Category: Internet controversy

Categories
Internet controversy Second Amendment rights

Two Shooters in a Gun-​Free Zone

Indiana Mall Shooting

In Indianapolis, a 20-​year-​old man opened fire in Greenwood Park Mall and killed three people.

The Sunday shooter might have killed many others, his apparent plan, but another young man shot and killed him early in his rampage.

“The real hero of the day,” said Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison, “is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop the shooter almost as soon as he began.”

The 22-​year-​old man with a gun is Elisjsha Dicken. Careful observation that Dicken was carrying a firearm lawfully was perhaps necessary to preempt concern about any legal jeopardy for him. 

Indiana’s concealed carry law had only recently been liberalized.

But if I’d been there that day, perhaps spared by Dicken’s quick action, I suspect that my only thought would have been: “Thank God he was there, had a gun, and knew how to use it.” And if it turned out that my savior was carrying unlawfully, well, so what? 

Alive is alive.

This sentiment, however, is not universally shared. Folks who support citizen disarmament are unsurprisingly uncomfortable with honoring someone who does precisely what those of us who support citizen armament expect armed citizens to do: save lives when needed.

Leah Barkoukis, writing at Townhall, notes that some leftist Twitterati objected to Dicken’s carrying a gun into a mall that declares itself to be “a gun free zone.” A few even demanded prosecuting Mr. Dicken!

Understandably, mall spokespeople have evaded discussion of using their creaky legal grounds to do anything so preposterous. 

As anyone with sense knows, making a large public venue “gun free” is not an effective way to keep people safe. As Mr. Dicken demonstrated.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

craiyon credit

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights Internet controversy social media

A Welcome Discovery

Joe Biden, censorship, Twitter, Facebook, 1st Amendment, free speech

In recent years, several lawsuits have been launched alleging collusion between the Biden administration and big social media companies to violate our First Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, most of these suits have been dismissed.

Journalist Alex Berenson did obtain some satisfaction after suing Twitter for suspending his account last year because he questioned the efficacy of COVID-​19 vaccines.

The suit accused Twitter of acting “on behalf of the federal government in censoring and barring him.” Berenson’s account was finally reinstated as part of the settlement. But only Twitter was required to take any remedial action; the government was required to do nothing.

Still ongoing is a lawsuit launched by the attorney generals of Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration for urging social media giants to suppress speech about things like COVID-​19 and elections “under the guise of combating ‘misinformation.’ ”

Now a judge has granted the states’ motion for discovery, enabling the attorneys general to make document requests and issue subpoenas to social media platforms. The AGs hope to learn which federal officials have been urging censorship and what exactly they said.

In a certain respect, these actions seem almost superfluous, since administration officials, including Biden, have repeatedly and publicly called on social media to censor harder.

But the more evidence we can get on how the federal government has been urging firms to censor on its behalf and in violation of the First Amendment, the better. 

That brings us closer to getting it to stop.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Internet controversy social media

All a‑Twitter

Elon Musk, Twitter, deal, bargaining, woke

On Friday, Elon Musk bowed out of his attempt to take over Twitter.

And Twitter stock plummeted over 10 percent in trading on Monday.

Citing the woke corporate social media company’s non-​disclosure of information that he had been requesting for many, many weeks, Mr.Musk withdrew his offer.

The big issue, here, is the possibility that Twitter is over-​valued because the company has allowed “bots” to proliferate. That is, accounts run by computers and AIs and scammers who create accounts and then just crank out content that have no value for advertising — which is how the company makes most of its money.

“Twitter claims that only 5 percent of its monetizable daily active user (mDAU) base consists of bots,” explains Nicholas Dolinger at The Epoch Times, “but Musk has argued that the number is much higher, and that Twitter, in misrepresenting the total number of bots, has misled him in such a way as to void the agreement.”

The best part of the story may be the “meme” Musk shared about it, “implying that Twitter would face embarrassment at having to disclose information about the prevalence of bots on the platform in court.”

Twitter user @ZanderfromNOLA offers an image that shows that bot problem: multiple accounts for healthcare professionals all saying the exact same thing, word for word, pushing the COVID vaxxes. It could be a propaganda campaign from Big Pharma. Or it could be the CIA. Or China. Or even Russia! Who knows? But the wealth of duplicate and obviously suspect content on the platform suggests that Musk’s initial offering of $44 billion was way too generous.

The humiliation that Twitter has suffered may be well-deserved.

But will humiliation nudge along any decent reforms?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs Internet controversy

The Coffee Connection

coffee, surveillance, China

We have another indication now that the Internet of Things can be a mixed blessing. Perhaps not every gadget in our homes should be linked to the Worldwide Everything?

The great thing about a coffee maker with a Wi-​Fi or Bluetooth connection is that you can set things up with a few taps on your smartphone. Brewing times, strength, temperature, etc., can all be arranged without ever having to trudge from bedroom to kitchen.

The horrible thing, though — in addition to the slim possibility that a hacker will take your coffee machine hostage — is that a Wi-​Fi-​capable coffee maker made in China may be spying on you on behalf of the Chinazi government.

This is the conclusion of Christopher Balding, a researcher who finds evidence that coffee machines manufactured by Kalerm in Jiangsu, China, collect a diverse array of data.

About their users. 

Stuff like the users’ names and general locations as well as usage patterns.

Balding doesn’t know for sure that the company simply turns over such data to the government. But Chinese companies must cooperate with any government demands, and Balding notes that China often gathers as much data as possible and figures out what to do with it later.

The data-​scavenging of the Chinese government is not exactly unique. Think Ed Snowden and the program he revealed, for example. But “the breadth and depth of their data-​collection efforts” are in a class by themselves, Balding says.

It seems that my lack of a connected coffee machine, coupled with my chronic dependence on Starbucks, is proving very wise indeed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Internet controversy social media

FYI re Musk

Elon Musk, Tesla, Twitter, law, Democrats, Republicans

“Tesla is building a hardcore litigation department where we directly initiate & execute lawsuits,” Elon Musk says in a recent tweet. “The team will report directly to me. Please send 3 to 5 bullet points describing evidence of exceptional ability.”

Now a major target of the commies and Democrats, Musk has good reason to seek expert legal assistance. Indeed, he prophesied his peril in an infamous tweet, and he prophesied correctly — leading to the de rigueur sex scandal … and another funny tweet.

But it’s not all seedy, partisan sturm und drang:

  • Musk knows how to make stuff, like electric cars and spaceships. Of course, other hugely successful entrepreneurs happen to be very bad politically, not the sort whose legal team you’d want to join if you’re a good guy. But …
  • Soon after Ukraine publicly asked Musk for Starlink satellites to help maintain communications in the wake of Russia’s invasion, Musk sent thousands to the country.
  • Musk has made a deal (not yet completed) to buy Twitter, avowedly motivated by the goal of liberating tweet speech. (The FCC recently contradicted reporting that it has pondered trying to block the purchase.)
  • He opposes subsidies for electric vehicles and favors more gas and oil production, which have been under assault by the Biden administration.
  • He can no longer abide the Democrats, the party of “division and hate.”

Musk’s record isn’t perfect. But chances are that the help he’s seeking will be used in a good cause. 

Just FYI — in case you’d like to boil down your resume to pursue this opportunity. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture Internet controversy

Two Thumbs Up for Netflix

Netflix, Dave Chappelle

Although a new “Artistic Expression” section in Netflix’s culture memo could be improved, I’m giving it two thumbs up instead of the customary one and a half accorded to promising but imperfect credos.

In these censorious times, why not applaud any sincere testament upholding freedom of speech?

Even if called “diversity,” in Netflix-speak.

According to the revised memo, the company supports “a diversity of stories, even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values. . . . If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

This is probably not about Netflix’s willingness to rent The Wizard of Oz no matter who objects to the spectacle of weepy tin men or broom-​riding green-​faced women in pointy hats.

Recently, Netflix has been roiled by employee protests against videos they find annoying, especially Dave Chapelle’s comedy special “The Closer.” Chapelle, who appears to lean more left than right, turns out not to be the type to run his riffs by a lefty censorship board.

Now let’s see how Netflix follows up on its delicate suggestion that working for Netflix “may not be the best place” for employees demanding censorship. Will Netflix show the door to all sullen saboteurs of speech-​diversity?

Also, will it more fundamentally diversify its own original content?

In any case, good for Netflix for resisting the mob, for now. Until further notice, it’s two full thumbs up.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts