Topic

freedom of speech

141 petitions

Update posted 13 hours ago

Petition to Google, Inc, YouTube, Sundar Pichai

Fire Susan Wojcicki as YouTube CEO

Since February 2014, Susan Wojcicki became Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of YouTube, which is part of Google. Under her leadership things started to went downhill and caused the reputation of YouTube and Google from the copyright controversy to the 2016 controversial YouTube PR Nightmare known as The Ad-Friendly Monetization Policy which was severely criticized by various YouTubers that the new rules censors and silenced YouTubers' freedom of speech and their platforms by demonetizing YouTube videos that deals with controversial subjects (like tragedies, natural disasters, politics, health, and etc.) and YouTubers loved Freedom Of Speech, but the new Ad-Friendly Monetization rules are still a dire form of Censorship by TPTB at Google and YouTube. The current Ad-Friendly Monetization Policy is still unfair to YouTubers. We also want that policy abolished or changed for the better. The controversial Ad-Friendly Policy at YouTube is one of the few reasons YouTube went downhill and turn for the worse and into the wrong direction. The PR Nightmare has to be fixed, make YouTube and Google go into the right direction by having common sense rules like No Tolerance Policy on YouTube Trolls, False Flagging, and censoring music just like Internet Vigilantes like UMG_MK trying to do a witch hunt on removing YouTube videos of songs by The Beatles. We want YouTube and Google go into the right direction and fire YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and Make YouTube Great Again!

Spencer Karter
59,529 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Twitter, Jack Dorsey

@Twitter: Reinstate Daniel McAdams

The executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel McAdams, has been permanently banned from Twitter for using the words “stupid” and “retarded”. If average Twitter - and Facebook users got suspended for writing the word stupid in updates or tweets. We could shut down all social media websites today. If it can happen to Daniel, it can happen to you and me. Please sign this petition. We need to send a strong social message to Jack Dorsey and Twitter, that Daniel McAdams suspension is ridiculous and we want McAdams back on Twitter. Daniel McAdams: one of the leading non-interventionist voices in America. Daniel McAdams is the Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. 1993-1999, McAdams worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary. He served as special rapporteur for the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, while monitoring human rights and elections in different countries, this include Albania during the 1996-1998 civil unrest, Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Georgia, Montenegro, and Slovakia. He was a Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow and an American Swiss Foundation “Young Leader”. McAdams is one of the fiercest opponents of interventionist foreign policy, his record speaks for itself, he is an inspiration to human rights activists everywhere What happened?: August 29, Daniel McAdams got banned from Twitter, because he wrote talk-show host Sean Hannity was stupid. Daniel McAdams noticed Sean Hannity was wearing two lapel pins, one of which appeared to be a CIA lapel pin, while Hannity “challenged the deep state”. In America, the term deep state refer to a conspiracy theory, which suggest a hidden government within the legitimate elected government. Daniel McAdams is a professional journalist and humanitarian, he was only trying to protect American viewers from fake news and conspiracy theories. Why McAdams tweeted: “Visiting a friend, watching @seanhannity. And hour “challenging the deep state” while wearing a CIA lapel? This is what called misdirection. America are you so stupid, you listen to someone attacking the deep state while wearing a CIA lapel pin?” Someone else tweeted about how stupid Hannity was. McAdams replied back and wrote: “@seanhannity. He’s also super retarded- My IQ dipped 18 points in a half hour”. Daniel McAdams received a notification that his Twitter account: “has been suspended and will not be restored”, because he had violated Twitter’s Term of Service, particular the Twitter Rules against hateful conduct. I have checked Twitter’s Term of Service and “it is against our rules to promote violence or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disabilities, or serious disease”, the notification reads: “Additionally, if we determine that the primary purpose of an account is to incite harm towards others on the basis of the these categories; that account may be suspended without prior warning”. Based on my professional opinion, Sean Hannity was merely insulted with a pejorative, but he doesn’t have any disabilities and wasn’t attacked or harmed in any way. Many people have used far more derogatory words to describe television programs or other people on Twitter, but they never received a permanent ban. I will argue, that McAdams permanent suspension represent a heavier penalty than were applicable at the time his “offenses” was committed, and that his consumer rights may have been breached. Daniel McAdams suspension is ridiculous and we need McAdams back on Twitter, where he belongs. What are the stakes and why you should care I am assuming Twitter want to be a platform, where people feel safe, secure and free speech flourish, but rigid and overzealous internet censorship is wrong. People are people, we are not diplomats, who took digital media classes. Sometimes people allow things like a political program or the performance of their favorite team affect their emotions. 41% of Twitter users will go to Twitter to talk about sport teams, bands or political television shows, that they love or hate. Maybe, people aren’t communicating directly, while they are watching a political debate or an average television program, but they use hashtags and retweets to interact and for a brief, magical moment they belong to a bigger group. They’re not sitting alone and silently watching a program at home, but they are connected with other people from around the world. They are sharing their thoughts, feelings, fears, hopes for the future. Online debates are messy, chaotic and very often unfulfilling, but people are still talking, sharing, connecting and that’s the most important thing. Twitter used to be the home of political debates and everyday conversations, but all this changed when Daniel McAdams got banned for voicing his opinion about a Fox News show. Free speech and freedom died a little that day on August 29, 2019. We need to reclaim our free speech zone and send a social message to Twitter and Jack Dorsey, that censorship and banning people is not the solution. We can’t afford to lose, because debates ends, free speech ends, freedom itself ends and oppression begins, when people’s popular or unpopular opinions are censored and they get banned from social media websites.  

Mette Christensen
55 supporters
Started 1 month ago

Petition to Instagram, Adam Mosseri

Instagram: Reverse Your Censorship of Public Figures & Reinstate Instagram's Activity Feed

Instagram announced the removal of its ‘Following’ tab feature via a retweet of a Buzzfeed article titled: “Horny People, You’re Free: Instagram’s Following Tab Is Gone.” While this announcement was veiled by humor, Instagram has failed to consider the implications of this restriction that ominously borders on censorship. Consider the quotes from the following scholars on free speech on the Internet: Predominant legal commentator and law professor Jeffrey Rosen has said, “Facebook has more power in determining who can speak and who can be heard around the globe than any Supreme Court justice, any king or any president.” Prominent First Amendment scholar and Internet policy lawyer Marvin Ammori opined, “At Facebook, the key has been defining a set of rules that hundreds of employees can apply consistently without having to make judgment calls.” Let me be clear: private tech companies are the new authors of our rights to free expression. Instagram, behind closed doors, is rewriting the rules on social media censorship. While this move is operating under the guise of freedom for horny Instagram users to like and comment as they please, it instead led to the loss of information that demands transparency: an inside look into the lives of our public figures. Among other things cited in Slate’s crucial article on this matter, through this feature, we gained insight into the opinions of ‘manhood’ by Donald Trump Jr., and an insinuation that Sarah Huckabee Sanders was considering running for governor. On the pop culture side of the argument, prominent contestants on the Bachelor franchise have come under criticism for liking Instagram posts, including but not limited to, mockeries of transgender people, undocumented immigrants, and mass shooting victims. Maybe the argument is, as some defenders of their controversial likes have put it, that their likes and activity were accidental; thereby, they should not suffer the consequences of online crucification. I think it goes without saying at this point that it is widespread knowledge that what you post or do online is “forever,” and one should be prepared to deal with the consequences. While this may not be fair, it is reality. Lack of conscious awareness by public figures is simply not an excuse to engage in censorship. Given the gravity of the arguments I’m making, I will not even consider Instagram’s justification that no one was using this feature. It has been made clear by the incidents cited in this petition that that is simply not the case. Furthermore, even if that arguments stands, so what? Lack of usage does not translate to elimination of public information. While I don’t believe that Adam Mosseri had insidious intentions behind removing this feature, it is massively irresponsible to fail to consider these implications. This move is excusing people to behave behind closed doors on the Internet. We have a duty to demand the retention of accountability by our public figures and free speech on the Internet- the act of ‘liking’ should stand as a publicly available, conscious choice.  Sources: Ashley Feinberg, What We Lose When We Lose Instagram's Activity Feed, Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2019/10/what-we-lose-when-we-lose-instagrams-activity-feed.html (2019) Miguel Helft, Facebook’s Mean Streets, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 13, 2010, at B1. Marvin Ammori, The “New” New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter, 127 HARV. L. REV. 2259, 2278 (2014).

Stacy M
30 supporters