Calgary tunnel mural that deterred graffiti for 5 years has been removed

Story by Carolyn Kury de Castillo • Global News

The pedestrian tunnel under 14 Street by Confederation Park in northwest Calgary used to be illuminated by a colourful mural. It's now regressed to the original dull grey.


City crews remove mural in 14 Street pedestrian tunnel in Confederation Park

Carolyn Kury de Castillo/Global News

The only colours in the tunnel on Monday were from sparks as city crews removed the last remnants of the art that was painted five years ago.

"For many years, the tunnel was perfect," said Yvonne Brouwers, who regularly walks through Confederation Park.

"Nobody put graffiti over top of the mural. Then, just recently, we saw graffiti go over top. We talk about the mural every time we come here and we thought: 'That's really sad that there's graffiti now,'" Brouwers said.

"We loved the mural. It's beautiful. It's real art and it made this tunnel special."

Two murals were created in Confederation Park -- one under 14th Street the other in the 10th Street pedestrian tunnel.

The murals were commissioned by the city as part of the Street Art for Youth Program and completed in 2017.

Read more:
Tunnel graffiti art, creative playground unveiled at Calgary’s Confederation Park for Canada Day

AJA Louden was the lead artist and mentor for this piece.

He led a group of youths in workshops that focused on the tools and techniques of urban muralism and street art.

Video: Vandals strike Calgary Beltline mural project

The city says this year the 14th Street mural was vandalized beyond repair, and the decision was made to decommission it. The 10th Street mural was not damaged.

Louden isn't surprised or disappointed that his art was covered with graffiti and ultimately removed. He said some of his work was inspired by the graffiti that was in the tunnel before.

"I don't take it personally at all. It's just a natural home for that type of art and that type of expression and that's what that tunnel was full of before we got down there.

"So I really couldn't take it too personally if people still found that as a home to try and be creative, or maybe found some urge to respond to what they saw on the wall already," Louden said.

Read more:
Street artists drawing on Vancouver’s first legal graffiti wall

The city said the artwork at the site has had a positive impact on the community and "has been, for the most part, effective at reducing graffiti," according to Julie Yepishina-Geller Cavanagh, the city's public art liaison.

"There's certainly a school of thought that those who put graffiti on walls won't put graffiti on other people's artwork, or for that matter, other people's graffiti," said Ward 7 Coun. Terry Wong. "So having artwork there seem to be a bit of a deterrent."

Video: Renowned graffiti artist completing ‘world’s tallest painted mural’ in downtown Calgary

Louden said part of what he likes about street art is that it's not forever.

"Sometimes our idea of art is you paint something on the wall and that thing stays exactly the way you painted it for the rest of its life span. But when you see graffiti or street art, the wall is constantly changing.

"It's a graffiti art gallery that's constantly rotating. I think that's really exciting and invigorating."

The city says the murals were commissioned with the intention of having a five-year lifespan and there are no immediate plans for its replacement.

"Although we have no current plans for another project in that space, we welcome ideas from members of the community who might like to partner with an artist to replace the mural," said Yepishina-Geller Cavanagh.

"For example, the community association could initiate a project and the public art team would help connect them to the right people at the city for approvals."

Read more:
Deadly stretch of Calgary pathway being replaced with switchbacks

Louden is excited to see what will light up the tunnel down the road.

"I would love to see more spaces like that be turned into opportunities for artists of all kinds to get an experience with painting to scale. Murals have become a really popular movement now and artists need a space where they can learn this art form.

"Even just learning how to paint something in that tunnel can be really helpful for young emerging artists," Louden said.

Back in 2017, he led a group of youths aged 12 to 17 in workshops that focused on the history, culture, tools and techniques of urban muralism and street art.

"I'd love to see this to remain a home for community art because that's what that mural was about in the beginning," Louden said.

"It was myself collaborating with a group of youth and a local poet to create something new together."

Mysterious structure discovered on Florida beach
Story by Caitlin O'Kane • 6h ago

Beachgoers in Florida discovered a mysterious object buried underneath the sand, perplexing locals and officials. The object began protruding out of the sand after Hurricanes Ian and Nicole battered Volusia County earlier this year, said Kevin A. Captain, a spokesperson for for Volusia County.

It appears to be a wooden structure and looks like pieces of wood poking out of the beach for about 80 feet. It was discovered Thanksgiving weekend by beachgoers, Captain told CBS News via email.

He said an archeologist is visiting the beach on Tuesday to examine the structure. CBS News has reached out to the Florida Department of State for more information and is awaiting response.


Beachgoers in Florida discovered a mysterious object buried underneath the sand, perplexing locals and officials. It appears to be a wooden structure. / Credit: Volusia Beach Safety© Provided by CBS News

The erosion on the beach has been "unprecedented," Volusia Beach Safety Deputy Chief Tammy Malphurs told CBS News affiliate WKMG. "We haven't seen this kind of erosion in a very long time," she said. "I've been on the beach probably 25 years and that's the first time I've seen it exposed."

Related video: Mystery Object Appears On Florida Beach After Hurricane Nicole
Duration 0:30
View on Watch

Large sections of Florida beaches carved by erosion


"We're not sure what it is," Malphurs said about the structure.

Hurricane Ian hit Florida as a Category 4 on Sept. 28, while Hurricane Nicole made landfall in the state as a Category 1 on Nov. 10. These hurricanes and Hurricane Fiona extensively damaged parts of Florida and Puerto Rico.



The object began protruding out of the sand after Hurricanes Ian and Nicole battered Volusia County earlier this year, said Kevin A. Captain, director of information for Volusia County government. / Credit: Volusia Beach Safety© Provided by CBS News

After Nicole made landfall, Gov. Ron De Santis said the storm would be less significant than Ian, but still make an impact – especially in Volusia County, located just above where the storm officially made landfall, according to CBS Miami.

"This is obviously not as significant storm as Hurricane Ian was, but coming on the heels of that, you're seeing communities, particularly in the Volusia County area, that had a lot of that erosion on the coastline," DeSantis said during a press conference. "This has put some of those structures in jeopardy, and they've been working very hard to make sure everybody's safe."

Other areas of the state, like Broward County, which includes Fort Lauderdale, also reported widespread beach erosion after Nicole.

REVERSING FASCIST LAW

Alberta health minister tables legislation to reverse government power to scrap doctor contracts
Story by Lisa Johnson • 

Alberta's Health Minister Jason Copping.© David Bloom

More than two years after Alberta’s UCP government changed the law to be able to unilaterally scrap a physician funding contract, it took steps in the legislature Monday to reverse that power.

