New research from Eko reveals that Meta and X approved numerous ads containing violent anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate speech before Germany’s federal election. X approved all ten test ads submitted, while Meta approved half, despite policies against such content. These ads, including AI-generated imagery, used slurs, called for violence against minorities, and spread disinformation. Eko shared these findings with the European Commission, highlighting failures in both platforms’ content moderation systems and raising concerns about compliance with the Digital Services Act.
Read More
Elon Musk publicly criticized X’s Community Notes feature for correcting his claims about Ukrainian President Zelensky’s unpopularity and avoidance of elections, accusing the system of manipulation by governments and legacy media. This followed a Community Note that disputed Musk’s assertion of Zelensky’s low approval rating, citing contradictory polling data. Critics countered that Musk’s actions undermined the system’s credibility and independence, highlighting the inappropriateness of comparing wartime election postponements to accusations of graft. Musk’s previous praise of Community Notes stands in stark contrast to his current criticism, suggesting a bias towards fact-checks aligning with his personal views.
Read More
X, formerly Twitter, is blocking links to Signal.me, a URL shortener used by the encrypted messaging app Signal, preventing users from sharing contact links via direct messages, posts, and profiles. This action coincides with DOGE’s efforts to reduce federal spending, leading to widespread federal employee firings and increased use of Signal for secure communication. X’s actions are generating concern, particularly given Musk’s history of silencing dissent on the platform. The blocks appear to be automated, triggering error messages for users attempting to share Signal.me links. TechCrunch’s attempts to replicate the issue were successful.
Read More
The House GOP budget proposal includes a $4.5 trillion tax cut financed by approximately $2 trillion in spending cuts, primarily targeting Medicaid and other social services. Economists predict this will disproportionately benefit the wealthy while jeopardizing healthcare access for millions, particularly low-income and rural populations. Proposed cuts to Medicaid, potentially reaching 20%, could be achieved through increased eligibility requirements, work mandates, or benefit reductions. This plan reflects a long-standing conservative goal of significantly scaling back Medicaid, and experts contend that the stated goals cannot be met without substantial harm to beneficiaries.
Read More
House Republicans unveiled a budget plan including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, partially offset by $2 trillion in spending cuts, ultimately adding $3 trillion to the national deficit. The plan targets Medicaid and other social safety net programs for significant reductions, with committees responsible for these programs facing substantial savings targets. While the plan uses euphemisms like “work requirements,” the scale of proposed cuts necessitates deep reductions beyond such measures, potentially including per capita caps and enrollment restrictions. This budget prioritizes tax cuts for the wealthy over the protection of social safety nets, despite prior Republican assurances.
Read More
The House Republican budget resolution proposes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts favoring the wealthy, offset by $2 trillion in cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP. These cuts, totaling $2 trillion in “mandatory spending” over a decade, would disproportionately harm low-income families and are intended to fund the tax breaks. Critics argue this prioritizes the rich while jeopardizing healthcare access and food assistance for millions. The resolution directs committees to enact specific spending cuts to achieve these targets.
Read More
The House released a budget resolution proposing $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, $2 trillion in mandatory spending cuts, and a $4 trillion debt ceiling increase, aiming to enact President Trump’s agenda. This action follows delays in the House due to internal disagreements, prompting the Senate to concurrently develop its own proposal. Speaker Johnson emphasized the House’s commitment to the President’s complete agenda, while Senate Republicans, led by Senator Graham, advocate for a two-part approach to expedite the process, prioritizing immediate action on border security, defense, and energy. Despite differing approaches, House Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Thune have reportedly coordinated their efforts.
Read More
A Berlin court ordered X (formerly Twitter) to provide researchers with real-time data access, citing violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA). This ruling stems from X’s refusal to comply with data access requests, a breach the European Commission previously noted. The decision, including a €6,000 fine, sets a precedent for enforcing DSA transparency obligations and follows accusations of X’s involvement in election interference. The case highlights escalating tensions between European regulators and X regarding content moderation and data access.
Read More
Following allegations of Elon Musk performing a Nazi salute, over 100 Reddit communities banned links to X, his social media platform. This action, impacting large subreddits, stems from moderators protesting Musk’s purported gesture. Musk, self-described as a “free speech absolutist,” denounced Reddit’s actions as “anti-free speech,” while Reddit clarified that no site-wide ban exists, emphasizing community autonomy in setting rules. The impact on X’s traffic remains uncertain, but the situation highlights growing tensions between tech companies and online communities.
Read More
X, formerly known as Twitter, has amended its lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), adding Lego, Nestlé, and several other major brands as defendants. The amended complaint alleges these companies participated in a coordinated advertising boycott following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform in 2022, allegedly costing X billions in revenue. The boycott stemmed from concerns over X’s revised content moderation policies and departure from the WFA’s brand safety initiative. X argues this collective action stifled competition and improperly dictated its brand safety standards.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker