-----
This weekly blog is to explore the news around the larger issues around
Digital Health, data security, data privacy, AI / ML. technology, social media
and related matters.
I will also try to highlight ADHA
Propaganda when I come upon it.
Just so we keep count, the latest Notes from the ADHA Board were dated
6 December, 2018 and we have seen none since! Its pretty sad!
Note: Appearance here is not to suggest I see any credibility or
value in what follows. I will leave it to the reader to decide what is
worthwhile and what is not! The point is to let people know what is being said
/ published that I have come upon.
-----
https://nwmphn.org.au/for-primary-care/digital-health/my-health-record/
My Health Record
ADHA Propaganda
My Health Record is a secure online summary of a person’s
health information.
Health
care providers authorised by their health care organisation and involved
in a patient’s care can view and add information.
The
system gives primary care providers access to timely information about their
patients, such as:
- hospital discharge summaries
- shared health summaries from a
patient’s previous regular GP
- event summaries from a patient’s
interactions with a different GP, such as a GP at an after-hours service
- prescription and dispense records
- pathology and diagnostic imaging
reports.
The
My Health Record system helps to:
- avoid adverse drug events
- enhance patient self-management
- improve patient outcomes
- reduce time spent gathering patient
information
- avoid duplication of tests and
services.
How can we help?
We
have resources to help health care providers connect to the My Health Record
system, and can also help with education and training to use the system
effectively.
-----
https://www.zdnet.com/article/australias-tangle-of-electronic-surveillance-laws-needs-unravelling/
Australia's tangle of electronic surveillance laws
needs unravelling
The government
agrees: Australia needs a whole new electronic surveillance Act to sort out the
mess. But a bunch of ad hoc laws are already making their way through
parliament.
By Stilgherrian for
The Full Tilt | January
19, 2021 -- 05:18 GMT (16:18 AEDT) | Topic: Security
The
legislative framework that governs Australia's intelligence community is
"unnecessarily complex". It leads to "unclear and confusing
laws" for the intelligence officers who have to interpret and follow them.
So said the final report of the Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the National
Intelligence Community in December 2019 -- although the government didn't
publish it until a year later, in December 2020.
Comprehensive
indeed: Even the unclassified version runs to more than 1,300 pages.
That
review, conducted by former diplomat, public servant, and one-time ASIO chief Dennis Richardson, recommended
that as far as electronic surveillance goes, Australia needs a whole new
electronic surveillance Act.
-----
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/senate-calls-bluff-and-takes-wind-out-of-tech-titans/news-story/ac50e9c3d54b898d4c8149f7bd21111c
Senate calls bluff and
takes wind out of tech titans
James Madden
·
7:39PM January 22, 2021
Google and Facebook huffed, and they puffed, but they didn’t come
close to blowing the Senate down.
Now, the digital behemoths appear to be out of breath and out of
ideas.
Google continues to bellow its loose threat that it will exit the
Australian market entirely if the federal government’s mandatory media
bargaining code becomes law.
Really? Is there a company on the planet that would seriously walk
away from an annual revenue stream of almost $5bn, just to avoid paying a
fraction of that to media businesses whose content they have been cannibalising
for years?
New players would be more than happy to fill the void and Google
knows it.
-----
https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-more-google-searching-big-tech-and-publishers-reach-for-their-guns-20210122-p56w8j.html
No more Google searching? Big tech and publishers reach
for their guns
Associate
editor and special writer
January
22, 2021 — 5.26pm
If the internet is the modern Wild West, Google has emerged as the
tough town of Tombstone, and Facebook as Dodge City.
Google’s gunslingers have gone so far as threatening to send their
own Australian search engine on a one-way trip to the Boot Hill graveyard if
the Australian government doesn’t back down from an attempt to force them to
pay up.
In short, it is applying that old standby: blackmail. And Facebook
is doing the same.
The government wants to make Google and Facebook pay for the news
content they merrily extract for free from
Australian news publishers such as Nine Entertainment (publisher of The Age
and The
Sydney Morning Herald), News Corp, Guardian Australia, the ABC and
all the rest.
-----
https://www.afr.com/technology/off-you-duckduckgo-google-threatens-the-nuclear-option-20210122-p56w5g
Off you DuckDuckGo: Google threatens the nuclear option
Google’s threat to close local search would be a big wrench
for consumers, but would give Aussies a chance to sample life away from its all
seeing eye.
Paul Smith Technology
editor
Jan 22, 2021
– 2.45pm
It
didn’t take long for the gloves to come off in Friday’s Parliamentary inquiry
about the controversial media bargaining code, which has shaped up as a high
profile battle between the Australian government and two of the world’s biggest
companies, Google and Facebook.
It
has been hinted at in blog posts and previous media interviews, but Google’s
local boss (whether planned or in the heat of the moment) revealed the big red
button on her desk, threatening to turn off Google search in Australia if the
code comes into place in its current form.
Let’s
make no bones about it: this is a huge threat, perhaps the biggest the company
could make short of blocking access to YouTube and all of its other products.
Facebook’s threat to stop allowing news to be shared by Australian users, seems
almost tame alongside it.
In
its inquiry report, the ACCC said Google accounts for 95 per cent of Australian
web searches. To “Google it” has become a default phrase for most people
thinking about looking up information online.
-----
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3c1783e8-7c39-4f03-a191-f944658ec92e
Digital Health in Australia: 2021
Gilbert + Tobin
Australia, Global, USA January 22 2021
Market
overview and transactional issues
Key
market players and innovations
1.
Who are the key players active in your local digital health
market (eg, healthcare providers, research partners, government and academic
institutions and investors) and what are the most prominent areas of
innovation?
Key
players include:
- the Australian government (funds 42
per cent of all health services, including 78 per cent of research),
especially the Department of Health, the Therapeutic Goods Administration,
the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF)
and the Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA), which is responsible for the National Digital Health Strategy and operates MyHealth
Record;
- state and territory governments
(fund 27 per cent of all health services), which among other things
operate Australia’s public hospitals, including emergency departments and
ambulance services;
- private healthcare businesses,
including operators of private hospitals, day surgeries, primary and
referred care clinics and imaging and pathology services;
- healthcare professionals;
- developers and suppliers of digital
heath systems;
- private health insurers (fund 9 per
cent of all health services);
- venture capital and private equity
funds;
- academic institutions, especially
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and
universities;
- a range of cross-sector innovation
and commercialisation bodies, including ANDHealth, the Digital Health
Cooperative Research Centre and MTPConnect; and
- industry associations, including the
Medical Software Industry Association, the Medical Technology Association
of Australia and the Australasian Institute of Digital Health.
The
industry has delivered innovations across both infrastructure and capabilities,
with the key publicly funded innovation being the launch of MyHealth Record, an
online platform that aggregates an individual’s key health information and
provides interoperability between clinical information systems across the
health sector. It is estimated that 65 per cent of public hospitals have
deployed electronic medical records (EMR) systems, with an 85 per cent deployment
rate in the most populous state, and most states and territories have
strategies for further deployment of electronic health records, including
medical imaging systems, medication management systems (eMeds),
patient administration systems (PAS) and laboratory information systems (LIS).
-----
https://www.itwire.com/technology-regulation/google-signs-french-deal-to-pay-newspapers-for-snippets.html
Friday, 22 January 2021 10:20
Google signs French deal to pay newspapers for snippets
By Sam Varghese
French
authorities have signed an agreement with Google for the search company to pay
publishers for the use of news snippets in search results.
Back
in April last year, the company agreed to comply with a ruling
that it must pay publishing companies and news agencies for re-using content
they produce.
The
agreement
is based on the EU Copyright Directive that came into force last year.
Initially,
Google said it would restrict its usage to headlines and not pay anything to
publishers but the competition authority ruled that this would be an abuse of
Google's monopoly law.
-----
https://www.itwire.com/technology-regulation/reset-australia-says-google%E2%80%99s-egregious-threats-prove-regulation-is-long-overdue.html
Friday, 22 January 2021 14:09
Reset Australia says 'Google’s egregious threats prove
regulation is long overdue'
By Alex
Zaharov-Reutt
Although
Google has come to a deal to pay French publishers for news. Google Australia
is threatening to withdraw Google Search and services from Australia, with
Reset Australia's Chris Cooper suggesting regulation is the answer.
As
noted in colleague Sam Varghese's article entitled: "Google signs French deal to pay
newspapers for snippets", French authorities have signed an
agreement with Google for the search company to pay publishers for the use of
news snippets in search results.
Sam's
article has details of the agreement, as
well a link to his story on Australia's effort to get Google to
pay having progressed to a Parliamentary Senate hearing.
His
story about Google's unwillingness to accept Australia's desires is here.
-----
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/right-wing-social-app-parler-shows-sign-of-life-thanks-to-russian-tech-20210121-p56vwv.html
Right-wing social app Parler shows sign of life thanks
to Russian tech
By Jack Nicas
January 21, 2021 — 3.25pm
Parler,
the social network popular with Trump supporters and the alt-right, is
trickling back to life.
The
social network went offline last week after
Amazon booted it from its computer servers for not consistently
removing violent posts, an accusation that Parler denied. But after a week in
which Parler executives sued Amazon and predicted that their site might never
return, they are forecasting it will be back up and running by the month's end.
That
turnabout is thanks, in part, to a Russian company.
Parler
has entered into business with DDoS-Guard, a Russian firm that routes internet
traffic and protects websites from cyber-attacks. With its help, visitors to
Parler.com now find a basic webpage with a promise from Parler's chief
executive, John Matze, that "our return is inevitable."
But
the use of a Russian company is worrying some researchers who study the
internet and Russia. If Parler routes its web traffic through DDoS-Guard when
its full website returns, the experts said, Russian law could enable the
Russian government to surveil Parler's users.
-----
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/google-threatens-to-withdraw-search-engine-in-australia-560068
Google threatens to withdraw search engine in Australia
By Justin Hendry on
Jan 22, 2021 12:21PM
Cites “unworkable” news media bargaining code.
Google
has threatened to stop making its search engine available in Australia if the
federal government’s landmark mandatory media bargaining law passes in its
current form.
Managing
director Mel Silva on Friday told a senate inquiry that the proposed code
“remains unworkable”, despite government attempts to placate the web giant in a
December revision.
Google
had previously warned that the code could lead to a “dramatically worse” online experience
and the possible end to free services, but until now had not flagged
stopping Google Search entirely.
Silva
said the company’s concerns centre around three areas, the most salient of
which is “the requirement to pay for links and snippets in search”.
-----
https://www.afr.com/technology/qanon-and-targeted-abuse-require-online-reform-commissioner-20210121-p56vvl
QAnon and targeted abuse require online reform:
commissioner
Paul Smith Technology
editor
Jan 22, 2021
– 12.00am
Australia's
eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has warned big tech platforms that
they must do more to tackle the problems caused by anonymous accounts on their
services, ahead of the proposed introduction of new powers that could force
individuals to be unmasked and see fines levied.
Anonymous
social media accounts used by proponents of the far-right conspiracy theory
QAnon were prominently cited by members of the mob that stormed the US Capitol
on January 6. The government, meanwhile, has already
opened up consultations on new laws to force tech platforms to take
abuse, abhorrent material and trolling more seriously.
In
a position statement to be released on Friday, the commissioner lays out the
vexed issues that are raised by plans to regulate online anonymity. Although
some of the worst online behaviour is propagated by anonymous accounts,
anonymity is also a powerful form of protection for victims of domestic
violence, whistleblowers and people living under authoritarian regimes.
Facebook
and Google are already locked
in battle with the Australian government over the proposed media
bargaining code, which will see the companies pay publishers for the content
they display in their products.
-----
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/antibody-drug-could-lower-risk-of-covid-19-infection-by-80pc-20210122-p56w0j
Google threatens to exit Australia
Timothy Moore, Natasha Rudra and Natasha
Boddy
Updated Jan
22, 2021 – 10.55am, first published at 1.20am
Google threatens to exit Australia if forced to pay for
news
Miranda Ward
Google
has repeated warnings if the proposed news media bargaining code became law,
the digital giant would be forced to stop making its search product in
Australia.
Local
boss Mel Silva told a Senate hearing that unrestricted linking between websites
is fundamental to search and if Google were required to pay news publishers for
links and snippets in search, it would create unmanageable financial and
operational risk.
“It
would give us no real choice but to stop making Google search available in
Australia," she said.
"That
would be a bad outcome for us but also for the Australian people, media
diversity and the small businesses who use our products every day."
-----
https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/us-claims-digital-code-breaks-free-trade-deal-20210120-p56vh8
US claims digital code breaks free trade deal
Miranda Ward and John
Kehoe
Jan 21, 2021
– 12.01am
A
powerful coalition of American government and business organisations attacked
the government's crackdown on Facebook and Google, saying it discriminates
against Silicon Valley technology giants and breaches the Australia-US Free
Trade Agreement.
Google,
Facebook, Twitter, Atlassian, the US Chamber of Commerce and the "father
of the internet" strongly oppose the proposed legislation, which is
designed to level the playing field between digital companies and news
publishers.
Proposed
legislation presses Google and Facebook to strike deals with Australian
publishers that would ensure news creators were paid fairly by the digital
platforms for journalism.
Divisions
with the US on the regulation of its largest companies will be an early test
for the Morrison government's relations with the Biden administration, which
has been financially supported by tech titans.
Democrats
support US moves to "break up" the powerful tech companies,
but both sides of American politics have historically been hostile towards
other jurisdictions unilaterally regulating and taxing their corporations.
FreeTV
Australia chair and former Fairfax Media chief Greg Hywood told The
Australian Financial Review the government should not give into the
"bullying" because the digital giants have "only got themselves
to blame" for a mandatory code after years of not paying publishers
appropriate rates for news content.
-----
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/there-s-no-other-law-like-this-in-australia-facebook-hits-out-at-digital-media-code-20210120-p56vkk.html
'There’s no other law like this in Australia': Facebook
hits out at digital media code
January 20, 2021 — 9.00pm
The
local head of $960 billion social media giant Facebook has urged the government
to make changes to laws designed to force digital platforms to pay media
companies for content, claiming the proposed rules are without precedent in
Australia.
In
his first major comments since
threatening to pull all news from Facebook in September last year,
Facebook's Australian managing director Will Easton said the new code remained
"unworkable" and could force the social media giant to strike up to
1,000 deals with publishers in Australia.
"There’s
no other law like this in Australia. No other business is forced into a highly
uncertain binding arbitration process where the government decides who enters
these agreements and forces payment from the provider of a free service,"
he said.
The
comments are contained in blog post to be released by Facebook on Thursday,
seen by The
Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. It comes ahead of key appearances by
Facebook executives and other industry executives before a federal Senate
committee on Friday.
-----
https://medicalrepublic.com.au/on-the-future-of-telehealth-and-virtual-care/38788
19 January
2021
On the future of telehealth and virtual care
COVID-19
Telehealth
Posted by Lynnette
Hoffman
Telehealth
hasn’t appeared magically out of thin air, but its widespread use may be a
lasting legacy of COVID.
The
task ahead is to capitalise off the unprecedented uptake, and embed it into
“the new normal”, says Dr Zoran Bolevich, chief executive of eHealth NSW and
CIO of NSW Health.
“We
have been using telehealth in NSW Health for many years … at least two decades,”
Dr Bolevich says.
“But
what we have seen during the COVID situation is that tools such as video
consultations just started to be used a lot, lot more. So we’re not talking
like a 10 or 20% increase, but five, six, seven times more than what we’ve seen
in the past.”
Prioritising
and then systematising innovations and new models of care has been paramount.
------
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0fd44da4-d417-4181-bfb8-c4e3fb5cb7f0
At a glance: intellectual property for digital health
in Australia
Gilbert + Tobin
Australia January 6 2021
Intellectual
property
Patentability and inventorship
What
are the most noteworthy rules and considerations relating to the patentability
and inventorship of digital health-related inventions?
Patentees
of digital health-related inventions, which often require computer
implementation in one form or another, need to navigate the patentability
requirement in Australia. While abstract ideas and computer-implemented
inventions are not regarded as patentable subject matter in Australia, patents
directed to other aspects of digital health-related inventions such as
hardware, telemetry and diagnostic tools may be patent-eligible.
Patent prosecution
What
is the patent application and registration procedure for digital health
technologies in your jurisdiction?
The
Australian patent system provides the same application process across all
technologies, including digital health. There are no specific provisions for
digital health technologies. IP Australia (incorporating the Australian Patent
Office) is responsible for pre-grant examinations, pre-grant oppositions, re-examinations
and amendments to patents and patent applications. As in other jurisdictions,
the process of filing to grant can take more than 18 months.
------
https://medicalrepublic.com.au/health-data-protection-rules-are-a-mess/38877
19 January
2021
Health data protection rules are a mess
Posted by Jeremy
Knibbs
The
Australian Digital Health Agency wants changes made to the My Health Records
Act under which it operates to make its reporting of data breaches more
practical, and to harmonise the application of privacy rules across Australia.
Normally
the ADHA saying that the privacy rules need to be eased and simplified might
arouse a good deal of suspicion among privacy and consumer advocates, but
reading the application it quickly becomes clear that privacy legislation for
Australian healthcare data is a mess, largely created by different federal and
state privacy rules not talking to each other, and AHDA management is making an
important point.
Not
that they’ll be able to sort much out.
When
the MHR system was commenced it was given its very own data breach and privacy
rules, ostensibly because the creators knew that a national health record
system would raise a lot of eyebrows so they needed the MHR to appear extra
safe. The intention was to provide an additional level of transparency and
reliability for consumers.
-----
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0f16f60d-811f-4f3b-bb5f-df9f7cebb2e2
At a glance: data protection and management of health
data in Australia
Gilbert + Tobin
Australia January 6 2021
Data protection and management
Definition of `health data'
What
constitutes ‘health data’? Is there a definition of ‘anonymised’ health data?
Health
data includes:
·
information or an opinion about an individual’s
health or any health services provided, or to be provided, to the individual;
·
any personal information collected to provide or
in providing a ‘health service’ to an individual (including organ donation);
and
·
genetic information about an individual that is
in a form that could be predictive about the health of an individual (or
relative of the individual).
The
concept of ‘providing health services’ is very broad and can capture a range of
services that may not be front of mind when thinking about health – for
example, information collected by a gym on an individual in connection with a
gym class, or Medicare billing information held by an insurance provider or
debt collector.
Anonymised
health data is not defined, although the Australian Privacy Principles (APP)
Guidelines state that ‘anonymity’ means that an individual dealing with an
entity cannot be identified. Critically, health data that may be anonymous in
the hands of one entity may not be anonymous in the hands of another. The
ability of an entity to link a data set with other information is relevant to
whether data is truly anonymised.
-----
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/big-tech-has-no-claim-to-moral-high-ground/news-story/16dc16844be12dc17c57842842100605
Big Tech has no claim
to moral high ground
Rachael Falk
·
12:00AM January 18, 2021
On a sunny winter morning in San Bernardino, California, Syed
Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik slaughtered 14 people in a hail of machinegun
fire. It took a matter of minutes.
The victims were Farook’s colleagues at the San Bernardino County
Department of Public Health, who were gathered together on December 2, 2015 for
their staff Christmas party.
Farook and Malik were homegrown Islamist terrorists, radicalised
online and inspired by Islamic State. They also died that day in a firefight
with police.
Neither Farook nor Malik were on the radar of intelligence
agencies — they led normal lives and there were no red flags.
This left the FBI scrambling for answers: How were they
radicalised? Were they part of a larger sleeper cell? Would there be more
attacks? The FBI believed an Apple iPhone belonging to Farook held some of the
answers.
-----
https://www.smh.com.au/national/freedom-of-speech-voltaire-would-applaud-trump-twitter-ban-20210118-p56uu5.html
Freedom of speech: Voltaire would applaud Trump Twitter
ban
Josh Bornstein
Principal, Maurice Blackburn
January 18, 2021 — 11.55pm
Contrary
to suggestions otherwise, Voltaire would have applauded the decision by Twitter
and Facebook to suspend the access of Donald Trump to their platforms. Much
like John Stuart Mill, the British philosopher and guru of classical
liberalism, Voltaire supported criminal laws against libel, slander, incitement
to violence and treason. Mill is credited with developing “the harm principle”
under which laws restricting personal freedom should be promulgated “to prevent
harm to others”.
The
decision of Facebook and Twitter to suspend Donald Trump’s access to their
platforms was consistent with the harm principle. It was designed to avoid
further terrorist violence. Trump incited a violent, fascist coup attended by,
among others, many neo-Nazis in which five people died. Shortly before the
assault on Capitol Hill, Trump told the mob to “fight much harder”, telling
them that “you’ll never take back our country with weakness ... you have to
show strength”. He urged that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going
to have a country any more”. Ordinarily, incitement to violence attracts a criminal
sanction and Trump may yet face criminal charges.
Nevertheless,
the social media ban on Trump has elicited a predictably tribal response from
Trump sympathisers replete with misconceived appeals to philosophers and
principles that simply don’t exist. Unlike many other politicians across the
world, the members of the Morrison government refuse to condemn Trump for his
incitement of a fascist coup and the terrorist acts that he inspired precisely
because the Coalition is now riddled with Trumpists. For the same reason, Prime
Minister Scott Morrison will not seek to rein in the dangerous misinformation
spread by backbenchers like Craig Kelly.
-----
https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/is-biden-s-unity-call-another-big-lie-20210118-p56uzr
Is Biden's unity call another big lie?
The new
president needs to govern for the whole spectrum of America, not just those
sectors that Silicon Valley approves of.
Gary Abernathy
Jan 19, 2021
– 12.00am
It
was announced this week that the theme for President-elect Joe Biden's
inauguration will be "America United." To achieve such a lofty
aspiration, Biden will need to do better than he did following the riot at the
US Capitol, when he said US President Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz and
others who repeat the "big lie" of election fraud were embracing the
strategy of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
"You
say the lie long enough, keep repeating it, repeating it, repeating it, it
becomes common knowledge," said Biden. Of course, Goebbels's thoughts on
message repetition were not particularly original, considering marketers have
been using the tactic to hawk their products since the dawn of time. (Spoiler
alert: Democrats lie, too, and no brand of toothpaste, laundry detergent or
shampoo will substantially improve your life.) To achieve unity, eliminating
Nazi comparisons would be a good start.
Assuming
sanity prevails and we are spared the melodrama of an impeachment trial for a
president no longer in office (even if the House's impeachment of Trump this
week was admittedly more justifiable than the first one), Biden will probably
focus much of his inauguration remarks on two pre-eminent subjects – the fight
against COVID-19 and the assault on the Capitol.
But
the new president will divide more than unify if he pretends the Capitol
incursion happened in a vacuum. He must likewise condemn violence across
America instigated by left-leaning agitators and acknowledge there's plenty of
blame to go around for a nation more on edge than at any time since the 1960s.
-----
https://www.itwire.com/your-it/apps/whatsapp-puts-off-privacy-changes-after-users-desert-it-in-droves.html
Monday, 18 January 2021 11:50
WhatsApp puts off privacy changes after users desert it
in droves
By Sam Varghese
End-to-end
encrypted messaging platform WhatsApp has put off privacy changes it planned,
after pushback from users who have been moving over to Signal and Telegram in
droves.
The
company, part of Facebook, now plans to bring in the changes on 15 May, it said
in a blog post.
The
changes were announced earlier this month and when users opened WhatsApp they
were asked to agree to the new terms or else lose the ability to use the
platform by February.
The
company claims that there will be no changes to the privacy afforded to users,
just that some changes will make it possible for advertisers to communicate
with users.
-----
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/social-media-platforms-are-harming-our-health-20210115-p56udy.html
Social media platforms are harming our health
By David
Shearman
January 18, 2021 — 12.11am
The
insurrection against democracy in the US Capitol may have one positive outcome.
It may bring home to all remaining democracies that Twitter, Facebook and other
social media platforms cannot continue to be allowed to peddle lies on COVID-19
that are detrimental to human health.
Their
belated action to ban Trump, after he spent four years disseminating
disinformation on public health, illustrates the crass irresponsibility of
these media behemoths. We need independent regulation of social media platforms
to better protect the health and security of humanity.
In
the past year, social media platforms have profited from Trump's unstable mind.
One large section of the conventional media has also added to the huge adverse
health impacts of COVID-19. Trump and the Republicans scorned the use of masks
and played down the danger of COVID-19. Deaths in the United States are now
approaching 400,000 and collapse of the health service is imminent.
Society
has suffered a growing cancer of disinformation, spread by social media, which
has now made it difficult for democracies to control the spread of COVID-19.
Masks and vaccinations have been the target of much of this disinformation.
Does the right to free speech extend to discouraging others from wearing masks,
bearing in mind that a mask partially protects you and the community from harm?
Does it give you the right to share anti-vaccination propaganda, which risks
the spread of dangerous childhood illnesses like measles?
-----
https://www.afr.com/technology/donald-trump-twitter-and-the-messy-fight-over-free-speech-20210117-p56uo7
Trump, Twitter and the messy fight over free speech
The decision
to ban the President has demonstrated the unaccountable power of the big social
media companies.
Richard Waters and Hannah Murphy
Jan 17, 2021
– 10.15am
San
Francisco | The decision to bar
the US President from the most powerful communication platforms of
the age has all the ingredients of a singularly American brawl.
There
is Donald Trump’s exploitation of a powerful strand of nativist populism to try
to stay in power and the highly partisan right-wing media that have helped fan
the election-rigging conspiracy theory that led to last week’s insurrection in
the Capitol.
In
the background, a long-running aversion to internet regulation has left a
regulatory vacuum. And, this being the US, everyone involved claims an undying
dedication to free speech and the First Amendment.
But
the other defining theme has been the technocratic self-confidence and thinly
veiled self-interest of a powerful group of tech executives, who all run
American companies but whose decisions have global implications.
As
Trump’s indefinite ban took effect on Facebook, Twitter and other sites last
week, the decision to de-platform the democratically elected President has
exposed as never before the contradictions at the heart of social media.
-----
https://www.afr.com/technology/how-twitter-on-the-front-lines-of-history-finally-banned-trump-20210117-p56up8
How Twitter, on the front lines of history, finally
banned Trump
Elizabeth Dwoskin and Nitasha Tiku
Jan 17, 2021 –
3.47pm
Two
days after the riot at the US Capitol, Twitter's most senior policy executive
faced her 5200 colleagues on a video conference and made an impassioned appeal.
Vijaya
Gadde's voice was breaking as she implored her colleagues to have patience while
her team deliberated over what they knew was the most important decision in the
social media service's 15-year history.
Some
Twitter employees left the meeting on January 8, not knowing what to think.
They were worried for their colleagues' safety – some had already received
security threats.
But
they were also angry that Gadde's team had let President Donald Trump's account
back onto the service after a 12-hour ban for appearing to encourage the
Capitol rioters on the day of the failed insurrection. He had already tweeted
again, telling followers they were patriots who would not be disrespected.
-----
Comments more
than welcome!
David.