View previous stories
	Calls for greater accountability and governance in the digital space, in line with human rights by Amnesty, Carr Center, OHCHR, agencies   Aug. 2025   Amnesty International has launched a new briefing titled ‘Breaking up with Big Tech’ calling on governments to rein in the power of Big Tech companies in order to safeguard human rights.   The so-called big five tech companies – Alphabet (Google), Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple – wield extraordinary influence over the infrastructure, services, and norms that shape our online lives. These companies dominate key sectors of the internet: from search engines and social media to app stores and cloud computing. Their largely unchecked power across various digital sectors poses serious risks to the right to privacy, the right to non-discrimination, freedom of opinion and access to information.   The briefing shows how these Big Tech companies have built their power, how they maintain it and how they are now moving to consolidate it further in emerging areas of artificial intelligence.   “Addressing this dominance is critical, not only as a matter of market fairness but as a pressing human rights issue. Breaking up these tech oligarchies will help create an online environment that is fair and just. Failure to address Big Tech dominance can have serious consequences offline, as our investigations into Facebook’s role in the Tigray war in Ethiopia and the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar have shown.”   In many countries, these platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society now depends on using their services. This gives them enormous power to influence public discourse and control information flows.   Documented cases of content removal, inconsistent moderation practices, and algorithmic biases highlight the dangers of allowing a few companies to dominate the digital public sphere.   Under international human rights law, states have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil human rights including by regulating and using other measures to keep corporate power in check.   This is the first time Amnesty International has published a briefing of this nature to highlight how states should urgently address the uncontrolled power of these technology companies..   http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/amnesty-launches-breaking-up-with-big-tech-briefing/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/POL30/0226/2025/en/   Jan. 2025   Meta is ushering in a ‘world without facts’, says Nobel peace prize winner.   The Nobel peace prize winner Maria Ressa has said Meta’s decision to end factchecking on its platforms and remove restrictions on certain topics means “extremely dangerous times” lie ahead for journalism, democracy and social media users.   The American-Filipino journalist said Mark Zuckerberg’s move to relax content moderation on the Facebook and Instagram platforms would lead to a “world without facts” and that was “a world that’s right for a dictator”.   “Mark Zuckerberg says it’s a free speech issue – that’s completely wrong,” Ressa told the AFP news service. “Only if you’re profit-driven can you claim that; only if you want power and money can you claim that. This is about safety.”   Ressa, a co-founder of the Rappler news site, won the Nobel peace prize in 2021 in recognition of her “courageous fight for freedom of expression”. She faced multiple criminal charges and investigations after publishing stories critical of the former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte.   Ressa rejected Zuckerberg’s claim that factcheckers had been “too politically biased” and had “destroyed more trust than they’ve created”.   “Journalists have a set of standards and ethics,” Ressa said. “What Facebook is going to do is get rid of that and then allow lies, anger, fear and hate to infect every single person on the platform.”   The decision meant “extremely dangerous times ahead” for journalism, democracy and social media users, she said.   Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive of Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said on Tuesday he would remove third-party factcheckers in the US and replace them with a crowd-sourced moderating service similar to the “community notes” feature on the rival social media platform X.   He added that Meta would “work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more”.   In October, the human rights group Amnesty International claimed that authorities in the Philippines were using Facebook to “red-tag” young activists, a term referring to the labelling of campaigners and others as alleged “communist rebels” and “terrorists”.   In 2021 a Meta whistleblower, Frances Haugen, claimed there was a lack of safety controls in non-English language markets, such as Africa and the Middle East, and that Facebook was being used by human traffickers and armed groups in Ethiopia.   “I did what I thought was necessary to save the lives of people, especially in the global south, who I think are being endangered by Facebook’s prioritisation of profits over people,” she told the Observer.   At the time, Meta, then operating under the corporate brand of Facebook, said the premise that it prioritised profit over safety was “false”.   In 2018, after the massacre of Rohingya Muslims by the military in Myanmar, Facebook admitted that the platform had been used to “foment division and incite offline violence”. Three years later, the human rights group Global Witness claimed that Facebook was promoting content that incited violence against political protesters in Myanmar. Facebook claimed it had proactively detected 99% of the hate speech removed from the platform in the country.   Social media posts inciting hate and division have “real world consequences” and there is a responsibility to regulate content, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, insisted on Friday, following Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking programme in the United States.   "Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real world consequences. Regulating such content is not censorship. My Office calls for accountability & governance in the digital space, in line with human rights", said Volker Turk.   Mr. Turk said that labelling efforts to create safe online spaces as “censorship… ignores the fact that unregulated space means some people are silenced – in particular those whose voices are often marginalized. At the same time, allowing hatred online limits free expression and can result in real world harms.”   Mr. Turk highlighted that social media platforms have a tremendous ability to shape society positively by connecting people. But they can also fuel conflict, incite hate and threaten people’s safety.   The UN human rights chief said his office would continue to call for “accountability and governance in the digital space, in line with human rights. This safeguards public discourse, builds trust, and protects the dignity of all.”   The decision by the social media giant Meta/Facebook to end factchecking in the United States is “bad for democracy”, Brazil’s communication minister, Sidonio Palmeira, said.   Palmeira said Meta’s decision was “bad for democracy because without factchecking you don’t control the spread of hate, misinformation and fake news”.   Brazil’s public prosecutor’s office sent a letter to local Meta representatives giving the company 30 days to clarify whether it intends to implement the changes in the country, with detailed information. Brazil’s supreme court has taken a strong stance on regulating social media platforms. Last year, it blocked Elon Musk’s X platform for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation.   On Wednesday, the Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, raised the scourge of disinformation during a ceremony marking two years since supporters of his predecessor Jair Bolsonaro stormed the seats of power in Brasilia.   “We defend, and will always defend freedom of expression. But we will not tolerate hate speech and disinformation, which endanger people’s lives and incite violence against the rule of law,” Lula said.   Lawmakers in Brussels and London have criticised Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to scrap factcheckers in the US for Facebook, Instagram and Threads, labelling it “frightening”.   Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP and chair of the science and technology committee for the House of Commons, which is investigating how online disinformation fuelled last summer’s riots, said Zuckerberg’s decision to replace professional factcheckers with users policing the accuracy of posts was “concerning” and “quite frightening”.   “To hear that Meta is removing all its factcheckers [in the US] is concerning … people have a right to be protected from the harmful effects of misinformation,” she said. “The fact that Zuckerberg said he’s following the example of X must raise concerns when we compare how X is a platform for misinformation to a greater extent than Facebook has been.”   A Meta whistleblower told Guardian News: “I am extremely concerned about what this means for teenagers.” Arturo Bejar, a former senior engineer whose responsibilities at Meta included child safety measures, said: “They will be increasingly exposed to all the content categories that they need to be protected against.” Harmful content, including violent or pornographic material, could reach young users more easily, Bejar said, citing Zuckerberg’s statement that tackling “lower severity” transgressions will now rely on users flagging content before Meta acts on it.   In Brussels, the European Commission hit back against Zuckerberg’s statement on Tuesday in which he cited Europe as a place with “an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalising censorship – a reference to the EU’s own Digital Services Act, which regulates online content.   A spokesperson for the EU’s executive arm said “we absolutely refute any claims of censorship” and that “absolutely nothing in the Digital Services Act forces or asks or requests a platform to remove lawful content”.   Valérie Hayer, an MEP and the leader of the centrist Renew Europe grouping in the European parliament, said: “The EU will remain uncomfortable for social media giants by standing up for the integrity and independence of free expression and democratic processes. Europe will never accept manipulation and disinformation as a standard for society. By abandoning factchecking in the US, Meta is making a profound strategic and ethical mistake.”   In the UK, Imran Ahmed, the founder and chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said Meta’s decision would cause “real-world harm”.   “By abandoning its factchecking program in favour of a discredited ‘community notes’ system, Meta is turbocharging the spread of unchallenged online lies, worsening the spread of hate, and creating more risks to our communities, democracy, public health, and the safety of our kids.”   Ahmed said Meta had effectively abdicated its responsibility to try to prevent the spread of misinformation, hate speech and violent online content. “Meta is now saying it’s up to you to spot the lies on its platforms, and that it’s not their problem if you can’t tell the difference, even if those lies, hate, or scams end up hurting you.”   Australian politicians and experts also expressed concern over Meta’s decision to abandon factchecking on its platforms, saying the move would “turbocharge” the spread of lies and hate speech around the world.   Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Meta’s decision to abandon factchecking would create a “free-for-all on misinformation, disinformation, abuse and trolling”. The Greens’ communications spokesperson told ABC radio the changes were “dangerous”.   “This is a very dangerous move at a time when members of the community, parents, young people, women in particular, are increasingly concerned of the unsafe environment on these big platforms.”   Political communication expert Dr Emma Briant said “ordinary citizens should be very concerned”.. “With at least 13 billionaires in his new administration, including big tech oligarchs like Elon Musk, Trump has sent a powerful message across America’s wealthy right-wing elite – now is your time, not theirs,” the Monash University associate professor said. “Clearly Mark Zuckerberg heard him loud and clear.”   Global Witness, a human rights group, said: “Zuckerberg’s announcement is a blatant attempt to cozy up to the incoming Trump administration – with harmful implications. These changes will make it more dangerous for women, LGBT+ people, people of colour, scientists and activists to speak out online, where they already face disproportionate harassment and attacks.”   The Centre for Information Resilience, an organisation whose activities include tracking online hate speech and disinformation based on people’s gender, ethnicity and sexuality, warned it was a “major step back for content moderation at a time when disinformation and harmful content are evolving faster than ever”.   23 Jan. 2025   Spainish Prime Minister accuses Tech billionaires with wanting to ‘overthrow democracy’. (Politico, agencies)   Davos, Switzerland — Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Wednesday that tech billionaires want to use social media “to overthrow democracy” — adding he’ll push EU leaders to take action.   “The technology that was intended to free us has become the tool of our own oppression,” he said during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.   “The social media that was supposed to bring unity, clarity and democracy have instead given us division, vice and a reactionary agenda.”   Sanchez said that limits on the length of texts and videos, as well as the absence of fact-checking measures, allow disinformation to flourish on social media platforms. He accused tech barons of designing their sites to “divide and manipulate” society in order to advance their personal political agendas by replacing “votes with likes.”   He lamented that the same sites that had initially helped unite people around the world and empower social justice efforts, such as the #MeToo movement and the Fridays for Future climate protests, were now being used to concentrate “power and wealth in the hands of just a few ... at the cost of our democracies.”   “What truly limits democracy is the power of the elites,” he said. “It is the power of those who think that because they are rich, they are above the law and can do anything. That is why, my friends, that is why the tech billionaires want to overthrow democracy.”   Sanchez said that at the next meeting of European Union leaders in Brussels he will propose that the bloc move to “make social media great again” by imposing regulations and going after their billionaire owners.   Among other measures he proposed fighting bots and fake profiles by requiring that users digitally identify themselves, and using the Digital Services Act to go after tech barons whose sites undermine democracy.   “The owner of a small restaurant is held accountable if their food poisons customers,” he said. “Social media tycoons should be held accountable if their algorithms poison our societies.”   Sanchez didn’t point fingers at any specific social media platform owners, but did reference a piece from 2009 by venture capitalist Peter Thiel, in which the PayPal founder — who has attained a great level of influence in the Trump administration — wrote “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”   Earlier this month Sanchez accused X owner Elon Musk of leading "the international far right," inciting hatred and openly supporting "the heirs of Nazism in Germany." At a separate event in Davos on Jan. 21 he called on Europe to unite against the "tech caste."   Sanchez explained that back in the early 200s, social media began to thrive under a promise that they would unite people and strengthen our democracies. Based on that promise, he says, public institutions, companies and the public all joined social media – which allowed people to interact across physical distances.   But the downsides are now clear, Sanchez says, comparing them to “invaders hidden in the body of a Trojan horse”.   He cited the rise of online bullying,and criticized the world’s most powerful tech billionaires, saying there has been a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of just a few, “at the cost of our mental health and our democracies”.   Sanchez accused the major social media sites of harming the liberal order and social system in three ways which cannot be ignored.   1) Oversimplying and polarising the public debate. 