Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
One through-line with many assassins and mass shooters beyond ideology is that they are young men with access and familiarity with guns who radicalized on the internet. This is happening with a variety of ideologies. The internet and access to guns are key causes in many of these tragedies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPc1hIR68wY
“”This case illustrates how the Section 230 precedent is fading, as courts keep chipping away at its edges to reach counterintuitive conclusions that should be clearly covered by Section 230,” writes law professor and First Amendment expert Eric Goldman on his Technology and Marketing Law Blog.
The case in question—Nazario v. Bytedance Ltd.—involves a tragedy turned into a cudgel against tech companies and free speech.
It was brought by Norma Nazario, a woman whose son died while “subway surfing”—that is, climbing on top of a moving subway train. She argues that her son, 15-year-old Zackery, and his girlfriend only did such a reckless thing because the boy “had
become addicted to” TikTok and Instagram and these apps had encouraged him to hop atop a subway car by showing him subway surfing videos.
Nazario is suing TikTok, its parent company (Bytedance), Instagram parent-company Meta, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and the New York City Transit Authority, in a New York state court, with claims ranging from product liability and negligence to intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and wrongful death.
…
teenagers doing dangerous, reckless things is not some new and internet-created phenomenon. And the fact that a particular dangerous or reckless thing might be showcased on social media platforms doesn’t mean social media platforms caused or should be held liable for their death.”
https://reason.com/2025/07/21/subway-surfing-death-suit-against-tiktok-meta-further-chips-away-at-section-230/
“Some of the most aggressive efforts over the past week have been cyberattacks against major financial institutions in Iran and disinformation campaigns aimed at causing chaos and confusion in Israel.
A pro-Israeli hacking group known as Predatory Sparrow claimed credit for a cyberattack last week on Iran’s Bank Sepah, which caused widespread account issues for customers. The group also later claimed credit for draining around $90 million from Nobitex, Iran’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, and for posting stolen Nobitex source code lists on the social media platform X.
Hackers also targeted Iranian news stations. Videos circulated online appeared to show Iranian state TV broadcasting anti-regime messages last week.
The Iranian government shut down the nation’s internet in response to the attacks late last week, a blackout that was largely still ongoing on Sunday.
“Gaining control of the flow of information is certainly to be expected from the regime … they suspect that there is maybe an attempt to mobilize public attention,” Vatanka said.
Top Iranian officials and their security teams were also advised last week to stop using internet-connected devices, in particular telecommunication devices, to protect against potential Israeli disruptions. Last year, thousands of pagers used by the Iranian proxy militant group Hezbollah exploded across Lebanon, leaving thousands injured.
One reason Israel’s cyberattacks may have been more effective in this round of fighting is that Israel struck Iranian facilities first, giving it more time to prepare its offensive and defensive options before Iran could retaliate.
Iran and its proxy organizations are fighting back, albeit on a smaller scale. Israel’s National Cyber Directorate warned Israelis abroad on Saturday not to fill out forms on malicious websites that are seeking to gather intelligence on these individuals.
Gil Messing, chief of staff for Israeli cyber company Check Point Software, said Saturday just before the U.S. strikes that his company had tracked cyber and disinformation campaigns against Israel “escalating a bit,” though no new major attacks had been reported.
Messing said that there was a “flood of disinformation” pouring onto social media last week, including messages discouraging Israelis from entering shelters during attacks and erroneous texts about gas and supply shortages.
Israel’s civilian cyber defense agency warned that Iran was renewing its efforts to hack into internet-connected cameras for espionage purposes.
John Hultquist, chief analyst for Google Threat Intelligence Group, posted on X on Saturday shortly after the attacks that Iranian cyber forces usually use their “cyberattack capability for psychological purposes.”