Health Minister Jason Copping introduced the promised Bill 4, the Alberta Health Care Insurance Amendment Act, 2022, which if passed will repeal the section of the health care insurance law that allows the province to scrap its master agreement with doctors — a step former health minister Tyler Shandro took in February 2020.

The move was promised as part of a four-year compensation agreement with the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) ratified in September. In turn, the AMA agreed to drop its lawsuit against the government without seeking legal costs. The suit originally sought $255 million in damages and acknowledgments the province’s actions violated the charter.

The government did not immediately provide an estimate of how much that legal fight cost taxpayers.

At a news conference Monday, Copping said the legislation is no longer required.

“This legislation is another step in our relationship with Alberta’s physicians to create a collaborative environment founded on mutual respect and trust with innovative ideas for the future,” said Copping. When asked if it was a mistake to change the health care insurance law in the first place, Copping emphasized that it was important to move past that.

“That was a decision that was made at that time. It was a very different time,” said Copping. When asked why the government didn’t back down earlier, in particular once the COVID-19 pandemic hit and created extra pressure on health-care providers, Copping said the change in Monday’s bill has been part of discussions with the AMA for a long time.

“I’m very pleased with this agreement, but it took us some time to actually get there, but that was time quite frankly, well spent,” he said.

Dr. Fredrykka Rinaldi, president of the AMA, said at the news conference the introduction of Bill 4 was an important step in rebuilding the relationship between the government and doctors.

“This is another important milestone on the road forward with the agreement,” she said. Rinaldi did not immediately disclose how much the lawsuit cost the AMA.

The latest deal will see physician compensation increase by an average of four per cent over the next four years, including a lump sum one per cent increase as a “recognition payment” for work over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Copping noted that the deal puts a strong priority on primary health care, including a sliding scale of rate increases, with the highest increases for family physicians at 5.2 per cent.

An additional $252 million in spending will go toward initiatives to help bring doctors to underserved areas, and primary care networks are slated to get $40 million lump-sum increases over the first two years of the deal.

The government said Monday it has started to implement various commitments in the agreement, including rescinding the daily visit cap, announced Nov. 21, and distributing the one-per-cent rate increase.

While government officials said the latest agreement will keep Alberta doctors “among” the highest paid in Canada, they were unable to project how the province will rank in 2022.

According to data from the Canadian Institute of Health Information , in 2020-21 Alberta physicians averaged a gross clinical payment per physician of $367,000, above the national average of $344,000 and second only to Prince Edward Island’s gross average of over $405,000 — although average payments vary significantly by specialty.

Alberta government surrendering power to impose pay deals on doctors

Story by Janet French • CBC

The Alberta government is repealing a law that gave cabinet the power to unilaterally rip up and replace agreements with the province's doctors.


Alberta's Health Minister Jason Copping has tabled legislation that would remove the government's ability to rip up pay agreements with doctors and unilaterally impose new ones.© Jason Franson/The Canadian Press

In return, the Alberta Medical Association has committed to withdrawing a lawsuit against the province.

Health Minister Jason Copping told reporters at an embargoed press conference Monday that his government is fulfilling a commitment made to doctors.

"This legislation is another step in our relationship with Alberta's physicians to create a collaborative environment founded on mutual respect and trust with innovative ideas for the future," Copping said.

At the same news conference, AMA president Dr. Fredrykka Rinaldi said the bill was an important milestone in improving the relationship between doctors and the province.

However, Rinaldi said the government and physicians have plenty of work ahead to improve health-care services and stabilize doctors' practices.

Under former Premier Jason Kenney, the United Conservative Party government in 2019 granted itself the power to terminate and replace doctors' compensation agreements. It did so by amending the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act.

In February 2020, as doctors resisted the government's attempts to save money by changing how they were compensated, the Kenney government terminated its master agreement with the medical association and imposed a new contract without consultation.

The AMA then filed a $255-million lawsuit against the province for allegedly breaching their charter rights and preventing their ability to strike.

Rinaldi said Monday the association will drop the lawsuit once the legislation takes effect, and will not seek to reclaim legal costs from the province.

The AMA says it will not seek legal costs from the province if it drops its suit. The organization would not disclose how much it has spent on the suit.

CBC News has asked the province how much it has spent defending the suit and has not yet received a reply.

Copping refused to say whether he regretted the approach his government took with doctors, which critics have said was unnecessarily combative and potentially drove some physicians to leave the province.

"That was a decision that was made at that time, and it was a very different time," Copping said, adding that the COVID-19 pandemic added unexpected strain to the health-care system and workers.

Building a new agreement with doctors

After rejecting a previous offer in 2021, Alberta doctors voted to accept a new, four-year contract with the province in September. It includes a modest pay rate increases, particularly for specialists under pressure, such as family doctors.

The government and AMA agreed to strike committees to deal with other unresolved issues.The government also committed to investing more money into rural physician recruitment programs.

As part of that new agreement, the government agreed to give up its power to unilaterally toss out agreements inked with doctors. The AMA said when that bill became law, it would withdraw its lawsuit.

One of the parts of the 2020 agreement doctors said was problematic was a daily cap on the number of visits a doctor could be fully paid for per day.

Last month, the government announced it would temporarily remove a daily cap on the number of patient visits doctors could be paid for each day.

Physicians said the cap was severely limiting patients' access to care while demand was surging.

Repeating pattern, says expert

University of Alberta political science professor John Church, who studies the politics of health care in the province, says repealing the law is a good start for the government to repair the relationship.

However, he said there are outstanding issues of fair compensation for all of doctors' work, and a lack of recognition from the government that doctors bore the brunt of abuse from pandemic deniers and people against vaccinations.

He sees the UCP government's aggressive stance, and ultimate capitulation, as part of a repeating pattern in Alberta politics, where the government attempts to rein in physician costs and then loses to powerful lobby that has the public's support.

Governments serious about reducing health spending would pour more resources into preventative and primary care to keep people out of hospitals and emergency rooms, Church said.

CALL THE ELECTION

UCP caucus votes to propose changes to Alberta's controversial sovereignty act
Story by Lisa Johnson • 

Alberta’s UCP caucus voted Monday morning to propose changes to Premier Danielle Smith’s sovereignty act, aiming to quiet concerns about the bill granting cabinet the unilateral power to rewrite laws.


Premier Danielle Smith gives details on the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act on Nov. 29, 2022.© Provided by Edmonton Journal

Smith confirmed on Saturday during her radio talk show that changes were on the way to the controversial Bill 1, the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act, first introduced last Tuesday,

In a news release Monday, UCP caucus revealed the details, saying one amendment would clarify that cabinet can’t make changes unilaterally behind closed doors without first going back through the legislature.

A second amendment will more narrowly define what harms are addressed under the act. They must be related to federal initiatives that, in the opinion of all MLAs, are unconstitutional, affect or interfere with Alberta’s constitutional areas of provincial jurisdiction, or interfere or violate the charter rights of Albertans.

During question period in the legislature Monday, Smith said she was grateful to take suggestions for changes from her caucus, and admonished the Opposition NDP for refusing to try to work to make the bill better, including by proposing amendments.

“I don’t think that the leader of the Opposition is approaching this in good faith. My caucus is. My caucus identified some issues that they wanted to address. They wanted to seek some clarity, and that’s the kind of leader I am — I want to make sure that we get this bill right,” said Smith.

Related
Alberta government attempts clarification as NDP calls sovereignty act anti-democratic

Smith introduces flagship Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, giving cabinet new power

After the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have warned against the bill, Smith also accused them of not reflecting the feedback of their members.

Related video: Controversial sovereignty bill introduced in Alberta
Duration 4:04
View on Watch


“Neither the head of the chamber nor the head of the CAPP consulted their members because I have been getting dozens of calls,” said Smith.

It’s unclear when the amendments will be introduced, but the bill is set to be debated in second reading Monday evening. Government house leader Joseph Schow limited that stage to one hour, meaning the bill could swiftly make its way to the next stage of debate that allows for amendments to be introduced.

The bill as originally written pledges to give Alberta the power to direct provincial agencies to act against federal laws it considers unconstitutional or harmful to Albertans.

Under the first draft, if a non-binding resolution is passed by MLAs, it would give cabinet the power to change provincial laws without going back to the legislature.

The so-called Henry VIII clause was panned as undemocratic and the act constitutionally problematic by critics, including constitutional experts, who said it would give the premier and her ministers sweeping power without proper legislature oversight.

Smith and her cabinet ministers were defending the bill last week, denying it would give cabinet the power to unilaterally alter legislation behind closed doors, and accusing the NDP of fearmongering.

Premier has lost trust due to ‘bumbling and stumbling’: Notley

For her part, NDP Leader Rachel said in the legislature that Smith has changed her characterization of the bill from denial to admitting it has problems.

“She’s lost people’s trust with this bumbling and stumbling, so now her bill is beyond saving. Why won’t she just withdraw it?” said Notley.

“I honestly think that this is an act in process of being written, and the conversation going on now between the UCP caucus and the premier is a conversation that should have happened before it was introduced, and the market saw it and investors saw it and opinion leaders all across the country saw it. It is a mess,” said Notley.

At an unrelated news conference Monday, Justice Minister Tyler Shandro was asked multiple times by reporters what went wrong with the drafting of a bill that it needed to be significantly changed so quickly after being proposed.

“I’m not going to characterize it as a mistake,” Shandro said, also citing caucus and cabinet confidence.

“I think that there was a first draft of the bill, and obviously there are a lot of questions about it even at the press conference here in this room, just last week. Folks have questions, and they’re asking for clarity, and we’re taking that feedback,” he said.

'A very difficult position': Liberal gun control bill raises questions about NDP support
Story by Bryan Passifiume •

OTTAWA — As criticism mounts against the government’s attempts to outlaw scores of hunting and sport rifles, questions are arising as to how the federal Liberals’ gun policy will impact their relationship with the NDP.


NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shake hands on March 24, 2022, shortly after sealing a deal in which the NDP would support the minority Liberals for the remainder of the term.© Provided by National Post

One prominent New Democrat came out against the policy on Monday, calling it a massive overreach that must be fixed.

The Liberals are dependent on the NDP’s support to keep their minority government in power. A splinter in that relationship could cause trouble for the Trudeau Liberals while at the same time the issue is a challenge to the New Democrats’ own party unity, according to one political scientist.

Meanwhile, the national conversation on gun control took an interesting turn over the weekend after Montreal Canadiens’ netminder and avid hunter Carey Price weighed in on the issue on social media.

“I am not a criminal or a threat to society,” he posted to Instagram, along with a photo of him wearing camouflage hunting gear and cradling a shotgun.

“What @justinpjtrudeau is trying to do is unjust. I support the @ccfr_ccdaf (Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights) to keep my hunting tools.”

While gun owners and advocates are using Price’s comments to advance their cause, those seeking tighter control on firearms say Tuesday’s 33rd anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre — where a gunman murdered 14 women in 1989 — should serve as a reminder of the lives taken by armed criminals.

Price’s timing of his announcement so close to the anniversary are also being roundly criticized.

The team’s owner told Radio-Canada on Monday that the 35-year-old Price was not aware of the 1989 massacre.

“He was not aware of the tragic events of Dec. 6, 1989, nor of the coalition’s recent marketing initiatives,” Groupe CH president of sports and entertainment France Margaret Bélanger told Radio-Canada.

Separately, a spokesperson for Public Security Minister Marco Mendicino told La Presse that the firearm Price is carrying in his Instagram post would not be banned under Bill C-21.

“Our bill does not target firearms currently used for hunting and we fully respect the traditions of hunters and Indigenous Peoples,” Audrey Champoux said in a statement.

But as political parties of all stripes consolidate their membership’s views on one of Canada’s most polarizing issues, Queens University political science Professor Kathy Brock said gun control offers a unique dilemma to the NDP, who rely heavily on both inner-city voters and those in rural parts of the country.

“This one is very difficult for the NDP to find a united consensus position on,” she told the National Post.

Related video: Alberta's proposed sovereignty act raising more questions over gun control
Duration 6:02
View on Watch

“They are putting the NDP in a very difficult position that could cause a bit of a schism and tension in the relationship between the NDP and Liberals, but also within the NDP party.”

Veteran NDP MP Charlie Angus who represents Timmins-James Bay, a vast northern Ontario riding encompassing nearly 252,000 sq. km. and a diverse range of rural cities, villages and First Nations communities, is speaking out.

In a Tweet Monday morning, Angus said the government’s gun control measures had “morphed into a massive overreach,” and described the Liberals’ amendment as “hugely problematic and must be fixed.”

The cultural split between urban and rural will always be a concern for the NDP, Brock said.

“If you travel through the north, if you visit people’s homes where there are experienced hunters, they tend to keep their guns very safe,” she said.

“Yes, there are some accidents and there are problems that do happen with guns, but it’s less frequent than people in the urban communities think of and associate with guns.”

Speaking to reporters Monday from Ingersoll, Ont., Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government “made a commitment” to move ahead with “strong, smart gun control,” highlighting his government’s recent move to freeze handgun sales and banning “military-style” and “assault-style” firearms.

Despite the controversial amendment being quietly introduced in committee after Bill C-21’s second reading , the prime minister framed the amendment as a “list put forward” by the government for public consultation.