280 charactors or a 30 second video are not enought to explain anything important, he pointed, but are creating a divided society that is easy to manipuate.   2) The rise of fake news, which he says the owners of social media companies have chosen not to stop, because it’s good for business, and helps advance their political agenda.   3) becoming tools to replace votes with likes. We were told that these platforms would help to level the playing field, but they have made it even more unfair, Sánchez said.   Sanchez puts the blame for the deterioration of social media sites on “political forces”, and on the owners of big social media sites themselves, who he calls a small group of technobillionaires who are no longer satisfied with holding economic power. Now they want political power in a way that undermines democratic political systems, highighting comments by Peter Thiel, the billionaire former CEO of PayPal.   “Peter Thiel… openly admitted in an interview that techno billionaires want to overthrow democracy because “they have stopped believing that freedom and democracy are compatible”.” And the freedom they have in mind, Sanchez added, is for those who think that because they are rich they are above the law".   Sanchez argued that social media is a common resource for humanity, like the oceans, and they should be managed accordingly.   Sanchez is proposing an end to anonymity online, proper control of social media algorithms, and making the platforms’ owners legally responsible for what is published on them.   Pedro Sanchez said he will propose three measures to all EU leaders at their next council meeting in Brussels.   1) putting an end to anonymity in social media.   Sánchez pointed out that people cannot drive a car without a licence plate, send a package without showing an ID, or buy a hunting weapon without giving their name. And yet we are allowing people to roam freely on social media without linking their accounts to a real identity. This, Sánchez says, paves way for misinformation, hate speech, cyber-harrasment, the use of bots, and allows people to act without being held accountable   He suggests forcing social media companies to link each account to a “European digital identity wallet”. That would allow people to use nicknames, which could be linked to real people if a crime took place.   Accountability is an “essential complement” to freedom of speech. “This is the only way to ensure that minors do not access inappropriate content, that people who commit cimes are banned from social networks or prosecuted, and that the millions of fake accounts that exist and influence the public conversation are removed.   2) Sanchez’s second proposal is to “force open the black box of social media algorithms, once and for all”. He says the values of the European Union are not for sale, and that safeguards such as content moderation and factchecking are both legal and moral requirements.   Sanchez said Europe must fully enforce its digital service act, to make clear that its provisions are non-negotiable. He also warns Europe’s competence in reviewing algorithms needs to be strengthened, and put “our brightest minds to work on this, just as the enemies of democracy are doing”.   3) The third proposal: hold owners personally accountable for non-compliance with laws and norms on their platforms.   These owners are the among the richest and most powerful people in the world, and should be held accountable “if their algorithms poison our society”.   Jan. 2025   Mark Zuckerberg can preach all he wants about censorship and free speech, but it’s easy to see through his words. This was done to appease Trump, writes Tom Jones. (Poynter)   If Facebook is a place where someone can strike a match of misinformation then its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, just handed gasoline to anyone who wants to spread that misinformation.   Tuesday is a day that will go down in social media infamy. Meta, the company that oversees Facebook, Instagram and Threads, announced that it is essentially ending its fact-checking program designed to stop the spread of misinformation that can range from harmful to outright deadly.   Instead of relying on news organizations and other trained parties to fact-check posts, Meta is turning the job over to users in the form of community notes. In other words, users of Meta’s social media platforms will be in charge of policing themselves.   And the timing of this news couldn’t be more obvious as Donald Trump is set to take office in less than two weeks. This says it all: Meta broke the news exclusively on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” the favorite morning show of Trump and his MAGA followers.   The New York Times’ Theodore Schleifer and Mike Isaac wrote, “Ever since Mr. Trump’s victory in November, few big companies have worked as overtly to curry favor with the president-elect. In a series of announcements during the presidential transition period, Meta has sharply shifted its strategy in response to what Mr. Zuckerberg called a ‘cultural tipping point’ marked by the election. … Meta’s move on Tuesday morning elated conservative allies of Mr. Trump, many of whom have disliked Meta’s practice of adding disclaimers or warnings to questionable or false posts. Mr. Trump has long railed against Mr. Zuckerberg, claiming the fact-checking feature treated posts by conservative users unfairly.”   CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote, “Conservatives immediately cheered Meta’s changes while others, including misinformation experts, warned Meta’s platforms would become even more of a cesspool. False and hateful content will likely become even more commonplace on the social networks.”   Nicole Gill, executive director of Accountable Tech, called the news “a gift to Donald Trump and extremists around the world.”   Of course, Zuckerberg can’t come right out and say he’s genuflecting at the altar of Trump, so he explained the decision this way: “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship. The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing speech. So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.”   Zuckerberg’s fallback has always been about freedom of speech and stopping censorship. He also said “fact-checkers have been too politically biased.”   But Poynter president Neil Brown said Meta has always set its own tools and rules, while Poynter’s PolitiFact and Meta’s other fact-checking partners offered independent reviews and showed their sources.   Brown said, “To blame fact-checkers is a disappointing cop-out and it perpetuates a misunderstanding of its own program. Facts are not censorship. Fact-checkers never censored anything. And Meta always held the cards. It’s time to quit invoking inflammatory and false language in describing the role of journalists and fact-checking.”   Even Zuckerberg admitted the new policy could create problems with content moderation, saying, “The reality is this is a tradeoff. It means that we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”   But which is worse? Some innocent posts occasionally and accidentally removed or more “bad stuff” not being caught?   Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter, said in a statement, “This decision will hurt social media users who are looking for accurate, reliable information to make decisions about their everyday lives and interactions with friends and family. Fact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts; it’s added information and context to controversial claims, and it’s debunked hoax content and conspiracy theories.”   Now that added information and context and debunking will be turned over to those who aren’t trained to do so, or who won’t do the unbiased, deep reporting that places like PolitiFact does.   Drobnic Holan said, “The fact-checkers used by Meta follow a Code of Principles requiring nonpartisanship and transparency. It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters. Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work — that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”   Tuesday’s news was just another example of Meta’s obvious attempt to cozy up to Trump, just as X owner Elon Musk has. In fact, Meta is taking the same approach to moderating content as X. Meta chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan said in a blog post, “We’ve seen this approach work on X — where they empower their community to decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context.”   But has it worked? Trump and those on the right would say yes. Few others would. The Washington Post’s Naomi Nix, Will Oremus and Aaron Gregg wrote, “The announcement is the latest in a flurry of changes at Meta that are likely to be embraced by a second Trump administration. Last week, the company named Joel Kaplan, a Republican with deep experience in Washington, as its chief global affairs officer, replacing former British politician Nick Clegg. And on Monday, it named Dana White, a longtime Trump ally and president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, to its board of directors.”   And Stelter noted, “The company is also getting rid of content restrictions on certain topics, such as immigration and gender identity, and rolling back limits on how much politics-related content users see in their feeds.”   Aaron Sharockman, executive director of PolitiFact and Poynter’s vice president for sales and strategic partnerships, said in a statement that Zuckerberg’s move has nothing to do with free speech or censorship, adding “Mark Zuckerberg’s decision could not be less subtle.”   Sharockman wrote, “Let me be clear: the decision to remove or penalize a post or account is made by Meta and Facebook, not fact-checkers. They created the rules.”   Sharockman reminded audiences that PolitiFact and other U.S.-based journalists merely provided additional speech and context to posts that contained misinformation. Then it was up to Meta and Facebook to decide what to do next, including any penalties, such as removing posts or banning accounts.   Sharockman wrote, “It was Facebook and Meta that created a system that allowed ordinary citizens to see their posts demoted but exempted politicians and political leaders who said the very same things. In case it needs to be said, PolitiFact and U.S.-based journalists played no role in the decision to remove Donald Trump from Facebook.”   Zuckerberg can preach all he wants about censorship and free speech and all that. But it’s pretty easy to see through his words.   Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at the advocacy group Free Press, told The New York Times’ Danielle Kaye, “While Zuckerberg characterized the platform giant’s new approach as a defense of free speech, its real intentions are twofold: Ditch the technology company’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of its users, and align the company more closely with an incoming president who’s a known enemy of accountability.”   Nicole Gill, a founder and the executive director of the digital watchdog organization Accountable Tech, said Mr. Zuckerberg was “reopening the floodgates to the exact same surge of hate, disinformation and conspiracy theories that caused Jan. 6 — and that continue to spur real-world violence.”   Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert issued the following statement: “Asking users to fact-check themselves is tantamount to Meta saying the truth doesn’t matter. Misinformation will flow more freely with this policy change, as we cannot assume that corrections will be made when false information proliferates. The American people deserve accurate information about our elections, health risks, the environment, and much more. We condemn this irresponsible move and the harm it will likely contribute to our discourse.”   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/08/facebook-end-factchecking-nobel-peace-prize-winner-maria-ressa http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/xs-design-and-policies http://www.rappler.com/voices/rappler-blogs/four-steps-dealing-problems-caused-by-big-tech http://www.poynter.org/commentary/2025/mark-zuckerberg-donald-trump-fact-checkers/ http://www.poynter.org/ifcn/2025/an-open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-from-the-worlds-fact-checkers-nine-years-later http://www.niemanlab.org/2025/01/zuck-chucks-fact-checkers-to-cosplay-as-elon-musk/ http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1158886 http://www.cjr.org/world/indias-fact-checkers-react-to-metas-policy-change.php   http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/our-work/carr-commentary/notes-new-frontier-power http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/musk-almanac-information-violence http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/what-doge-could-mean-future-democracy http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/our-work/carr-commentary/staring-back-panopticon-resisting-tech-cronyism-under-trump http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/welcome-dance-left-out-ones http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/how-chinese-ai-models-impact-labor-rights-and http://www.justsecurity.org/109030/academic-misinformation-researchers-under-attack/ http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/the-perils-of-loosening-hate-speech-protections   http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/toxic-platforms-broken-planet/ http://counterhate.com/research/extreme-weather-false-claims/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10012025/misinformation-spreads-like-wildfire-as-los-angeles-burns/ http://blog.ucsusa.org/juliet-christian-smith/six-facts-about-water-and-wildfire-in-the-west/ http://www.ucsusa.org/resources/infuriating-link-between-wildfires-and-fossil-fuel-companies http://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ten-signs-global-warming   http://www.citizen.org/news/metas-move-to-end-fact-checking-is-wrong-and-dangerous/ http://www.article19.org/resources/meta-prioritise-human-rights-not-politics http://www.article19.org/resources/us-content-moderation-should-serve-human-rights-not-political-agendas/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/01/united-states-rohingya-survivor-asks-us-regulator-to-investigate-metas-potential-role-in-myanmar-atrocities/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/over-170-latin-american-csos-condemn-mark-zuckerbergs-statement-on-fact-checking-policies-urge-meta-to-take-responsibility-on-combating-hate-speech-disinformation/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/reckless-gamble-metas-decision-on-disinformation-endangers-its-4-billion-users/ http://www.techpolicy.press/mark-zuckerberg-and-the-internet-for-billionaires/ http://counterhate.com/research/more-transparency-and-less-spin/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/01/closure-metas-us-fact-checking-programme-major-setback-fight-disinformation/ http://www.claimscon.org/nodenyingit/ http://www.claimscon.org/cancelhate/   http://www.opendemocracy.net/en/musk-zuckerberg-trump-brazil-bolsonaro-disinformation/ http://www.opendemocracy.net/en/far-right-elon-musk-grooming-gangs-britain-keir-starmer-tommy-robinson-great-replacement http://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/12/Tv/video/amanpour-swisher-katwala http://www.politico.eu/article/spain-pedro-sanchez-big-tech-billionaires-democracy-social-media http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/18/sadiq-khan-far-right-billionaire-bullies http://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241219-musk-s-possible-meddling-in-uk-politics-stirs-concern http://www.dw.com/en/european-leaders-decry-elon-musks-meddling/a-71227690 http://www.dw.com/en/german-politicians-criticize-musk-backing-for-far-right-afd/a-71117414 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/08/spain-pm-pedro-sanchez-denounces-elon-musk-at-franco-anniversary-event http://odi.org/en/press/odi-suspends-activity-on-x/ http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250117-sheep-for-hire-trump-musk-and-zuckerberg-s-dangerous-plan-for-europe http://english.elpais.com/technology/2024-11-25/from-bannon-to-musk-the-decade-that-made-misinformation-the-new-normal.html http://counterhate.com/research/musk-misleading-election-claims-viewed-1-2bn-times-on-x-with-no-fact-checks/ http://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5156184/elon-musk-trump-election-x-twitter   http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/videos/20250114211951426/ http://www.un.org/en/observances/countering-hate-speech http://news.un.org/en/audio-product/uniting-against-hate http://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2023/call-input-online-hate-speech http://www.icj.org/asean-icj-and-human-rights-defenders-from-southeast-asia-urge-a-rights-based-approach-to-countering-harmful-online-content/ http://mediawell.ssrc.org/articles/theyre-coming-to-take-over-our-country-researching-global-circuits-of-racist-misinformation http://mediawell.ssrc.org/research-reviews/why-we-fight-for-fractured-truths-how-misinformation-fuels-political-violence-in-democracies/ http://socialmediavictims.org/press-releases/smvlc-file-world-mental-health-day-lawsuit-allege-addictive-social-media-products-global-scale http://counterhate.com/blog/online-harms-a-parents-fight-for-social-media-regulation http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/un-expert-alarmed-new-emerging-exploitative-practices-online-child-sexual http://www.weprotect.org/global-threat-assessment-23/ http://5rightsfoundation.com/about-us/childrens-rights/
	Reassert tax sovereignty to unlock trillions for climate finance by the Tax Justice Network   Applying a minimal wealth tax on the superrich and making multinational corporations pay the dodged taxes they owe can cover the majority of countries’ climate finance costs, and leave most with billions in tax revenue to spare towards public services.   A new report by the Tax Justice Network – published as the Bonn Climate Conference kicks off and publicly endorsed by renowned climate experts – finds that a major cause of inadequate climate finance is not a lack of affordability but countries’ weakened tax sovereignty.   A total of $2.6 trillion in urgently needed tax revenue is available to be raised by countries each year, the report finds, by applying a minimal wealth tax of 1.7% to 3.5% on the richest 0.5% households, and by recovering the corporate taxes unpaid by multinational corporations shifting profits into tax havens.   The sum is equivalent to a whopping 2.4% of global GDP, and can cover most of the spectrum of climate finance estimates proposed by climate experts.   The resources countries need to ensure their survival are on hand, the report argues, but decades of undermining and restraining countries’ tax sovereignty – that is, their ability to decide how much to collect in tax, who and what from, and where to spend it – is preventing countries from being able to access these resources.   61% of countries were found to have an “endangered” level of tax sovereignty or worse, meaning the amount of additional tax revenue they are failing to collect from their richest households and from tax cheating multinational corporations was equivalent to 5% or more of the amount of tax they collect a year.   About a fifth of countries (19%) were found to have a “negated” level of tax sovereignty, the worst level, missing out on the equivalent of 15% or more of the tax revenue they collect annually.   The report identifies several factors that have and are weakening countries’ tax sovereignty, include unfit global tax rules, decades-old exploitative tax treaties, colonial legacies and the influence of extreme wealth on public discourse and governments’ decision-making processes.   Franziska Mager, lead author of the report, said:   “The problem isn’t scarcity, it’s tax sovereignty. Countries are failing to collect the taxes they urgently need from the superrich to mitigate the climate crisis – a crisis that the superrich are most responsible for fuelling. Successfully exercising tax sovereignty to face off an existential threat is key to how states have historically ensured their survival, so this widespread failure is alarming.   “Fortunately, the UN tax convention currently being prepared is already on course to turn things around and reassert the tax sovereignty of all countries. Tax has been treated as a tool to cater to the superrich for so long, our governments forget that tax first and foremost represents the will of a people. We must reclaim tax as a tool for protecting people and planet, and that includes protecting from the harms of extreme wealth.”   The Tax Justice Network new report models how countries can spend the additional tax revenue they can raise on both contributions to a global climate finance fund and to domestic needs, including public services.   For most countries and in most scenarios, the amount of additional tax revenue countries would have left to spare towards domestic needs after meeting their climate finance contributions would be greater than the amount they contribute.   If countries were to contribute a share to a global climate finance fund that is proportional to their share of historical emissions, 89% of countries would be able to cover their contribution with change to spare assuming a conservatively sized fund of $300 billion on the smallest end of the spectrum.   On average, these countries would have to contribute just 21% of their additional tax revenue to the global fund and would be left with $14 billion to spare towards domestic spending.   Assuming a fund 5 times larger at $1.5 trillion, 58% of countries would be able to cover their climate finance contributions, contributing 44% of their additional revenue, would be left with $12.6 billion to spare on average.   While not all countries in these models would be able to meet their contributions, the total size of the funds in these scenarios could still be met if other countries were to contribute a bigger share of their additional tax revenue to the funds. The Tax Justice Network has published an interactive tool4 alongside its new report that can be used to model different fund sizes and contribution commitments.   