June 18, 2026

Social Media Watch

Google Chrome - The Fast & Secure Web Browser Built to be Yours

Google Chrome - The Fast & Secure Web Browser Built to be YoursGuess Who Google Blots Out in ‘Trump Rescission’ Package Search– www.newsbusters.org
Source Link
Excerpt:

Google is once again eliminating right-leaning media outlets and organizations from search results.

MRC researchers searched the words “trump rescission” on Tuesday, the day the Trump administration sent a $9.4 billion rescissions package to Congress that would cut funds to USAID as well as PBS and NPR’s taxpayer funding. Not one of the 14 links the search giant provided led to a right-leaning media outlet or organization.

Instead, Google repeatedly propped up numerous leftist media outlets, including none other than NPR and PBS. Meanwhile, Google excluded Fox News, The Daily Caller and The Heritage Foundation from its search results, even though all three published articles on the topic.

MRC President David Bozell torched the search engine for its blatant bias. “This is just more evidence of how much Google hates Trump and how much it loves propping up these propaganda outlets,” Bozell said. “Google has abandoned any pretense of neutrality. Conservative voices are not merely being suppressed and shoved to the bottom of results, they’re being completely eliminated and erased.”

Nearly 40 percent of the links Google elevated came from NPR and PBS reporting on how they each might be stripped of public funds. In one piece—headlined “Trump asks Congress to claw back $1.1 billion from public media”—PBS tried to defend its taxpayer funding and spread doom and gloom about what might happen should it be pulled. NPR did something similar in another article headlined “Trump asks Congress to wipe out funding for public broadcasting.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

To appreciate the complexities of policing online hate speech that underlie an April summary decision by Meta’s Oversight Board, let’s start with a musical detour through a 2017 US Supreme Court opinion called Matal v. Tam. The Court faced the First Amendment question in Matal of whether the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) could lawfully deny a band’s request to register its name––The Slants––as a trademark. The PTO claimed denial was okay because “slants” disparages Asians.

The wrinkle was that the band’s members are Asian and their frontman, Simon Tam, wanted “to ‘reclaim’ and ‘take ownership’ of stereotypes about people of Asian ethnicity.” As Tam explained:

We grew up and the notion of having slanted eyes was always considered a negative thing. Kids would pull their eyes back in a slant-eyed gesture to make fun of us . . .  I wanted to change it to something that was powerful, something that was considered beautiful or a point of pride instead.

Via Shutterstock.

This relates to “reappropriation by self-labeling” or “reclamation.” It involves marginalized groups seeking “to redefine the negative connotations” of a label and reclaiming “social power, as they become in charge of the word’s meaning.”

The Supreme Court sided with Tam, reasoning that the PTO’s denial of registration for The Slants because it disparages Asians “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” Rejecting the stance that speech isn’t constitutionally protected simply because it’s hateful, the Court asserted that:

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared in federal court in Washington, D.C., for a second day on Tuesday, testifying about his intentions for acquiring Instagram in 2012.

In 2020, the Federal Trade Commission sued Facebook, which is now under the umbrella of parent company Meta, alleging it was in violation of antitrust laws by buying both Instagram and WhatsApp.

FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson pressed Zuckerberg on Tuesday over his internal message exchanges from 2012 with then-Facebook Chief Financial Officer David Ebersman regarding the $1 billion bid for Instagram.

Daniel Matheson, a lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission, departs following the first day of a historic antitrust trial about Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s intentions in acquiring Instagram, at Barrett Prettyman U.S. Court House in Washington, Monday, April 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Nathan Howard)

“[What] I’ve been thinking about recently is how much we should be willing to pay to acquire mobile app companies like Instagram and Path that are building networks that are competitive with our own,” Zuckerberg wrote to Ebersman, then agreeing with the chief financial officer when he said the purchase of Instagram would be a way to “neutralize a potential competitor.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

 Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand on Monday at a high-stakes trial in Washington over U.S. antitrust enforcers’ claims that the company spent billions of dollars to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp to fend off Facebook competitors.
The FTC is seeking to force Meta to restructure or sell Instagram and WhatsApp, testing President Donald Trump’s promises to take on Big Tech while posing an existential threat to a company that by some estimates earns about half of its U.S. advertising revenue from Instagram.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Meta Platforms (META) is going to federal court today for a long-awaited antitrust trial that will force the tech giant to defend its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Meta stock was ahead slightly in early trading.

The $1.4 trillion market cap social media titan is accused by the Federal Trade Commission of abusing monopoly power to acquire photo-sharing app Instagram and messaging platform WhatsApp more than a decade ago. The FTC filed the original antitrust lawsuit in 2020 before it spent nearly five years winding through appeals and other motions in the courts.

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fbiznology.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F04%2Fsocial_media_strategy111.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b2307256de643a5e16897c85c3a5ad909cb0f977a81b909fbb42a518c710b38a&ipo=images

The European Union is targeting Google and Apple for Antitrust violations that could force one company, Apple, to alter its product significantly, and Google over 10% of its global revenue. The UK is following suit by threatening to prosecute U.S. social media companies that don’t comply with their soviet and Muslim-compliant brand of censorship.

The Trump administration had previously threatened countries with tariff retaliation that target American companies in the way the UK and the EU just did.

Social media platforms face fines and criminal prosecution in UK – Marketing Tech
Source Link
Excerpt:

The UK Online Safety Act officially came into force on Monday, March 17, 2025, granting Ofcom extensive new powers to hold social media platforms accountable for illegal content.

Under the landmark legislation, technology companies must take proactive measures to detect and remove harmful material or face penalties of up to £18 million or 10% of their global revenue, whichever is higher.

New enforcement powers target illegal content

Technology firms must do more to tackle illegal content on their platforms as Ofcom begins enforcing the Online Safety Act’s illegal content codes.

From Monday, the regulator has started requiring social media companies to find and remove content such as child sexual abuse material, terrorism-related content, hate crimes, content encouraging suicide, and fraud.

Technology secretary Peter Kyle described the changes as “a major step forward in creating a safer online world.” He added that “for too long”, child abuse material, terrorist content, and intimate image abuse have been “easy to find online.” Still, social media platforms now have a legal duty to prevent and remove such material.

“Platforms must now act quickly to comply with their legal duties, and our codes are designed to help them do that,” said Suzanne Cater, enforcement director at Ofcom. “But, make no mistake, any provider who fails to introduce the necessary protections can expect to face the full force of our enforcement action.”

Europe targets Apple and Google in antitrust crackdown, risking fresh Trump tariff clash – Fortune
Source Link
Excerpt:

In a move that risks enraging the Trump administration, the European Commission has announced major antitrust enforcement decisions against Google and Apple.

Elon Musk’s X ordered to hand over information about anonymous account – Irish Legal News
Source Link
Excerpt:

Elon Musk’s X has been ordered to hand over information about an anonymous user who made allegedly defamatory posts about Belfast solicitor Kevin Winters and others.

Mr Winters, of KRW LAW, has been instructed by a number of individuals, including retired gardaí, who allege they were defamed by the user, identified only as “Malachy O”.

The posts, which were made in May and June 2023 and have since been deleted along with the entire account, targeted ex-Garda whistleblowers and others who were highly critical of alleged Garda wrongdoing.

Mr Winters said his clients, based in the Republic of Ireland, believe the “Malachy O” account was controlled by someone connected to An Garda Síochána.

Bill to regulate social media scales second reading in Senate – The Nation Newspaper
Source Link
Excerpt:

A Bill seeking to make it compulsory for social media platforms to have physical offices as well as formalise the registration and regulation of bloggers in Nigeria scaled the second read reading yesterday at the Senate.

It was the Senate’s second attempt to regulate the social media in the country.

Its first attempt during the Ninth National Assembly fizzled out after widespread criticisms and outcry by stakeholders who regarded it as an attempt to gag the media and contravene Section 39 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression provides.