Billy Mitchell's Defamation Case Against Twin Galaxies Over 'Donkey Kong' High Score Can Go Forward

from the here-comes-discovery dept

We've discussed Billy Mitchell a couple of times here at Techdirt, both times due to his overtly litigious nature, rather than his apparent video game playing prowess. See, Mitchell is rather well known primarily as the record holder for video game scores, including briefly holding the Guinness World Record for a Donkey Kong high score, until he was stripped of it. See, Twin Galaxies, an official tracker of such video game records, determined based on video evidence that Mitchell wasn't playing an official version of the arcade cabinet of the game. Upon being stripped of his records, Mitchell sued for... defamation. Oh, and he also sued the Cartoon Network over a very clear parody depiction in part inspired by his gregarious personage.

But back to the defamation suit, which Mitchell filed against Twin Galaxies. He recently got the court allow him to proceed to trial after Twin Galaxies brought an anti-SLAPP suit to the court.

In his ruling on Twin Galaxies' anti-SLAPP motion, Judge Gregory Alarcon ruled that Mitchell is a public figure in the gaming community and that Twin Galaxies was discussing a controversy of public interest to that community. That means Mitchell will have to prove at trial both the falsity of Twin Galaxies' claims and that the organization acted with "actual malice" in making them.

While the ruling is careful not to "weigh evidence or resolve conflicting factual claims" on that score until the full trial, Judge Alarcon does tip his hand a little as to what evidence he finds potentially compelling. In particular, the judge seems interested in why Twin Galaxies refused to interview a number of witnesses Mitchell put forward to testify to the authenticity of his score performances.

Apparently at issue is that Mitchell wanted a witness, specifically the referee of his Donkey Kong high score, to be interviewed and considered by Twin Galaxies prior to their having negated Mitchell's high scores. Here's the problem: that referee has also been banned by Twin Galaxies for cheating in trying to get high scores in an unrelated video game. Still, the court notes that, at this stage, the deference is given to the plaintiff and, in that specific light, Twin Galaxies' refusal to consider witness testimony is enough to let this proceed.

Mitchell, true to his self-promoting history, is taking a victory lap on all this, as though he'd won a trial. He hasn't. Instead, he's opened himself up to discovery.

Even as Mitchell has met his burden of "minimal merit" in the anti-SLAPP motion, Judge Alarcon also writes that Twin Galaxies has "satisfied the low burden to show a reasonable possibility of prevailing in this action" in a separate motion.

The scoreboard has presented evidence to "[support] that its statement does not show actual malice," the judge writes, and which "supports that Twin Galaxies did not harbor doubt as to the truth of its statement, as its statement was made after Twin Galaxies' lengthy investigation on the dispute. The testimony of [Twin Galaxies owner and CEO Jace] Hall's belief that eyewitness evidence was unnecessary may reasonably go in [Twin Galaxies'] favor on this point, undermining [Mitchell]'s claim that [Twin Galaxies] acted with reckless disregard of the truth."

It's important to be able to keep two things in your head at once: that Mitchell may well have validly broken the Donkey Kong record as he claims and that Twin Galaxies did not do anything close to reaching the actual malice standard required for a defamation case of a public figure. And, despite Mitchell's public statements to the contrary, the lawyer for Twin Galaxies doesn't seem particularly worried.

Mitchell was helped in the anti-SLAPP motion, Tashroudian says, by the fact that "at this early stage the court is bound to accept whatever Mitchell puts forward as true." That includes a lot of what Tashroudian calls hearsay evidence involving phone calls where Hall allegedly told Mitchell and Twin Galaxies founder Walter Day that he "didn't care about certain evidence."

"The court is not allowed to determine the credibility of these statements [at this point] and must accept them as true," Tashroudian tells Ars. "[At trial] we'll be able to show that Mitchell is not credible because we have numerous situations of documented falsehoods in his papers. I'm confident that... after all of the evidence has been adduced, and when Billy is deposed and not allowed to hide behind declarations, the truth will come out."

I have no tea leaves to read, but those are the words of an attorney quite confident in the video evidence his client has to back up its statements. All I'll say is that Mitchell had damned well better be right that he broke those Donkey Kong records on a legit and standard Donkey Kong machine if he's really goin to proceed to discovery.

Filed Under: actual malice, anti-slapp, billy mitchell, defamation, discovery, public figure, slapp
Companies: twin galaxies

Changing Section 230 Won't Fix Politicians' Issues With Section 230

from the these-are-not-the-solutions-you-are-looking-for dept

In the week leading up to a potentially extremely consequential election, Congress is once again setting its sights on its favorite whipping boy, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 clarifies that users are responsible for the content they post online, not the websites that host it. Yet, this simple law was the subject of a hearing which brought the CEO’s of Twitter, Google and Facebook to the hill to be questioned over the law. These companies have been blamed for everything from increasing hate speech online, promoting election disinformation, and censoring conservative speech.

Seemingly sensing the winds of change are blowing against them, some of the companies brought to the hill have acquiesced that Section 230 will be reformed and will support some changes to the law. What exact changes to the law they will support remains unclear, but what does have clarity is that this tactic is a monumental mistake.

The problem is supporting the reform of Section 230, or even changing the law, will do nothing to get Congress off their back, as any change to the law will fail to address the concerns of those demanding reform. If anything, changing Section 230 will only exacerbate those problems, leading to further scrutiny and calls for reform.

Examine the standard Democratic and Republican complaints. Democrats are concerned that there is far too much hate speech, disinformation, and fake news allowed on various platforms. They want the websites to proactively remove more content they believe is poisoning the civil discourse. Republicans, meanwhile, are upset that websites are removing too much content. Twitter blocked the posting of the Hunter Biden laptop story for days, leading to claims of election interference. Similarly, posts from the satirical Babylon Bee have also been subject to removal. These actions place no doubt in the minds of many on the right that big tech is out to censor them.

Listening to these complaints, it seems Section 230 is the cause of both too much and not enough content being removed? How can this possibly be? One thing is certain--the problem is not Section 230. The problem lies with the fact that platforms aren’t conforming to one side or the other’s content moderation preferences. But rather than admitting that, both sides are using Section 230 as a pretext to haul the companies before Congress and question them on moderation decisions.

It’s likely that our political leaders already know this. If, by chance, they were able to agree and Section 230 disappeared tomorrow, websites would be left with two choices. They can moderate at an incredibly high rate to attempt to avoid liability, thus angering Republicans. Or, they can choose to not moderate at all, leaving any conspiracy theory, offensive speech or disinformation up, which would certainly anger Democrats.

Any other proposal that attempts to cut the baby in half will similarly fail to leave both sides happy, and we will be stuck right back where we started. Giving in to these political demands is a mistake. The Congressional approval rating remains dramatically low, while technology companies are more popular than ever in wake of COVID-19. The general public does not care about this issue, and reforms will not fix the problems of those that have a bone to pick with certain tech companies. Any changes to Section 230 will not only fail to get Congress off their back, but they also threaten the very internet ecosystem that has made them rich and enriched the lives of people across the globe.

Congress should leave Section 230 alone, and tech companies should be prepared to fight back against the disinformation spouted about the law.

The law is working exactly as intended.

Eric Peterson lives in New Orleans where is he the Director of the Pelican Center of Technology and Innovation

Filed Under: content moderation, politics, section 230

Nixon Scandal Resulted In A Law To Prevent The Politicization Of Antitrust Cases; Meanwhile Trump Uses His Politicized Antitrust Effort In Campaign Ad

from the different-times-apparently dept

Everyone knows about President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal, but you might now know as much about another huge scandal that preceded that one -- involving Nixon meddling, for political purposes, in an antitrust case by his Justice Department against a large "tech" company/conglomerate at the time. The case involved ITT trying to buy up some smaller companies, and the DOJ brought an antitrust case against them. The scandal part was that ITT approached the White House and worked out a deal: ITT would donate $400,000 (roughly $2.5 million today) to the 1972 Republican National Convention, and Nixon would get the DOJ to drop the case. Which he did. As the Nixon tapes eventually revealed, he called up then deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst and said:

“The I.T.T. thing — stay the hell out of it. Is that clear? That’s an order ... I do not want McLaren to run around prosecuting people, raising hell about conglomerates, stirring things up.”

Kleindienst's responded that he understood. Soon after he was nominated to be Attorney General, and during his Senate confirmation hearings he was asked whether the White House had interfered in the DOJ case against ITT, and he denied it. During Watergate, when the Nixon tapes came out, proving that Kleindienst lied, he ended up pleading guilty for lying to Congress.

The reason that the IIT quid pro quo deal with the White House was revealed was because a lobbyist for ITT named Dita Beard had sent around a memo with the details of the deal, which amusingly closed with "please destroy this, huh?" It wasn't destroyed, and instead was leaked to the Washington Post's Jack Anderson who sent his associate, a young Brit Hume, to Beard's house to verify the memo and get an explanation for it.

So, what's this historical story got to do with anything? Well, as we've discussed a few times now, current Attorney General Bill Barr's antitrust crusade against Google is clearly a politicized farce. Barr told the DOJ that they had to file before the election. DOJ staffers resigned from working on the case in protest. And the final case is stunningly weak.

But, after the ITT/Nixon debacle, Senator John Tunney introduced and got passed into law the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, better known as the Tunney Act. It was designed to prevent another ITT/Nixon situation from happening again, by trying to stop the DOJ/White House from politicizing antitrust. The mechanism to do so is somewhat simplistic, but any settlement agreement is supposed to go before a judge to check to make sure the deal is in the public interest, rather than for shady political reasons. Parts of the law are often ignored in antitrust settlements, and it makes news when judges remember it exists.

However, it does seem notable that the whole intent of the law was to stop sketchy backroom politicization of antitrust activities by the White House telling the Justice Department what to do. And yet, now, we literally have a President of the United States directly politicizing his own DOJ's antitrust campaign. On Wednesday evening Trump tweeted out a weird campaign ad that rambles incoherently about "big tech" being bad, and how something needs to be done. Then he flat out admits that because he believes big tech is "against him" that's why "we" are going after Google:

Big tech has to be spoken to and probably in some form has to be stopped because they're taking away your rights. They're taking away things that nobody would have believed possible. So one of the things we're doing -- you saw what happened with Google -- with the lawsuit. One of the things we're doing is looking very powerfully and strongly at big tech. Go out and vote.

In any other administration in history, this alone would have been a scandal. The DOJ is supposed to be an independent agency from the President, and isn't supposed to bring cases based on political whims, such as tech companies "not liking" the President. And the President isn't supposed to be claiming direct credit for the lawsuit. Like others have pointed out, this is like Stupid Watergate. Things that Nixon did behind closed doors Trump is doing blatantly out in the open, and somehow that's why he gets away with it.

Here, he's flat out admitting that the DOJ cases against Google is not for legitimate reasons by for political ones, and he's using that case, for which he takes credit, in a literal campaign ad. If the courts actually cared about the Tunney Act (and a few judges out there might still believe in it) this would be yet another giant gaping hole in the case. Google now has more than enough evidence to highlight that the entire case was brought for political purposes, and not for legitimate ones.

The Nixon/ITT mess raised enough concerns that it caused some to talk about impeachment (of course that was then superseded by Watergate). Here, Trump is doing worse things in public, and it barely gets a shrug.

Filed Under: antitrust, doj, donald trump, motives, politicization, richard nixon, tunney act
Companies: google

Daily Deal: RAVPower Fast Wireless Charger

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Deliver the fastest charging speeds on contact for both iOS and Android devices all with the RAVPower Fast Wireless Charger's HyperAir technology. It fast charges Qi devices up to 10W and up to 5W standard charging. This charger lets you power up your devices safely by preventing overcharging, over-discharging, overheating, and short circuits. It is on sale for $16.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Cable TV Execs Move Past Denial Stage, Now Fully Expect A 'Cord Cutting' Bloodbath

from the you-made-this dept

For the better part of the last decade, cable and broadcast executives tried their hardest to pretend that their industry wasn't facing a massive tectonic shift. First, they tried to insist that users flocking from expensive bloated cable bundles to streaming or over the air broadcasts didn't actually exist. Then, when it became very clear cord cutting was a major trend, they tried to pretend it was just something irrelevant, poor nobodies did. Then, when evidence made it very clear that wasn't true either, many executives pretended they'd seen this coming all along.

They didn't see it coming. In fact they routinely doubled down on all the kinds of behaviors that created the problem in the first place, like mindless rate hikes, bullshit fees, cheaping out on customer service, and fixating on megamergers instead of customer welfare. But after 2019 and 2020 wound up being the bloodiest years on record for cord cutting, they sure as hell see it now.

Case in point: industry insiders now expect 25 million U.S. households to cancel their pay-TV service over the next five years. That's on top of the 25 million homes that have already cut the cord since 2012. The hope now is that the trend stabilizes somewhere around the 50 million traditional TV subscriber mark. Granted there's no evidence they'll be right about this either, and either way there are some hard times in store for the sector all the same:

"At least three major media companies now expect pay-TV subscriptions to stabilize around 50 million, according to people familiar with the matter, who declined to speak on the record because their company plans are private.

The projected decline in subscribers will mean a drop of about $25 billion in cable subscription revenue plus associated advertising losses for the largest U.S. media companies, including Disney, Comcast’s NBCUniversal, AT&T’s WarnerMedia, ViacomCBS, Fox, Discovery, Sinclair and AMC Networks."

Facing the one-two punch of this massive paradigm shift and the COVID crisis (which has made consumers even more sensitive to relentless cable TV price hikes), Disney just completely retooled its business operations to focus exclusively on streaming.

Traditional TV/telecom executives, which, from experience, tend to surround themselves with more yes men, have had a harder time adjusting. Charter (Spectrum) CEO Tom Rutledge, for example, spent much of last year insisting that cord cutting would slow down this year as his company doubled down on relentless bi-annual consumer price hikes. His predictions were... unsound.

Of course just because people are flocking to streaming doesn't mean that new sector problems won't rise to replace the old ones. Giants like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, and others will simply exploit their broadband monopolies to recoup any lost TV revenue by jacking up the cost of broadband. And as hardware vendors, broadcasters, telecoms, and other companies all begin to elbow each other on their mad dash to the streaming trough, new, yet somehow familiar gatekeeper warfare problems will arise. Still, with streaming offering more flexible options, lower costs, and better customer service, it's hard not to think the increased competition won't be a net positive once the dust starts to finally settle.

Filed Under: cord cutting

Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions

from the hypocrisy,-thy-name-is-one-easily-confused-with-a-basketball-icon dept

There's something in the air. Call it TDS. Trump Derangement Syndrome. To acolytes of Trump, this means everyone opposed to Trump will find some reason to blame anything on him. But the derangement affects the acolytes more than it affects his opponents.

Former free speech warriors have started calling for government interference in private companies' handling of third-party speech. Lawyers that used to defend even seemingly indefensible people from bogus defamation lawsuits are now filing bogus defamation lawsuits of their own. Far too many Trump fans are convinced the First Amendment should override moderation decisions by social media companies. Some of these Trump fans are actually in the legislative business, which means they have the power to harm -- perhaps permanently -- the First Amendment and the immunity given to social media companies that extends to moderation decisions.

It's hypocrisy. It's blatant. And it just keeps spreading. Recently, Newsweek allowed Will Chamberlain to publish an op-ed in support of direct government interference in private companies' moderation efforts. That name might not ring a bell, so let's take a look at Will Chamberlain.

Chamberlain now works for the "Internet Accountability Project." It describes itself this way:

Our Mission is to lend a conservative voice to the calls for federal and state governments to rein in Big Tech before it's too late.

The site contains a page called "Google is Evil." It hosts a video with the same title and links to articles about supposed Big Tech "bias" that deals with companies other than Google.

Chamberlain's bio says he formerly worked as an attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The CEI presents itself as a "libertarian think tank." Here's how the CEI describes itself (emphasis added):

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. CEI's mission is to promote both freedom and fairness by making good policy good politics. We make the uncompromising case for economic freedom because we believe it is essential for entrepreneurship, innovation, and prosperity to flourish.

So, what does Chamberlain really stand for? Is it this?

advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty

Or is it this?

calls for federal and state governments to rein in Big Tech

Apparently, it's whatever Chamberlain wants it to be, depending on who he's working for and who he supports politically.

Given his cognitive dissonance, it's unsurprising his op-ed is a hot mess full of bogus assertions and incoherent arguments.

First, Chamberlain claims Twitter's blocking of the New York Post's story on supposedly damning Hunter Biden emails is the platform "running interference for the Biden-Harris ticket." That's a stretch. There appears to be very little limiting Trump and his supporters from campaigning for Trump. That they've been forbidden from propping up some unvetted claims from [checks notes] a computer repair service owner isn't really doing much to prevent pro-Trump electioneering. It was a bad decision, but it's not the conspiracy Chamberlain feels it is.

Chamberlain then moves on to deliver a wholly disingenuous reading of Section 230 immunity.

Section 230 "works" only to the extent that it gives tech platforms carte blanche to run their platforms unconstrained by tort law. In the early days of the internet, that was defensible, to create space for innovation, experimentation—and even protection. But social media is now a mature market, and Section 230's liability shield now does more to foster censorship than anything else. The shield also acts as a sword—giving tech giants the power to censor certain speakers using arbitrarily applied and unexplained community standards.

Chamberlain acts as though the "late days" of the internet no longer require this immunity. But that's only if you limit your view to the largest platforms that could survive the removal of this immunity. Smaller startups and competitors would likely be forced to shut down as they'd be unable to absorb the legal costs of defending themselves from the flurry of vexatious litigation that would follow the removal of this immunity. If Chamberlain wants the biggest platforms to consolidate their power, he should definitely work towards repealing these protections.

He moves on to completely misrepresent the arguments of Section 230 defenders.

Critics of Section 230 reform often focus on defending the publisher-versus-platform distinction, arguing for the importance of not treating social media platforms as the "publisher or speaker" of the content posted on their platforms.

Bullshit. Only critics of Section 230 focus on this nonexistent distinction. The law contains nothing about a "publisher-versus-platform" distinction, much less any wording that suggests immunity relies on neutral presentation of third-party content. Chamberlain is wrong about Section 230 and should have been directed to this Mike Masnick post before crafting this misleading and stupid op-ed.

Chamberlain pretends the administration can do better. He touts Bill Barr's recommendations that platforms should be more limited in their moderation efforts, removing only what is "objectively" objectionable content. We can all agree platforms should be more transparent about their moderation efforts, but allowing the government to define (most likely through expensive litigation smaller competitors can't afford) what is "objectionable" enough to be removed would allow presidential administrations to control the narrative via social media outlets.

Then there's the overuse of an incorrect term by Chamberlain -- a use designed to dupe people into believing private companies are violating the Constitution by moderating content.

Section 230 was not designed to provide blanket immunity for companies that use their power to censor political speech.

Private companies are incapable of censorship, at least in terms of the Constitution. No private company is obligated to allow individuals to say whatever they want whenever they want -- no more than private individuals are required to allow people to stand inside their house and say things the homeowners find objectionable.

And I can't even to begin to explain what this batch of word salad is supposed to mean:

Our society has recognized that the right of Americans to participate in society comes before the free association rights of common carriers. That principle undergirds our civil rights laws and our common carrier laws, and should be the basis of our laws regulating censorship on large social media platforms. Society is freer when Americans can speak freely without the Sword of Damocles (meaning a potential Twitter ban) hanging over their heads.

Society says participants have a right to society… or something. I think Chamberlain is trying to say the rights of individuals trumps the rights of corporations. Even if he's correct (which he isn't), he further clouds the issue by dropping in stuff about "common carrier laws," which has nothing to do with moderation efforts and everything to do with, say, phone companies being obligated to hook you up with a landline, if that's your kink. Society is still as free as ever and if certain trolls and dipshits don't like swords hanging over their head, they probably should stop doing stuff that summons the sword-bearer.

This shitshow closes with some more Chamberlain hypocrisy. This guy once advocated (as, you know, an actual legal advocate) for "advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty." Now, with his boy in the White House and his "I'm being censored" fever dreams, he's pounding out ridiculous sentences like this:

Big Tech's unprecedented level of control in modern life allows social media oligarchs to reign over the digital marketplace, filtering the flow of online information and censoring viewpoints—and even news—that disrupt their preferred narrative. Such unfettered discretion in a private group of companies is contrary to the values held by a civil society.

Chamberlain was for "unfettered discretion" before he was against it. Say what you will about a leftist rag like Techdirt and its contributors, but at least we've always been for Section 230 immunity and against government interference in First Amendment activities. That hasn't changed no matter who's occupying the Oval Office. I hope people like Chamberlain remember how much they wanted to strip these protections away when there's someone whose views they disagree with running the nation.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, free market, government interference, intermediary liability, section 230, will chamberlain
Companies: iap, internet accountability project

Trump Appointee Removes 'Firewall' Preventing Administration From Meddling In VOA Reporting

from the impossible-to-breach-a-firewall-that-no-longer-exists dept

Earlier this month, it was reported that the "rule of law" Trump administration was (yet again) violating the law. In this particular case, Trump appointee Michael Pack -- the CEO of the US Agency for Global Media -- was breaching a codified "firewall" to target Voice of America reporters he believed were too critical of Trump and his actions.

The "firewall" was erected to prevent exactly what Pack was doing. It was supposed to allow VOA reporters to act independently, rather than be subjected to the whims of presidential administrations. Breaching the firewall allowed Pack and the White House to control the narrative by sidelining or targeting journalists who expressed anti-administration sentiments elsewhere. Specifically cited were "retweets" and "likes" of social media posts criticizing Trump, as well as certain VOA pieces that highlighted the negative aspects of administration efforts.

Apparently, the problem was the law, not the lawbreaking. As NPR reports, Michael Pack has removed the law that prevented him from meddling in the day-to-day operation of Voice of America. It was done like most unseemly moves by governments are done: late in the day during a very busy news cycle.

A regulatory "firewall" intended to protect Voice of America and its affiliated newsrooms from political interference in their journalism was swept aside late Monday night by the chief executive of the federal agency which oversees the government's international broadcasters.

Michael Pack, a Trump appointee who assumed leadership of the U.S. Agency for Global Media in June, wrote that he acted to eliminate policies that were "harmful to the agency and the U.S. national interest." And Pack argued they had interfered with his mandate "to support the foreign policy of the United States."

[...]

Pack's bold move was taken in the dark of night — announced at 10:18 p.m. Eastern Time in a note to all of USAGM's several thousand employees, on the same night as the swearing-in of a new U.S. Supreme Court justice, and just eight days before Election Day.

Pack's late night memo says the law needed to go because it was preventing him from directly meddling in VOA affairs. According to Pack and his "extensive legal analysis," the VOA was always supposed to be a potential propaganda mouthpiece for sitting presidents and their administrations.

In its final hours of existence, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) issued a so-called “firewall rule,” instituting a significant misinterpretation of the 1994 International Broadcasting Act (IBA). I rescinded that rule based upon extensive legal analysis of the regulation and its conflict with Congress’s statutory mandate for USAGM – BBG’s successor – to support the foreign policy of the United States.

The “firewall rule” created a barrier between USAGM and the U.S. taxpayer-funded broadcasters and grantees under its management: the Voice of America, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Radio Free Asia, and the Open Technology Fund. The rule prohibited the CEO from engaging in managerial and editorial oversight, which Congress mandated the CEO to conduct to ensure that the agency carries out its proper governmental mission.

I'm sure the FOIA requests have been sent out for copies of the "extensive legal analysis" supporting Pack's unilateral removal of the firewall. And I'm sure no one will be seeing any responses any time soon, especially when it's certain the USAGM will claim it's a "deliberative" document that's also shielded by attorney-client privilege… even if it contains little more than Pack talking himself into doing something he was already doing.

No one who represents the Administration should be directly steering the editorial direction of the Voice of America, least of all this particular appointee.

[Pack] has embraced Trump's talk of a so-called "deep state" thwarting the president's priorities at USAGM, and Pack echoed White House immigration policies in denying visa extensions for foreign employees. Pack also instigated investigations of the Urdu language service, the French-to-Africa service and VOA's White House bureau chief over perceived anti-Trump bias in stories involving Trump, Democratic nominee Joe Biden, or their wives, as NPR previously revealed.

Pack truly seems to believe Voice of America should be a cheerleader for the Administration. His own bio page links to a Washington Examiner article with the headline "New foreign broadcasting chief cleans house, pushes pro-America reporting." The article discusses Pack's firing of every VOA radio director and his feeling that VOA should be pushing "American ideals," along with "responsible criticism." This housecleaning -- and Pack's latest actions -- appear to be the end result of the Administration's criticism of VOA earlier this year, just as the pandemic was taking hold in the United States.

