NEW YORK - The Internet may seem to be slowing down today - but it's actually part of an effort to prevent a future where, according to Internet freedom advocates, some people online would have priority over others.
If you go to websites such as Reddit, Netflix, Kickstarter, Foursquare or Vimeo, chances are you're going to see an image or an animation that might make you think your download speed has turned to molasses. Timothy Karr, senior director of the group Free Press, called it the "spinning wheel of death."
"That icon that appears when your website has troubles loading a document or a video, or a music file or something like that," he said. "It's a very familiar frustration for Internet users."
It's a symbolic slowdown - a protest of a government plan to let some deep-pocketed broadband providers divide bandwidth into "fast lanes" and "slow lanes." Since May, Karr said, the Federal Communications Commission has been inundated with public comments on the proposal, most of them in opposition. The comment period ends next Monday, Sept. 15.
Two years ago, in opposition to legislation involving copyrights, many websites took part in a partial blackout of the Internet, with some - such as Wikipedia - shutting down completely for a day. Today's protest may be symbolic, Karr said, but it reflects serious public concerns about the need to keep a free and open Internet.
"An organization called the Sunlight Foundation looked at public comments to the FCC - and there've been more than a million already - and they found that 99 percent of those comments were in support of net neutrality," he said. "So, this is an issue where the public is strongly unified."
On Monday, the last day the FCC is taking comments, there will be actual - not virtual - lunchtime rallies in New York and Philadelphia.
More information is online at battleforthenet.com/sept10th.
get more stories like this via email
The Missouri Broadcasters Association is among the parties filing a lawsuit, claiming a state law that requires extensive redactions in court documents is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, filed in Jefferson City, challenges a law passed last year that mandates attorneys and judicial officers redact the names of all witnesses and victims in lawsuits and criminal proceedings.
Dave Roland, president and CEO of the Freedom Center of Missouri, represents the plaintiffs. He said these restrictions severely limit the news media's ability to effectively monitor the judicial system - which in turn harms the public. He added the law also has cost implications.
"The redaction requirement dramatically increases the cost of litigation, such that it is putting certain types of legal actions and certain motions beyond the financial capacity of a number of litigants," he said.
Roland added the plaintiffs agree that in some situations - involving children, or sexual assault - names should be kept private. But they contend a blanket law to redact all names violates both the Missouri and U.S. Constitutions.
The bill was spearheaded by Rep. Justin Hicks, R-St. Louis. A hearing date for the case has not yet been set.
Chad Mahoney, president and CEO the Missouri Broadcasters Association, voiced concerns about the law's impact on journalists' ability to report accurately.
"We support protecting those who need to be protected for their safety, but we think this goes way too far. It's making it very difficult for journalists to do their jobs and to fully inform the public," he continued.
Mahoney said historically, the courts have been the most open and transparent branch of government, and that has changed with some of these recent actions.
get more stories like this via email
O.J. Simpson's death has the nation looking back on the infamous murder trial that resulted in his acquittal. Experts say one of the lasting impacts is news coverage and how people consume it.
The lengthy trial proceedings from the mid-1990s were televised, setting a pathway for cameras in the courtroom.
Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota's Hubbard School of Journalism, said it also ushered in a cottage industry of pundits brought in to analyze the events of each day. That made it easier for people to get a recap during a 24-hour news cycle, but she added that there was a drawback to getting so much information through analysis.
"It also meant that people could suspend their critical thinking, to a certain extent," she said, "and I believe we're still seeing that today. The rise of social media has only made it easier."
However, she said it did expose issues with how criminal cases are handled, and viewers were able to see it firsthand. Given how the accessibility of information has exploded since the trial, Kirtley said, news consumers can't lose sight of the need to examine where they're getting it from. That includes whether the source is producing the news themselves, and if the details are being vetted.
Tessa Jolls, president and CEO of the Center for Media Literacy, said the trial firmly established entertainment as a core element of news coverage, making it profitable. She said outlets still have to reel people in with this approach to survive in a challenging landscape, but added that a sensationalized case such as this one sometimes helps with engagement in a positive way.
"They were seeing what the news organizations chose to show, and that gave people a chance to talk to each other and compare notes," she said. "In that sense, I think people probably did become savvier."
The trial also touched on racial issues and domestic violence, and Jolls said it was natural for people to have strong emotions about the developments. But she noted that it serves as a reminder for audiences to not let their gut feelings cloud how they weigh the facts presented to them.
"We need to see that our emotions are definitely present and that they may be swaying our thinking," she said, "and so, it's important to ask questions, to be skeptical."
get more stories like this via email
Missouri lawmakers are concerned with protecting people from the potential risks of the increasing accessibility of AI-generated images and videos.
The Innovation and Technology Committee is planning to vote on the Taylor Swift Act, a bill aiming to make it illegal to publish or threaten to publish AI-generated sexually explicit images of people.
Rep. Adam Schwadron, R-St. Charles, authored the bill and said it is important to be proactive in protecting ordinary citizens.
"They were able to take it down for her," Schwadron acknowledged. "However, common Missourians would not have the same protections afforded to her. Not everyone is Taylor Swift."
The bill would allow victims of the fake image attacks to sue the creator in civil court and recover the offending images. Rep. Bridgette Walsh, D-St. Louis, also supports the bill and said it is necessary in this day and age, given how easy videos and images are to access and create.
Schwadron noted while they will need to learn how to track items originating from the dark web, he is optimistic the legislation will cover most common offenses.
"The cases that we are seeing across the country of classmates that are being attacked by other classmates of theirs that is creating these images and it's affecting young girls and even boys and those are a lot easier to track when they're being shared from phone to phone," Schwadron explained.
Schwadron added the name "Taylor Swift Act" was fitting due to her ties with the state of Missouri and her recent ordeal with explicit deepfakes.
get more stories like this via email