❌

Reading view

L’account X di Bruno Vespa è stato hackerato? Ecco gli elementi che lo lasciano supporre. E Fiorello commenta ironico: “Signor Musk vattela a prendere…”

No, il profilo di Bruno Vespa su X non sarebbe stato sospeso, bensì hackerato. Questo è quello che sostiene Fanpage, dopo aver osservato che il profilo che contiene tutti i post attribuiti in passato al conduttore di “Porta a Porta” ora ha un nuovo nome utente e una nuova immagine di profilo, non riconducibile al giornalista.

A tradire l’identità del profilo è l’immagina di copertina, rimasta in questo caso identica. Ora il profilo si chiama USRO, acronimo utilizzato per indicare “United States Oil Reserve”, che dovrebbe proporre transizioni basate sul mercato petrolifero. Quello che avrebbe subito Vespa, quindi, non sarebbe altro che un hackeraggio del proprio profilo su X.

Il profilo mantiene, al momento, comunque la descrizione che era utilizzata dal conduttore di “Porta a Porta”, così come tutti i suoi post pubblicati in passato. “Giornalista, scrive libri, ama l’arte, la musica, il vino e l’Italia” sono le parole con cui Vespa si descriveva nel suo profilo X e che ancora oggi si possono leggere associate al profilo chiamato ora USRO, con il nome utente @USROEroject.

A Fanpage, il perito informatico forense Paolo Dal Checco ha spiegato come sarebbe possibile il fatto che cercando la handle @BrunoVespa venga fuori la scritta “account sospeso”: “È molto probabile che gli hacker abbiano operato una sostituzione o una triangolazione. Di norma, quando si modifica il nome di un profilo su X, la vecchia handle torna immediatamente libera. In questo caso, gli attaccanti potrebbero aver spostato il profilo originale di Bruno Vespa sul nuovo username e, contestualmente, occupato il vecchio indirizzo @brunovespa con un altro profilo, magari già sospeso o destinato a esserlo“.

L'articolo L’account X di Bruno Vespa è stato hackerato? Ecco gli elementi che lo lasciano supporre. E Fiorello commenta ironico: “Signor Musk vattela a prendere…” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

  •  

Huyan de las redes sociales: propuesta de objeción de conciencia

Las redes sociales fueron recibidas hace 20 años como un gran espacio de libertad. Hoy en día ya sabemos que se han convertido en plataformas dedicadas a encubrir a delincuentes anónimos; en espacios que favorecen la mentira, la injuria y la calumnia, los mensajes de odio; que acogen los acosos sexuales y personales, la xenofobia, el machismo y el racismo, la pederastia, la pornografía infantil, los mensajes yihadistas; en lugares donde se permiten las suplantaciones de identidad (las últimas han sido las sufridas en cuentas del PP el pasado miércoles por los socialistas Begoña Gómez, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero y José Luis Ábalos, entre otros). Por si fuera poco, su maquinaria utiliza algoritmos con sesgos polarizadores y sus directivos aplican ingenierías fiscales para evadir impuestos en los países donde obtienen los ingresos.

Seguir leyendo

© Noah Berger (AP Photo / Lapresse) (EL PAÍS)

Dawson Kelly sostiene una pancarta con nombres de jóvenes que murieron supuestamente por su uso de las redes sociales. En Oakland, California, el pasado mes de agosto.
  •  

X Bans Former Libertarian Party Affiliate—After the State Requests It

New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte | Scott P. Yates/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's (LPNH) X account—which has become infamous for its bigoted and controversy-ridden posts—is finally gone. But the state's spurious role in its banning raises free speech concerns.

Last week, New Hampshire Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to X's safety team, asking the company to suspend the account. Ayotte's letter made mention of several clear violations of X's content policies: "This account has openly called for the assassination of elected officials from the New Hampshire Democratic Party, has said it condones murdering elected officials for their policy positions, and most recently threatened a member of House leadership.…I'm calling on X to remove [the posts] and suspend the account immediately." 

The letter referenced one particularly bold post from September (which the account later deleted). The post read: "We openly support the assassination of basically every elected democrat in New Hampshire. But if you don't have the balls to do it, then you should probably vote GOP." 

X suspended the account the day after Ayotte sent the letter.

The removal of the LPNH account has likely elicited a sigh of relief from the Libertarian Party's (L.P.) leadership, which has repeatedly tussled with LPNH over its extreme rhetoric, undermining of L.P. candidates, and constant creation of P.R. crises for the party. In 2024, the LPNH endorsed Donald Trump for president instead of Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, pushing the Libertarian National Committee to disaffiliate LPNH from the L.P.'s structure this past May. The Granite State Libertarian Party was designated the state's new L.P. affiliate in September.

Even though the LPNH has clearly violated X's terms and does not adhere to the most basic requirements for L.P. membership (such as pledging to uphold the nonaggression principle), the government should not tell private firms when to enforce their own policies. This sentiment was shared by Granite State L.P., which recently said in a social media post, "While a private company has a right to remove someone screaming about setting people on fire…the government should play zero part in that decision."

Jeremy Kauffman, the chair of the LPNH, is outraged but unsurprised, posting on Sunday that he and the LPNH are "exploring a lawsuit against the New Hampshire government." He tells Reason, "Ayotte's letter was a classic example of jawboning. When a governor sends a demanding letter like this to a private company, there is a clear implicit threat attached."

Speaking to Reason, Trace Mitchell, a technology and free speech expert at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, defines jawboning as, "when the government, through veiled threats or direct coercion, pressures a private entity to take an action that the government could not lawfully take or mandate itself." 

In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make recommendations to private companies if those recommendations come with legal repercussions—even implied or veiled repercussions. Doing so would qualify as jawboning, which violates the First Amendment. Though Ayotte's letter could be construed as extralegal pressure, it does not imply a punishment for noncompliance and likely falls short of legally recognized jawboning.

Addressing Kauffman's proposed lawsuit, Mitchell says, "In this case he would likely have to show there is something beyond this letter…[like] outside communications, emails or text with X." 

Safety officers at X provided no comment to Reason to justify the suspension. It is not clear whether there was any external communication involved beyond the letter. Without a more definite connection between Ayotte's request and X's decision, Kauffman may struggle to win in court. Still, that doesn't make the governor's request any less concerning. 

While Ayotte's letter was a surprise, it was not unprecedented. As social media has become the public forum, all levels of government have tried to regulate what is said there. During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal officials under the Biden administration were revealed to be in near-constant communication with major social media firms, encouraging and recommending that misinformation be removed from the platforms. Many of these recommendations were paired with implied threats to review the firms' legal immunity for content posted on their platforms, which spawned a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court in 2024. 

Although the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing, some lawmakers have taken action to address concerns over jawboning, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) introducing the JAWBONE Act in June. The bill would make it easier for members of the public to sue government officials who pressure media networks, as well as require increased transparency for all federal communications to media networks.

Even if Kauffman cannot find legal remit, Ayotte's letter was a troubling move for the future of internet speech. Many of the offending posts referenced were months old or had been deleted before the letter was sent. The LPNH has likely been violating X's content policy for years, but X only took action after the government instructed it to.

You don't need a judge to see how that might be concerning. 

The post X Bans Former Libertarian Party Affiliate—After the State Requests It appeared first on Reason Magazine.

  •  

Musk’s Perplexing Battle With Nitter and the Problem With Locking the Internet Behind Login Screens

As a free speech absolutist, Elon Musk is making a mistake going after Nitter, says Dr R P. He should instead be praising the site that helps users speak freely, uninhibited by login screens that undermine their privacy.

The post Musk’s Perplexing Battle With Nitter and the Problem With Locking the Internet Behind Login Screens appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

  •  
❌