Writing these items is more than a little depressing. However, looking the other way is not an option. And so, we write on.
To start, it would seem that Meta and Mark Zuckerberg continue to search for ways to kiss up to Donald Trump. Actually, it's also possible that someone in the Trump administration got Zuck on the phone and gave him marching orders. Either way, the fellow who once said his platform would always protect "free expression" seems to have changed his tune.
Among Meta's properties, of course, is Instagram. The audience there skews much younger than Meta's other cornerstone property, Facebook. And so, pro-choice activists—specifically, those who are trying to make sure women have access to abortifacient pills—are considerably more active on Instagram than they are on Facebook. Or, at least, they were. There is abundant evidence, first reported by The New York Times, that Facebook, and particularly Instagram, have begun to censor, in various ways, accounts and messages dedicated to information about how to obtain abortifacient pills. Groups like Just the Pill, Women Help Women, and Hey Jane, among others, have reported that their accounts were suspended, or buried deep within the system (which is known as "shadow-banning"), or had their postings blurred or removed.
To the extent that Meta has responded to these reports, it's to say two things: (1) the company is not targeting abortifacient groups, and (2) if such groups are being targeted, it's because they have violated the platform's rules regarding information about prescription drugs. We will note that these two claims are mutually exclusive, to a large extent—either the activist groups are being targeted or they are not. And if this is just "they violated our rules about prescription drugs," then how come they were able to effectively work within the rules, up until, say, January 20, 2025?
Obviously, Meta is a private concern, and can platform or de-platform anyone they wish, as long as they do not violate any laws. But, there needs to be an end to the "free expression" talk. There also needs to be an end to the talk about "these platforms discriminate against conservatives," a claim that was never actually credible.
Unfortunately, Meta was not the only corporate concern this week to bend over and say to Donald Trump: "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" Google, which makes the world's most popular map app, with billions of users each month, has announced that it will honor the name change of "Denali" to "Mt. McKinley," and "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America." Users in the United States will see Trump's preferred names, as soon as the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) is updated. Users in Mexico will only see "Gulf of Mexico." Users in all other places will see both pairs of names, side-by-side.
As with Meta, Google is hiding behind the claim that they are following their same old policies, and that they always use GNIS to determine what place names to show to American users. This is probably true, but it also smacks of disingenuousness, since 99.99999% of American place names are not politicized. When maps DO get political, choices have to be made, and Google has made theirs here, just as they have in other places in the world. Note, for example, that Google does not show Donetsk as part of Russia, but it DOES show Tibet as part of China. Those are both very political decisions, and decisions that just so happen to comport with what is wanted by governmental entities whose good graces matter to Google (the EU and China, respectively). It sure looks like the same sort of choice has been made here, GNIS or no.
And finally,
it appears that
Trump will be the recipient of another bribe unwarranted legal settlement, this time from Paramount Global.
Recall that Kamala Harris sat for the traditional candidates' interview with 60 Minutes, while Trump declined.
CBS then aired some footage from that interview on Face the Nation, and then a more polished version of the
footage on 60 Minutes. Trump sued for $10 million, under a legal theory that is so wild, it borders on insane. In
the court filing, his attorneys argued that CBS violated Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. Under
that law, it's illegal to claim that, say, using toilet paper made by Kimberly-Clark (headquartered in Irving, TX) will
help prevent colorectal cancer. And Trump argued that by misrepresenting Harris, CBS effectively harmed "consumers" in
the same way.
Never mind that there's no evidence the interview misrepresented Harris, either intentionally or inadvertently. After
all, such interviews—especially with politicians—are always more "truthy" than "truth." Never mind also that
a politician running for office is not a consumer product (although it may be instructive that Trump believes
otherwise). The bottom line is that Paramount is at work on a big merger, and it will need to be approved by the
Department of Justice, which is now a branch of the Trump Organization. So, the bribe must be paid suit must be
settled.
Assuming Trump gets his $10 million, that will be added to the $15 million from ABC for the George Stephanopoulos interview and the $25 million from Meta for having suspended Trump's account after the insurrection, for a cool total of $50 million, just for filing a trio of entirely spurious lawsuits. And do you think that will be the end of it, once Trump sees how well this works, and how easily it allows him to shake down private corporations? We don't. (Z)