Now that the firewall is gone, so is the language on the USAGM's site touting the firewall's guarantee of journalistic independence. This part of the USAGM's "Myths and Untruths" FAQ has been memory-holed.

An essential guarantee of the journalistic credibility of U.S. global media content is the firewall enshrined in USAGM’s enabling legislation, the U.S. International Broadcasting Act.

The firewall prohibits interference by U.S. government officials, including the USAGM’s Chief Executive Officer, in the objective, independent reporting of news by USAGM networks (VOA, RFE/RL, RFA, MBN, and Radio and TV Martí), thereby safeguarding the ability of USAGM journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism, free of political interference.

There won't be any more of this apparently useless "journalistic credibility," not with Pack in charge. The VOA belongs to the Administration now. And if Pack's rollback sticks, future presidential administrations will be able to steer the VOA towards more favorable reporting on their activities.

Filed Under: journalism, michael pack, propaganda, usagm, voice of america
Companies: voice of america

Twitch Marketing Promo Over Golden Emoji Goes Horribly Wrong After DMCA Nuclear Strike

from the not-the-time dept

Mere days ago, we discussed the bonkers path Twitch chose for itself in dealing with a flood of DMCA takedowns issued by the RIAA. The whole episode screamed of panic. Rather than dealing with DMCA takedowns via the normal method -- taking down the content, providing the content maker with a path for a counternotice, and then putting the content back if no lawsuit was filed -- , Twitch, instead, took the extraordinary action of simply and permanently nuking the videos in question. It then, rather brazenly, informed the content maker it had done so and advised them to "learn about copyright law." In fact, given its actions, there is some question as to whether or not this is all enough to have lost Twitch its safe harbor protections.

Regardless, it would be an understatement to suggest that this pissed off the Twitch community. The public backlash was both swift and severe, with content producers openly wondering if it was time to march off to a different platform entirely. Well, the very next day, Twitch began teasing a new offering coming in November and promoted this tease by releasing a sought after emote to all Twitch users.

Yesterday, Twitch took to teasing something that’s happening on November 14 (likely a digital convention called GlitchCon), as though everything is right as rain and not a corporate-friendly garbage fire. Twitch tweeted out a video that said “There’s a place where all Kappas are golden” and then temporarily turned all Kappa emotes gold.

For perhaps as long as Twitch has existed, there has been a myth: On exceedingly rare occasions, if the stars align perfectly, the ever-popular “Kappa” chat emote will turn gold. Some have suggested that a single Twitch user receives golden Kappa abilities every 24 hours. Others believe you have to fulfill highly specific prerequisites in order to unlock it. Yesterday, out of the blue, Twitch gave it to everybody. Twitch streamers and viewers, in turn, did not give a shit, because they were too busy recovering from the DMCApocalypse.

It was actually worse than streamers and users not giving a shit. This fully angered people, given Twitch's actions merely hours earlier. Streamers ran to Twitter and elsewhere to congratulate Twitch on its completely tone-deaf attempt to win over users with an emote, while others noted that Twitch had some serious communicating to do with the community and "shiny emotes" ought not have been on the agenda. Others once again wondered allowed if Twitch was the right platform on which to stream.

“Twitch gets slammed by the music industry, meanwhile they changed all the Kappas to gold, maybe in the hopes we all forget about how terribly the company has been running,” said Rocket League pro Lethamyr. “I think it’s nearly time to stream live on YouTube.”

And its not as though Twitch's extreme actions have even gotten the RIAA and its comrades off of the platform's back. Instead, various industry groups released a letter still complaining that Twitch wasn't doing enough on the copyright front and was mismanaging its Soundtrack by Twitch feature, which is supposed to help streamers use authorized music.

In other words, in a world where Twitch was presented with the choice of siding with its own content creators and users, or the copyright industry associations, it took the bold step of managing to piss off everyone instead. That it thought that golden emojis would somehow either stave off criticism of the platform, or at least be received without this resulting anger, seems to indicate that there are some very out of touch folks running this company at the moment.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, golden emoji, marketing stunts
Companies: twitch