can completely understand why. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't create some consequences that might not all be good. J.A. Guerrero-Saade points out that all of this content removal can make things harder for researchers and investigators.

One of the fundamental cornerstones of disinformation and propaganda is repetition. As in, if you state something often enough, the idea gets lodged in the recipient's head and becomes truth by an act of sheer force and repetition. It's called the “illusory truth effect,” and it's been essential across most of the Trump administration as it attempts to convince the public that up is down, and black is white. Its been absolutely essential at the Trump FCC, where the agency has worked tirelessly to convince the nation's gullible that kissing the ass of the biggest telecom operators is intelligent policy.You'll of course recall that one of the FCC's key justifications for killing consumer protections like net neutrality is that the relatively modest rules stifled industry investment. Objective data from a litany of different sources has confirmed that's simply not true, including SEC filings, earnings reports, and the statements of countless industry CEOs. That hasn't stopped Ajit Pai, major telecom providers, or the litany of dollar-per-hollar consultants and think tankers employed to create the illusion of widespread support for sucking up to the nation's entrenched broadband monopolies.As required by Congress, the FCC periodically releases a Broadband Deployment Report indicating whether affordable, fast broadband is being deployed in a "reasonable and timely" fashion. This week, the FCC circulated a draft order of the initial report among Commissioners. It wasn't made public, but a statement by the agency (pdf) offered up a few choice statistics to imply that its widespread assault on basic consumer protections is having a near-miraculous impact on the telecom market. As usual, the FCC's chosen metrics are very specific:

The EU Commission made a lot of noise about protecting the data of European citizens, resulting in the passage of a law that's almost impossible to avoid breaking. I guess those protections won't be extended to anyone a number of governments consider to be threats to national security. Even worse, this data will be shared with governments known for executing their critics. (h/t War On Privacy)

News that China is extending its censorship to new domains barely provokes a yawn these days, since it's such a common occurrence. But even for those jaded by constant reports of the Chinese authorities trying to control what people see and hear, news that it is now actively censoring books written by Australian authors for Australian readers is pretty breath-taking. The Chinese government has done this before for single books whose message it disliked, but now it seems to be part of a broader, general policy:

Last year AT&T defeated the DOJ's challenge to the company's $86 billion merger with Time Warner thanks to a comically narrow reading of the markets by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon. At no point in his original 172-page ruling (which approved the deal without a single condition) did Leon show the faintest understanding that AT&T intends to use vertical integration synergistically with the death of net neutrality and neutered FCC oversight to dominate smaller competitors and tilt the entire internet ecosystem in its favor.While the DOJ lost its original case, it was quick to appeal late last year, highlighting how within weeks of the deal AT&T had jacked up prices on consumers and competitors like Dish Networks, which says it was forced to pull HBO from its lineup because it could no longer afford the higher rates. Those rate hikes were directly courtesy of the huge debt AT&T incurred from both its 2015 merger with DirecTV (which eliminated a direct pay TV competitor from the market), and last year's Time Warner merger.None of this apparently mattered to a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which ruled this morning (pdf) that AT&T's latest merger would be allowed to stand. According to the Judges, the DOJ's claims that Leon failed to understand basic economic realities in the broadband and video markets were "unpersuasive." Much like the initial Leon ruling, the cornerstone of the Judges ruling centers around the idea that because there's more and more streaming competition, any anti-competitive problems from the deal would be mystically mitigated:

It's no secret that journalism outfits are struggling, and have been for some time. There are lots of competing ideas about why this is the case, and who to blame, but the ultimate question is the same: how do we fund good journalism going forward? This week, Mike is joined on the podcast by someone whose opinions on this question differ significantly from his own — Columbia Journalism professor and former online editor-in-chief of the Guardian Emily Bell — to talk about whether journalism can survive the free market, and what the alternatives are.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

When we last checked in with UK Parliament Member Damian Collins, he was creating fake news at a hearing he set up to scold Facebook for enabling fake news. If you don't recall, Collins held a very theatrical hearing, in which his big reveal was that Facebook had actually become aware of Russians hacking its API with billions of questionable requests back in 2014, years before anyone thought they were doing anything. Except, as became clear hours later, Collins completely misrepresented what actually happened. It wasn't Russians. It was Pinterest. And it wasn't billions of requests for data. It was millions. And it wasn't abusive or hacking. It was something going a little haywire on Pinterest's end. But, to Collins it was a smoking gun.It appears that that little incident has not deterred Collins from his war on Facebook, in which he's using moral panic and fear mongering over "fake news" to try to censor content he doesn't like. Recently, Collins' committee -- the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee -- published its big report on fake news, in which it calls for new regulatory powers to "oversee" what content goes on sites like Facebook. With the report, Collins put out quite the bombastic comment about all of this. Here's just a snippet:

The FBI -- late to the party -- proudly announces it's the first guest to arrive. (via Axios)

Slow typer? Well, no more excuses! Typesy Typing Trainer is the easy-to-use typing software engineered by real touch typing experts to help you push your 50 WPM to over 100. You'll play 16 games and activities designed to eliminate specific weaknesses or hone certain skills. It's on sale for $20.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Last week we had a story about a bunch of Pokemon YouTubers discovering their accounts were dropped after YouTube confused their discussion of "CP" (Combat Points), thinking it might actually refer to a different "CP": child porn. The accounts were reinstated after a bit of an outcry.It appears that this was part of a larger effort by YouTube to deal with a variety of problems on its platform (and, yes, its platform has problems). But some of the resulting stories suggest that YouTube is so focused on "demonetization" as a tool that it's losing sight of alternatives. The Pokemon story appears to have actually been part of a larger effort to respond to claims that child predators were using the comments of certain, perfectly normal videos of kids to, well, do bad stuff. The whole thing is pretty sickening and horrifying and I have no interest in going into the details.As the controversy over this -- quite reasonably -- gained attention, some pointed out that these videos with exploitative comments were, in many cases, being monetized with big brand name ads appearing next to them. This type of complaint is... not new. People have been complaining about brand names appearing in ads next to "bad" content or "infringing" content for many years. Of course, it's pretty much all matched by algorithm, and part of the problem is that because people are gaming the system, the algorithm (and YouTube) hadn't quite caught on to what was happening. Of course, the outcry from the public -- especially about the monetization -- then resulted in advertisers pulling all their ads from YouTube. And, whether it was the advertisers leaving or the general public outcry (it was almost certainly both, but I'm sure most people will assume it was the advertisers bailing that really made the difference), YouTube went on a big new effort to pull ads from lots of videos.And in doing so, it created a brand new controversy. Just as this started, a mother named Jessica Ballinger complained on Twitter that YouTube had demonetized videos of her 5 year old son. YouTube responded on Twitter, noting that it was because of the comments on the video, obliquely referencing the stories discussed above.Of course, this immediately created a new kind of backlash as people (rightfully!) pointed out that disabling monetization of a video based on the comments on that video just seems to empower and encourage trolls. Want to harm a YouTuber you don't like? Just post a sketchy comment on their videos and, boom, you can take away their money.And, to be clear, this is not a new thing for Google. Just last month we noted that the company has a similarly silly policy with Adsesnse and blogs that have comments. If Adsense decides that some of your user-generated comments are "bad" they might demonetize the page that hosts those comments. As with the stories above, this is mostly to appease advertisers and avoid the sort of (slightly misguided) screaming about "big brand ad appearing next to awful comments." We found that policy to be silly in that situation, but it's even more ridiculous here.As Dan Bull noted in response to all of this it seems that a much simpler solution compared to demonetizing such videos is to just remove the sketchy, awful, predatory comments.

Scandal after scandal after scandal has resulted in many finally realizing that the United States is likely going to have to craft at least some basic privacy guidelines moving forward. The problem: with so many justly wary of Congressional Luddites screwing it up, and so many wealthy industries lobbying jointly to try and weaken the potential guidelines, this isn't going to be a pretty process. If we come out of it with anything even closely resembling a decent privacy law for the digital age (one that doesn't make things worse) we'll be very fortunate.But it's hard to craft much of any meaningful privacy rules when Congress is so grotesquely beholden to the industries they're supposed to be holding accountable. That was made pretty obvious when the telecom sector lobbied to kill some basic FCC privacy guidelines the FCC had approved before they could even take effect back in 2017. Those rules simply required that ISPs be transparent about what data is being collected and who it would be sold to, something that could have proven extremely useful in the wake of these revelations of carriers selling your location data to any and every nitwit in America.And as Congress begins holding public hearings to contemplate what privacy rules should look like, telecom giants like AT&T are again likely to have an outsized influence on what those laws will likely look like. For example, AT&T and other telecom giants will be holding a fundraiser for Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the night before a major hearing on privacy regulations:

So, while there's really no denying that Chinese smartphone and network gearmaker Huawei engages in some clearly sketchy behavior, it's not anything that can't be matched by our own, home-grown sketchy telecom companies. And while the Trump administration has been engaged in a widespread effort to blackball Huawei gear from the American market based on allegations of spying on Americans, nobody's been able to provide a shred of public evidence that this actually occurs. At the same time, we tend to ignore the fact that the United States broke into Huawei to steal code and implant backdoors as early as 2007.In short, this subject is more complicated that the blindly-nationalistic U.S. press coverage tends to indicate, and a not-insubstantial portion of this hand-wringing is driven by good old-fashioned protectionism.Throughout this whole thing, Huawei executives have been right to note that in the decade-plus of these allegations and hand-wringing, you'd think some security researcher would have been able to prove that Huawei gear is spying on Americans wholesale. And last week, as news emerged that the Trump administration was finally considering a full domestic ban on using Huawei gear, our closest surveillance allies in the UK made it clear that the Huawei threat is likely being overstated by the United States:

Techdirt has been following the regrettable story of African governments imposing taxes and levies on Internet use. For example, Uganda has added a daily fee of 200 Ugandan shillings ($0.05) that its citizens must pay to access social media sites and many common Internet-based messaging and voice applications (collectively known as "OTT services"). It has also imposed a tax on mobile money transactions. When people started turning to VPNs as a way to avoid these charges, the government tried to get ISPs to ban VPN use. As we pointed out, these kind of taxes could discourage the very people who could benefit the most from using the Internet. And in news that will surprise no one, so it has turned out, according to official data from the Uganda Communications Commission, summarized here by an article on the Quartz site:

Last fall, the Florida Department of Corrections decided it needed to enrich itself at the literal expense of its inmates. It signed a new contract with new provider of jailhouse entertainment, instantly making $11.3 million in purchased digital goods worthless. You don't own what you paid for, even at inflated prison prices.The new contract with JPay rendered the purchased content unusable. Even the players purchased by inmates aren't technically theirs and must be returned to the vendor. Not that keeping the players would help much. The licensing agreements covering the content are only valid if the previous contractor is providing the service. Since it's not, the mp3s and ebooks can't be transferred to JPay devices.Unsurprisingly, inmates are furious. So are their families -- the ones who paid extortionate rates to give their imprisoned family members a little music to enjoy. The DOC recognized this was a problem and created a portal for the filing of complaints related to this disappearance of purchased digital goods. That portal is going to be very useful in the upcoming lawsuit against the Florida DOC for screwing inmates out of their purchases. (h/t Boing Boing)

For nearly fifteen years, we've written about how patent trolls love East Texas, and spent years building an entire industry in some small Texas towns centered around patent trolling, and dragging companies from all over into east Texas to face lawsuits. Almost two years ago, we were pretty thrilled to see the Supreme Court slam the door on the most blatant jurisdiction shopping by patent trolls in the TC Heartland case. And while some of the East Texas judges have tried to come up with creative ways to reinterpret the Supreme Court's ruling, so far that hasn't worked that well.Still, a key aspect of the TC Heartland case was that the proper venue was the judicial district where a company actually "resides," which the Supreme Court suggested is where the company was incorporated and not just where it sold products. However, in that appeals court ruling mentioned above, interpreting part of the TC Heartland ruling, the Federal Circuit noted that there "must be a physical place in the district" as one part of a larger test. For lots of companies, that's no big deal, but Apple (a company that faces more than its fair share of patent troll lawsuits) realized it had a problem: while it's certainly not incorporated or headquartered in East Texas, it does have retail stores there. Or did. The company is shutting those stores down to prevent trolls from using that retail presence to argue East Texas is an appropriate venue.Oh and just to put an exclamation point on the reason why it did so: it's opening a new store juuuuuuuuuuuuuuust over the border into the Northern District of Texas. Apple's not officially commenting on the reason for the closures/openings but... come on. MacRumors created this lovely "rough visualization" that drives the point home pretty clearly:Not only did the overreach by judges in East Texas lead to the big industry of patent trolling they helped build up start to deflate, some of the blowback may be lots of companies -- especially in the tech world -- will simply refuse to have any presence in all of East Texas to avoid being an easy target for patent trolls.

When Charter Communications (Spectrum) proposed merging with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in 2016, the company repeatedly promised that the amazing "synergies" would lower rates, increase competition, boost employment, and improve the company's services. Of course like countless telecom megamergers before it, little if any of those promises actually materialized.Instead, the company quickly set about raising prices to manage the huge debt load. And its service has been so aggressively terrible that the company recently almost got kicked out of New York State, something I've never seen in 20 years of covering telecom. All the while, the company continues to not only jack up its standard pricing, but the sneaky fees it uses to advertise one rate, then charge users something else when the bill actually comes due.We've noted for some time how cable providers over the last few years have added a "broadcast TV" fee to customer bills. Such a fee, which simply takes a part of the cost of programming and buries it below the line, lets cable providers advertise one rate, then hit customers with a higher bill. It's false advertising, but you'd be hard pressed to find a regulator anywhere in North America that gives much of a damn about the practice, be it in telecom, cable TV, the airline sector, or anywhere else. Culturally, American "leadership" appears to view such fees as the pinnacle of capitalistic creativity.So it just keeps on going. The Los Angeles Times notes that Spectrum is informing its already angry customers that they'll soon be facing yet another $2 monthly hike in the company's broadcast TV fee, on the heels of another hike just last fall. The fall hike bumped the fee 12% to an additional $8.85 per month. This latest hike bumps it another $2 (20%) to $12 per month. And again, this is just for the cost of programming, something you're supposed to have already paid for in your base, above the line bill.All told, the company nets quite a significant profit from this tap dance, notes the Times David Lazarus:

Because there's no shortage of people willing to pay money for the thrill ride that is losing a lawsuit in federal court, 1-800-LAW-FIRM and Excolo Law remain viable entities. The lawsuits they bring aren't viable, but presumably retainers have been collected before the inevitable process of dismissal-appeal-dismissal begins.These two firms are behind most of the lawsuits we've covered featuring plaintiffs attempting to hold a number of social media platforms responsible for acts of terrorism. The underlying events are tragic, but these lawsuits aren't the answer. They're ridiculous. Despite not having racked up a win at any level of the court system, the lawsuits continue to be filed. This doesn't reflect well on the law firms specializing in taking money from victims of terrorist attacks while offering them false hope of closure, if not actual compensation.The latest lawsuit filed by these firms is only novel in the respect that it features a Dallas transit officer as a plaintiff, rather than someone from the private sector. Retana was wounded in the ambush of Dallas law enforcement officers back in 2016. This is where the Twitter+terrorists boilerplate -- which fills most of the lawsuit's 96 pages [PDF] -- gets really weird. (h/t Eric Goldman)To get around the obvious Section 230 roadblock, these lawsuits invoke the US Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The filings tend to spend numerous pages detailing the history of whatever terrorist organization is relevant to the case, followed by a bunch of screenshots of supposed members of these groups utilizing Twitter, Facebook, et al. With this, the plaintiffs hope to convince a judge that the mere existence of terrorists on social media networks is "material support for terrorism" -- a violation of multiple anti-terrorism laws.So far, this hasn't worked. Courts have found social media companies are not directly or indirectly responsible for terrorist acts. This lawsuit deploys the same tactic, spending a great deal of time discussing terrorist organization Hamas. After 77 pages discussing Hamas and its use of social media, the lawsuit tries to tie anti-terrorism laws to social media companies and the Dallas shooter with this single, conclusory (in the legal sense, not the literal sense) sentence.

The AWS Certified Architect Developer Bundle 2019 has 7 courses designed to help you become a cloud technology expert. The courses take a step-by-step approach to understanding AWS' technologies, databases, and the like, so you can leverage this platform—and the benefits of cloud computing—in your own projects. There's a study guide for passing the Certified Developer Associate exam. The bundle is on sale for $35.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

As we've noted a few times now, the legacy entertainment business has decided that they no longer support Article 13, because it wasn't draconian enough. But, the real reason for their sudden cold feet was that there were a few indications that some of the European Courts might give them everything they wanted (and more) without even needing Article 13. And, that might just be happening. Recently a court in Italy found Facebook liable for hosting links to infringing content. Eleonora Rosati at IPKat both wrote about this and (thankfully) translated key parts of the ruling, such as the following:

We've well documented how the telecom sector is a pit of regulatory capture and dysfunction, pretty evident if you've ever tried to switch ISPs, negotiate a lower rate, or contact Comcast customer support. And since these companies have their lobbying teeth stuck deep into regulators and lawmakers (something that teeters toward parody on the state level), the government's "solutions" to the problem tend to wind up being of the decidedly half-assed variety. That's not helped by many folks who still labor under the misconception that you motivate natural monopolies to behave by eliminating already modest regulatory oversight.So every few years, regardless of the party in charge, the government will put forth a new broadband plan it promises will finally address this cavalcade of dysfunction. And time and time again, these proposals fall well short of actually pushing policies that could actually drive more competition to market, because that's the very last thing the companies holding sway over our lawmakers and regulatory agencies actually want. The result is plans that sound really good upon superficial inspection, but don't come close to fixing the real problem. Again, because the wealthiest providers don't want it fixed.That was certainly the case with the FCC's 2010 "national broadband plan," a collection of politically-timid policy goals set forth by Obama's first FCC boss, Julius Genachowski. The plan failed to really offer a solution to drive competition to market, downplayed the potential role of open access, public/private partnerships, and community broadband as useful motivators for natural monopolies, and failed to really even mention the competitive logjam at the heart of the problem.Here we are, nearly a decade later, and America's broadband problem is in many ways getting worse. As America's phone companies give up on residential broadband and deploying fiber, companies like Comcast are securing a bigger monopoly than ever across huge swaths of American broadband markets. And while many look to the miracle of wireless to somehow act as a competitive panacea, we've discussed at length how that's not likely to happen anytime soon for a wide variety of reasons, most of which also have to do with too little competition in both retail and the business data services market.Enter the Trump administration. Last week, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released its American Broadband Initiative Milestones Report, the latest update to the administration's inter-agency agenda plan to "stimulate increased private investment in broadband infrastructure" and finally cure what ails the U.S. broadband sector:

Late last summer, the DOJ attempted to get a court to force Facebook to break encryption on its Messenger service so investigators could tap into phone calls being made by criminal suspects. Facebook responded that doing so would fundamentally alter the way Messenger works. The request was a non-starter according to Facebook. According to the DOJ, it was nothing more than asking a few smart people to do a few smart things, so the burden Facebook complaints about "burdensome requests" was overstated.A couple of months later, the DOJ had again failed to obtain favorable anti-encryption precedent. The underlying documents remain under seal, but sources "close to the case" had indicated the court had sided with Facebook.The secret litigation over software alterations that would affect millions of Facebook users continues. Messenger's encryption is no longer at stake -- at least not for the time being -- but the government still wants the public to stay out of its private discussions with our federal court system.Petitions have been filed by a number of rights groups and journalists to have these documents unsealed. According to the latest Reuters report on this legal battle, the federal court in California is siding with the government on this issue.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous response to one take on the Covington student defamation lawsuit, insisting the Washington Post was reckless and defamatory for not waiting to have more information before publishing an article about the incident:

Yesterday, we announced the winners of our public domain game jam, Gaming Like It's 1923. We had a lot of great entries that deserve to be played, so for the next few Saturdays we're going to highlight some of the winning in the various categories.This week, it's our winner for Best Digital Game: Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening to Steal Treasure by Alex Blechman.Most of you are probably familiar with the Robert Frost poem, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, which was published in 1923 and as of this year is officially in the public domain. Well, here's what the introduction of this tongue-in-cheek game adaptation has to say about that:

An new annual tradition in the halls of Congress is being celebrated with the introduction of legislation targeting PACER fees.

It's clear at this point that the automated filtering and flagging done by YouTube is simply not good. Whatever legitimacy the platform might want to have by touting its successes must certainly be diminished by the repeated cases of YouTube flagging videos for infringing content that isn't infringing and the fact that the whole setup has been successfully repurposed by blackmailers that hold accounts hostage through strikes.While most of these failures center around ContentID's inability to discern actual intellectual property infringement and its avenues for abuse, YouTube's algorithms can't even suss out more grave occurrences, such as child exploitation. This became apparent recently when multiple Pokemon streamers had their accounts nuked due to discussions about child pornography that never occurred.

For many years, we wrote about the infamous monkey selfie copyright situation (and lawsuit) not just because it was hellishly entertaining, but also because the legal questions underlying the issue were likely to become a lot more important. Specifically, while I don't think anyone is expecting a rush of monkey-authored works to enter the market any time soon, we certainly do expect that works created by computers will be all over the damn place in the very, very near future (and, uh, even the immediate past). Just recently, IBM displayed its "Project Debater" offering, doing an AI-powered realtime debate against a human on the "Intelligence Squared" debates program. A few days after that, the Guardian used OpenAI to write an article about itself, which the Guardian then published (it's embedded about halfway down the fuller article which is written by a real life human, Alex Hern).In both cases, the output is mostly coherent, with a few quirks. Here's a snippet that shows... both:

Yesterday, we wrote about web developer Daniel Quinn's harrowing experience receiving a $20,000 payment demand from copyright troll Higbee & Associaties. That post ended with Quinn explaining how he found lawyer Carolyn Homer to represent him. Today, we have a companion post by Homer to talk about her experience investigating and dealing with Higbee, and calling out some of his questionable legal practices.The moment I saw Higbee’s demand letter to Daniel Quinn I knew I was dealing with a troll. Although I’ve recently joined the #resistance, I spent the first five years of my career defending Silicon Valley companies against mass copyright trolls. Higbee is new to me, but I know this game.I immediately scanned his demand letter for problems. There were many — Michael Grecco’s power of attorney authorization isn’t even signed! — but I’ll focus on three major ones.Major Defect # 1: Pricing Unmoored From Market RealityAs Daniel quoted yesterday, Higbee’s November letter threatens litigation, statutory damages up to $150,000 and attorney fees. Supposedly to avoid this terror of litigation, Higbee demands payment of $20,000 within seven days, accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement.Daniel Quinn did not pay the $20K. So Higbee sent a December follow-up letter which escalates the demand: “[P]lease do not make the mistake of ignoring this. If this matter is litigated, the demand amount will likely quadruple or more, and then you will also likely have to pay attorneys fees.”Higbee’s message is clear: pay $20,000 now or risk litigation and $80,000—maybe even $150,000—later.None of those numbers make sense. The market rate for a license to publish most individual photos on the internet ranges between $0-$1000. Similarly in my experience, typical litigation damages for adjudged infringement of individual photos on the internet range between $200-$2000. At this exact moment in time, a photograph from Michael Grecco’s same X-Files photoset is available to license for $1800. And that is itself insanely high—there’s a multitude of other professional X-Files stills available from stock photo agencies Alamy and Getty for $49-$499.Higbee’s settlement demand price for a single Grecco photo is facially absurd.Major Defect # 2: Ineligibility for Statutory DamagesHigbee’s utter divorce from market reality aside, the firm might have an arguable basis for demanding $20,000 if Grecco was eligible to recover statutory damages. Due to the insanity of copyright law, $150,000 is the maximum statutory recovery for willful infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). Numerous commentators and courts have rejected that top-line figure as insanely out of proportion to the actual damages caused from publication of a single photograph on the internet. Most thoughtful people consider the $200-$750 minimum statutory damages numbers to be more fair. Nevertheless, the max-$150,000 provision exists.But it was immediately apparent to me that Higbee and Grecco have no claim to either statutory damages or attorneys’ fees. Daniel Quinn posted his X-Files review on May 24, 2016. Higbee’s demand letter includes a Michael Grecco copyright application (not an issued registration) dated January 22, 2017. Absent an issued registration, Grecco is not eligible to even file a lawsuit. See 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).Moreover, the Grecco application discloses the X-Files image’s first publication date as October 25, 1993. The X-Files image was published 23 years prior to Quinn’s use on his personal blog—which itself occurred 8 months prior to Grecco even bothering to apply to register it. The Copyright Act does not permit recovery of statutory damages or attorneys’ fees for “any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration.” 17 U.S.C. § 412.Higbee / Grecco is threatening a lawsuit seeking $80,000 dollars in statutory damages plus attorneys fees for dquinn.net’s use of an unregistered thumbnail image Quinn found on Flickr. It took me two minutes to line up the dates and realize statutory damages did not apply. Higbee couldn’t bother to expend the same two minutes of effort before his firm spent two months chasing Quinn with threatening emails, letters, and phone calls demanding tens of thousands of dollars?I wrote a letter to Higbee & Associates on January 18, 2019, detailing this and other problems with their demand. I called them out for demanding statutory damages and attorneys fees for which Michael Grecco is plainly ineligible. A couple days later I received a response from one of their copyright associates, Theodore Sell. His email read like he had rush-typed it with his thumbs on his iPhone while stuck in L.A. rush-hour traffic.Regarding statutory damages, Sell wrote:

Great news on the asset forfeiture front, courtesy of the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court has ruled that forfeitures can violate the Eighth Amendment's protections against excessive fines.The case the Supreme Court ruled on deals with Indiana native Tyson Timbs. Timbs sold $260 worth of heroin to undercover officers. He pled guilty to criminal charges. The state decided to forfeit his $42,000 Land Rover via civil asset forfeiture, routing around the criminal system to make it easier for cops to make off with his vehicle. Timbs challenged this forfeiture as an excessive fine, given that the max fine for his criminal charges was $10,000.This case made its way to the state's Supreme Court, which overturned the lower court's decision finding in favor of Timbs and the US Constitution, which Indiana had incorporated. The state's highest court stated that this clause of the Eighth Amendment did not apply to civil asset forfeiture. This was a bizarre position to take, as the Supreme Court pointed out during oral arguments.

Between our smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and the like, we tote around a wide variety of gadgets on the daily. And, keeping them all energized is next to impossible, unless you're willing to lug a tangled mass of chargers wherever you go. Enter SCOUT Portable Charger. Sporting a built-in wall charger, built-in cables, quick-charging USB port, and intelligent charging technology, SCOUT is hands-down a good way to juice up your entire tech collection. It even supports Qi-compatible devices. Choose either the 5,000mAH or the 10,000mAh, and both are only $40.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The votes are in, and it's time to announce the winners of the Gaming Like It's 1923 game jam!At the beginning of January, we decided to celebrate the long-awaited entry of new works into the public domain with a game jam, inviting designers to submit games of all kinds based on newly-copyright-free works from 1923. We got way more entries than we expected, and handed them off to our huge judging panel of game designers and copyright experts, who left comments and nominated them in our six prize categories. Now we've tallied up the votes and reviews, so without further delay, here are the winners of Gaming Like It's 1923:Best Analog Game — Permanence by Jackson TeguThis award goes to the best overall non-computer game, with a clear consensus emerging from the judge's review scores. Permanence is perplexing at first glance, and requires some serious prep work, but sometimes that's the cost of a game this unique and creative. Using the format of a book that can be read in two directions, it weaves the painting Metempsychosis by Yokoyama Taikan and poetry from the book The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran into an artistic gaming experience that isn't quite like anything you've seen before.Best Digital Game — Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening to Steal Treasure by Alex BlechmanThe award for best digital game goes to this short, sweet, simple, and above all entertaining take on Robert Frost's famous poem. Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening to Steal Treasure tasks you with jazzing up the verse by subbing in some new material to entertain a modern gaming audience. Give it a try, or two or three...Best Adaptation — God of Vengeance by jrgoldbThis award goes to the game that most faithfully and meaningfully adapted its source material, carrying its original intent forth into a new medium. God of Vengeance, based on the 1923 Yiddish language play of the same name, is an analog storytelling game that puts players in the main roles from the play and provides an interesting mechanical framework for improvising scenes and exploring the themes of a work they might otherwise have never encountered.Best Remix — Will You Do The Fandango? by Lari AssmuthThis award goes to the game that made the best combined use of multiple public domain works. Will You Do The Fandango? starts with the 1923 film Scaramouche, but then draws on the whole world of Commedia dell'Arte and the mechanics from games like Apocalypse World and Lady Blackbird. The result is a high-energy tabletop roleplaying game, complete with dice and stats, in which a troupe of traveling players tour revolutionary France engaging in bombastic drama and romance — with printable masquerade masks to boot!Best Deep Cut — Not a Fish by J. WaltonThis award is for the best use of an obscure or unexpected source that doesn't appear on the typical roundup lists of works entering the public domain, and the cuts don't get much deeper than Not a Fish: a game based on a pair of 1923 science journal articles about Amphioxus fisheries in China. Like the jigsaw puzzles that inspired the mechanics, the game starts out seeming jumbled, but it quickly starts to resolve into an exploration of social and political themes you might not be expecting from the subject matter.Best Visuals (Tie!) — Chimneys and Tulips by litrouke, and The Garden of God by DreadRoachThere wasn't a single stand-out winner for the best visuals category, and understandably so — one month is scarcely enough time to create or assemble a game's worth of stunning graphics. Instead, the award for best visuals goes to two browser-based submissions which, while they have their limitations, certainly caught our eye.Chimneys and Tulips is a creative arrangement of four poems by E. E. Cummings, with a focus on beautiful minimalist design. Though the gameplay is somewhat lacking, a lot of work and vision went into the colorful style in which the works are presented, and while the interactive elements may be simple, they aren't arbitrary. Fans of poetry, and of typography, will find plenty to explore.The Garden of God is a short narrative experience based on the novel of the same name by H. De Vere Stacpoole. It's built in RPG Maker MV, and most of the visuals are stock sprites and graphics from that tool — but a lot of thought and effort went into how they were used. The game has multiple unique settings and maps, and well-choreographed scripted scenes with attention to background detail.All the winners in all categories will receive their choice of a copy of our public domain card game CIA: Collect It All, or one of our copyright-themed t-shirts from Teespring. We'll be reaching out to all the winners on their games' Itch pages, so if you see your game listed here, keep an eye on your incoming comments!Thanks again to everyone who submitted a game — there are lots of entries worth checking out in addition to the winners. And thanks again to our panel of judges:

In an article for Quillette titled, “It Isn’t Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals,” Columbia University research fellow Richard Hanania offers us proof–once and for all–that social media companies are biased against conservatives. Either that, or it’s the latest in a growing list of bogus, exaggerated or otherwise dubious anti-conservative bias claims (I’ll let you judge for yourself).“Until now, conservatives have had to rely on anecdotes to make their case,“ Hanania writes. Adding that, “[m]y results make it difficult to take [social media platforms’] claims of political neutrality seriously.” The data he collected (with the help two research assistants, no less) looks at “prominent, politically active” people suspended from Twitter since the company’s launch in 2006.Accounts included in the data set were selected from individuals and organizations whose suspension was covered in a “mainstream” news outlet, and who expressed a preference for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.Out of 22 (!!!) accounts in the data set that met these criteria, 21 (or 95%) were Trump supporters. Despite the small sample size, the author argues this is compelling evidence for Twitter’s anti-conservative bias. Even if conservatives are more likely to break Twitter’s rules, he argues, it “doesn’t seem credible” the disparity would be so wide.But let’s look a little more closely at this. These are the 22 accounts make up the data set:

As several Attorneys General and the FBI investigate who was behind the fake net neutrality comments that plagued the FCC website during the late 2017 repeal, reporters like Jason Prechtel and Gizmodo's Dell Cameron continue to slowly and methodically connect the dots. Last month, Cameron obtained leaked investigation data linking many of the bogus comments to several Trumpland-linked astroturfing and policy operations like "Free Our Internet," a bogus consumer-rights group specifically built by ex-Trump campaign staffer Christie-Lee McNally.And this week, both Prechtel and Cameron leaned on FOIA data to discover that another sizeable chunk of the bogus comments were allegedly driven by both CQ Roll Call, a DC-based news and policy organization, and Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF), a "dark money" influence group with historical ties to defending tobacco companies:

Promoters of the EU destructive copyright directive keep pushing the bogus line that it is necessary to give money to "artists and journalists." Take, for example, MEP Axel Voss (the EU Parliament member in charge of all of this nonsense) and his press release touting the final text:

Recently, we discussed a proposed change to Japanese copyright law that would make literally all downloading of copyrighted material a criminal matter, rather than a civil one. This change would be fairly bonkers for an entire host of reasons. It has the potential to clog up the criminal courts with the same kind of minor copyright infringement cases that clog up America's civil courts. It would put a decisive chill on the sharing culture that brought the internet to its current state to begin with. And it would further the culture of ownership and protectionism already far too common across the globe.And, as states an "emergency statement" issued by nearly a hundred Japanese academics, it would possibly criminalize the kind of personal copying that facilitates research, education, and personal growth.