With net neutrality rules in place, broadband service is considered an essential communications resource under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. That enables the FCC to regulate broadband internet in a similar way to water, power and phone services. That includes giving the agency oversight of outages and the security of broadband networks. Brendan Carr, one of the Republican commissioners, referred to the measure as an “unlawful power grab.”

Under net neutrality rules, internet service providers have to treat broadband usage in the same way. Users have to be provided with access to all content, websites and apps under the same speeds and conditions. ISPs can’t block or prioritize certain content — they’re not allowed to throttle access to specific sites or charge streaming services for faster service.

The FCC adopted net neutrality protections in 2015 during the Obama administration. But they were scrapped when President Donald Trump was in office. Back in 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to bring back the Obama-era rules, but the FCC was unable to do so for quite some time. The commission was deadlocked with two Democratic votes and two Republican votes until Anna Gomez was sworn in as the third Democratic commissioner on the panel last September. The FCC then moved relatively quickly (at least in terms of the FCC’s pace) to re-establish net neutrality protections.

The issue may not be entirely settled. There may still be legal challenges from the telecom industry. However, the FCC’s vote in favor of net neutrality is a win for advocates of an open and equitable internet.

The post FCC votes to restore net neutrality protections appeared first on Best News.

Bluesky remained an invite-only platform from its launch in February 2023 until February of this year, when it finally ditched the waitlist. Bluesky had said last May that it wasn’t ready for heads of state to join, and even asked users to give its support team notice “before you invite prominent figures.” It’s since grown to more than 5 million users, gaining roughly a million alone in the day after it stopped requiring invite codes.

The post Bluesky now allows heads of state to join the platform appeared first on Best News.

The image also says “Election Interference” and “Never Surrender!,” along with the URL of his website. Trump linked to his website in the tweet, as well, where his mug shot is also prominently featured with a lengthy note that starts with: “Today, at the notoriously violent jail in Fulton County, Georgia, I was ARRESTED despite having committed NO CRIME.”

In November last year, Musk appeared to make the decision to reinstate Trump’s account based on the results of a Twitter poll. He asked people to vote on whether Trump should have access to his account returned. At the end of 24 hours, the option to reinstate the former president won with 51.8 percent of a decision that saw more than 15 million votes. Musk admitted at the time that some of the action on the poll came from “bot and troll armies.” Prior to the poll, Musk also said the decision on whether to reinstate Trump would come from a newly formed moderation council, but he never followed through on that pledge.

The website then known as Twitter banned Trump in early 2021 after he broke the company’s rules against inciting violence. The initial suspension saw Trump lose access to his account for 12 hours, but days later, the company made the decision permanent. At first, Trump tried to skirt the ban, even going so far as to file a lawsuit against Twitter that ultimately failed. Following his de-platforming from Twitter, Facebook and other social media websites, Trump went on to create Truth Social. Following his reinstatement, Trump said he didn’t “see any reason” to return to the platform. That said, the promise of reaching a huge audience with something as dramatic as a mug shot was obviously too good for Trump to pass up, particularly with what is likely to be a messy Republican primary on the horizon.

The post Trump's first post since he was reinstated on X is his mug shot appeared first on Best News.

With the rule in place, "film and television, music and book publishers, sports leagues and broadcasters" can ask the court to order ISPs to block websites that share stolen content. Rivkin, arguing in favor of site-blocking, explained that the practice doesn't impact legitimate businesses. He said legislation around the practice would require detailed evidence to prove that a certain entity is engaged in illegal activities and that alleged perpetrators can appear in court to defend themselves.

Rivkin cited FMovies, an illegal film streamer, as an example of how site-blocking in the US would minimize traffic to piracy websites. Apparently, FMovies gets 160 million visits per month, a third of which comes from the US. If the rule also exists in the country, then the website's traffic would, theoretically, drop pretty drastically. The MPA's chairman also talked about previous efforts to enforce site-blocking in the US, which critics previously said would "break the internet" and could potentially stifle free speech. While he insisted that other countries' experiences since then had proven those predictions wrong, he promised that the organization takes those concerns seriously.

He ended his speech by asking for the support of theater owners in the country. "The MPA is leading this charge in Washington," he said. "And we need the voices of theater owners — your voices — right by our side. Because this action will be good for all of us: Content creators. Theaters. Our workforce. Our country."

The post The Motion Picture Association will work with Congress to start blocking piracy sites in the US appeared first on Best News.

In May, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed, and Governor Kim Reynolds subsequently signed, Senate File 496 (SF 496), which enacted sweeping changes to the state’s education curriculum. Specifically it limits what books can be made available in school libraries and classrooms, requiring titles to be “age appropriate” and without “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act,” per Iowa Code 702.17.

But ensuring that every book in the district’s archives adhere to these new rules is quickly turning into a mammoth undertaking. “Our classroom and school libraries have vast collections, consisting of texts purchased, donated, and found,” Bridgette Exman, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction at Mason City Community School District, said in a statement. “It is simply not feasible to read every book and filter for these new requirements.”

As such, the Mason City School District is bringing in AI to parse suspect texts for banned ideas and descriptions since there are simply too many titles for human reviewers to cover on their own. Per the district, a “master list” is first cobbled together from “several sources” based on whether there were previous complaints of sexual content. Books from that list are then scanned by “AI software” which tells the state censors whether or not there actually is a depiction of sex in the book.

“Frankly, we have more important things to do than spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to protect kids from books,” Exman told PopSci via email. “At the same time, we do have a legal and ethical obligation to comply with the law. Our goal here really is a defensible process.”

So far, the AI has flagged 19 books for removal. They are as follows:

Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan

Sold by Patricia McCormick

A Court of Mist and Fury (series) by Sarah J. Maas

Monday’s Not Coming by Tiffany D. Jackson

Tricks by Ellen Hopkins

Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood

Beloved by Toni Morrison

Looking for Alaska by John Green

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini

Crank by Ellen Hopkins

Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie

An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

Feed by M.T. Anderson

Friday Night Lights by Buzz Bissinger

Gossip Girl by Cecily von Ziegesar

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou

This article contains affiliate links; if you click such a link and make a purchase, we may earn a commission.

The post An Iowa school district is using AI to ban books appeared first on Best News.

The image also says “Election Interference” and “Never Surrender!,” along with the URL of his website. Trump linked to his website in the tweet, as well, where his mug shot is also prominently featured with a lengthy note that starts with: “Today, at the notoriously violent jail in Fulton County, Georgia, I was ARRESTED despite having committed NO CRIME.”

In November last year, Musk appeared to make the decision to reinstate Trump’s account based on the results of a Twitter poll. He asked people to vote on whether Trump should have access to his account returned. At the end of 24 hours, the option to reinstate the former president won with 51.8 percent of a decision that saw more than 15 million votes. Musk admitted at the time that some of the action on the poll came from “bot and troll armies.” Prior to the poll, Musk also said the decision on whether to reinstate Trump would come from a newly formed moderation council, but he never followed through on that pledge.

The website then known as Twitter banned Trump in early 2021 after he broke the company’s rules against inciting violence. The initial suspension saw Trump lose access to his account for 12 hours, but days later, the company made the decision permanent. At first, Trump tried to skirt the ban, even going so far as to file a lawsuit against Twitter that ultimately failed. Following his de-platforming from Twitter, Facebook and other social media websites, Trump went on to create Truth Social. Following his reinstatement, Trump said he didn’t “see any reason” to return to the platform. That said, the promise of reaching a huge audience with something as dramatic as a mug shot was obviously too good for Trump to pass up, particularly with what is likely to be a messy Republican primary on the horizon.

The post Trump's first post since he was reinstated on X is his mug shot appeared first on Best News.

“Given the growing prevalence of tools that produce synthetic content, we’re expanding our policies a step further to require advertisers to disclose when their election ads include material that’s been digitally altered or generated,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement obtained by The Hill. Small and inconsequential edits like resizing images, minor cleanup to the background or color correction will all still be allowed — those that depict people or things doing stuff that they never actually did or those that otherwise alter actual footage will be flagged.

Those ads that do utilize AI aspects will need to label them as such in a "clear and conspicuous" manner that is easily seen by the user, per the Google policy. The ads will be moderated first through Google's own automated screening systems and then reviewed by a human as needed.

Google's actions run counter to other companies in social media. X/Twitter recently announced that it reversed its previous position and will allow political ads on the site, while Meta continues to take heat for its own lackadaisical ad moderation efforts.

The Federal Election Commission is also beginning to weigh in on the issue. LAst month it sought public comment on amending a standing regulation "that prohibits a candidate or their agent from fraudulently misrepresenting other candidates or political parties" to clarify that the "related statutory prohibition applies to deliberately deceptive Artificial Intelligence campaign advertisements" as well.

The post Google will require political ads 'prominently disclose' their AI-generated aspects appeared first on Best News.

Biden nominated Gomez, who is currently a State Department communications policy adviser, to the FCC in May. The president’s previous pick for the FCC’s open chair was Gigi Sohn, who withdrew from consideration in March after enduring attacks from politicians and industry lobbyists. Republicans and certain Democrats such as Sen. Joe Manchin refused to confirm Sohn, who is an advocate for affordable broadband.

However, senators found Gomez a more palatable choice and confirmed her to the panel on Thursday with a 55-43 vote. Gomez worked for the FCC in several positions over a 12-year period before moving into the private sector then onto the State Department earlier this year. She will be the FCC’s first Latina commissioner since Gloria Tristani stepped down in 2001.

Industry bodies and figures such as the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association and former FCC chair and Broadland campaign co-chair Mignon Clyburn have welcomed Gomez’s appointment. “At long last, at this critical time for the US telecommunications and media industries, we have a full roster of FCC commissioners,” Communications Workers of America President Claude Cummings Jr. told Engadget in a statement. “Anna Gomez is a dedicated public servant who is highly qualified to serve on the FCC. We are looking forward to working with her to realize the potential of the bipartisan infrastructure bill to bring affordable internet service to all Americans and to reverse the decline of local news that threatens the foundations of our democracy.“

After Gomez is sworn in, the Biden administration will be able to fulfill some of its major communications policy goals after a years-long partisan deadlock at the FCC. The agency has long had two Democratic and two Republican commissioners, who have often been unable to agree on policy votes since former chair Ajit Pai left the panel in January 2021.

The FCC is now expected to reverse some telecommunications sector deregulation efforts that the agency carried out under Donald Trump. Those include the potential restoration of Obama-era net neutrality rules, which the agency scrapped in 2017. In recent years, Democratic commissioners have had their hands largely tied, preventing them from taking meaningful action on issues such as internet data caps. However, the agency has still taken action on some fronts, including tackling problems such as robocallers and banning telecom equipment made by Chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE.

The Democratic commissioners may need to act quickly to carry out agenda items on behalf of the Biden administration, however. Biden has nominated Democratic Commissioner Geoffrey Starks for a second term. His initial term expired last year, but he has remained on the panel in an acting capacity. Unless the Senate re-confirms Starks, the FCC may be back in a deadlock scenario in the not-too-distant future.

The post Anna Gomez confirmed as FCC commissioner, breaking a 32-month deadlock appeared first on Best News.

When net neutrality rules are enforced, internet service providers are not allowed to block or give preference to any content. They can’t throttle access to specific websites or charge the likes of streaming services for faster service. They must provide users with access to every site, content and app at the same speeds and conditions. Advocates tout net neutrality protections as the foundation of an open and equitable internet.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a long-term supporter of net neutrality rules, announced a plan to restore the protections on Tuesday. “This afternoon, I’m sharing with my colleagues a rulemaking that proposes to reinstate net neutrality,” Rosenworcel said at an event at the National Press Club. “We will need to develop an updated record to identify the best way to restore these policies and have a uniform national open internet standard.”

The aim is to “largely return to the successful rules” that the FCC adopted in 2015 when President Barack Obama was in office. The proposal aims to reclassify both fixed and mobile broadband as an essential communications service under Title II of the Communications Act, akin to water, power and phone services.

“The Chairwoman is proposing the FCC take the first procedural steps toward reaffirming rules that would treat broadband internet service as an essential service for American life,” the FCC said. “As work, healthcare, education, commerce, and so much more have moved online, no American household or business should need to function without reliable internet service.”

Rosenworcel noted that this is a first step in the process of reviving net neutrality. It will take quite some time until the previous rules are restored, as Bloomberg notes. The FCC commissioners will vote on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at their next monthly meeting on October 19.

If, as seems likely, the agency votes in favor, it will start a new rulemaking and then seek public comments on the proposal. After reviewing the comments, Rosenworcel will decide how to move forward. In all likelihood, the commissioners will then vote on whether to adopt the final rules. While the push to restore net neutrality rules may prove successful, the implementation could still be delayed by legal challenges.

“For everyone, everywhere, to enjoy the full benefits of the internet age, internet access should be more than just accessible and affordable,” Rosenworcel said. “The internet needs to be open.” She added that repealing net neutrality protections “put the FCC on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of the American public.”

The post The FCC plans to restore Obama-era net neutrality rules appeared first on Best News.

In the excerpt below, contributing author and Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo, Holly Jean Buck, explores how accelerating climate change, the modern internet and authoritarianism’s recent renaissance are influencing and amplifying one another’s negative impacts, to the detriment of us all.

Excerpted from Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation, edited by David W. Orr. Published by MIT Press. Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved.

Burning hills and glowing red skies, stone-dry riverbeds, expanses of brown water engulfing tiny human rooftops. This is the setting for the twenty-first century. What is the plot? For many of us working on climate and energy, the story of this century is about making the energy transition happen. This is when we completely transform both energy and land use in order to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change — or fail to.

Confronting authoritarianism is even more urgent. About four billion people, or 54 percent of the world, in ninety-five countries, live under tyranny in fully authoritarian or competitive authoritarian regimes. The twenty-first century is also about the struggle against new and rising forms of authoritarianism. In this narration, the twenty-first century began with a wave of crushed democratic uprisings and continued with the election of authoritarian leaders around the world who began to dismantle democratic institutions. Any illusion of the success of globalization, or of the twenty-first century representing a break from the brutal twentieth century, was stripped away with Russia’s most recent invasion of Ukraine. The plot is less clear, given the failure of democracy-building efforts in the twentieth century. There is a faintly discernable storyline of general resistance and rebuilding imperfect democracies.

There’s also a third story about this century: the penetration of the Internet into every sphere of daily, social, and political life. Despite turn-of-the-century talk about the Information Age, we are only beginning to conceptualize what this means. Right now, the current plot is about the centralization of discourse on a few corporate platforms. The rise of the platforms brings potential to network democratic uprisings, as well as buoy authoritarian leaders through post-truth memes and algorithms optimized to dish out anger and hatred. This is a more challenging story to narrate, because the setting is everywhere. The story unfolds in our bedrooms while we should be sleeping or waking up, filling the most quotidian moments of waiting in line in the grocery store or while in transit. The characters are us, even more intimately than with climate change. It makes it hard to see the shape and meaning of this story. And while we are increasingly aware of the influence that shifting our media and social lives onto big tech platforms has on our democracy, less attention is devoted to the influence this has on our ability to respond to climate change.

Think about these three forces meeting — climate change, authoritarianism, the Internet. What comes to mind? If you recombine the familiar characters from these stories, perhaps it looks like climate activists using the capabilities of the Internet to further both networked protest and energy democracy. In particular, advocacy for a version of “energy democracy” that looks like wind, water, and solar; decentralized systems; and local community control of energy.

In this essay, I would like to suggest that this is not actually where the three forces of rising authoritarianism x climate change x tech platforms domination leads. Rather, the political economy of online media has boxed us into a social landscape wherein both the political consensus and the infrastructure we need for the energy transition is impossible to build. The current configuration of the Internet is a key obstacle to climate action.

The possibilities of climate action exist within a media ecosystem that has monetized our attention and that profits from our hate and division. Algorithms that reap advertising profits from maximizing time-on-site have figured out that what keeps us clicking is anger. Even worse, the system is addictive, with notifications delivering hits of dopamine in a part of what historian and addiction expert David Courtwright calls “limbic capitalism.” Society has more or less sleepwalked into this outrage-industrial complex without having a real analytic framework for understanding it. The tech platforms and some research groups or think tanks offer up “misinformation” or “disinformation” as the framework, which present the problem as if the problem is bad content poisoning the well, rather than the structure itself being rotten. As Evgeny Morozov has quipped, “Post-truth is to digital capitalism what pollution is to fossil capitalism — a by-product of operations.”

A number of works outline the contours and dynamics of the current media ecology and what it does — Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Antisocial Media, Safiya U. Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, Geert Lovink’s Sad by Design, Shoshana Zuboff’s Surveillance Capitalism, Richard Seymour’s The Twittering Machine, Tim Hwang’s Subprime Attention Crisis, Tressie McMillan Cottom’s writing on how to understand the social relations of Internet technologies through racial capitalism, and many more. At the same time, there’s reasonable counter-discussion about how many of our problems can really be laid at the feet of social media. The research on the impacts of social media on political dysfunction, mental health, and society writ large does not paint a neat portrait. Scholars have argued that putting too much emphasis on the platforms can be too simplistic and reeks of technological determinism; they have also pointed out that cultures like the United States’ and the legacy media have a long history with post-truth. That said, there are certainly dynamics going on that we did not anticipate, and we don’t seem quite sure what to do with them, even with multiple areas of scholarship in communication, disinformation, and social media and democracy working on these inquiries for years.

What seems clear is that the Internet is not the connectedness we imagined. The ecology and spirituality of the 1960s, which shaped and structured much of what we see as energy democracy and the good future today, told us we were all connected. Globally networked — it sounds familiar, like a fevered dream from the 1980s or 1990s, a dream that in turn had its roots in the 1960s and before. Media theorist Geert Lovink reflects on a 1996 interview with John Perry Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation cofounder and Grateful Dead lyricist, in which Barlow was describing how cyberspace was connecting each and every synapse of all citizens on the planet. As Lovink writes, “Apart from the so-called last billion we’re there now. This is what we can all agree on. The corona crisis is the first Event in World History where the internet doesn’t merely play ‘a role’ — the Event coincides with the Net. There’s a deep irony to this. The virus and the network … sigh, that’s an old trope, right?” Indeed, read through one cultural history, it seems obvious that we would reach this point of being globally networked, and that the Internet would not just “play a role” in global events like COVID-19 or climate change, but shape them.

What if the Internet actually has connected us, more deeply than we normally give it credit for? What if the we’re-all-connected-ness imagined in the latter half of the twentieth century is in fact showing up, but manifesting late, and not at all like we thought? We really are connected — but our global body is neither a psychedelic collective consciousness nor a infrastructure for data transmission comprising information packets and code. It seems that we’ve made a collective brain that doesn’t act much like a computer at all. It runs on data, code, binary digits — but it acts emotionally, irrationally, in a fight-or-flight way, and without consciousness. It’s an entity that operates as an emotional toddler, rather than with the neat computational sensing capacity that stock graphics of “the Internet” convey. Thinking of it as data or information is the same as thinking that a network of cells is a person.

The thing we’re jacked into and collectively creating seems more like a global endocrine system than anything we might have visualized in the years while “cyber” was a prefix. This may seem a banal observation, given that Marshall McLuhan was talking about the global nervous system more than fifty years ago. We had enthusiasm about cybernetics and global connectivity over the decades and, more recently, a revitalization of theory about networks and kinship and rhizomes and all the rest. (The irony is that with fifty years of talk on “systems thinking,” we still have responses to things like COVID-19 or climate that are almost antithetical to considering interconnected systems — dominated by one set of expertise and failing to incorporate the social sciences and humanities). So — globally connected, yet divided into silos, camps, echo-chambers, and so on. Social media platforms are acting as agents, structuring our interactions and our spaces for dialogue and solution-building. Authoritarians know this, and this is why they have troll farms that can manipulate the range of solutions and the sentiments about them.

The Internet as we experience it represents a central obstacle to climate action, through several mechanisms. Promotion of false information about climate change is only one of them. There’s general political polarization, which inhibits the coalitions we need to build to realize clean energy, as well as creates paralyzing infighting within the climate movement about strategies, which the platforms benefit from. There’s networked opposition to the infrastructure we need for the energy transition. There’s the constant distraction from the climate crisis, in the form of the churning scandals of the day, in an attention economy where all topics compete for mental energy. And there’s the drain of time and attention spent on these platforms rather than in real-world actions.

Any of these areas are worth spending time on, but this essay focuses on how the contemporary media ecology interferes with climate strategy and infrastructure in particular. To understand the dynamic, we need to take a closer look at the concept of energy democracy, as generally understood by the climate movement, and its tenets: renewable, small-scale systems, and community control. The bitter irony of the current moment is that it’s not just rising authoritarianism that is blocking us from good futures. It’s also our narrow and warped conceptions of democracy that are trapping us.

This article contains affiliate links; if you click such a link and make a purchase, we may earn a commission.

The post Hitting the Books: We are the frogs in the boiling pot, it's time we started governing like it. appeared first on Best News.