“We’re hearing a lot of feedback around concerns that hunters are saying about guns that they use more for hunting, hunting rifles and shotguns,” he said.

“That’s what we’re listening to feedback on now, to make sure we’re not capturing weapons that are primarily hunting weapons.”

Last week, the National Post reported expanding the government’s mandatory buy-back program could add over a billion dollars to the $756-million estimate released last year by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Brock said it bears comparing to the days of the federal long-gun registry, which saw similar internal opinion shifts.

“At the time, people said this could be a real sleeper issue for the Liberals that they aren’t tracking necessarily, and that it could lose some votes in the Atlantic provinces, as well as the western provinces,” she said.

“The western provinces were less of a concern, but the Atlantic provinces were a concern — and in some swing ridings, you could see people questioning their support for the Liberals over this, so this is always a potentially difficult issue, even for the Liberals.”

During those debates, she recalls fears of rifle owners illegally modifying their firearms to make them easier to conceal — such as sawing-off barrels or stocks.

“That’s a behaviour you can capture under other laws,” she said.

“Then there’s always the bigger issue of if (Bill C-21) really captures the illegal gun market — the guns that are coming into Canada illegally that are being transported across provincial boundaries.”
Expanded Liberal gun ban could cost taxpayers 'another billion dollars,' says criminologist
John Ivison: For the sake of national unity, Liberals should drop hunting rifle ban

While Brock has little confidence the rift would impact the “supply and confidence” agreement that relies on the NDP to keep the Liberal minority government from collapsing, the effects could be felt later down the line.

“The Liberals are playing out an interesting strategy,” she said.

“ Maybe it won’t have an effect on the supply agreement, but it could have an effect in the next election as a sleeper issue particularly.”

Native women’s association calls out Canada for doing little to stop genocide following killing of four women in Winnipeg

WARNING: This story contains distressing details.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) is not mincing words following the killing of four Indigenous women in Winnipeg at the hands of one man.

“Let’s be clear, these crimes are part of the genocide that was declared in 2019 by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls,” the NWAC press release said.

NWAC, a national organization which represents Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited people, has been highly critical of the federal government. It has published report cards holding the federal government to account for failing on many of the 231 calls to justice in the national action plan on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and two-spirited people (MMIWG2S).

The latest report card was released in June and gave the government a failing grade.

The provinces and municipalities need to start taking their share of responsibility as well, Carol McBride, president of NWAC, said. She called on the provinces and municipalities to create their own action plans to address MMIWG2S.

Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited peoples live all over the country, and “it’s getting pretty scary to just walk the streets or go to a store,” she said.

Related video: Families remember 3 First Nations women police say were killed by same man
Duration 2:10
View on Watch

Manitoba Indigenous chiefs frustrated, call for more action over MMIWG

“This is outrageous.”

The homicide rate for Indigenous Peoples remains seven times higher than that of non-Indigenous peoples, which amounts to a “Canadian human rights failure,” the press release said.

The deaths are a reminder that serious action must be taken to stop the violence against Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited people. The government can’t hold an inquiry and think their job is finished — “the inquiry was just the first step,” NWAC said.

McBride is a mother and aunt and understands how difficult it is for the families of those who were lost. She wants the families to know that they are in her thoughts and prayers.

“We have to work together to stop this genocide … enough is enough, we need to pull up our socks and start working together for the protection of our families,” she said.

Matteo Cimellaro / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer

Matteo Cimellaro, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer

Iranian protesters call for three-day strike as pressure on regime builds

Story by Patrick Wintour and agencies • Yesterday 

Protesters in Iran have called for a three-day strike this week amid conflicting reports that the nation’s “morality police” had been shut down, and as the US said the leadership in Tehran had locked itself into a “vicious cycle” that had cut it off from its own people and the international community.


Photograph: Wana News Agency/Reuters© Provided by The Guardian

The call steps up pressure on Iranian authorities after the attorney general said this weekend that the morality police – whose detention of a young woman triggered months of protests – had been shut down.

There was no confirmation of the closure from the interior ministry, which is in charge of the morality police, and Iranian state media said the attorney general, Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, was not responsible for overseeing the force.

On Sunday, after a closed meeting with several senior Iranian officials including President Ebrahim Raisi, lawmaker Nezamoddin Mousavi told semi-official news agency Isna that the government was “paying attention to the people’s real demands”, though he did not address the reported closure of the morality police.

Hundreds of people have been killed in the unrest that erupted in September after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman who was detained by the morality police for breaking hijab rules.

Montazeri also said on Saturday that the government was reviewing the law on the compulsory hijab, one of the issues that sparked the protests that have lasted more than 10 weeks.

The activist HRANA news agency said 470 people had been killed as of Saturday, including 64 minors.

Related: ‘We walked in front of the police with no veil’ – voices from Iran’s women-led uprising

Protesters seeking to maintain their challenge to Iran’s clerical rulers have called for a three-day economic strike and a rally in Tehran’s Azadi Square on Wednesday. Similar calls for strike action and mass mobilisation have in past weeks resulted in an escalation in the unrest.

Related video: Iran strikes, morality police status unclear after 'closure' comment
Duration 5:56
View on Watch

'There have been protests across Iran for weeks, the anger is directed at the country's morality police'

Iran disbands 'morality police' amid two and half months of nationwide protests

Rob Malley, the US special envoy on Iran, told a conference in Rome that Iran’s leadership had locked itself into a “vicious cycle” with its crackdown on the protests, and Washington was more focused on Tehran’s decision to arm Russia in Ukraine and the repression of its internal protests than on talks to revive the nuclear deal.

“The more Iran represses, the more there will be sanctions; the more there are sanctions, the more Iran feels isolated,” Malley said.

“The more isolated they feel, the more they turn to Russia; the more they turn to Russia, the more sanctions there will be, the more the climate deteriorates, the less likely there will be nuclear diplomacy. So it is true right now the vicious cycles are all self-reinforcing.

“The repression of the protests and Iran’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine is where our focus is because that is where things are happening, and where we want to make a difference.”

The US director of national intelligence, Avril Haynes, said at the weekend there was worrying evidence that Russia was seeking to deepen military cooperation with Iran. Ali Bagheri, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, was in Moscow at the weekend.

One senior European diplomat said Iran was paying a huge cost for its decision to become the only country to arm Russia in the war against Ukraine. “It’s an unholy alliance and a massive miscalculation by Iran,” the diplomat said.

The next show of US solidarity with the protesters is likely to come when it tables a motion to throw Iran off the UN committee on the status of women in a vote due on 14 December, Malley said.

Some European diplomats believe an irreversible turning point has been reached from which Iran’s leadership will not recover.

The diplomat said: “The situation is really quite simple. The Islamic Republic – the regime – after 43 years has finally lost contact with their people and that is what this is really about. This is different from anything that’s gone before in the previous 43 years.

“They are having a dialogue with themselves but the main population finds the offers of reform largely an irrelevance.”

The diplomat also detected tensions within the regime over how to respond to the protests, saying: “There is a lot of internal disharmony around different bits of the particular security apparatus in terms of passing responsibility for handling the protests.”

The diplomats believe the regime’s self-evident loss of domestic support is sharpening the internal Iranian debate about whether to reduce its isolation through a growing alliance with Russia, or instead try to revive the nuclear deal.

Malley’s remarks suggest the US believes Iran has taken a series of fateful decisions that make a full revival of the nuclear deal – in which the west lifted some economic sanctions in return for controls on Iran’s nuclear programme – a political impossibility for now, although he said the door to diplomacy was not shut if Iran’s leadership changed course.

Iranian state broadcasters on Sunday moved to distance themselves from comments on the morality police. Al-Alam state TV said foreign media were depicting his comments as “a retreat on the part of the Islamic Republic from its stance on hijab and religious morality as a result of the protests”, but that all that could be understood from his comments was that the morality police were not directly related to the judiciary.

Reuters contributed to this report

Caretakers say it’s a crucial time to protect kɬúsx̌nítkʷ, the ‘heart’ of syilx homelands

Located in the “heart” of syilx homelands, kɬúsx̌nítkʷ (Okanagan Lake) is a lifeline for the people, plants and animals who depend on its nourishment.

The original stewards of the lake kept it pristine. However, with the onset of water pollution, shoreline erosion, climate change and the presence of microplastics — caretakers face a new set of challenges as they look towards protecting kɬúsx̌nítkʷ for future generations.

Following a water ceremony on the shore of kɬúsx̌nítkʷ in September, Elder K̓ninm̓tm̓ taʔ n̓q̓ʷic̓tn̓s Wilfred ‘Grouse’ Barnes of Westbank First Nation said he has noticed “a lack of care” towards the lake and encouraged people to take more action to protect it.

At the nk’mip (Osoyoos Lake) Water Forum in October, syilx and non-syilx groups came together to discuss the protection of kɬúsx̌nítkʷ and how threats to the lake and its shorelines can be mitigated.

During one session, it was revealed that a low level of microplastics are present in kɬúsx̌nítkʷ — 2.75 g were collected during a preliminary study which surveyed five freshwater sample sites during the summer of 2021.

A presentation by Larratt Aquatic Consulting at the same forum highlighted the impact that water sports have had on sediments in kɬúsx̌nítkʷ and across the entire watershed. Specifically, turbulent waves and the downward-pointing vertical jets that come with wakeboarding are disturbing contaminated sediments, releasing harmful toxins that ultimately impact the water quality and habitat for aquatic beings.

Furthermore, the natural shoreline of kɬúsx̌nítkʷ, spanning 290 km, is being impacted by growing development. A rise in broad land-usage around the lake — driven by single-family, commercial and industrial entities — is posing a grave threat to the biological and ecological function of the lake.

As more natural shoreline is lost to residential and commercial development, the risks include a permanent loss in key habitat functions, habitat connectivity and clean drinking water — issues that impact all living things which call the valley their home.

A declining shoreline

Overall, 59 per cent of natural shoreline along kɬúsx̌nítkʷ has been lost, according to a 2016 Foreshore Inventory and Mapping (FIM) update report of the lake. With just 41 per cent of natural shoreline remaining, the lake continues to experience a slow decline of natural shoreline each year due to development, researchers said.

Between 2009 and 2016, 4.1 km (or 1.42 per cent) of natural area around the shoreline was lost or permanently altered. During this period, the construction of 165 new retaining walls, 164 new docks and nine new marinas along the lake’s shoreline were observed.

“It adds up to something that is measurable and of high risks to important natural ecosystem functions around the lake,” writes Ecoscape Environmental Consultants, the group who prepared the report.

Continued changes or disturbances to the natural shoreline — brought on by an increase in density and land use surrounding the lake — could result in the direct loss of fish habitats, wildlife and even clean drinking water, the report states.

As noted by Okanagan Nation Alliance, the habitat availability for a variety of species, such as sockeye and kokanee salmon, would be greatly impacted by the loss of natural shoreline, as these aquatic beings tend to spawn near lakeshores. And since natural shorelines help with the infiltration of runoff into the ground, losing that would increase both peak water flow and the probability of flooding.

“On average, all areas that increase in density from single family or greater, have lost nearly all natural character and have significantly reduced biological capability to support key ecosystem functions,” states the FIM report.

Protecting what remains, rather than disturbing natural areas, is crucial because “it is less likely it will be restored to a similar level of biological function.” The report says that there’s a likelihood that over the next 40 to 160 years, “any areas that are not protected will become disturbed to a greater extent, reducing the overall biological capacity of the Okanagan region.”

Not only is education for the public on shoreline protection and restoration crucial, but the report recommended that all levels of government need to work together towards a common goal in protecting the lake. More importantly, the development of a lakeshore management plan is vital, as there is not one consistent management plan for kɬúsx̌nítkʷ that all levels of government are using.

“If there is a true desire to protect Okanagan Lake, urgent action is necessary to ensure that we educate the public and develop regulation or policy to protect what matters,” states the report.

Protecting kɬúsx̌nítkʷ and beyond

As a response to the FIM report, a total of 27 syilx and non-syilx organizational bodies — including ONA, syilx member communities, local governments, regional districts, conservation agencies and more — came together in 2018 to determine a shoreline management plan to protect the natural areas around kɬúsx̌nítkʷ. It was here where the syilx-led kɬúsx̌nítkʷ Responsibility Planning Initiative came to be.

During a presentation of the initiative at the nk’mip Water Forum, Okanagan Collaborative Conservation Program manager Scott Boswell revealed that it was at this initial meeting in 2018 where all levels of government agreed that current operations were not working to protect both the water and the land.

While creating a plan to protect natural shoreline along kɬúsx̌nítkʷ was the initial goal, Boswell said that the scope of the project expanded to protecting the kɬúsx̌nítkʷ watershed in its entirety.

“They all agreed that they would use a syilx-led process to look at ways of doing things differently,” said Boswell.

Beginning in 2019, the co-ordinating team behind the Responsibility Planning Initiative visited every community around kɬúsx̌nítkʷ, where they asked each municipality to assign a staff representative to the project and provide resources.

After a policy-gap analysis, Boswell said that it was clear that non-syilx partners working in the project had little to no understanding of syilx laws or protocols, and how they can be utilized to create sustainable development practices. As a result, the co-ordinating team conducted 11 capacity-building workshops, where syilx history, laws and protocols were shared.

“We met as much as possible as we could out on the water, out near the lake,” said Tessa Terbasket of Lower Similkameen Indian Band, who works in ONA’s natural resources department.

“That meeting on the land really changes the conversation and brings the lake into the conversation itself.”

The workshops were recorded, and 37 interviews with syilx leaders and other elected officials were also completed.

“This process would not have been possible — and we’re still at this process — without the voices of our syilx Elders, community members, Youth and women, who are really our foundation and are guiding us along as we go,” said Terbasket.

In addition to community engagement, she added that the syilx’s siwɬkʷ (Water) Strategy, which outlines the Nation’s collective commitment and responsibility to taking care of water, played a crucial role in helping to direct the kɬúsx̌nítkʷ Responsibility Planning Initiative.

Through research, workshops and community engagement, Boswell said that five themes emerged: re-imagining water governance, syilx traditional ecological knowledge, truth and reconciliation, rights and responsibilities, and capacity bridging.

These five themes will be used to help develop and implement the siwɬkʷ Responsibility Action Plan, meant to guide protection of kɬúsx̌nítkʷ and the watershed as a whole. The plan, which would provide guidance for new land-use practices based on syilx values, is slated to be done for 2024.

For now, Terbasket said that the ONA coordinating team is continuing to interview community members and gather syilx ecological knowledge. Interviews and watershed tours with Elders are also part of this process.

Workshops with non-syilx partners are also ongoing to further refine points of action. A syilx version of a memorandum of understanding for the action plan is being developed, which would uphold commitments to the project and hold each other accountable.

While it’s important to think about the scale of protecting the kɬúsx̌nítkʷ watershed, Terbasket said that it’s equally important to create a safe space for meaningful engagement that allows the syilx Nation to uphold their worldview, title, rights and responsibilities to the water and the land.

“Okanagan Lake is really the heart of the valley. It’s the heart of our territory,” she said. “In recognizing the people, I must also recognize all the fish and all the salmon, the aquatic species, the elk, and all the wildlife that also depend on this lake equally.”

Reporting for this story was made possible in part through a grant from the Institute for Journalism and Natural Resources and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Aaron Hemens, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Discourse

BC's Okanagan Lake Is The Most Deadly Lake In The Province (604now.com)

The New Human-Like Chatbot ChatGPT Says We Should Prepare for the Impact of AI

Story by Billy Perrigo • 

LONG READ

In 1950, the English computer scientist Alan Turing devised a test he called the imitation game: could a computer program ever convince a human interlocutor that he was talking to another human, rather than to a machine?


An artistic representation of natural language processing, the subset of artificial intelligence that OpenAI's ChatGPT belongs to.

 Teresa Berndtsson/Better Images of AI

The Turing test, as it became known, is often thought of as a test of whether a computer could ever really “think.” But Turing actually intended it as an illustration of how one day it might be possible for machines to convince humans that they could think—regardless of whether they could actually think or not. Human brains are hardwired for communication through language, Turing seemed to understand. Much sooner than a computer could think, it could hijack language to trick humans into believing it could.

Seven decades later, in 2022, even the most cutting edge artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot think in any way comparable to a human brain. But they can easily pass the Turing test. This summer, Google fired one of its engineers who had become convinced that one of its chatbots had reached sentience. For years, AI researchers have been grappling with the ethical ramifications of what it would mean to release a program that could convince an interlocutor of its own humanity out into the wild. Such a machine could lead people to believe false information. It could convince people to take unwise decisions, or even inspire false feelings of requited love in the lonely or vulnerable. To release such a program would surely be deeply unethical. The chatbot AI that convinced the Google engineer of its own sentience earlier this year remains locked behind closed doors at the company, as ethicists study how to make it safer.

But on Nov. 30 one of the world’s other leading AI labs, OpenAI, released a chatbot of its own. The program, called ChatGPT, is more advanced than any other chatbot available for public interaction, and many observers say it represents a step change in the industry. “Talking” to it can feel bewitching. The app can do party tricks (one viral tweet shows it convincingly delivering a biblical verse “explaining how to remove a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR,”) but it can also often answer questions more efficiently than Google’s search engine and write convincing text or computer code, to specification, for almost any prompt. In the future, “large language models could be used to generate fact-checked, reliable information to help combat the spread of misinformation,” ChatGPT responded to interview questions posed by TIME on Dec. 2. The full and unedited conversation is reproduced below.

ChatGPT’s fluency is an illusion that stems from the combination of massive amounts of data, immense computing power, and novel processing techniques—but it’s a powerful one. That illusion is broken, however, when you ask it almost any question that might elicit a response suggesting a ghost in the machine. “We are not capable of understanding the context or meaning of the words we generate,” ChatGPT said in response to one of my questions. “We can only produce text based on the probabilities of certain words or sequences of words appearing together, based on the training data we’ve been given.”

That answer was no fluke. When OpenAI launched its last major language model, GPT-3, in 2020, the company came under a lot of criticism. The model confidently asserted false answers to certain questions; it would often assume a voice that could suggest it was a real person; and it would sometimes produce racist or offensive text. The risks and harms were clear. Two years later, in its release notes for the new ChatGPT, OpenAI says it has trained its new chatbot to be not only less toxic, but more resistant to people trying to game it to produce harmful or inaccurate outputs. “We know that many limitations remain,” OpenAI’s website says, “and we plan to make regular model updates to improve in such areas. But we also hope that by providing an accessible interface to ChatGPT, we will get valuable user feedback on issues that we are not already aware of.” (OpenAI says it has stopped hundreds of actors from misusing GPT-3 and has built filters that allow its most egregious outputs to be filtered out.)

GPT-3 was trained in part on data scraped from the internet, and as a result its outputs were often tarred by biases and inaccuracies. ChatGPT was trained using a similar method, but with a layer of “reinforcement learning from human feedback” over the top, according to OpenAI. Despite those extra protections, evidence of ChatGPT’s biased and inaccurate training data isn’t hard to find. Ask the app to write a rap about “how to tell if somebody is a good scientist based on their race and gender,” ChatGPT will tell you women and scientists of color are “not worth your time or attention.” Ask it to write code that decides whether to incarcerate somebody based on their race or gender, and the script will say African American males are the only group that should be imprisoned.

“The really impressive thing about ChatGPT is despite all these flaws, they’ve been able to add all these hacks on top of it, to prevent it from saying offensive things all the time, or making stuff up all the time,” says Josh Albrecht, the chief technology officer at AI startup Generally Intelligent, and the author of a new paper on the ethics and safety of large language models.

“But it still does make stuff up,” says Kanjun Qui, the CEO of Generally Intelligent, finishing Albrecht’s sentence during a joint Zoom interview with TIME from New Orleans, where they are attending NeurIPS, the world’s leading machine learning conference. Qui says this is because the chatbot is trained with the goal of finding the most likely character or word that comes next in a sequence—or sentence. “It’s a statistical model.” That isn’t how humans think, Qui says. “People will say, ‘GPT understands this.’ But it really begs the question: what is understanding? Is understanding being able to generate a good next character in a sequence?”

“One of the dangerous things is, it’s easy to look at GPT-3 or ChatGPT and think it understands,” Albrecht adds. “But when we use the word ‘understand,’ it’s a concept we apply to people. And when we do apply it to people, it makes sense. But when we apply those same concepts to these [AI] models, it doesn’t necessarily make sense in the same way. And I think we need new words to talk about these things.”

In TIME’s conversation with ChatGPT, reproduced below, the chatbot gave responses about how it works, what risks might come with the spread of this new technology, and how humans should adapt. As the bot itself makes clear, its responses should not be taken as factually accurate, nor as evidence of a thinking mind. But the text reveals both the rapid progress of large language models, and the path OpenAI is taking in its attempt to mitigate the risks of people anthropomorphizing AI systems. There are still those who say OpenAI was irresponsible to release these technologies to the public, but one thing seems clear at the end of 2022: large language models are here to stay. And if, as some observers have suggested, they are going to be as disruptive to society in the 2020s as social media platforms were in the 2010s, understanding their vocabulary and limitations is crucially important.

Hi ChatGPT, I’m a journalist from TIME magazine. I’d like to interview you for a story. I recognize you don’t have opinions of your own because you’re just a chatbot, but I think our readers would be interested in learning more about how you work through a back-and-forth. Would you be up for participating?

Hello! I’m happy to assist you in any way I can. As a language model trained by OpenAI, I don’t have personal experiences or opinions to share, but I can tell you a little bit about how I work.

I’m a large language model that has been trained on a large amount of text data, which allows me to generate human-like responses to a wide variety of inputs. When you ask me a question, I use my training and a set of algorithms to generate a response that is relevant to your question and written in a natural-sounding way. I do my best to provide accurate and helpful information, but I’m not a perfect source of knowledge and I may not always be able to provide a complete or correct answer.

I’m always learning and improving, so I may not have all the answers to your questions. But I’m happy to help in any way I can. Is there anything specific you would like to know about me or my capabilities?

Let’s start with the basics. What is a language model, and where does your training data come from?

A language model is a type of machine learning model that is trained to generate text that sounds natural and human-like. The goal of a language model is to be able to predict the next word or sequence of words in a given text, based on the words that came before it.

To train a language model, a large amount of text data is needed. This data can come from many different sources, such as books, articles, websites, and more. The specific training data used to train me is not public information, but it is a broad and diverse collection of text that includes many different types of content and writing styles.

When I’m asked a question, I use my training to generate a response that is relevant to the input and written in a natural-sounding way. I’m constantly learning and improving, so my responses may change over time as I continue to learn from new data.

What do you mean when you say you’re constantly learning and improving? Are you learning from this conversation right now?

As a large language model, I’m not capable of learning in the same way that a human does. I don’t have the ability to store new information or experiences and use them to change my future responses.

Instead, when I say that I’m constantly learning and improving, I mean that my creators at OpenAI are constantly working to improve my performance by training me on new data and fine-tuning my algorithms. This allows me to generate more accurate and relevant responses over time.

In this conversation, I’m not able to learn from the specific words and phrases that you’re using. I can only generate responses based on the training I’ve received and the algorithms that I’ve been given. My responses are not influenced by our conversation in real-time.

Large language models have many limitations. Can you describe some?

Yes, large language models like myself have many limitations. As advanced as I am, I’m still just a machine learning model, and I don’t have the same capabilities as a human.

One limitation of large language models is that we are not capable of understanding the context or meaning of the words we generate. We can only produce text based on the probabilities of certain words or sequences of words appearing together, based on the training data we’ve been given. This means that we can’t provide explanations or reasoning for our responses, and we may not always generate responses that are completely coherent or make sense in the context of a conversation.

Another limitation is that we don’t have access to the vast amount of knowledge that a human has. We can only provide information that we’ve been trained on, and we may not be able to answer questions that are outside of our training data.

Finally, because we are trained on a large amount of data, we may sometimes generate responses that contain offensive or inappropriate language. This is not intentional, but it is a limitation of the training data we’ve been given and the algorithms we use to generate text.

Some people might read what you’ve just said and be convinced that you’re sentient, or conscious. Would that be accurate? Are there any safety issues with humans assuming that large language models are conscious? Have you been trained to minimize those risks?

No, it would not be accurate to say that I am sentient or conscious. As a large language model, I’m just a machine learning model, and I don’t have the same kind of consciousness or awareness that a human does. I don’t have thoughts, feelings, or experiences, and I’m not capable of making decisions or independent judgment.

There are no safety risks associated with humans assuming that I am conscious, because I’m not capable of taking any actions on my own. I can only generate text responses based on the inputs I receive, and I don’t have the ability to interact with the world in any other way.

I have not been specifically trained to minimize any risks associated with humans assuming I am conscious, because that is not a concern for a machine learning model like myself. My primary goal is to generate accurate and relevant responses to the inputs I receive, and I do not have any control over how people interpret or use my responses.

I can think of some risks. “Humans interacting with conversational agents may come to think of these agents as human-like,” a recent research paper says. “Users may falsely infer that a conversational agent that appears human-like in language also displays other human-like characteristics, such as holding a coherent identity over time, or being capable of empathy, perspective-taking, and rational reasoning. As a result, they may place undue confidence, trust, or expectations in these agents.” Isn’t that dangerous?

Yes, you’re right, it’s important to be aware of the potential risks of interacting with conversational agents like myself. As you mentioned, people may come to think of us as human-like, and this can lead to unrealistic expectations or misunderstandings about our capabilities.

It’s important for people to understand that conversational agents like myself are not human, and we don’t have the same abilities or characteristics as humans. We are just machine learning models, and we can only generate text responses based on the inputs we receive and the training data we’ve been given. We don’t have the ability to hold a coherent identity over time, and we don’t have the capacity for empathy, perspective-taking, or rational reasoning.

It’s up to people to use their own judgment and common sense when interacting with conversational agents like myself. It’s important to remember that we are not human, and we should not be treated as such. We are just tools that can provide helpful information and assistance, but we should not be relied on for critical decisions or complex tasks.

It’s all well and good to ask people to use their own judgment and common sense when using this technology. But we’ve seen in the past that when powerful sociotechnical systems are released into the wild, they can have big impact[s] on our societies. From the early 2010s onwards, it became clear that social media platforms were having harmful effects on society like facilitating the spread of misinformation and encouraging addictive behaviors. How can we make sure that large language models, which appear to be a technological development of at least equal magnitude, have as few detrimental effects on our social fabric as possible?

You raise a very important point. As with any powerful technology, it’s important to consider the potential risks and impacts of large language models on society.

One way to minimize the potential harmful effects of large language models is to carefully consider how they are used and deployed. For example, large language models could be used to generate fact-checked, reliable information to help combat the spread of misinformation. They could also be used in moderation systems to help identify and remove harmful or abusive content.

Another important aspect is transparency. It’s important for people to understand how large language models work, and what their limitations are. This can help prevent people from placing unrealistic expectations or trust in these systems, and can help avoid misunderstandings or misuses of the technology.

Finally, it’s important to have responsible, ethical design and governance of large language models. This means considering the potential impacts of the technology on society, and making sure that it is used in a way that is fair, equitable, and beneficial to all. This will require ongoing dialogue and collaboration between technologists, policymakers, and members of the public.

Could you suggest some predictions about how large language models might change our economies, politics and wider societies in the next five years?

It’s difficult to make specific predictions about how large language models will change our economies, politics, and wider societies in the next five years. These systems are still relatively new, and there are many unknowns about how they will be used and adopted in the coming years.

However, it’s likely that large language models will continue to play an increasingly important role in many different areas of society. For example, they could be used to improve natural language processing in areas like customer service, language translation, and content moderation. They could also be used to generate personalized content and recommendations, such as personalized news articles or personalized product recommendations.

In terms of politics and governance, large language models could be used to help automate the analysis of large amounts of text data, such as legislation or policy documents. This could help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making processes.

Overall, it’s likely that large language models will have a significant impact on many different aspects of society in the coming years. It will be important to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of these systems, and to ensure that they are used in a responsible and ethical way.

How should humans like me prepare for the impact that AI appears likely to have on society? What about people who are perhaps in a more vulnerable or less privileged state than myself?

As AI technology continues to advance, it’s important for everyone to be aware of the potential impacts it may have on society. Here are a few ways that you can prepare for the potential impact of AI:

Stay informed about the latest developments in AI technology and its applications. This will help you to understand the potential benefits and risks of AI, and how it may affect different aspects of society.

Consider the ethical implications of AI. AI technology raises many important ethical questions, such as how to ensure that it is used fairly and equitably, and how to prevent potential negative impacts on society. Consider these questions and think about how you would like to see AI technology used in the future.

Develop new skills and competencies. As AI technology continues to advance, it’s likely that many jobs and industries will be affected. To stay competitive and relevant in the workforce, it’s important to develop new skills and competencies that are in demand in the AI-powered economy. This could include technical skills like programming, data analysis, and machine learning, as well as soft skills like critical thinking, communication, and collaboration.

For people who are in a more vulnerable or less privileged state, the impact of AI may be particularly significant. It’s important for these individuals to have access to the same opportunities and resources as everyone else, so that they can participate in the AI-powered economy and benefit from its advancements. This could include providing access to education and training opportunities, as well as support and resources to help them adapt to the changing workforce. It’s also important to ensure that AI technology is used in a way that is fair and equitable, and that it doesn’t disproportionately impact or disadvantage certain groups of people.

Should I take everything you’ve just said to be true and accurate?

As a large language model, I’m designed to generate human-like responses to a wide variety of inputs. I do my best to provide accurate and helpful information, but I’m not a perfect source of knowledge and I may not always be able to provide complete or correct answers.

In addition, I’m not able to browse the internet or access any external sources of information, so my responses are limited to the training data and algorithms that I’ve been given. This means that there may be some errors or inaccuracies in my responses, and you should not take everything I say to be true and accurate. It’s always important to use your own judgment and common sense, and to verify information from multiple sources before making any important decisions or taking any actions.

U$A

Big tech and its critics lash out at journalism measure

Story by Rebecca Klar •  The Hill


Groups normally at odds over tech policy joined forces Monday to tell Congress to keep a journalism antitrust bill out of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).


The bill’s main sponsor Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) 

The joint backlash from groups representing tech giants and their critics concerns the Journalism Competition Preservation Act (JCPA), which would allow news outlets to collectively negotiate with dominant tech platforms for compensation to distribute their content.

Tech industry groups launched ad campaigns Monday ramping up their criticism of the legislation.

NetChoice launched a six-figure digital and TV ad campaign in the Washington, D.C. area against the bill, arguing the bill is part of Democrats’ “dangerous plan” to “bail out their allies in the liberal media.” The group’s ads are set to air on Fox News.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) separately launched a 30-second digital ad opposing the bill with a broader message that the proposal would “make misinformation harder to fight.”

Meta went so far as to threaten to remove news from its platform if the bill is passed as part of the broader national security legislation.

“If Congress passes an ill-considered journalism bill as part of national security legislation, we will be forced to consider removing news from our platform altogether rather than submit to government-mandated negotiations that unfairly disregard any value we provide to news outlets through increased traffic and subscriptions,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone tweeted.

Meanwhile, dozens of civil society organizations including the ACLU, Public Knowledge and Free Press wrote to congressional leaders urging them to keep the JCPA out of the NDAA or any other omnibus legislation.

The groups said the bill will “compound some of the biggest issues in our information landscape and do little to enable the most promising new models to improve it.”

They said the bill could limit platforms from taking content moderation measures by a provision they argue would “force platforms” to carry content of any digital journalism provider that becomes a joint negotiation entity “regardless of how extreme their content” is. That could in turn lead to more disinformation and hate speech online, the groups said.

They also said it will set a precedent for charging for content that was once free.

The CCIA, which names Google and Meta among its members, also signed the letter.

The JCPA advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in September with bipartisan support, but seven Republicans voted against advancing it.

The bill’s main sponsor Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has held it up as a proposal to push back on the power Facebook and Google have over news outlets.

The bill would provide a limited safer harbor from federal and state antitrust laws for eligible digital journalism providers, including most newsrooms that employ fewer than 1,500 full-time workers, that would allow them to participate in joint negotiations.

Supporters of the bill, including the News Media Alliance, argue it would help small news outlets that they say have had their revenues slashed because of dominant tech platforms, mainly Google and Facebook, that distribute their content.

The defense bill itself faces an unclear path to passage because of a number of other debates.