DeSantis Unironically Frets About ‘Criminalizing Political Differences’

Published

2 years ago

July 20, 2023

admin

During a Tuesday interview with CNN, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, was asked by anchor Jake Tapper to respond to the breaking news that former President Donald Trump could face a federal indictment for his role in instigating the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

DeSantis’ response was a revealing one.

“If [special prosecutor] Jack Smith has evidence of criminality,” asked Tapper, “should Donald Trump be held accountable?”

“Here’s the problem,” DeSantis replied. “This country is going down the road of criminalizing political differences, and I think that’s wrong.” A few moments later, DeSantis complained about the Department of Justice and the FBI being “weaponized against people they don’t like.” Eventually, he also got around to saying that he hopes Trump won’t be indicted because it “won’t be good for the country.”

Leave aside, for now, the bigger questions about whether another Trump indictment would be good for the countryor, for that matter, good for DeSantis’ own presidential aspirations.

Focus on the first part of DeSantis’ answerthe part about how criminalizing political differences is wrong. Tapper didn’t seize on that moment, but it would have been interesting to see him follow up by asking DeSantis how that position fits with the Florida governor’s extensive track record of wielding the power of the state against those with whom he has political disagreements.

Indeed, the weaponization of the state against those on the political left is thecentral theme of DeSantis’ entire campaign. He proudly boasts that Florida is “where woke goes to die,” and has banned schools in Florida from teaching anything that state education bureaucrats might deem to be “critical race theory.” Regardless of how he might define the terms “woke” and “critical race theory,” there’s no denying that his objections to them are purely political.

You could say the same thing about DeSantis’ decision during the pandemic to ban private businesses from requiring that workers and customers wear masks. And about his ongoing feud with The Walt Disney Company, Florida’s largest employer, which has accused DeSantis of orchestrating an unconstitutional “targeted campaign of government retaliation” after Disney’s then-CEO, Bob Chapek, spoke out against DeSantis’ so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law, which banned discussions of gender identity in public elementary school classrooms (the law was later broadened to include most classrooms up to grade 12).

That’s a political disagreement about another political disagreementand in both cases, DeSantis has aimed to limit the free speech rights of his opponents. While that may not quite rise to the level of “criminalizing political differences,” which is what DeSantis accused the Justice Department of doing, DeSantis clearly has no qualms about exercising state power in political fights.

In his recent book, DeSantis makes clear that he would continue to use state power against his political opponents if elected president. “An American revival,” DeSantis writes, “requires that corporations are treated as political actors when they use their economic power to advance an ideological agenda.” Later in the same chapter, DeSantis imagines various ways in which “the political branches [of government] can protect individual freedom from stridently ideological private actors” by limiting what those private actors can do or say.

The idea that government should intervene to protect some private individuals from the free speech being exercised by other private individualsis both nonsensical and probably unconstitutional. As The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf has written about DeSantis’ misunderstanding of the value of freedom: “Neither my freedom nor yours requires the state to protect us from an entertainment company urging the state legislature to repeal a bill, or a beer company putting a trans influencer on a can, or whatever else DeSantis regards as a pathology. Indeed, we remain free in part because the First Amendment prevents the state from engaging in that sort of viewpoint discrimination.”

Much of what DeSantis has done in Florida and promised to do if elevated to the presidency is jarringly at odds with his criticism on Tuesday of Trump’s pending indictment. When you line that moment up against DeSantis’ campaign rhetoric, he seems to be saying that the problem with Trump’s possible indictment is merely that the state has been weaponized against the wrong person.

But that’s the root of the contradiction at the center of DeSantis’ campaign: Advocating for greater powers to be wielded against your political foes always creates the opportunity for your political foes to wield that same power against you and your allies.

The way out of that trap is not to double down on illiberalismeven though that’s what much of the populist right sees as necessarybut to do exactly what DeSantis said on Tuesday: oppose the criminalization of political differences.

Now let’s see if he can apply that same idea more broadly.

