Supreme Court to hear arguments on Google and Twitter’s liability for terrorists’ online postings

 The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday in a pair of cases regarding the legal liability of technology platforms like Google and Twitter for content posted by adherents of terrorist groups like ISIS and the platforms’ role in allowing its circulation.

At issue in one case is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – a landmark law written in 1996 that helped shape the modern internet. Section 230 states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

In practice, this means that tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter are generally immune from liability for what’s posted on their platforms by users – although they’re required to remove content that’s prohibited by federal law such as material infringing on copyrights or violating sex trafficking laws.

Section 230 has been controversial in recent years, leading to calls for reform by Congress. Proponents of Section 230 argue it has helped spawn innovations like social media platforms by not holding them liable for content posted by users, while critics argue it goes too far in shielding those platforms when users post harmful content or the companies censor or suppress certain viewpoints.

With the pair of cases set to come before the court, justices will have an opportunity to review Section 230 and how federal counterterrorism laws apply to internet platforms. Here’s a look at the cases:

Gonzalez v. Google LLC

This case was brought against Google by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed at the age of 23 in the November 2015 ISIS terror attack in Paris.

The lawsuit claims that Google, which is the parent company of YouTube, helped ISIS’s recruitment efforts by allowing the terror group’s members to post videos on YouTube aimed at inciting violence and by the company recommending extremist videos to some of the platform’s viewers using its algorithms that consider viewers’ interests.

When the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of judges held that Section 230 protects platforms’ algorithmic recommendations. The judges said that while the language of Section 230 may be broader than Congress intended, it’s up to the legislative branch to clarify it, not the courts.

The plaintiffs argue that the Ninth Circuit erred in dismissing their case because YouTube provided notifications for recommended content and wasn’t simply acting as a provider in that process. Further, they claim that even if YouTube and Google were protected by Section 230 in this case, the recommendations still violated the Anti-Terrorism Act by helping ISIS recruit potential members.

Google and YouTube counter that while they condemn terrorism and have taken steps to increase their capacity to remove materials posted by terror groups, the lawsuit should be dismissed because Section 230 protects their actions as a publisher.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Gonzalez v. Google case on Tuesday, Feb. 21.

Twitter v. Taamneh

This case was brought by the American family of Nawras Alassaf, a citizen of Jordan who was killed in January 2017 in a terror attack by ISIS that targeted a club in Istanbul, Turkey.

Their claim doesn’t focus on Section 230 and was brought instead under the Anti-Terrorism Act, alleging that Twitter hosting terrorists’ content online constitutes "aiding and abetting" the terror group because the social media company provided a platform for the gunman recruited by ISIS.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the aiding and abetting claim from the family’s lawsuit but stopped short of saying that all content posted by terror groups on social media platforms is sufficient to advance an aiding and abetting claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Twitter argues that the appellate court was mistaken in its ruling and that the relevant Anti-Terrorism Act provisions would only hold the social media company liable if it had provided assistance for a specific act of terror or declined to block accounts it knew were plotting a specific terror attack.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Twitter v. Taamneh case on Wednesday, Feb. 22.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/supreme-court-hear-arguments-google-twitters-liability-terrorists-online-postings

Over half of physicians admit to changing perceptions of a drug due to social media

 Social media can have as powerful an influence on physicians as they do on the public, according to a new survey conducted by Sermo and LiveWorld.

Of the 50-plus pharma marketers and 200-plus U.S. physicians surveyed, more than half (57%) of doctors said they frequently or occasionally change their initial perception of a medication due to social media.

The results also revealed social media’s strong influence on prescribing habits, ongoing medical education and professional networking.

On top of that, a whopping 94% of the pharma marketers interviewed said social media is an important HCP channel. So much so that 90% of marketers have social media in the 2023 budget.

Furthermore, of those marketers with social media in the budget, 50% report their social media spend will be up from the previous year, and no one reported a decrease in this budget.

Ninety-two percent of the surveyed pharma marketers agreed with physicians in the vital role that social media play in influencing clinical and treatment decisions.

So where are physicians spending their time on social media? Doctors’ top choices included closed-communities Doximity and Sermo for clinical and professional purposes.

In fact, 41% of doctors reported changing their views on a medication based on content on Sermo and 33% based on content on Doximity. Physicians said they are more trusting and more likely to download information from closed-community groups as opposed to TikTok or Facebook.

However, doctors are using public social media platforms as well. A little more than half are on private group Facebook pages; 35% said they are getting congressional announcements and presentations from LinkedIn; and 62% reported using Twitter to follow hospital and professional updates.

Physicians are also following other doctors and HCP influencers on social platforms. The group follows influencers based on their credentials (27%), their knowledge of a topic (26%) and their relatable content (26%). Seeing the value in influencers, 56% of pharma markers said they would include digital influencers in their 2023 plans.

“Social media is a serious and necessary factor in HCP marketing and promotion. Social media is being widely adopted, budgeted and planned for in 2023. Marketers have faith in its reach, persuasiveness, peer-to-peer credibility and immediacy,” said LiveWorld vice president of HCP strategy and survey author, Danny Flamberg, in a press release.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/more-half-physicians-admit-changing-perceptions-drug-due-social-media

Food Stamps are about to spoil grocery stores’ outlook

 Enriched pandemic-era food stamps made a big mark on supermarket sales in the past three years. Those extra benefits are soon coming to an end, possibly spoiling supermarkets’ outlook for the year.

The federal government started beefing up households’ food budgets starting March 2020 to address food insecurity during the Covid-19 pandemic. Over the last three calendar years, that added up to about $98 billion of extra assistance—known as emergency allotments—on top of regular food stamps issued through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, according to HSA Consulting, a retail industry research firm. Those boosts made food stamps an important component of food sales. In 2022, SNAP benefits (including the emergency allotments) made up 12.3% of total at-home U.S. food and beverage retail sales, up from 7.1% in 2019, according to HSA Consulting.

Congress in late December put an end to that food-stamp boost, which will mean that SNAP-eligible households in 35 U.S. states and jurisdictions will lose at least $95 a month in benefits starting in March, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research and policy institute. Some states opted to stop receiving those allotments between last year and early this year.

New Jersey passed legislation in early February to make up for at least part of that SNAP cut through state funding, but the state is an exception, not the rule. In total, the CBPP expects households’ monthly SNAP benefits to decline by about $3 billion a month starting in March. An average three-person household receiving SNAP will see their monthly benefit go from $759 a month to $592 a month, for example, according to estimates from CBPP.

Food stamps account for more than 10% of overall dollar-store revenues and can account for more than 20% of supermarket sales in lower-income areas, according to Howard Jackson, president of HSA Consulting. Ending those extra payments could have a noticeable impact on the stores’ sales. In an August report, BMO Capital Markets estimated that supermarkets in eight states that ended SNAP emergency allotments underperformed those in the 38 states that were still on them in the fiscal second quarter ended August 2022.

One offset to the emergency allotment cliff is the cost of living adjustment on the regular SNAP benefit, which raised the size of the food stamps by 12.5% starting in October. But another cost of living adjustment—an 8.7% increase in social security benefits—means some households will either see a step-down in SNAP benefits or stop qualifying for the food-stamp program this year. Net-net, Goldman Sachs expects overall SNAP benefits to decline 7% this year compared with the last—a reversal after at least three consecutive years of growth. Many households will also get smaller tax refunds this tax season compared with last year: After receiving pandemic-era boosts, child tax credits, the earned-income tax credit and the child and dependent care credit returned to 2019 levels for 2022.

Of the companies that Goldman Sachs crunched numbers on, bargain retailer Grocery Outlet had the highest exposure to SNAP dollars, with food stamps accounting for roughly 15% of total sales in 2021. Others with high exposure include Walmart, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Kroger and BJ’s Wholesale Club, all of which saw almost 10% of revenue come from food stamps.

Ticker	Security	Last	Change	Change %
GO	GROCERY OUTLET HOLDING CORP.	29.64	-0.59	-1.95%
WMT	WALMART INC.	146.49	+2.23	+1.54%
DG	DOLLAR GENERAL CORP.	227.88	-0.86	-0.38%
FDO	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
KR	THE KROGER CO.	44.01	+0.17	+0.39%
BJ	BJS WHSL CLUB HLDGS INC	75.01	-0.38	-0.50%
Powered By

That doesn’t necessarily portend doom and gloom for discount supermarkets and dollar stores, some of which have started seeing more business from inflation-crunched, higher-income consumers who might have previously shopped at upscale grocers such as Whole Foods. Meanwhile, low-income consumers still look fairly healthy: Unemployment rates remain at a record low for those with educational attainment of less than a high school diploma at least as far back as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data goes (1992). Meanwhile, wage growth has been especially strong for low-income workers.

Still, the fading food-stamp benefit—paired with smaller tax refunds—could suddenly sensitize a large block of consumers to higher egg and cereal prices. Supermarkets’ food fight for market share could intensify this year. 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/food-stamps-about-spoil-grocery-stores-outlook

Cause for Concern: The Stripping Away of Patients' Rights

 On the 12th floor at the Municipal Court of Seattle, I watched the jury duty orientation videos along with 59 other Seattle residents. As the first video began, the narrator explained, "We the People is the foundation upon which we build all the freedoms and rights of our democratic society, including the right to a trial by an impartial jury of our peers." The right to a jury trial is a constitutional right provided by the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. However, patients are increasingly being expected to preemptively give up this right, and clinicians are ostensibly supposed to go along with this.

It's increasingly common for healthcare companies to have binding arbitration agreements, which stipulate that if a dispute arises, it will be settled by an arbitrator rather than a judge or jury. Since binding arbitration is a private process, it also means that companies can better protect their image and reputation by avoiding negative publicity.

