Tuesday, May 03, 2022

White Supremacy Matters
In America it always has.


April 26, 2022
 by William Spivey 


Make no mistake. White supremacy matters now and has ever since the founding of America. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to learn this. America was founded on the premise that the only ones that mattered were rich, white men. The case can and should be made that class and gender have always mattered, but that is not today’s topic.

Technically, the concept of a white race didn’t exist when what would become America was discovered by Europeans. Certainly, there was nationalism, but the idea of white people being a superior race didn’t come until later. Historians mark Bacon’s Rebellion as the turning point where white became a thing. Before Bacon’s Rebellion, the vast majority of Black people in the colonies were not enslaved but indentured servants. They held more or less the same status as white indentured servants that signed a seven-year contract to pay for their passage to the colonies. Of course, Black indentured servants often had their terms extended or were subject to a lifetime of servitude for real and imagined offenses. Nathaniel Bacon led an armed rebellion against Virginia Governor William Berkley. What created the need for the white race was when white indentured servants, Black indentured servants, and Black enslaved people united in following Bacon.

More than a few moments in history scared the rich, white men who held power. The Haitian Revolution and Nat Turner’s Rebellion were among them. White slaveholders always feared that enslaved people might turn on them; in many locales, whites were the minority and depended on slave patrols and militias to maintain order. But the thought of whites and Blacks of the underclass working together raised such concern that a way had to be found to divide them. White people were elevated to where the poorest white person was considered better than any Black person. They often became the overseers on the plantations, and white indentured servants were no longer a thing. Black indentured servants went away, too, as enslavement became the norm.

Bacon’s Rebellion began in 1675, but thirteen years earlier, the stage was set for what was intended to be the permanent enslavement of Black people. Partus Sequitur Ventrem was passed by the Virginia House of Burgesses, which changed how babies had been recognized previously by England and its colonies. Children born to Black enslaved women would follow the mother’s bloodline, leaving the father no responsibility and condemning the child of a female slave to be an enslaved person as well. If a white woman bore the child of a Black enslaved or free male (which did happen more frequently than you’d think). The woman was embarrassed or shunned, but the child was technically born free. Many of them were enslaved anyway or killed to coverup the paternity. The lucky father or whoever the woman pointed out might have been killed as well for having dared touch a white woman.

I’m skipping ahead a whole century during which white supremacy became firmly entrenched. Enslavement had totally replaced indentured servitude and was the foundation of the South’s economy and benefited the North. Those militias formed to control enslaved people would soon become police forces, they were the basis for the Second Amendment rights for those militia members to carry guns. The fear that abolitionists would either unarm the slave patrols or induct them into the military caused southerners to insist on enshrining their rights in the Constitution. That same Constitution set the stage for eliminating the international slave trade twenty years from its ratification in 1798. The purpose was not to gradually eliminate enslavement but to provide price protection for domestic slaves. It also meant an increased demand for domestic enslaved people, which was met by forced breeding, often via rape.

The Constitution wasn’t finished establishing the superiority of white people. It gave us the three-fifths provision which counted an enslaved person worth less than a white person when establishing representation. Those Black people didn’t actually vote themselves as that privilege was generally reserved for rich, white men. We also got the Electoral College, which was effectively affirmative action for white people, designed to ensure those opposing slavery couldn’t outvote the slave states.

Skipping ahead again to just before the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which wasn’t quite as wondrous as people now believe. The proclamation didn’t free all enslaved people — just those in states that seceded from the Union. The move was designed to disrupt the South’s economy and keep foreign powers Britain and France from partnering with the Confederacy, with whom they still had trade ties. Lincoln firmly believed in white people’s superiority, as demonstrated many times in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates.

“I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” Abraham Lincoln

A few things happened in rapid succession that changed America forever. On January 31, 1865, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment, which freed all enslaved people, except those being punished for a crime and those in the Confederacy who didn’t acknowledge Union laws. On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomatox, effectively ending the Civil War though it didn’t officially end for another month. Six days after Lee’s surrender, Abraham Lincoln was shot in the head while at Ford’s Theatre while watching a play. He died the next morning across the street at the Petersen House. His killer, John Wilkes Booth, was an avid supporter of slavery. White supremacy does not go quietly into the night.

There was a brief period where white supremacy was on the decline. The Reconstruction Act of 1867 outlined the requirements the rebel states had to meet to rejoin the Union. They had to each write a new constitution, approved by a majority of voters, including Black ones. They had to ratify the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, which freed the slaves and gave them the right to vote. These new laws were enforced by federal troops who protected the freedmen somewhat from the Ku Klux Klan that formed in 1865 to enforce in the dark what white people ceded in the daytime.

State governments appealed to Congress for help, and they passed three enforcement acts, including the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Crimes that states and local governments wouldn’t prosecute (lynching, beating, and voter suppression) were now federal crimes with troops nearby to enforce them. Black men began to get elected to Congress and even won statewide elections in Mississippi. Reconstruction was promoted by and enforced by the Republican Party, which was born of the abolition movement. They were for Black people until they weren’t.

In 1876, there was a contested presidential election that the Democrat Tilden should have won by all appearances. He was one vote shy of the votes needed in the Electoral College and won the popular vote with two state’s results contested. Republicans still controlled Congress, and if Tilden won, he would have difficulty getting legislation passed. A compromise was reached, which resulted in Republican Rutherford B. Hayes being elected as president with the understanding all federal troops would be removed from the South. Hayes kept his end of the bargain and later enacted Posse Comitatus, which ensured those troops could never return. This effectively ended Reconstruction. The Black representatives to Congress were either forced to resign, serve out their terms, and not run again or defeated at the ballot box as Black voters were mostly unable to vote. Sometimes white supremacy is defined by looking the other way when injustice occurs as long as it doesn’t happen to you.

Jim Crow became the law of the land and not just in the South either. Laws designed to replicate slavery, dictate housing, and sometimes force employment under the very same people once their owners. The Klan had been almost crushed in the 1870s but returned in 1915. The Great Migration saw Black people move to northern cities for better employment. Still, redlining and housing discrimination forced most of the six million Black migrants into ghettoes in northern cities.

By that time, police forces had evolved from slave patrols. In the South, they primarily tended to the formerly enslaved people and their descendants. In the North, they controlled the Black migrants and the immigrants that would soon enough be allowed to be white as there weren’t enough regular white people to still be supreme. Abraham Lincoln and others predicted that when Black people were no longer enslaved, there would be resentment. Indeed they were when they discovered freedom didn’t mean what they hoped it did, and they were still bound by many of the same rules.

By 1920, women had the right to vote in their first presidential election after the Nineteenth Amendment passage. The Klan was nearing their peak membership of four million people. Women and Blacks voting was apparently too much, so they doubled down on preventing Black men and women from voting. In Florida, there was a statewide conspiracy among Democrats to suppress Black votes. When July Perry and Mose Norman tried to vote in Ocoee, Florida (outside of Orlando). A white mob that included law enforcement officials killed Perry, shot and killed many Ocoee Black residents, and burned out the rest. Ocoee was an all-white town for the next forty years.

“At the time that I visited Ocoee, the last colored family of Ocoee was leaving with their goods piled high on a motor truck with six colored children on top. White children stood around and jeered the Negroes who were leaving, threatening them with burning if they did not hurry up and get away. These children thought it a huge joke that some Negroes had been burned alive.” Walter White — NAACP

Law enforcement and the military have always been infiltrated by and often led by white supremacists. In 1921, the Black Wall Street area in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was attacked by a white mob after the alleged assault of a white woman in an elevator. The coordinated attack included bombs dropped from the air by the National Guard. Thirty-five blocks were destroyed, and at the time of this writing, mass graves are being uncovered as Tulsa finally decided to look for them. In 1923, the Black residents of Rosewood, Florida, were attacked; the story was recounted in a 1997 film. These are but a few of the massacres of Black people perpetrated by whites during the period. Universally true is that no one was prosecuted when Black families were destroyed; their land and businesses were taken by white people because they could. In 1926 in Washington D.C., long before the Million Man March, the 50,000 Klan March was well received. The Klan held open recruitment events, conducted Klan weddings, and in some areas was listed in the phone book. Perhaps this was the era of greatness Donald Trump is wistful about?


In the 1870s, it was a targeted effort to wipe out the Klan that stifled them. The Great Depression crushed the KKK. People unable to feed themselves could not pay the ten-dollar membership fee, and they soon faded away. Like the South, they rose again to fight against civil rights and perpetually engage in voter suppression. What got their ire up was the integration of the armed forces, which also started the drift from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party as it was Democrat Harry S. Truman who issued the executive order. Truman was rumored to have been a KKK member, but as many people said he wasn’t as he was. The major blow to white supremacists was when Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Voting Rights Act after the Bloody Sunday events that were nationally televised. The Klan knew to ride at night, Bull Connor and the Selma police acted with impunity in the daytime, making America nervous.

In the 1960s, the Southern Strategy was in full effect by the Republican Party. Democrats, after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, were actively recruiting Black voters, and Republicans were trying to make America afraid of Black people. They suddenly became the party of voter suppression. It was as if the party’s decided to switch places. Not out of ideology but because of political expediency. The Republican Party utilized the Southern Strategy to elect Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W, Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. The Republican Party got almost all the Black vote during Reconstruction but had now become almost exclusively white.


White supremacy had become the roadmap to victory. America was sufficiently afraid of “Willie Horton,” “welfare queens,” and “super-predators,” that it ramped up both mass incarceration and voter suppression. Donald Trump became the personification of white supremacy with his attacks on everybody of color. It would be gratuitous of me to remind everyone that his company refused to rent to Black people in his younger days, marking their applications “C” for colored so they would be rejected. I can be petty, so I threw that in there. He also took out a full-page ad advocating the death penalty for the Central Park Five, who, by the way, were innocent. Think Donald Trump apologized?

Trump’s biggest accomplishment was making it possible for white supremacists to throw away their robes and come out of their racist closets. He appointed openly white nationalists to his staff. At one time, Steve Bannon was his Chief Advisor, and Stephen Miller wrote his speeches and developed his immigration policy. Miller (and Jeff Sessions) were chiefly responsible for throwing brown children in cages and separating them from their families, some forever. The Klan is far less of a presence today, but they have been joined by the Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, and literally hundreds of other hate groups across the country. The SPLC documented 940 groups in 2019, most of them bunched in states led by Republicans. Many of them came together in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, which led to a clash killing one woman and two State Police Officers. White supremacists were chanting, “our blood, our soil,” and, “you will not replace us.” President Trump said there were, “good people on both sides.”

Charlottesville was the precursor to what happened on January 6, 2020, at the Capitol. The Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, and many of the others joined forces with non-affiliated racists. They stormed the building, seeking to overturn the election and kill a few elected leaders along the way. For the first time in American history, the Confederate flag was paraded through the Capitol rotunda. Instead of being horrified, Trump was giddy. The racist groups are using the news coverage and videos to recruit and fundraise. They promised this isn’t over, and I believe them.

It’s important to note that Congress across several administrations has failed to acknowledge white supremacists groups’ threat. They have covered up the extent of their threat and refused to address the coming storm. In 2006 the FBI warned of white supremacist infiltration of police forces, but nothing happened. Twice in a five-year period, a Florida town ousted police force members for membership in the Klan. Racist emails among police officers have been uncovered within forces across the nation, including Los Angeles, Miami, Ferguson, San Francisco, New York, and elsewhere. The Department of Homeland Security delayed the release of a report for months, outlining the threat of the increasing number of white supremacist groups. They finally released it in October of 2020. Since the release of the report, Congress has done nothing.

White supremacy has always existed in America. In fact, it defines America. We send people worldwide and shame them for human rights violations yet do nothing to address our own. Demographics is working against those with white supremacist views. White people are projected to be a minority in America by 2045. It’s why our immigration policy is attempting to turn back the clock and why voter suppression of minorities is again at the forefront of Republican policy (though once it was the Democrats’ way). One true thing across the history of this nation is that white supremacy has mattered. It’s time to make that no longer true.


This post was previously published on Black History Month 365.
Bill Maher and Elon Musk are old, rich, white guys shaking their fists at the 'kids these days': MSNBC panel

Sarah K. Burris
May 01, 2022

Bill Maher (ABC)

After the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, posted a meme showing that "both sides" have moved toward the extreme. It was resoundingly denounced by those who dedicate time to researching and monitoring such movements. But it sparked a conversation about just how far the GOP has gone to the right, culminating in an actual insurrection on the U.S. Capitol in Washington.

"Most people don't follow politics closely, and, therefore, it's very easy to just go, 'far left — far right. They're the same!' And take an equidistant position between the two extremes, and it's not just Musk doing that," said MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan. "I mean, vast swaths of the American media, sadly. Molly, if you think, if anyone thinks America's far-left and far-right are equally dangerous, surely, they must be suffering from some form of brain rot. But it's important to point out. It's not just Musk. It's many people in our media."

The Atlantic's Molly Jong-Fast linked Musk, who grew up in South Africa under Apartheid, with Bill Maher, the HBO host who has increasingly turned to the right after COVID mitigation efforts caused him inconveniences. She began by explaining that every older generation in history has complained about the younger generations because they're different. Maher is no different.

"I do think he's [Musk] being courted very hard by this far-right fringe, and you see it," said Jong-Fast. "You see Joe Rogan and those types are working very hard to, sort of, charm him. He does seem to be a person who likes it when people are nice to him, right? So, he is quite upset with the left because he has all these labor problems. He has, you know, a lot of workers complaining about racism and sexism, terrible sexual harassment complaints, and racism complaints in the factories. So, there's, you know, there is a real move to try to unionize. But also if he doesn't like it. I think he's a person who likes to be liked, and that's really what it is. And these guys are working really hard to make it his friend."

She went on to compare the whining about the left to Maher, who was once thought of as a liberal host.

"The other thing I would say about him, and with all these guys, and you've seen this also with Bill Maher, you know, so much complaining of, 'oh, you know, everyone so woke, they don't let me tell my jokes,'" she said. "But you know, old, rich white men have since the beginning of time, complained about young people. This is not new. You know, the older rich white, you've got everything, of course, you are threatened by young people. Of course, you are mad, of course, you don't like their beliefs. I mean, think about the 1960s. Like this is not some new phenomenon. Old, rich, white men are always very threatened by young people. So, as much as I understand it, I think their fault in some ways, and it's on the mainstream media for reporting this incredulously, and not saying — this is a rich guy who does it want his factory unionized."

It's reminiscent of the 1960's complaints about "kids these days with the hair and the music..."

See the clip below:
Old rich white dudes shaking their fists at kids these days with the hair and the music

 ABOLISH BLASPHEMY LAWS

Malaysian writer faces blasphemy probe for Facebook post

Uthaya Sankar SB, photo used with permission

Malaysian writer Uthaya Sankar SB was arrested on April 11 after he was accused of insulting Prophet Mohammad in a Facebook post published on April 6.

He was released on bail the following day but he is still facing investigation under Section 298A of Malaysia’s Penal Code for causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion, and Section 233 of the Multimedia and Communications Act for “improper use of network facilities or network service.”

Uthaya Sankar SB’s case reflects the continuing use of repressive laws to harass citizens, including those accused of offending the Muslim-majority population. Activists and media groups have been pressing for the review and repeal of these laws.

Uthaya Sankar SB referenced a hadith (Islamic narration or quotation) when he commented on a Malaysian actor’s post about polygamy. The author insisted that this was clearly not meant to insult the Prophet Mohammad. In an interview with Global Voices, Uthaya Sankar SB highlighted this point:

I have totally no idea what the motive must have been. It’s really absurd, I must say. It seems someone with no basic knowledge of Islam and the Hadith lodged a report. And what’s even funnier, the cops at Bukit Aman actually arrested me to investigate. A simple Google of the said Hadith would have clearly shown them that I did not in any way offend the Prophet or Islam.

Ma Thida, chair of PEN International’s Writers in Prison Committee, issued a statement condemning the arrest of Uthaya Sankar SB:

Uthaya Sankar SB’s arrest for his social media post highlights the limits of free expression in Malaysia on issues such as religion. However well intentioned, the authorities’ use of blasphemy legislation to investigate any alleged criticism of religion will do little to promote dialogue and mutual understanding, which are central tenets to the promotion of religious harmony in any society.

In an opinion article published by Free Malaysia Today, Mariam Mokhtar warned against the chilling effect of persecuting writers, “Criminalising freedom of speech will lead to a state where the rakyat [people] will not be able to express an opinion that differs from that which is offered by the state.”

The police told the media that the investigation is not yet finished. Federal Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Comm Datuk Seri Abd Jalil Hasa gave this advice to social media users:

The public should also be smart and prudent social media users and not use the platform to cause public anxiousness and threaten national harmony. Firm action without compromise will be taken against any individual who intentionally threatens public order and safety.

Asked by Global Voices about his message to fellow writers and artists with regard to upholding freedom of expression, Uthaya Sankar SB encouraged Malaysians to remain strong in their commitment:

Be brave. Be confident. If you know that you have not done anything wrong, stay firm and never let anyone (the authorities, community etc) blame you or punish you for your action. Don’t “fight” alone. Let your struggle be known so that others can come forward to defend you; or at least show solidarity.

Responding to another question about what the international community can do when writers like him are intimidated by authorities, he underscored the importance of being quick in extending solidarity:

Though we might be writing or expressing out ideas/thought in different languages and different medium (eg poetry, arts, film, drawing, music etc), it is always good to keep in touch. Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc) makes it easier to stay connected globally.

If we find out that some writer/artist in some far corner of the world is in trouble, we should be able to quickly show solidarity by spreading the news to all relevant contact via social media or WhatsApp. In my case, I managed to send message through WhatsApp to friends and also post on Facebook. They (not all my friends are writers) quickly did what was needed to do next. Before I was brought from Shah Alam, Selangor to Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur, news of my arrest was already published in Malaysiakini, Focus Malaysia etc. So, I knew that I had nothing to worry – in addition to the fact that that I did not in any way offend the Prophet.

HINDU NATIONALISTS OPPOSE SIKH NATIONALISTS
India Condemns Connecticut Assembly’s Call To Celebrate ‘Sikh Independence Day’


One of the person is seen holding an anti-India banner at the event where Connecticut Assembly made the citation to recognise Sikh Independence Day
(Image: YouTube/TV84)

The citation made by the Connecticut Assembly recognizes April 29 as Sikh Independence Day

NEWS18.COM
LAST UPDATED:MAY 02, 2022,

The consulate general of India in a press release condemned the declaration of ‘Sikh Independence Day’ by the Connecticut general assembly in the United States. The consulate general said that the declaration was an attempt by mischievous elements to use Connecticut assembly’s name for ‘nefarious purposes’.

“We condemn the so-called Citation of the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut in the USA regarding an illegal act. This is an attempt by some mischievous elements to use the name of the Assembly for their nefarious purposes. These vested interests seek to divide communities and promote bigotry and hatred,” the consulate general said in the release.

RELATED NEWS
Protest Held Against Pro-Khalistani Group For Burning Indian Constitution in New York


“Their agenda of violence has no place in democratic societies like the USA and India. The Embassy of India in Washington DC and the Consulate General of India in New York will take up this issue appropriately with the concerned US lawmakers,” it further added.

A video was also shared on YouTube on April 29 where a Connecticut assembly official was seen reading a declaration. On the dais, along with the official, several Sikhs were also seen with most holding anti-India banners and pro-Khalistan placards. The official could be heard making the statement where it declared the date as Sikh Independence Day.

“The Connecticut General Assembly offers its sincerest congratulations to the World Sikh Parliament in recognition of the 36th anniversary of the declaration of Sikh Independence. We join with you, your friends, and your family in commemorating the historic resolution passed on April 29th, 1986 by the collective Sikh Nation gathering known as ‘Sarbat Khalsa,’ Sikhs Political Centre, situated in the holy city of Amritsar in Punjab,” the official could be heard as saying.

Leaders across party lines in India also condemned the Connecticut general assembly declaration.

BJP spokesperson RP Singh on Sunday asked president of US, Joe Biden, to intervene. “Connecticut State, in the US, has “recognised” April 29th as the anniversary of the declaration of Sikh independence. It is highly condemnable & not at all acceptable. Joe Biden govt should intervene, as it is open support for an independent State, ‘Khalistan’ within India,” Singh tweeted. He also shared the image of the citation. BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa said that Connecticut Assembly is oblivious of the real issue.

“Mischievous attempt by the State of Connecticut proves how oblivious it’s of the real issue. The State has waded into unknown & unwanted territory! The timing of this mindless act couldn’t have been worse,” Sirsa tweeted.

“If US State Connecticut recognises Sikh Independence Day then Indian State Rajasthan should recognise Texas as part of Mexico. Explain to them in the language they understand,” Congress Rajya Sabha MP said in a tweet.

Aam Aadmi Party AAP) chief spokesperson in Punjab Malwinder Kang said that separatists like Sikhs For Justice group chief Gurpatwant Singh Pannu have no support in Punjab and demanded strict action.
Allegations of Theft & Espionage Cloud the Nature of China's Tech War against US

By J. Michael Waller
May 02, 2022

China’s “whole-of-society” strategy of spying makes it almost impossible to detect the difference between common criminal activity and espionage against American companies.

The abrupt closure of an aggressive interagency counterespionage program is making it even harder.

The Department of Justice’s China Initiative, launched under the Trump administration, hauled in suspected spies at the nation’s most prestigious universities, medical research centers, military contractors, and civilian tech companies.

Those efforts ended on February 23, when the Biden administration, alleging prejudice against Asian-Americans, terminated the program. The administration claims it will continue under standards that do not single out China.

Chinese Communist Party-connected businessmen and companies have been implicated in a range of schemes to purloin secrets from American innovative companies, especially those specializing in financial tech or disruptive technologies.

Silicon Valley is a main target of the Chinese spy networks. Nick Shenkin, an FBI special agent in northern California’s high-tech hub, warns that the biggest vulnerability is the insider threat: employees who steal intellectual property that is passed to mainland China.


“What’s concerning about that is a trend that we’ve seen of more and more aggressive intellectual property acquisition by the Chinese Communist party,” Shenkin said in a recent Financial Times podcast. “If you look at their five-year plan, the breadth of the technologies that they intend to acquire is really breathtaking…. It is part and parcel of their attempt to build a siege economy in technology.”

Beijing is vacuuming up blockchain and other financial technologies, known as fintech.

Shenkin says that economic damage to the United States is estimated at up to $850 billion per year.

Some companies are starting to fight back against theft. Venture capitalist Adam Struck and his firm, Struck Capital Management in Los Angeles, have taken a case to federal court. They allege that a former employee defrauded the enterprise, stole proprietary data, and used it to set up a “shell game” of companies based in Delaware, Puerto Rico, and the Cayman Islands – the latter in partnership with an executive formerly with an investment firm connected to the Chinese government.

The former employee, Yida Gao, is a 31-year-old Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate.

Gao says on his LinkedIn page that he is a general partner of Shima Capital. Shima describes itself as “an early-stage global venture firm focused on supporting cutting edge blockchain startups.” Shima lists 98 startup companies with which it claims involvement. Shima Capital is also a defendant in the suit.

Gao did not respond to a request for comment to give his side of the story.

The lawsuit alleges that Gao used “stolen information from Struck Capital” to set up several companies, and ultimately a “Cayman Islands-based blank-check company that Gao co-operates” with a colleague who worked for another company that had “close ties to the Chinese government.”

The suit describes the Cayman company as “an affiliate of a Beijing-based asset management company that invested in American companies which increased Chinese access to US financial institutions and customers.” According the suit, the firm “divested its US portfolio investments in 2019 under scrutiny from the US Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States,” known as CFIUS.

CFIUS is an interagency group that screens, investigates, and prevents or reverses foreign investments that present national security threats.

“Anybody who is subject to the jurisdiction of any person, entity or company, they must yield all information to which they have access to the CCP on demand,” Shenkin said. “Would they refer to that as a whole of society approach to intelligence gathering? That’s what the Chinese government refers to it as.”

Struck’s lawsuit came to light in a recent Newsweek story about “Chinese-funding sources in government-backed investment funds” being “at the heart of the technological rivalry between the U.S. and China.

It makes no allegation of spying as traditionally understood.

Even so, because of Communist China’s whole-of-society approach to pressure its citizens to steal secrets while abroad, the case alleged common theft is of interest to spy-watchers.

J. Michael Waller is Senior Analyst for Strategy at the Center for Security Policy.
Feared Russian cyberattacks against US have yet to materialize

By Colin Demarest
Friday, Apr 29
This Sept. 30, 2011, file photo shows a reflection of the Department of Homeland Security logo in the eyeglasses of a cybersecurity analyst. (Mark J. Terrill/AP/File)


WASHINGTON — The leader of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said American networks have yet to experience significant cyberattacks by Russian operatives amid the ongoing belligerence in Ukraine.

“To date, we have not seen specific attacks on the U.S.,” CISA Director Jen Easterly said April 28. “What we are concerned about is the fact that Russia’s malicious cyber activity is part of their playbook.”

President Joe Biden shortly warned in March that evolving intelligence showed Russia was planning potential stateside cyberattacks. He also said the magnitude of Russia’s cyber capacity “is fairly consequential, and it’s coming.”

Lawmakers and analysts expressed similar concerns as Russia invaded Ukraine in late February. Such attacks have yet to materialize, Easterly testified before a House appropriations subcommittee Thursday.

“To date, thankfully, we have not seen attacks manifest here,” she said. “But we are very concerned that as the war drags on, there may, in fact, be retaliatory attacks given the very severe sanctions we have imposed on the Kremlin, the U.S. and our allies.”

Russia has long used cyberattacks to project its forces and influence events beyond its borders. Its push into Ukraine was preceded by a tide of malicious hacks that crippled government websites and scrambled communications. Ukraine continues to be assailed in the digital domain, with cyberattacks trebling compared with the year prior, according to the State Service of Special Communication and Information Protection.

Russia has denied responsibility.

The cyber threat the U.S. faces, Easterly said, likely comes in three forms: international spillover, something like the NotPetya fiasco of 2017; criminal ransomware attacks, like those that paralyzed the Colonial Pipeline and JBS Foods; and deliberate action taken by “Russian state-sponsored actors” against critical infrastructure including the communications, energy and medical sectors.

“The threat environment isn’t getting any less dynamic, less complex, less dangerous,” Easterly said, “and the threat actors are not getting any less sophisticated.”

Bryan Vorndran, assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, last month told Congress that Russia is a “formidable foe.” He confirmed reports of Russia increasingly scanning U.S. critical infrastructure — moves that could precede a hack.

“As these adversaries become more sophisticated and stealthier, we are most concerned about our ability to detect and warn about specific cyber operations against U.S. organizations,” Vorndran said in written testimony submitted to the House Judiciary Committee. “Maybe most worrisome is their focus on compromising U.S. critical infrastructure, especially during a crisis.”

CISA, part of the Department of Homeland Security, leads efforts to understand, manage and reduce risks to U.S. cyber and physical infrastructure. The agency regularly works alongside the FBI, the National Security Agency and international partners.

President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2023 budget blueprint included $2.5 billion for CISA, approximately 18% more than what was requested in 2022. Easterly on Thursday said the suggested investment “really recognizes the criticality of our mission and provides the resources that we need to achieve it.”

The president’s budget also included some $11.2 billion for Pentagon cyber, nearly 8% over the administration’s previous ask.

Colin Demarest is a reporter at C4ISRNET, where he covers networks and IT. Colin previously covered the Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration — namely nuclear weapons development and Cold War cleanup — for a daily newspaper in South Carolina.
Romanian Government announces series of cyber attacks on public institution websites, including www.gov.ro and the website of Ministry of National Defense 

Pro-Russian hacker group Killnet claims responsibility for the cyber attack

ARTICOLE, ENGLISH • 29 APRILIE 2022 • ANA POPESCU 

Pro-Russian hacker group Killnet has claimed responsibility for cyber attacks on the websites of the government, the Ministry of Defense, the Border Police, and the Romanian Railways (CFR), Biziday reports.

In a message published on Telegram, Killnet says the attacks were carried out following statements by Senate President Marcel Ciolacu, who promised Ukrainian authorities „maximum assistance” in providing lethal weapons to Ukraine from Romania.

„Our official response: this will be the last thing the Romanian government does,” Killnet reports.

Marcel Ciolacu said yesterday that our country must have a legal framework and be ready with a political decision on the possibility of supplying arms to Ukraine: „I am firmly convinced that Romania is ready if we enter such a stage and take such a decision. Romania is ready, that’s why these trips were made, to offer more help,” Ciolacu said.

The government announces a series of cyber-attacks on websites of public institutions, including www.gov.ro.

„This morning, access to the websites gov.ro, mapn.ro and politiadefrontiera.ro, cfrcalatori.ro and the website of a financial institution was affected by a series of DDOS (distributed denial of service) cyber attacks.
IT specialists from government structures are working with experts from specialised institutions to restore access and identify the causes. Access to the www.gov.ro website has been restored,” a statement said.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed the cyber attack in a statement, saying the attack did not compromise the functioning of the website, only blocked users’ access to it.

„Dear colleagues, we confirm that a distributed denial of service (DDOS) cyber attack was triggered at 04.05 on the MApN website (www.mapn.ro).

The attack did not compromise the functioning of the institution’s website, but only blocked users’ access to it.

Please note that the MApN website does not contain sensitive or classified databases and the attack did not affect other MApN services and computer networks.

Specialists of the MApN’s Cyber Defence Command (CApC) are currently working to restore the functionality of the ministry’s website,” the statement said.


Edited for English by Ovidiu H.
Facebook Admitted To Lack Of Control Over User Data In Leaked Document

BY NADEEM SARWAR/

APRIL 27, 2022 2:48 PM EDT
Facebook doesn't have a particularly stellar record when it comes to ethically handling user data, and now a leaked internal paper suggests the company has seemingly lost control over managing the massive cache of data it collects and how it is used. An internal document allegedly written by the company's Ad and Business Product team was leaked to Motherboard, and it gives a glimpse into how bad the situation may be at Facebook, at least when it comes to responsible collection and utilization of user data.

The paper likens the situation to a bottle of ink (which represents user data) that is poured into a lake (that is, Facebook's vast data processing systems). Once that happens, the leaked document states, there is no way to control the flow of that ink or recover it. "We do not have an adequate level of control and explainability over how our systems use data," says the report, which was primarily written to highlight how that situation may land Facebook in regulatory troubles.

It further adds that solving the problem would require multiple years in order to create a system that would give Facebook a clear picture of how user data flows through its systems, right from the collection via its products to its eventual exit from the whole framework. Regulations such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) specifically mandate that user data collected for a purpose should be explicitly declared and must not be utilized anywhere else. Facebook appears to fare poorly at that parameter.

Facebook representatives, on the other hand, claim that the company is at work building the required infrastructure to meet the criteria set by regulations such as GDPR, but it already follows a user-facing opt-out system that ensures the collected data cannot be used elsewhere. However, the representatives also told Motherboard that the company "does not have technical control over every piece of data" that enters its servers. The situation at Facebook is not too different from that of Amazon.

In November 2021, a WIRED investigation revealed a worryingly fragmented system of data storage at Amazon that allegedly allowed employees to regularly stalk their acquaintances, as well as celebrities. In Facebook's case, if regulators in Europe take issue with how it is reportedly flouting the GDPR norms, the company could face a hefty fine of up to 4% of its annual global revenue. As per the leaked material, Facebook reportedly had a product called "Basic Ads" that was supposed to be ready for deployment in Europe by the start of 2020, but that product is yet to make its debut.

No clue about where user data goes

Basic Ads would reportedly have let users deny access to all third-party and first-party data, such as posts and likes, for Facebook's advertisement systems, a premise that sounds very much like its own version of App Tracking Transparency. Facebook's data collection has already had its wings clipped with the release of Apple's ATT (App Tracking Transparency) framework that lets users opt out of an app's data collection, something that has seriously hurt the company's ad business. Moreover, the situation sounds very much ripe for another Cambridge Analytica-like scandal.

The leaked internal document clearly states that if Facebook can't pinpoint where exactly user data is currently sitting in its systems and how it is used, the company won't ever get in a position where it can " make commitments about it to the outside world." Following the leak, a Facebook spokesperson denied any non-compliance with privacy regulations, but those assertions may not stand a chance in a court if the information in the leaked document proves true.
ROFLMAO
Facebook whistleblower is optimistic about Elon Musk's Twitter takeover and says Musk can take feedback better than Mark Zuckerberg

Jyoti Mann
Apr 30, 2022,
Elon Musk (left) and Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen. 


A Facebook whistleblower told Fox Business she's "cautiously optimistic" about Elon Musk's Twitter takeover.

Elizabeth Haugen said taking Twitter private could allow Musk to focus on safety changes.
She contrasted Musk with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying Musk is better able to receive feedback.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, who leaked a trove of Facebook documents late last year, told Fox Business she was "cautiously optimistic" about Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter.

Haugen testified before the US Congress in October last year saying Facebook, which has since changed its name to Meta, consistently prioritized profit and engagement over user safety.

Musk's plans to take Twitter private could gives him the chance to change up the company's business model in a way that prioritizes user safety without pressure to generate profit for shareholders, Haugen told Fox Business.

"I think there's a huge opportunity here for Elon to really demonstrate that there's another way forward," she told the outlet.

Haugen contrasted Musk with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying she thinks Musk is better able to take hard feedback and make meaningful changes.

Haugen told Fox Business that Zuckerberg has "surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear."

Musk has said he wants to place a greater emphasis on "free speech" at Twitter, meaning he could loosen the company's rules on what content stays on the platform. Experts told Insider this could lead to an increase in the amount of hate speech and disinformation on the platform.

In her Fox Business interview, Haugen also said that the "number one" thing Musk can do to improve Twitter is "institute real transparency."

Musk has said he wants to open source Twitter's algorithm, which will make it more transparent to people outside the company — but taking Twitter private will also mean its business will be less open to public scrutiny.

It's not entirely clear yet what exact changes Musk will make to Twitter, as his deal to buy the company for $44 billion still has to pass shareholder and regulatory approval. The deal is expected to close in October this year.

Ahead of making his offer to buy Twitter, Musk floated the idea of removing ads for subscribers to the company's premium service Twitter Blue in a tweet. The tweet has since been deleted.

 ELON MUSK'S LONG HISTORY OF CRITICIZING TWITTER

BY MICHELE GAMA SOSA/MAY 1, 2022 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has made international headlines following his $44 billion purchase of the social media platform Twitter, pledging to make the platform politically neutral. According to the Guardian, his purchase of the platform has Republicans and Trump supporters celebrating and Democrats and sections of the media leaving the platform in droves. But none of this is really surprising. As University of Michigan professor Adam Pritchard notes (via Wired), Musk has been hinting at buying Twitter for years, something that can easily be missed because his buyout came so quickly and suddenly.

Musk has generally used Twitter to troll, meme, and argue with his detractors, as well as to promote his products and engage with Tesla investors and customers. His tweets have led to defamation and SEC lawsuits and, more than once, he has tweeted both praise and hate for the platform. He even claimed that he had deleted his Twitter account once -– on Twitter — and then changed his name to "daddydotcom" (via CNBC). So what will the new Twitter look like? A brief history of Musk's engagement with the platform suggests that it may become more of an internet Wild West than the moderated platform it was before he bought it.

THE BEGINNING

Elon Musk's relationship with Twitter began in 2009 when, according to ABC News, he joined the platform. Only it wasn't really him. A since-deleted account claiming to be the "real Elon Musk" began tweeting controversial political viewpoints under Musk's name. SpaceX then put out a tweet denying Musk's Twitter presence. Musk himself confirmed that in 2010 when his first-ever tweet to his fans said to ignore the 2009 tweets because they were not his.

Since he had to tweet in order for fans to ignore the impersonator account, it was clear that Twitter had an issue with fake accounts – an issue that risked landing the platform in legal problems. According to The Guardian, St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa complained of his name being used without his permission on the platform. So Twitter introduced the blue checkmark to differentiate anonymous accounts from verified public figures – such as La Russa or Musk – thus solving the problem. Since then, as Al-Jazeera notes, Musk's Twitter engagement steadily grew until it ballooned in 2015.

ELON MUSK DIDN'T TWEET MUCH FOR YEARS

As Al-Jazeera notes, Elon Musk was not a particularly prolific tweeter. In fact, in his first two years on the platform, he barely tweeted at all. In an analysis of his tweets, the Visual Capitalist noted that Musk mostly tweeted news about his SpaceX ventures. As time went on, he began to talk more about Tesla, PayPal, and his StarLink system

As can be seen from his early tweets, he had relatively few followers and few seemed to care much about him. His early tweets rarely averaged more than a few hundred likes or retweets, and given that he did not use the platform much, this should come as no surprise. But he also did not enjoy the fame he has today. His tweeting did not really increase much until 2015, when his juvenile and trollish brand of humor began to manifest publicly.

THE OPENING SALVO?

According to Fortune, Elon Musk's company Tesla landed in hot water after he and other Tesla shareholders dumped over $2 billion in stock after a Tesla self-driving car killed a Florida man named Joshua Brown in 2016. Musk never said anything publically about the crash before selling his stock, suggesting that he was rushing to beat other sellers before word of the incident spread and caused a sell-off. The self-driving car controversy, however, soon spilled onto Twitter where Musk fired what might have been an opening salvo at the platform.

The debate about Tesla's autopilot feature soon made it to Twitter after Musk claimed that the system, despite failures, could save over half a million lives. So Forbes writer Sam Abuelsamid (pictured) tweeted at Musk telling him to check his math. Musk responded claiming that the self-driving cars would prevent non-occupant deaths in car accidents, which he claimed Abuelsamid had omitted from his analysis. He then tweeted "I love Twitter." It could either be that he loved the platform as a forum for discussion or he was being sarcastic and mocking Abuelsamid's use of the platform to call him out. Either way, it was a harbinger of the billionaire's love-hate relationship with Twitter that led to the buyout.