Some examples of how much certain countries can contribute and be left with to spare:   The US would be able to contribute $70 billion from additional tax revenue towards a global climate finance fund of $300 billion and be left with $707 billion for domestic spending. For a fund of $1.5 trillion, the US would be able to contribute $365 billion with $412 billion to spare. The US was found to have a “endangered” level of tax sovereignty, failing to collect the equivalent of 11% of its annual tax revenue.   The UK would be able to contribute $13 billion from additional tax revenue towards a global climate finance fund of $300 billion and be left with $64 billion for domestic spending. For a fund of $1.5 trillion, the UK would be able to contribute $65 billion with $12 billion to spare. The UK was found to have an “endangered” level of tax sovereignty, failing to collect the equivalent of 7% of its annual tax revenue.   France would be able to contribute $6 billion from additional tax revenue towards a global climate finance fund of $300 billion and be left with $58 billion for domestic spending. For a fund of $1.5 trillion, France would be able to contribute $33 billion with $31 billion to spare. France was found to have a “challenged” level of tax sovereignty, failing to collect the equivalent of 4.5% of its annual tax revenue.   China would be able to contribute $47 billion from additional tax revenue towards a global climate finance fund of $300 billion and be left with $627 billion for domestic spending. For a fund of $1.5 trillion, China would be able to contribute $236 billion with $438 billion to spare. China was found to have a “negated” level of tax sovereignty, failing to collect the equivalent of 17% of its annual tax revenue.   India would be able to contribute $11 billion from additional tax revenue towards a global climate finance fund of $300 billion and be left with $99 billion for domestic spending. For a fund of $1.5 trillion, India would be able to contribute $53 billion with $57 billion to spare. India was found to have a “negated” level of tax sovereignty, failing to collect the equivalent of 18% of its annual tax revenue.   Brazil would be able to contribute $3 billion from additional tax revenue towards a global climate finance fund of $300 billion and be left with $53 billion for domestic spending. For a fund of $1.5 trillion, Brazil would be able to contribute $15 billion with $41 billion to spare. Brazil was found to have an “endangered” level of tax sovereignty, failing to collect the equivalent of 8% of its annual tax revenue.   The modelling shows that for the majority of countries pitting climate finance commitments against domestic needs is a false dichtomy. On the contrary, paying for both requires a strengthening of tax sovereignty.   Prof. Jayati Ghosh, award-winning economist and co-chair of ICRICT, said:   “It is obscene that the poorest people and countries must bear the brunt of a crisis they did not cause, while the richest individuals and corporations hoard wealth and escape taxation. The claim that taxing corporate profits threatens growth is a fiction crafted to protect powerful interests. Today’s tax rules enable profit shifting and deprive, especially in the global South, governments of vital revenues for climate action and public services. This is not a design flaw but the outcome of a system shaped by long-standing, deeply rooted global power imbalances. Taxing extreme wealth and multinational profits is not just a policy option. It is a moral and economic imperative. If we are serious about a just transition, we must confront and reverse the inequalities embedded in the global economic architecture, starting with tax.”   Olivier De Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, writes in his foreword to the report:   “Just as the climate crisis and inequality are man-made, so too is the myth that we do not have the resources to address them. This report shows the trillions in untapped revenue hidden in plain sight. Taxing extreme wealth and curbing corporate tax abuse could unlock more than enough to fund a just transition, while redressing the staggering inequalities that are driving our world towards collapse.”   Prof. Attiya Waris, UN Independent Expert on foreign debt, other international financial obligations and human rights, said:   “Transforming international tax rules is just one part of the story. Across the global south, care and climate responses are being sacrificed to servicing debts that dwarf the funds we need for a just transition. these sacrifices reflect an international financial order that continues to prioritise creditor claims over human and planetary wellbeing. Reclaiming taxing rights, cancelling illegitimate debt, demanding reparations for historical and ongoing extraction, and embedding climate finance within a human rights framework are the cornerstones of fiscal sovereignty. Across the global north we have a continuation of militarisation of economies intended for sale to and use in southern states. If we do not break the grip of debt payments and corporate tax abuse on public budgets, we risk further consolidating global inequality rather than dismantling it.”   http://taxjustice.net/press/reassert-tax-sovereignty-to-unlock-trillions-for-climate-finance/ http://taxjustice.net/reports/reclaiming-tax-sovereignty-to-transform-global-climate-finance/ http://taxjustice.net/press/financial-secrecy-rocks-democracies-financial-secrecy-index-finds/ http://fsi.taxjustice.net http://taxjustice.net/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories