TechCrunch: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage

TechCrunch: Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage. “The problem is that Facebook doesn’t offer free speech; it offers free amplification. No one would much care about anything you posted to Facebook, no matter how false or hateful, if people had to navigate to your particular page to read your rantings, as in the very early days of the site. But what people actually read on Facebook is what’s in their News Feed … and its contents, in turn, are determined not by giving everyone an equal voice, and not by a strict chronological timeline.”

Politico: Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s private meetings with conservative pundits

Politico: Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s private meetings with conservative pundits. “Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hosting informal talks and small, off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican lawmaker in recent months to discuss issues like free speech and discuss partnerships.”

Wired: When Limiting Online Speech to Curb Violence, We Should Be Careful

Wired: When Limiting Online Speech to Curb Violence, We Should Be Careful. “The hope—for some it may be a belief—is that eliminating online speech forums will help prevent future violence. This is understandable. Everyone wants to live in a country where they are safe in their local stores, at festivals, and in other public places. The vile ideas driving shooters whose actions have caused unspeakable pain and loss are in plain view on 8chan, and the thought that we could just make them go away has strong appeal. But this is also a critical moment to look closely at what is being proposed and pay attention to the potential consequences for us all.”

CNBC: Google employees weighed free speech concerns before the 2016 elections, internal emails show

CNBC: Google employees weighed free speech concerns before the 2016 elections, internal emails show. “Google employees appear to have foreseen many of the company’s political challenges in the run-up to Donald Trump’s presidential election, according to an internal email discussion obtained by CNBC.”

New York Times: Legal Shield for Websites Rattles Under Onslaught of Hate Speech

New York Times: Legal Shield for Websites Rattles Under Onslaught of Hate Speech. “When the most consequential law governing speech on the internet was created in 1996, Google.com didn’t exist and Mark Zuckerberg was 11 years old. The federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, has helped Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and countless other internet companies flourish.”

Techdirt: Philippines Lawmaker Introduces ‘Fake News’ Bill That Would Allow The National Police To Literally Police Speech

Techdirt: Philippines Lawmaker Introduces ‘Fake News’ Bill That Would Allow The National Police To Literally Police Speech. “The latest country to add a speech-squashing, government-expanding ‘fake news’ bill to its roster of bad ideas is the Philippines. The proposal doesn’t use the terminology du jour, but ‘fake news’ by any other name is still ‘fake news.’ Here’s the immediate effect the ‘Anti-False Content Act’ would have on the country’s population.”

The Daily Beast: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for $50 Million Over ‘Free Speech’ Violations

The Daily Beast: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google for $50 Million Over ‘Free Speech’ Violations. “Presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign was riding high in Google searches after the first democratic debate in June. Then, for what her campaign claims were critical hours, their Google advertising account suddenly went down. Gabbard, a Hawaii Democrat, is suing Google for what her campaign claims was deliberate censorship by Googlers with a grudge against her campaign. But Google says the dispute is the result of an apolitical technical error.”