THE FIRST OPEN CRITICISM

Elon Musk made his first clear-cut criticism of Twitter in 2017. He tweeted that Twitter was a "haters' hellscape" after urging Americans to be grateful for their legal system, which despite its flaws, was superior to most around the world.

According to GeekWire, the context of the tweet – and the tweetstorm that followed – was political. Musk opposed President Donald Trump's 7-country travel ban. According to CNN Money, he directly conveyed his criticism to the president during an advisory council meeting. So when a Seattle judge put a moratorium on the travel ban, Musk tweeted out his appreciation of the judge's decision, claiming that the system had worked as it was supposed to.

The tweet led to a massive tweetstorm in which Trump's detractors attacked Musk for sitting on the president's advisory council in the first place. Musk justified his actions by presenting himself as an apolitical advisor trying to steer the president on the correct course. When one of his supporters tweeted "haters gonna hate," Musk agreed and added that Twitter had become a "haters' hellscape." But it is unclear if Musk was attacking the platform for hosting his detractors or just complaining about his detractors.

I LOVE TWITTER!

In 2017, Elon Musk randomly tweeted out "I love Twitter." It did not seem to be in response to anything in particular. Perhaps Musk had begun to enjoy the platform as a place to promote his companies, converse with fans, and duke it out with his critics, but either way, the resulting exchange has become the stuff of legend in light of his buyout.

According to Indian magazine Opoyi (where Musk has a large following), The Insider's Dave Smith and a number of other users responded to Musk's tweet asking him why he wasn't buying Twitter if he liked it so much. Musk responded by asking "how much is it?" along with an upside-down smiley face emoji. As Opoyi notes, everyone thought this was a joke, and knowing Musk's sometimes-juvenile brand of humor, it would have been difficult to see it otherwise at the time. Yet Musk, it appears, was deadly serious – or at least he was as of 2022. Smith tweeted recently that the short conversation "continues to haunt him," while the responses joked/blamed him for giving Musk the idea of buying Twitter in the first place.

TROUBLE BREWING

Elon Musk did not tweet out any new criticisms of Twitter that made the news for a while. Instead, Twitter got him in trouble after Musk decided to have a bit too much fun. Musk tweeted in 2018 that he had secured enough funding to make Tesla a privately-traded company (meaning shares cannot be bought publicly). Shares would go for $420 a pop.

Now, according to The Verge, the tweet was half-serious, half-joke. The $420/share was supposed to be a reference to 4/20, when weed enthusiasts openly smoke and celebrate their use of the drug. In fact, Musk made waves after smoking it on the Joe Rogan Experience. But in an official Tesla email, Musk seemed to be dead serious about the proposal.

Regardless of his intentions, the tweet drew the attention of the SEC, which accused Musk of misleading shareholders with the $420 number. For this reason, Forbes argues it really was a weed joke. The $420 number had no basis otherwise. The SEC slapped him and Tesla with $20 million each in fines. Musk lost his chairmanship while Tesla's stock plunged 13%. Hilariously, although the SEC missed the joke, a number of Twitter users got it, with one responding "blaze up" and two others posting gifs that referenced smoking marijuana. Looking back, Musk told NBC that despite the cost, the whole thing was "worth it" to make his girlfriend laugh.

THE BANAL PROPAGANDA BARB

Elon Musk's unfiltered tweeting landed him in trouble with the law again in 2019. According to Mashable, when a Thai soccer team got trapped in a cave, Musk offered to help. Vernon Unsworth, the British diver coordinating the rescue, called Musk's offer a PR stunt. Musk, never one to turn down an internet fight, called him "pedo guy" in response.

The story then got crazier. Musk hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on Unsworth and then claimed that "pedo guy" was a South African insult that did not imply Unsworth was actually a pedophile. According to the BBC, Musk issued a not-so-sincere apology to "pedo guy," in which he literally called Unsworth "pedo guy" while simultaneously apologizing for using the insult. He then said that Unsworth deserved it. So Unsworth sued him for defamation and lost (via BBC).

So how did Musk justify such tweets? A year earlier, this tweet suggested that he saw Twitter as a playground. He claimed that his tweets were in-the-moment opinions, not "carefully crafted corporate bs." Thus, Musk argued that his Twitter feed was him thinking out loud – and according to Futurism – on the toilet. Therefore, his tweets were not to be taken too seriously since they are all in good fun. It also seemed like a veiled barb at Twitter, suggesting that Musk did not take the platform as a place for serious discussion – only for banter.

TWITTER SUCKS

Following his legal troubles, Elon Musk continued to use Twitter to post thoughts, memes, and political opinions. Then he got into a spat with Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg after actor Sacha Baron-Cohen accused Facebook of failing to curb "hate speech and propaganda" on its platform.

Musk, being Musk, could not resist the temptation and tweeted at Baron-Cohen in February of 2020 telling the actor and his own followers to delete Facebook because it was lame. He tweeted "Facebook sucks" in May of 2020. Soon, he turned on Twitter as well. Although Wired noted that he had previously expressed love for the platform and respect for its CEO Jack Dorsey, it now also "sucked."

In July of 2020, Musk tweeted out "Twitter sucks” next to a rose emoji. The tweet likely was a knee-jerk reaction to Musk's account possibly being compromised by hackers. As a result of the hack, there was a risk that his personal DMs would be leaked and possibly make him look bad. But since they mostly consisted of memes, he wasn't too worried.

COMMENTING ON THE TRUMP BAN

Following the 2020 election, CNet reported that Elon Musk increasingly leveled criticisms at Big Tech over free speech, limits on internet speech, and the power of Big Tech to censor dissenting opinions. Thus, Donald Trump's Twitter ban became part of Musk's cause. Now, as Politico notes, Trump and Musk – despite previous disagreements – are alike in more than a few ways. Both were outspoken in their criticism of the media's coverage of the administration and both have used Twitter as an unfiltered platform to mock their opponents.

This criticism of Big Tech (including Twitter) revolved around a satirical Babylon Bee article about Trump's Twitter ban. Musk tweeted in response to the OP that Silicon Valley was making many enemies among the American public by kicking Trump off Twitter and censoring his political allies and supporters. More importantly, however, he pointed out a problem that resonated with Trump's base – that Silicon Valley's tech elites had become the "de facto artbiter[s] of free speech." Musk then followed up in a response to another user, urging Silicon Valley to make a distinction between "banning hate speech and banning speech it hates." That criticism of Twitter and Big Tech put Musk on the road to taking over the platform.

LIKENING PARAG AGRAWAL TO STALIN

Before making a bid for Twitter, Elon Musk took one last shot. In 2021, CNBC reported that Jack Dorsey would step down as Twitter CEO to be replaced by CTO Parag Agrawal. Now, the announcement lit off a firestorm of controversy, particularly surrounding Agrawal's views on the U.S. Constitution. In an interview with MIT in 2018, Agrawal stated that Twitter's role was to create "a healthy public conversation" and not "be bound by the First Amendment." As the NY Post reported, Agrawal's comments drew criticism from both conservatives and liberals – in particular journalists – who worried that Twitter was effectively positioning itself as an arbiter of acceptable discourse.

Instead of criticizing Agrawal directly, Elon Musk jumped into the debate with an old favorite of his – memes. In early December of 2021, Musk tweeted a meme of Agrawal's face shopped onto Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin's body, while Stalinist lieutenant Nikolai Yezhov got Jack Dorsey's face.

According to Fortune, the original photo showed the two men walking. Once Yezhov was executed, he was doctored out of the photo. Thus, Musk's meme implied that Dorsey, whom critics considered a defender of free speech despite his issues with Trump and the infamous Hunter Biden laptop, had been "executed" by Agrawal, who intended to undo that legacy by clamping down on censorship. Soon after Agrawal's debut as CEO, Musk began to seriously explore buying Twitter.

THE DAYS PRECEDING THE BUYOUT

In the days preceding the buyout, Elon Musk directed a flurry of criticism towards Twitter while making his case for buying it. In March, Musk referred to himself as a "free speech absolutist." He later issued a poll asking if Twitter was upholding democracy by allowing free speech and then stated his own opinion that it had not only failed to do so, but actively undermined it. Now that he has actually bought the platform, there are many questions swirling about his intentions.

The main question concerns hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation. The USA Today has argued that hate speech and disinformation must be censored because neither is healthy for a functional democracy. Conservatives in particular (via Fox News) have shot back claiming that the concerns about "hate speech" are an excuse to shut down dissenting voices on topics like the COVID-19 response and Hunter Biden's laptop.

Ultimately, the question would be constitutional. As the American Library Association notes, there is no legal category called "hate speech" in the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that such speech is in fact legal – hate crimes are not. Therefore, should Musk choose to turn Twitter into a free speech utopia, he will have a legal leg to stand on as long as the content does not violate other laws such as direct incitement to violence or Child Sexual Abuse Material laws

FREE SPEECH ISSUES ABROAD

While Elon Musk's vision of Twitter as a free speech zone would run into virtually no problems in the United States, it faces massive legal hurdles abroad. As TechCrunch notes, most countries around the world do not have the United States' broad speech protections as enshrined in the First Amendment. Thus, EU, Chinese, Russian, and other regulators are likely to demand Twitter crackdowns on illegal speech in order to operate there. Social media platforms already face penalties for noncompliance in countries such as Turkey, India, and Nigeria, so he may run into problems in such places.

Then there is China. Amazon mogul Jeff Bezos noted in a tweet that Musk's ownership of Twitter will likely bring difficulties for Tesla, which makes its cars in China. Musk's commitment to free speech would, in theory, allow criticism of the Chinese government. This should not be a problem on the surface because Twitter is banned in China. But as Foreign Policy notes, China not only stifles criticism at home but also demands regulatory bodies censor it abroad. Bezos' tweet implies that Tesla will face Chinese pressure should Musk refuse to play ball with the CCP. Like other U.S. corporate figures, Musk, per CNBC, has avoided criticism of China, so permitting criticism of China – a major U.S. rival and favorite target of Musk's conservative supporters – will be a major litmus test of the billionaire's sincerity.

AMERICA DIVIDED (AGAIN)

Elon Musk's buyout of Twitter further divided America's political camps into supporters and detractors. Conservatives – particularly banned figures – have praised the move. Florida governor Ron DeSantis (via NY Post), for instance, called it a "blow to the legacy media," hinting that Musk would prevent Twitter from being used as "an enforcer of the narrative." Donald Trump, who lost his account back in 2020, on the other hand, has refused to return to Twitter to focus on his own platform Truth Social (via TechCrunch). Ironically, Musk considered himself a liberal in 2008, when according to Spanish newspaper Marca, he "strongly supported" Barack Obama.

The American left has called Musk an oligarch unduly influencing the political process. According to Fox Business, Senator Elizabeth Warren, whom Musk called "Senator Karen" back in 2021, and fellow MA Senator Ed Markey called the move "dangerous for our democracy." Meanwhile, CNBC reported that the Biden Administration's greatest concern is Trump's return to the platform before the 2022 and 2024 elections.

Ultimately, the reactions seem purely political. Republicans are probably celebrating their greater public outreach rather than a high-sounding ideological commitment to free speech while Democrats fear their political rivals' greater public clout rather than threats to democracy. After all, as published in MassNews, billionaires have always owned the media, still do, and no one complains – as long as the billionaire is on the correct side. Musk is just joining the club.

HIS CRITICISMS – A CONTRACTUAL VIOLATION?

With the deal done, Quartz noted that one of its terms requires Elon Musk to refrain from criticism of Twitter or its employees, a condition that some allege he has already violated. For context, journalist Saagar Injeti called Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde a "top censorship advocate" and gaslighter on Twitter over her role in banning the NY Post for refusing to delete an article discussing evidence of corruption, influence-peddling, and blackmail involving the president on Hunter Biden's laptop. Musk responded to Enjeti, calling Twitter and Gadde's actions "incredibly inappropriate" and setting off a tweetstorm of accusations and counter-accusations between Musk, Twitter executives, Enjeti, the Washington Post, Gadde, and anonymous users over who was in the right (via Mediaite).

But is Musk's tweeting a violation? In this case, it probably isn't. As Forbes notes, Musk cannot criticize or disparage Twitter or its employees within the context of the $44 billion deal. Since his criticism of Gadde had nothing to do with the buyout, it probably doesn't fall under the non-disparagement clause. Thus, it seems that Musk will indeed be taking over Twitter, love him or hate him.

LINKS/GRAPHICS/PHOTOS : https://www.grunge.com/849407/elon-musks-long-history-of-criticizing-twitter/?utm_campaign=clip