Politics

Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach

Published

3 hours ago

March 10, 2025

admin

Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach

Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD

Technology is advancing at the speed of light today more than ever. We have surpassed Moore’s law — computational power is doubling every six months rather than every two years — while regulations are, and have been, playing catchup.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act just came into force in August 2024 and is already falling behind. It did not consider AI agents and is still wrestling with generative AI (GenAI) and foundation models. Article 28b was added to the act in June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the flourishing of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers initially drafted the act in April 2021.

As we move more into robotics and the use of virtual reality devices, a “new paradigm of AI architectures” will be developed, addressing the limitations of GenAI to create robots and virtual devices that can reason the world, unlike GenAI models. Maybe spending time drafting a new article on GenAI was not time well spent.

Furthermore, technology regulations are quite dichotomized. There are regulations on AI, like the EU AI Act; Web3, like Markets in Crypto-Assets; and the security of digital information, like the EU Cybersecurity Act and The Digital Operational Resilience Act.

This dichotomy is cumbersome for users and businesses to follow. Moreover, it does not align with how solutions and products are developed. Every solution integrates many technologies, while each technology component has separate regulations.

It might be time to reconsider the way we regulate technology.

A comprehensive approach

Tech companies have been pushing the boundaries with cutting-edge technologies, including Web3, AI, quantum computing and others yet to emerge. Other industries are following suit in the experimentation and implementation of these technologies.

Everything is digital, and every product integrates several technologies. Think of the Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They have hardware, goggles, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets and more, and they will soon be integrated with Web3 technology.

A comprehensive approach to regulation would be the most suitable approach for the following principal reasons.

A full-system solution

Most, if not all, solutions require the integration of several emerging technologies. If we have separate guidelines and regulations for each technology, how could we ensure the product/service is compliant? Where does one rule start and the other end?

Recent: Animoca Brands revenue climbs as AI cuts costs by 12%

Separate guidelines would probably introduce more complexity, errors and misinterpretations, which eventually might result in more harm than good. If the implementation of technologies is all-encompassing and comprehensive, the approach to regulating it should also be.

Different technologies support each other’s weaknesses

All technologies have strengths and weaknesses, and often, the strengths of one technology can support the shortcomings of the other.

For example, AI can support Web3 by enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of smart contract execution and blockchain security and monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can assist in manifesting “responsible AI,” as blockchain is everything that AI is not — transparent, traceable, trustworthy and tamper-free.

When AI supports Web3 and vice versa, we implement a comprehensive, safe, secure and trustworthy solution. Would these solutions be AI-compliant or Web3-compliant? With this solution, it would be challenging to dichotomize compliance. The solution should be compliant and adhere to all guidelines/policies. It would be best if these guidelines/policies encompass all technologies, including their integration.

A proactive approach

We need proactive regulation. Many of the regulation proposals, across all regions, seem to be reactions to changes we know about today and don’t go far enough in thinking about how to provide frameworks for what might come five or 10 years down the line.

If, for example, we already know that there will be a “new paradigm of AI architectures,” probably in the next five years, then why not start thinking today, not in 5 years, how to regulate it? Or better yet, find a regulatory framework that would apply no matter how technology evolves.

Think about responsible innovation. Responsible innovation, simplistically, means making new technologies work for society without causing more problems than they solve. In other words: “Do good, do no harm.”

Responsible innovation

Responsible innovation principles are designed to span all technologies, not just AI. These principles recognize that all technologies can have unintended consequences on users, bystanders and society, and that it is the responsibility of the companies and developers creating those technologies to identify and mitigate those risks.

Responsible innovation principles are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will evolve in the future. This could be the basis for technology regulation. Still, companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that innovating responsibly instills trust in users, which will translate to mainstream adoption.

Truth in Technology Act

The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the “truth in securities” law, was created to protect investors from fraud and misrepresentation and restore public confidence in the stock market as a response to the stock market crash of 1929.

At the core of the act lie honesty and transparency, the essential ingredients to instill public trust in the stock market, or in anything for that matter.

This act has withstood the test of time — an “evergreen” law. Securities trading and the financial industry have become more digital and more technological, but the core principles of this act still apply and will continue to.

Based on the principles of responsible innovation, we could design a “Truth in Technology Act,” which would instill public trust in technology, internationally, now and in the future. Fundamentally, we seek these products and services to be safe, secure, ethical, privacy-preserving, accurate, easy to understand, auditable, transparent and accountable. These values are international across regions, industries and technologies, and since technology knows no boundaries, neither should regulations.

Innovation may create value, but it may also extract or destroy it. Regulation helps limit the latter two types of innovation, while well-designed regulation may enable the first kind to survive and flourish. A global collaboration may find ways to incentivize innovation that creates value for the good of the global economy and society.

It might be time for a Truth in Technology Act — an international, comprehensive, evergreen regulation for the good of the citizens of the world.

Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Politics

Mike Amesbury to quit as MP after punching man in street – triggering by-election

Published

3 hours ago

March 10, 2025

admin

Mike Amesbury to quit as MP after punching man in street - triggering by-election

Mike Amesbury has announced he will stand down as an MP after he was convicted of punching a man in the street.

A by-election will now be triggered in his seat of Runcorn and Helsby, where constituents will vote to elect a new MP.

Amesbury, who was suspended from the Labour Party, was jailed on 24 February for 10 weeks after he pleaded guilty in January to assault by beating of 45-year-old Paul Fellows in Main Street, Frodsham, Cheshire, in the early hours of 26 October.

However, following an appeal, his sentence was suspended for two years, so he does not have to serve it in prison.

Amesbury, 55, told the BBC on Monday he will begin the “statutory process” of closing up his office before resigning as an MP “as soon as possible”.

His resignation will trigger a by-election – the first of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government.

He said he regrets the attack “every moment, every day” and said he would have tried to remain as an MP if he had been given a lighter community sentence.

Parliamentary rules state any prison sentence, even suspended, given to an MP triggers a recall petition.

A by-election will then be called if 10% of constituents vote to remove him as their MP.

Amesbury has continued to take his £91,000 salary after he was sentenced, including when he spent three nights in prison before his appeal was successful.

He told the BBC he carried out casework while behind bars as his office manager forwarded on emails.

“Life doesn’t stop as an MP,” he said.

Labour suspended Mr Amesbury from the party shortly after the incident, so he has been sitting as an independent MP in the Commons.

The party said he would not be readmitted to Labour and had called for a by-election, saying Mr Amesbury’s constituents “deserved better” after his “completely unacceptable actions”.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Environment

Destroyed Cybertruck used in Vegas bombing is for sale, Musk said Tesla would rebuild it

Published

3 hours ago

March 10, 2025

admin

Destroyed Cybertruck used in Vegas bombing is for sale, Musk said Tesla would rebuild it

The Tesla Cybertruck used in the Las Vegas bombing appears to have landed in an auction for sale as salvaged, still destroyed. CEO Elon Musk said Tesla would put it back on the road.

Good luck with that.

In January, a Tesla Cybertruck exploded at the Trump Tower in Las Vegas.

The driver is believed to have shot himself in the head right before the vehicle exploded. Evidence proved that some firework mortars and gas canisters were inside the Cybertruck’s bed.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

After the explosion, Tesla CEO Elon Musk praised the Cybertruck for “containing” the explosion and reducing the damage.

He even went as far as claiming that the powertrain was still working and that Tesla would rebuild the Cybertruck and bring it back on the road:

“Once we get this Cybertruck back to Tesla, we’ll buff out the scratches and get it back on the road.”

When questioned about the seriousness of this statement, he affirmed, “No, I mean it.”

They clearly haven’t yet because the Cybertruck has now shown up as a salvaged vehicle for auction on IAA’s site:

It’s not clear if Tesla had an opportunity to get the truck until now, but they certainly could buy it now.

Electrek’s Take

Good luck rebuilding the truck. Maybe they can salvage the battery pack and motors in a new truck, but there’s no way or point to salvage the chassis.

Elon has already confirmed that Tesla engineers have looked at the car. I’m sure that they had the opportunity to get it from the insurance company.

I bet that Tesla doesn’t want the car, and it won’t be back on the road as Elon claimed. You can add it to the list of lies he told this year. Are we in the hundreds already? And we are only in March.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.