To: Bill who wrote (1473153 ) 7/27/2024 8:40:07 PM From: FJB Respond to After CrowdStrike Computer Catastrophe, Will Kamala-Microsoft Alliance Inflict Blue Screen of Death on Free Speech? […] Microsoft’s agreement has included provisions banning the use of its Office 365 software to “engage in activity that is harmful to you, the Services or others” including “communicating hate speech,” as well as banning “illegal” activity. Microsoft “reserves the right to review Your Content” to investigate possible violations and any content it considers to be a violation of these rules can result in Microsoft halting the user’s access to its covered products, including Office 365 and even the Microsoft Account the user uses to log into their own desktops, laptops and tablet devices. Note that the terms of service changes allowing Microsoft to blacklist users from using Office (including Word) for hate speech were implemented in 2016 (surely a coincidence). While Microsoft wisely has not chosen to fully enforce these terms of service, just the fact that they exist should cause concern, especially in light of how prevalent Microsoft systems are. Politico: Stepping into this quagmire is Microsoft — once known as the boring old guard of Big Tech compared with newer kids on the block like Google, Facebook and, most recently, TikTok. In the era of AI, it now finds itself resurgent. In our classic piece on “Woke AI,” we explained how the first mover advantage is everything when it comes to censorship. Indeed, the only reason search engines aren’t entirely destroyed is that they were built upon the architecture of an internet of old that was not censored. Each additional layer of the web becomes more mediated and more censored—apps are far more censored than the internet, for instance. AI represents a golden opportunity for the censors to get in on the ground floor and make sure that the technology that increasingly mediates humanity’s interface with reality reflects the censorship priorities of our ruling class. DEI policies results in them being too incompetent to censor effectively.
