![]() ![]() Your companies shaped the modern Internet and you know that there are technical solutions that could allow your services to return to the Russian online space. ![]() It is essential to reinstate them otherwise, Russian citizens will find themselves locked in the dark alone with their president. Social networks, search engines, and application catalogs are the gateways to an open informational world. This is the Internet’s most important function, and the major services you are in charge of have become the main actors of this mission. There is an urgent need to reconnect Russian citizens with pluralistic information, as well as with the rest of the world. We do not want to live in a new Cold War era. Telegram and YouTube are the only spaces left where Russian journalists can try to inform their fellow citizens about the reality of the war Vladimir Putin is waging in their name. Only two major platforms have partially survived this purge. ![]() The independent press has also been outlawed, and most independent journalists have been forced into exile. Since February 2022, most major online platforms have been banned from the Russian Internet. This will be the final step of a process that began a long time ago and has only accelerated with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We have strong suspicions that YouTube and Telegram could be totally blocked in Russia as soon as this autumn, making more than 140 million people hostages of the state’s propaganda apparatus. As campaign season approaches, the authorities will become increasingly intolerant of any discourse that contradicts the Kremlin’s official narrative. The Russian authorities are preparing for Vladimir Putin's re-election in 2024. “This filing seems to be creative, but it may not be more successful than previous attempts to sue CEOs and corporate officers in a personal capacity,” said Tobias.We, representatives of Russia’s liberal independent media and the international NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF), are writing to bring to your attention the alarming possibility of the total shutdown of Russian free online information space very soon, and to invite you to establish a channel with us to build solutions to prevent Russia from disconnecting from the rest of the world. ![]() Critics of the fine said it did too little to change the company’s behavior and charged that litigation should have been brought against Zuckerberg.Ĭarl Tobias, Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond, said it can be “difficult” to sue corporate officers in their personal capacity, and Racine had failed in an attempt earlier this year to sue Zuckerberg when the suit was filed too late. In 2019 Facebook was fined a record $5bn by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for violating consumers’ privacy. The company claimed the information could be used to identify different types of voters and influence their behavior. “At all times relevant to the lawsuit, evidence showed Mr Zuckerberg was responsible for and had the clear ability to control Facebook’s day-to-day operations,” Racine’s office said in a statement.Īs the Guardian revealed in 2018, Cambridge Analytica, which was hired by Trump’s 2016 election campaign team, gained access to the private data of 50 million Facebook users. The suit points out that since 2012, Zuckerberg has served as chairman of Facebook’s board and controls approximately 60% of the voting shares. In one email discussing state leakage Zuckerberg noted “there is clear risk on the advertiser side,” according to the lawsuit. The suit alleges Zuckerberg was aware of the risks of data leaks associated with the strategy. Racine charges that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was a result of Zuckerberg’s desire to open up Facebook to third-party developers. We continue to persist and have followed the evidence right to Mr Zuckerberg,” said Racine. “Since filing our landmark lawsuit against Facebook, my office has fought tooth and nail against the company’s characteristic efforts to resist producing documents and otherwise thwart our suit. The suit against Zuckerberg is based on hundreds of thousands of documents, including depositions from employees and whistleblowers, that have been collected as part of its ongoing litigation against Meta. The act makes individuals responsible for violations if they knew about them at the time. Racine has previously sued Facebook’s parent company, Meta, under the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act. “This lawsuit is not only warranted, but necessary, and sends a message that corporate leaders, including chief executives, will be held accountable for their actions.” “This unprecedented security breach exposed tens of millions of Americans’ personal information, and Mr Zuckerberg’s policies enabled a multi-year effort to mislead users about the extent of Facebook’s wrongful conduct,” Racine said in a news release. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |