Lawmakers Demand Amazon Censors Alexa After WaPo Complains Its Responses Referenced Rumble, Substack
Lawmakers are demanding that Amazon take “proactive measures” to ensure that its voice assistant, Alexa, doesn’t provide “false claims about the outcome of the 2020 elections” after a Washington Post article complained that Alexa was citing responses from Rumble and Substack.
The Washington Post’s original October 7 article took issue with Amazon using what it deemed to be “unvetted sources” and the potential for voice assistants to spread “misinformation.” It included examples of Alexa responses that alleged election fraud and referenced Rumble and Substack.
Amazon had already implemented censorship measures in response to the original article and said that it “continually” audits and improves its systems for “detecting and blocking inaccurate content.”
WHAT?
Some lawmakers make noise, not even passing a law mind you, and Amazon censors itself against even mentioning Rumble and Substack?
Substack is a popular blogging and newsletter email site with ways to have paid and free content on one’s blog. Many content creators all over the spectrum make use of it. Is it to be censored merely because some people or groups don’t like the opinions of some of its many content creators?
Is this not an obvious attempt to silence all but approved voices even in blog posts?
Rumble is one of the viable alternatives to YouTube for creating and hosting video channels. Many creators tired of the massive censorship, demonetization and other policies and practices of YouTube move their content there or also post it there. But Google and YouTube don’t like the competition. Google often refuses to return search results that are Rumble videos.
This is another blatant attempt to preclude any but the officially sanction and controlled channels of communication. Going so far as to not even mention them when you ask a question, even of your personal digital assistant, is completely outrageous.
Apple Reportedly Cancels John Stewart Show Over His Content Critical of AI and China
Apple TV Plus’ esteemed talk show, “The Problem with Jon Stewart,” is reportedly drawing to a close, after a fallout between the tech giant Apple and Jon Stewart himself. Despite the show’s premiere being hailed as a major success for Apple TV Plus, the company and the renowned ex-Daily Show host have split due to “creative differences” ahead of the talk show’s highly anticipated third season.
The signs of a rift started to emerge as reports surfaced about Apple getting antsy over Stewart’s guest lineup on “The Problem with Jon Stewart.”
However, the fulcrum of the controversy seems to revolve around Stewart’s plans to tackle issues such as artificial intelligence and China, which Apple reportedly flagged as contentious. The sudden faltering of the show, which was due to start shooting soon, caught the production team off guard.
Apple’s fears apparently stem from the fact that the tech behemoth has a future heavily pinned to maintaining a congenial relationship with China and the tech giant bends over backwards to stay on the good side of the Chinese Communist Party.
Apple has been known to remove apps at China’s insistence as well.
This is one of the reason content creators need other uncensored platforms badly.
The Dark Money Behind The Attack on Your Privacy
In the corridors of power, where legislative pushes mold the future, there’s an aspect that remains stubbornly hidden from the public eye: the funding that fuels these political campaigns. The recent drive to ban end-to-end encryption, articulated as a noble effort to shield children from the dark corners of the internet, is no exception. Beneath the veneer of child protection lies a murky undercurrent of financial interests, the full extent and sources of which remain an enigma to those outside the inner circles of power.
End-to-end encryption, a method of data transmission where only the communicating users can read the messages, has been an integral component of digital privacy, a bastion against potential cyber threats, and a protector of free speech, especially in oppressive regimes. In an era where personal data has become the most sought-after commodity, and where dissidents rely on encrypted messages to communicate safely, the suggested ban reveals a precarious trade-off. Critics argue that it not only erodes individual privacy but also sets a dangerous precedent where the voices of citizens can be monitored, manipulated, or muzzled.
Without encryption there is no privacy possible on the internet. Without it there is no way to use the internet to enhance one’s freedom or privacy. Removing privacy is the ultimate 1984 Panopticon. And of course without encryption the entire cryptocurrency initiative is dead.
For instance, there have been suggestions that certain legacy telecommunication giants have been quietly supportive of the move against end-to-end encryption. These corporations, facing stiff competition from tech companies offering encrypted communication services, stand to regain a significant market advantage if these secure communication channels are weakened or eliminated. However, direct financial links remain speculative due to non-disclosure of contributions and the use of intermediary organizations to obscure the origins of these funds.
In another example, certain advocacy groups present themselves as champions of child safety and push for anti-encryption legislation. While their concern is undoubtedly genuine, the ambiguity surrounding their financial backing raises questions. Some investigations have revealed that these groups receive substantial funding from sources with a history of advocating for increased surveillance and law enforcement powers, pointing to a possible confluence of interests that goes beyond the well-being of children.
I doubt very much that child safety is the main motivation of the central players. It merely offers an emotion raising excuse to attempt to bypass the critical thinking of the people. A very very small percentage are involved in such illicit activities. There are already ample laws against them. Too take away all privacy and security of communication from Everyone on such a basis is completely illogical and unjust. It is the equivalent of throwing everyone in prison to be sure all the truly heinous criminals are not free.