777 slots online game
WASHINGTON — Parents whose kids died allegedly because of social media content are pushing lawmakers to require tech companies to alter practices to minimize such harms. Attorneys general in more than half of U.S. states support the same legislation, saying “many social media platforms target minors, resulting in a national youth mental health catastrophe.” But with few days left in the current session, House leadership hasn’t set a floor vote for a measure approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in September. The bill’s companion in the Senate passed on a 91-3 vote in July. “We are trying to get it done,” Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., said in a recent hallway interview in the Capitol. “I’m working like heck to get it done.” Bilirakis is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce, whose jurisdiction includes data privacy, security and consumer protection. Bilirakis said he had spoken with the House Republican leadership, including Speaker Mike Johnson, about bringing the measure to a vote. “I haven’t given up at all,” Bilirakis said. “I think we have a shot.” A spokesman for Johnson’s office did not respond to questions about the bill. New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella is among more than 30 across the nation who have backed the bill. In a statement last month, Formella said, "“The mental health challenges, bullying, and harmful content linked to social media have reached a crisis point, and it's time for Congress to take action. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) provides a crucial framework to ensure social media platforms put the safety of children first. “By strengthening safety features, giving parents more control, and addressing harmful design practices that foster addiction, we can begin to reverse the damage affecting America's youth," Formella continued. "I am proud to join my colleagues from across the country in urging Congress to pass this important and bipartisan legislation without delay.” Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, one of the lawmakers seeking the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the new Congress, said he had not discussed the bill with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the committee chair who’s retiring. Latta said in a brief interview that he wasn’t aware of whether the schedule will include the bill. Social media companies’ aversion to the legislation is no secret. Tech industry trade groups — including NetChoice, a group that represents top tech platforms including Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc. and Snap Inc. — have said that the measure is anti-constitutional because it curbs free speech. Meta, for example, favors requiring app stores to get parents’ consent if kids under 16 want to download certain social media apps. A spokesman said that would be better than the proposals being considered in Congress, even with the House version stripping out some Senate bill provisions through a substitute amendment by Bilirakis. The first provision removed would have required tech companies to exercise a “reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature to prevent and mitigate” harms to minors, including mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders and suicidal behaviors. The second provision would have required tech companies to design their products and services to mitigate “patterns of use that indicate or encourage compulsive usage by minors.” During the committee vote, several Democratic lawmakers lamented that Bilirakis’ amendment was released a day before the markup, leaving them without time to propose changes. The amendment was approved by a voice vote. Pleas from parents Among the parents pushing for passage is a state legislator touched by the issue. “I’m tired of seeing kids die daily while we have Congress playing politics,” said Brandon Guffey, a Republican state representative from South Carolina. “I’m watching money go around. I’m watching misinformation on the kids online safety bill.” Guffey, speaking at an event organized last week by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, said his 17-year old son Gavin committed suicide in July 2022 after becoming a victim of online sexual extortion on Instagram, a platform owned by Meta. Parents and their lawyers at the event urged Congress to protect kids online. A group of 31 state attorneys general, led by Tennessee’s Jonathan Skrmetti, wrote to the House and Senate leaders on Nov. 18 pressing them to pass the measure. Other groups, such as kids safety advocate Design It For Us, have pushed House Republicans to beef up the provisions in the bill. “If Congress fails to pass KOSA this year, it will jeopardize the lives of more young people,” Zamaan Qureshi, co-chair of Design It For Us, said in a text message. “We can’t wait any longer.” The measure is about “design, not content,” said Laura Marquez-Garrett, an attorney at the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle. The group represents 3,600 families from all 50 states who have lost a loved one to social media harms, she said. Speaking at the same event as Guffey, Marquez-Garrett said that “there were changes made and those concerns were resolved,” including removing any penalties on platforms for hosting content. In the absence of guardrails, when kids search for inspirational quotes online, for example, social media platforms serve up “extreme videos,” she said. A 16-year old boy who searched online for inspirational quotes “after his first heartbreak got thousands of ‘no one will ever love you’ and suicide-promoting videos,” and the boy committed suicide, Marquez-Garrett said.
Manchester United manager Ruben Amorim hailed Arsenal as one of the best set-piece teams he has ever faced following the 2-0 defeat at Arsenal. The Gunners took two points out of Liverpool’s lead at the summit of the Premier League after Jurrien Timber and William Saliba struck in the second half – both from corners – to condemn Amorim to his first defeat as United boss. The hosts’ second-half strikes took their goals-from-corners tally to 22 since the start of last season – a statistic that is unmatched by any other team in the division. Asked if Arsenal are one of the best teams he has come up against on corners, Amorim replied: “If you follow the Premier League for a long time you can see that. “They are also big players and you see every occasion when (Gabriel) Martinelli and (Bukayo) Saka have one-on-ones, a lot of times they go outside and they cross, and they know that if the cross goes well, they can score, and if it is a corner they can score, too, so we have to be better on that. “You have seen in all Arsenal games that every team have had problems with that (corners). And the difference today was the set-pieces. “You see a goal and then the momentum changed, and it is really hard for us to take the full control of the game after that.” Timber leaned into Rasmus Hojlund at the front post before diverting Declan Rice’s set-piece into the back of Andre Onana’s net after 54 minutes to send Arsenal into the lead. Thomas Partey’s header from Saka’s corner then deflected in off Saliba’s shoulder with 17 minutes left. Arteta and the club’s set-piece guru Nicolas Jover embraced on the touchline as Amorim was left with his head in his hands. The Arsenal supporters cheered raucously every time they won a corner – landing 13 in all without reply. However, Arteta moved to play down the significance of Arsenal’s set-piece threat. “We need that, but we want to be very dangerous and very effective from every angle and every phase of play,” said Arteta. “Today we could have scored from open play like we did against West Ham and Sporting. Last year we scored the most goals in the history of this football club. Arsenal have won four consecutive Premier League matches against Man Utd for the first time ever! 💫 pic.twitter.com/biv1kvsJEP — Premier League (@premierleague) December 4, 2024 “Not because of only set-pieces, but because of a lot of things that we have. We want to create individual and magic moments, too.” Arsenal’s win against United – the first time they have recorded four victories in a row against the Red Devils in the league – was their fourth in succession since the international break. They will head to Fulham on Sunday bidding to keep the momentum going. Arteta continued: “The will to win is there. We try our best to do that. We won four in a row, but it doesn’t matter. We have to go to Fulham now, try to be better than them and try win the game. “It’s every three days that we play. It’s a crazy schedule. We’re going to need everybody and to mentally be very strong.”UN Resolution 1701 is at the heart of the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire deal. What is it?Stock market today: Wall Street drifts lower after weak signals on the economy
I n the U.K., The Guardian newspaper announced earlier this month that it will no longer be posting on X , claiming that it is “a toxic media platform” and that its owner, Elon Musk, “has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.” Is social media a useful tool or is it becoming a threat to democratic societies? Alan Rusbridger and Pratik Sinha discuss the question in a conversation moderated by Priscilla Jebaraj . Edited excerpts: How much should a news outlet or even regular users be worried about the ownership of a social media platform in deciding where to post and where to consume news? Alan Rusbridger: It is a real dilemma because Twitter (now X) was for many years a really wonderful place for posting news, finding audiences, finding out news, and building relationships. In normal circumstances, who owns a media platform shouldn’t worry us too much. But Elon Musk has so dominated Twitter, the platform that he bought, and insisted that people follow him, that it is difficult to ignore the question of ownership. Pratik Sinha: We should be worried. One should think of online spaces just the way we think of offline spaces. Offline, we try to quit toxic spaces and some people have the privilege of being able to do so. When you are able to quit a toxic relationship, typically it is because you are financially independent. The Guardian is such a huge organisation that even if it doesn’t have traffic from X, it is okay for the newspaper. X is probably just a little more toxic than other platforms. So, it is a privilege that one is able to quit a more toxic platform and focus on others. Comment | No ‘X factor’ — reconciling freedom and accountability It is important to know who owns media organisations, but it is not the only factor. One also has to look at day-to-day reportage. Had Mr. Musk bought X and not used it as a political tool, it would have been a different matter. But not only did he buy it; he uses it as a personal tool and not just a political tool. The algorithm has been tweaked to ensure that everyone on X sees his posts. That is where the problem lies. How important is social media to disseminate content? Pratik Sinha: Very important, unfortunately. Our primary sources of information have become social media platforms which are controlled by multi-billion dollar companies. We have to use these platforms because, how else do we reach out to people? And that also makes censorship easy because the government only has to have a relationship with these two or three platforms, the kind of relationships that governments typically have with monopolies, to ensure that the information that should reach citizens is censored. We are in a tricky space because we have no free platforms where information can reach citizens without many layers of filters. Also read | Bluesky attracts millions as users leave Musk’s X after Trump win Alan Rusbridger: It used to be really important. There are about 350 million people on X, so that is a considerable audience. In the digital world, for a long time, it was really important to be able to amplify journalism through that platform. But people who analyse these things say that the number of referrals from social media, and to some extent from search engines, has declined. Are some platforms worse than others? Alan Rusbridger: I think the problem is that there is a huge mismatch between the editorial standards and values that the best news organisations represent and the editorial standards of Mr. Musk. He has none. He has abandoned all the trust and safety teams. He doesn’t believe in content moderation; he sees it as censorship. The attempts by regulators and advertisers to try and clean up X have been met with the most foul-mouthed rejection. He also holds contempt for the free press. He is constantly telling people that they shouldn’t believe anything on the legacy media and that the only place you can find the truth nowadays is X. So it is an act of peculiar masochism to keep appearing on his platform when he despises us. That is why people are thinking, well, let’s go somewhere where we are valued and where facts and truth and journalism still count for something. What alternatives do you think are better? Alan Rusbridger: There is Mastodon, which everyone found extremely hard to use, so it has not really worked. There is Threads, which has become quite popular quite quickly. And there is Bluesky, which a lot of journalists are now fleeing to. There is a view that you shouldn’t moderate anything. That is not a view that has widely brought favour in the world apart from the U.S. under Donald Trump. Most people feel that there is a lot of illegal, harmful content which should be moderated in some way. Also read | X rival Bluesky fights a flood of spam, scams, and harmful content as millions join Pratik Sinha: The problem is centralisation of information. What I consider as true alternatives are decentralised systems. Mastodon and Bluesky have been designed to be decentralised. I don’t consider Threads as an alternative because it is just another product by a monopoly which is not decentralised, though it is attempting to include some decentralisation features. Alternatives will not be as convenient to use and we should be okay with that because it is the only way that these platforms will have the opportunity to improve. Misinformation is platform-agnostic. Quantitatively, it is very difficult to say whether there is more on one platform, because it also depends on usage. For instance, in India, there is more misinformation on WhatsApp simply because the usage of WhatsApp is high in India. What is different is the amount of hate speech that is being put out on different platforms. All platforms have a policy vis-a-vis hate speech, but the question is whether these policies are being implemented or not. I don’t think there is a single X employee dedicated to moderating Indian content on the platform. Everyone was fired. So, maybe in that particular aspect, Facebook might be slightly better than X because people are moderating content there. What kind of checks should platforms be putting in place to reduce such toxicity? Pratik Sinha: They need to invest money in people to moderate content. When riots had happened in Sri Lanka, Facebook did not have a single moderator in Sri Lanka. There were a few sitting in an office in Hyderabad. When the Rohingya exodus happened, there was no moderator in a local language. If you look at the number of moderators per million of population, India would be one of the lowest in the world. In India, there are many languages and nuance. Dog whistling is different in every language. None of these platforms are able to do that because they don’t want to invest the money. Also read | X feeds monetisation of misinformation in a time of war Alan Rusbridger: The best platforms are developing systems and it is bound to involve a lot of AI to try and identify people who are trying to cause real harm. During the recent Southport riots in England, Mr. Musk himself was re-posting really dangerous stuff. You can’t have social media being used to organise murder. That should be obvious. So, whether it is human fact-checkers and moderators or AI systems and content management moderation systems, most people think that you have got to have some systems to catch the worst behaviour. Otherwise, this technology can be used to cause immense harm. What role do you think social media can play in building democracy? Pratik Sinha: We confuse a communication system with a communication system controlled by monopolies. Any communication system which works well is great for citizens and for democracy; it will be used by people to put their voice out. We know what is happening in Palestine because it is being broadcast. The number of people who died in the Iraq war was much higher than the number of people who have died in Palestine. But Iraq happened when there was no social media. But when that same communication system is subsumed by the system committing the atrocity, it is a problem. Also read | Elon Musk calls Australian government ‘fascists’ over misinformation law Alan Rusbridger: Social media at its best is marvellous. On a platform like Facebook, there are, I think, three billion people who have the ability to publish and connect with each other. They are mostly using it for good purposes to organise, or for innocent purposes. So, it would be terrible to blacken all social media, abandon it or clamp down on it. But I think it is possible to stamp out the dangerous way of using social media. Also read | X’s fact checking feature falters in India during polls, amid automation and polarisation We [news outlets] need to start by choosing a platform which is run on ethical lines and recreate the kind of reasonably civilised discourse which was good for journalism. From what I have seen of Bluesky, people are rejoicing in the fact that it feels purer. Pratik Sinha: We have to have media and information literacy classes in schools where children learn how to look at different sources of information and process them. We need to think about decentralised communication systems. There will be challenges, but those aren’t insurmountable. Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast Published - November 22, 2024 01:31 am IST Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit technology (general) / social networking
Ian Schieffelin, Clemson topple Penn State to win Sunshine SlamLowe scores career-high 22, leads Pitt over LSU 74-63 in Greenbrier Tip-OffTaylor Swift and Travis Kelce take their relationship to the next level with life-changing move READ MRORE: Staggering amount Beyonce was paid by Netflix to perform By ERIC BLUM Published: 22:49, 26 December 2024 | Updated: 23:09, 26 December 2024 e-mail 8 View comments Now that Taylor Swift has officially concluded her near-two-year Eras Tour, the 14-time Grammy winner has reportedly decided to spend most of her time in her Nashville residences, to be closer to NFL boyfriend Travis Kelce . Swift also has homes in New York City and Los Angeles , but putting down roots only a 90-minute flight away from Kelce appears to be her main priority now that she is not traveling most of the time. Kelce, by playing for the Kansas City Chiefs, owns a $6million mansion in Leawood, Kansas, where Swift has frequently stayed since their romance began. Much like her time after her last worldwide tour wrapped in 2019, Swift took time to herself and stayed low-key, which is believed to be her plan moving forward, per Page Six. Swift and Kelce have been dating since last September when she appeared in a luxury suite at a Chiefs game next to Donna Kelce, Travis' mother. Swift has appeared at nearly 20 of Kansas City's games since her relationship with Kelce began. Taylor Swift is reportedly ready to settle down in Nashville next year to be close to Travis Kelce Swift and Kelce have been dating since last September after she appeared at one of his games More to come. Travis Kelce Los Angeles Taylor Swift Grammys Share or comment on this article: Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce take their relationship to the next level with life-changing move e-mail Add comment
Safety is ‘at the core’ of TikTok, European executive says