“I’m most concerned about cyber espionage against our leaders and surveillance aided by compromises in travel, hospitality, telecommunications, and other sectors where data could be used to identify and physically track persons of interest,” Hultquist wrote.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/22/us-israel-iran-war-cyber-attacks-00417782
“Many accounts, knowingly or unknowingly, shared images that warped the reality of what was happening on the ground. An X account with 388,000 followers called US Homeland Security News, which is not affiliated with DHS but paid for one of X’s “verified” blue check marks, posted a photo of bricks that it said had been ordered to be “used by Democrat militants against ICE agents and staff!! It’s Civil War!!” The photo actually originated on the website of a Malaysian construction-supply company. The post has nevertheless been viewed more than 800,000 times.”
…
“Some online creators treated the L.A. clashes as a prized opportunity for viral content. On Reddit, accounts with names like LiveNews_24H posted “crazy footage” compilations of the unrest and said it looked like a “war zone.” On YouTube, Damon Heller, who comments on police helicopter footage and scanner calls under the name Smoke N’ Scan, streamed the clashes on Sunday for nearly 12 hours.”
…
“Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, said videos can play a uniquely forceful role in shaping people’s reactions to current events because they “encapsulate the emotion of the moment.”
“There’s a heavy dose of misinformation,” he added. “And, you know, people just end up getting angrier and angrier.””
https://www.yahoo.com/news/viral-images-shaping-views-l-133509687.html
Is Google bending to the will of the Chinese Communist Party in censoring videos in the U.S.!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owAeZONXXsg
The social media fact checkers kind of sucked, but community notes are worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwzKDgBjqlU
“The law defined the term “controlled by a foreign adversary” to include not only companies owned wholly by Chinese entities but also one in which a citizen of an adversarial nation “directly or indirectly own[s] at least a 20 percent stake.” In other words, even if the overwhelming majority of a company’s shares were owned by Americans, it could be banned or forced to divest so long as the remaining shares were held by Chinese, Russian, or Iranian citizens.
In order to continue operating within the United States, the only recourse would be to sell TikTok to an American company by January 19, 2025—Joe Biden’s last full day in office.
TikTok and ByteDance sued, asking courts to declare the law unconstitutional. “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban,” the lawsuit argued. Lawmakers’ “speculative concerns fall far short of what is required when First Amendment rights are at stake.”
The plaintiffs claimed that the law’s restrictions were subject to strict scrutiny—the highest standard of review that a court can apply to an action, reserved for potential burdens on fundamental constitutional rights. “The Act represents a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on protected speech,” the lawsuit said, and the law’s divest-or-be-banned provision constitutes “an unlawful prior restraint.”
…
“a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs, finding “the Government’s justifications are compelling” and that it did not violate the First Amendment for the state to single out one company for disfavored treatment.
“We conclude the portions of the Act the petitioners have standing to challenge, that is the provisions concerning TikTok and its related entities, survive constitutional scrutiny,” Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for the majority. “We therefore deny the petitions.”
Ginsburg notes that while the law does require “heightened scrutiny,” it satisfies the requirements of strict scrutiny because of how narrowly tailored it was: “The Act was the culmination of extensive, bipartisan action by the Congress and by successive presidents. It was carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary, and it was part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by the PRC.”
In fact, that “national security threat” was not very “well-substantiated” at all—but the court didn’t seem to mind.
“TikTok contends the Government’s content-manipulation rationale is speculative and based upon factual errors,” Ginsburg wrote, referring to lawmakers’ concerns that Beijing could manipulate content on TikTok to promote Chinese propaganda. “TikTok fails, however, to grapple fully with the Government’s submissions. On the one hand, the Government acknowledges that it lacks specific intelligence that shows the PRC has in the past or is now coercing TikTok into manipulating content in the United States.” But “the Government is aware ‘that ByteDance and TikTok Global have taken action in response to PRC demands to censor content outside of China'” and “‘have a demonstrated history of manipulating the content on their platforms, including at the direction of the PRC.'”
…
“It may be that the PRC has not yet done so in the United States or, as the Government suggests, the Government’s lack of evidence to that effect may simply reflect limitations on its ability to monitor TikTok,” Ginsburg shrugs. “In any event, the Government reasonably predicts that TikTok ‘would try to comply if the PRC asked for specific actions to be taken to manipulate content for censorship, propaganda, or other malign purposes’ in the United States.”
The court’s decision is yet another instance where vague claims of “national security” trump individuals’ First Amendment rights. Claiming that Congress has the authority to force a company to sell one of its holdings—not through an established power like antitrust, but simply because they don’t like how it could be used in the future—is not only a weak justification; it is a plainly unconstitutional one.”
https://reason.com/2024/12/06/d-c-circuit-court-upholds-tiktok-ban-prioritizing-national-security-over-free-speech/
Undersea cables that support much of the internet and services are vulnerable to Russian attack. Russia uses mostly a land based internet network, so is not similarly vulnerable. Russia can attack such cables with civilian vessels and then pretend like they had nothing to do with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxsaWhXG1Gg
“Two undersea internet cables in the Baltic Sea have been suddenly disrupted, according to local telecommunications companies, amid fresh warnings of possible Russian interference with global undersea infrastructure.
A communications cable between Lithuania and Sweden was cut on Sunday morning around 10:00 a.m. local time, a spokesperson from telecommunications company Telia Lithuania confirmed to CNN.
The company’s monitoring systems could tell there was a cut due to the traffic disruption, and that the cause was likely physical damage to the cable itself, Telia Lithuania spokesperson Audrius Stasiulaitis told CNN. “We can confirm that the internet traffic disruption was not caused by equipment failure but by physical damage to the fiber optic cable.”
Another cable linking Finland and Germany was also disrupted, according to Cinia, the state-controlled Finnish company that runs the link. The C-Lion cable – the only direct connection of its kind between Finland and Central Europe – spans nearly 1,200 kilometers (730 miles), alongside other key pieces of infrastructure, including gas pipelines and power cables.
The incidents came as two of the affected countries, Sweden and Finland, updated their guidance to citizens on how to survive war. Millions of households in the Nordic nations will be given booklets with instructions on how to prepare for the effects of military conflicts, communications outages and power cuts.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-fault-takes-undersea-internet-143858766.html
“So, on the same day that the Supreme Court appears to have established that a sitting president can commit the most horrible crimes imaginable against someone who dares to speak out against him, the same Court — with three justices joining both decisions — holds that the First Amendment still imposes some limits on the government’s ability to control what content appears online.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined both decisions in full. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Netchoice opinion in full, plus nearly all of the Trump decision.”
…
“That’s such a sweeping restriction on content moderation that it would forbid companies like YouTube or Twitter from removing content that is abusive, that promotes violence, or that seeks to overthrow the United States government. Indeed, Kagan’s opinion includes a bullet-pointed list of eight subject matters that the Texas law would not permit the platforms to moderate, including posts that “support Nazi ideology” or that “encourage teenage suicide and self-injury.”
In any event, Kagan makes clear that this sort of government takeover of social media moderation is not allowed, and she repeatedly rebukes the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the Texas law.
As Kagan writes, the First Amendment does not permit the government to force platforms “to carry and promote user speech that they would rather discard or downplay.” She also cites several previous Supreme Court decisions that support this proposition, including its “seminal” decision in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), which held that a newspaper has the right to final control over “the choice of material to go into” it.
Nothing in Kagan’s opinion breaks new legal ground — it is very well-established that the government cannot seize editorial control over the media, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who cares the least bit about freedom of speech and of the press. But the Court’s reaffirmation of this ordinary and once uncontested legal principle is still jarring on the same day that the Court handed down a blueprint for a Trump dictatorship in its presidential immunity case.
It’s also worth noting that Kagan’s decision is technically a victory for Texas and Florida, although on such narrow grounds that this victory is unlikely to matter.”
https://www.vox.com/scotus/358326/supreme-court-netchoice-moody-paxton-first-amendment