David Sacks: the tech reset has only just begun

The PayPal co-founder predicts that Elon Musk has started a great reckoning

As the cheap money era draws to a close, perhaps no industry has been worse affected than the tech sector. Last year, there were nearly 100,000 job cuts — an astonishing 649% increase from the nearly 13,000 tech jobs that were cut in 2021. And this year the picture doesn’t look much rosier: from Apple to Amazon (which cut a further 18,000 employees this week), job cuts are happening across the board.

So where does this leave Twitter’s new chief, Elon Musk? Like other tech CEOs, the entrepreneur has announced a significant reduction to his new workforce, with reports suggesting that as much as 75% of employees are leaving. But astonishing as this figure may seem, Twitter has actually grown in activity and downloads under its new leadership. What could explain this?

Share

Twilight of the Tech Gods

Maybe a few years in a federal prison will be good for Sam Bankman-Fried. The high-tech grifter went from billionaire to broke in a matter of days when investors realized that his FTX crypto-currency trading platform had vaporized their money. FTX was a Ponzi scheme purpose-built to snare investors like them—people who thought they were smarter than everyone else. Up until his arrest on December 11, SBF, as Bankman-Fried styles himself, was still giving interviews. Like a frat boy who got caught “borrowing” the college president’s car, he seemed to think he could still talk his way out of this mess. But he’s about to learn that embezzling money is a crime. Even when the alleged embezzler is a fuzzy-headed nerd who convinced everyone he was just trying to save the world.

Share

How to Solve Big Tech Censorship: Un-Misread a Landmark Case

The ongoing ‘Twitter Files’ revelations show that Republicans’ first order of business this coming 118th Congress must be to introduce a legislative firewall between the White House — and its offshoot federal law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice and its offshoot, the FBI — and private social media companies. Last summer’s revelations of government pressuring social media executives into blocking users not toeing the official line on COVID was as clear an example of unconstitutional “state action” as any. Courts have long ruled the government cannot pressure private entities, as an “agent of government,” into censoring what itself cannot.

Share

How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate

The platform suppressed true information from doctors and public-health experts that was at odds with U.S. government policy.

I had always thought a primary job of the press was to be skeptical of power—especially the power of the government. But during the Covid-19 pandemic, I and so many others found that the legacy media had shown itself to largely operate as a messaging platform for our public health institutions. Those institutions operated in near total lockstep, in part by purging internal dissidents and discrediting outside experts.

Twitter became an essential alternative. It was a place where those with public health expertise and perspectives at odds with official policy could air their views—and where curious citizens could find such information. This often included other countries’ responses to Covid that differed dramatically from our own.

Share

TWITTER EXPOSED: Blacklists, Secret Censorship Cabal, Treachery at the Highest Levels

Independent journalist Bari Weiss took to Twitter on Thursday night to unload a second trove of internal memos and documents exposing how Twitter officials silenced the voices of prominent conservatives on the platform. Radio host Dan Bongino, Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya, and activist Charlie Kirk were among those Twitter censored or blacklisted, along with the popular “Libs of TikTok” account.

Elon Musk: Twitter blacklisting proves ‘the inmates were running the asylum’

Elon Musk has called the damning confirmation that Twitter blacklisted conservative opinions proof that “the inmates were running the asylum” before his free-speech overhaul.

The second richest man in the world added to the growing condemnation sparked Tuesday by the release of part two of “The Twitter Files” detailing his $44 billion purchase’s previous “secret blacklists.”

However, he defended his predecessor, the site’s co-founder Jack Dorsey, who’d previously insisted: “We don’t shadow ban, and we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints.”

That’s the Oligarch variant of “I was just following orders.”

Twitter Files flashback: Jack Dorsey testified under oath Twitter does not censor, ‘shadow-ban’ conservatives

Share

Apple Crushes Dissent in America and China

Suppressing protests in China and censoring Twitter in America.

The largest lockdown uprising in China took place at facilities run by Apple’s Foxconn supplier where workers had previously jumped to their deaths. After thousands fled the Apple gulag, making their way through the woods and rural areas to freedom, other employees battled with Communist authorities over abusive conditions and treatment in the iGulag.

Share

‘Go To War’: Musk Targets Apple, Claiming It Canceled Ads, Threatened To Boot Twitter From App Store

Twitter CEO Elon Musk signaled Monday that he might be preparing to “go to war” with Apple after the company has largely stopped advertising on Twitter and has reportedly threatened to boot the social media platform from its App Store.

Musk specifically called out Apple CEO Tim Cook in a series of tweets where he also raised the issue of censorship.

Share

Tech Turmoil Complicates Canada’s Policing of the Online World

The government has four bills before Parliament to reign in tech giants at a time when the industry is retrenching.

Back in the spring my colleague Cade Metz, who covers artificial intelligence, driverless cars, robotics, virtual reality and other new technologies for The New York Times, declared Toronto to be “the third-largest tech hub in North America.”

Toronto moved into that position, he reported, because of investments by global technology giants including Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft, which all have offices in the city. During the pandemic, he found, a rapidly rising number of people were working from home for Meta, formerly Facebook. Days after Cade’s article appeared, Meta announced that it, too, was formally joining the rush to Toronto and would open an engineering center with 2,500 people.

Share

The Secondhand Censorship Effect: Big Tech Kept Info from People 251M Times Q1-Q3

As the 2022 midterm elections approached, social media platforms aggressively championed political ideas benefiting left-wing candidates while silencing dissenting opinions that don’t fit the liberal worldview in the third quarter.

During the first three quarters of 2022, MRC Free Speech America counted a total of 435 individual censorship cases that translated to no fewer than 251,399,696 times that Big Tech kept information from social media users through secondhand censorship.

Share

TRUTH COPS – Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.

The work, much of which remains unknown to the American public, came into clearer view earlier this year when DHS announced a new “Disinformation Governance Board”: a panel designed to police misinformation (false information spread unintentionally), disinformation (false information spread intentionally), and malinformation (factual information shared, typically out of context, with harmful intent) that allegedly threatens U.S. interests. While the board was widely ridiculed, immediately scaled back, and then shut down within a few months, other initiatives are underway as DHS pivots to monitoring social media now that its original mandate — the war on terror — has been wound down.

h/t Mauser

Share

How Big Pharma monetised depression

America has been sold a lucrative myth

We are, if you believe the headlines, living in the midst of an unprecedented mental health crisis, exacerbated by the stress and isolation of the pandemic. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at the end of May, nearly 40% of American adults had experienced symptoms of depression and anxiety during the past month, with nearly a quarter filling a prescription for an antidepressant or other psychiatric drug. The rise in mental health problems has been particularly dramatic among the young: the New York Times reported in July that between 2017 and 2021, antidepressant use rose by 41% among American teenagers.

Share

Lawsuit reveals vast censorship scheme by Big Tech and the federal government

A little noticed federal lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, is uncovering astonishing evidence of an entrenched censorship scheme cooked up between the federal government and Big Tech that would make Communist China proud.

So far, 67 officials or agencies — including the FBI — have been accused in the lawsuit of violating the First Amendment by pressuring Facebook, Twitter and Google to censor users for alleged misinformation or disinformation.

Victims of the Biden-Big Tech’s “censorship enterprise” include The Post, whose Hunter Biden laptop exposé was suppressed by Facebook and then Twitter in October 2020 after the FBI went to Facebook warning them with great specificity to watch out for a “dump” of Russian disinformation, pertaining to Joe Biden, with an uncanny resemblance to our stories.

Share

The US supreme court case that could bring the tech giants to their knees

… Now spool forward to November 2015 when Nohemi Gonzalez, a young American studying in Paris, was gunned down in a restaurant by the Islamic State terrorists who murdered 129 other people that night. Her family sued Google, arguing that its YouTube subsidiary had used algorithms to push IS videos to impressionable viewers, using the information that the company had collected about them. Their petition seeking a supreme court review argues that “videos that users viewed on YouTube were the central manner in which IS enlisted support and recruits from areas outside the portions of Syria and Iraq which it controlled”.

The key thing about the Gonzalez suit, though, is not that YouTube should not be hosting IS videos (section 230 allows that) but that its machine-learning “recommendation” algorithms, which may push other, perhaps more radicalising, videos, renders it liable for the resulting damage. Or, to put it crudely, while YouTube may have legal protection for hosting whatever its users post on it, it does not – and should not – have protection for an algorithm that determines what they should view next.

Or bring free speech to its knees.

Share