In a Bloomberg Businessweek featureopens in a new tab or window, reporter Heather Perlberg shed light on this trend toward binding arbitration and how it's affecting patients. On the one hand, she explained, "The argument [in favor of] arbitration hinges on the rising costs imposed by malpractice lawsuits, which some policymakers and doctors say have made medicine more litigious and led to worse care." On the other hand, it's pretty apparent that binding arbitration has much more to do with protecting private equity than prioritizing patients' well-being.

Telehealth startups in particular seem to be structured in such a way that they have few qualms about compromising patients' well-being, and this has been especially notable in terms of patient privacy (or lack thereof). An investigationopens in a new tab or window by The Markup and STAT found that dozens of direct-to-consumer telehealth companies "were leaking sensitive medical information they collect to the world's largest advertising platforms."

In addition, how many of these companies had also put structures in place to infringe upon patients' right to a jury trial in the case of a malpractice claim?

In the Terms of Service, 46 of the 50 companies (92%) required that disputes be resolved via arbitration. Binding arbitration agreements may not be enforceable under state law, but this is almost beside the point. They're generally included, in large part, to dissuade people from pursing legal claims. When patients sign a binding arbitration agreement or realize in retrospect that they implicitly agreed to these terms, they understandably assume it is enforceable and that they've already given up their rights.

As clinicians, part of our role is to advocate for and protect our patients, and this includes standing up for the protection of patients' constitutional rights. Telehealth companies claim to be committed to transforming healthcare, yet as these new systems are put in place, there's a distinct reverberating echo of a truth that's all too familiar. As the saying goes, "The system isn't broken. It was built this way."

Shannon Casey, PA-C, is a physician assistant and former assistant teaching professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Washington. She writes at The Medical Atlasopens in a new tab or window.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/103160

Statin No Help for Easing Treatment-Resistant Depression

 Adding the statin simvastatin into the mix was no help for patients with treatment-resistant depression, according to a randomized clinical trial.

Compared with placebo, patients who added 20 mg/day of simvastatin on top of standard of care didn't see a significant difference in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score after 12 weeks, missing the trial's primary endpoint (estimated mean difference -0.61, 95% CI -3.69 to 2.46, P=0.70), M. Ishrat Husain, MBBS, MD, of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, and colleagues found.

At week 12 of treatment, simvastatin patients had a mean 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HamD-24) score of 15.5, while placebo patients had an average score of 17.2, the group reported in JAMA Network Open

opens in a new tab or window.

There also wasn't a significant between-group difference seen in regards to 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) score and 4-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale score at the end of the trial.

Overall treatment effects weren't moderated by baseline, body mass index, MADRS score, C-reactive protein level, nor lipid levels except for LDL cholesterol, the researchers noted. Interestingly, those with higher baseline LDL cholesterol did see a significantly lower MADRS score by week 12 in the placebo group but not the simvastatin group (b -4.82, 95% CI -7.77 to -1.87, P=0.001).

"[I]n the short-term treatment of [treatment-resistant depression], adjunctive simvastatin provided no therapeutic benefit compared with placebo added to standard care," Husain and co-authors wrote. Some lipid-lowering agents have previously suggested a benefit in treating depression, likely due to their "anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and glutamatergic effects that are neuroprotective," the team added.

Husain's group referenced a 2021 meta-analysis

opens in a new tab or window that included four small randomized trials of adjunctive statins for depression, one of which tested simvastatin, that linked them with a medium antidepressant effect size. None of these, however, were tested in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

For the current trial, the researchers explained that they selected simvastatinopens in a new tab or window -- which was first approved by the FDA in 1991 -- as their statin of choice because it's the most lipophilic and would therefore have the greatest chance to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The Pakistan-based trial was conducted across several outpatient psychiatric clinics in five urban centers. The 150 participants recruited (77 randomized to simvastatin and 73 to placebo) were between the ages of 18 and 75 and had a DSM-5 confirmed major depressive disorder diagnosis and were currently in a major depressive episode. In addition, at least two antidepressants taken for at least 6 weeks had to have failed, and participants had to have a HamD-24 score of 14 or higher.

Median baseline MADRS, HamD-24, and GAD-7 scores were 28, 31, and 14, respectively. Most participants were taking two psychotropic medications at baseline and had been in their current depressive episode for 5 months.

All were instructed to continue their stable antidepressant dose and not initiate a new one or take up a new psychosocial intervention, but those who were already engaged could continue to do so.

"Further research is needed to identify immune-metabolic phenotypes of depression that may be more responsive to, or preventable with, targeted statins or other immunomodulatory treatments," the researchers concluded.

Disclosures

The study was funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, and in part by Academic Scholars Awards from the University of Toronto.

Husain reported relationships with Compass Pathways, Mindset, Psyched Therapeutics, and Wake Network, and noted that he previously served as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning; other co-authors also reported disclosures.

Primary Source

JAMA Network Open

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowHusain MI, et al "Effect of adjunctive simvastatin on depressive symptoms among adults with treatment-resistant depression" JAMA Netw Open 2023; DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0147.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/depression/103178

Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over US Pandemic Policies

 The Biden administration is readying to sign a "legally binding" agreement with the World Health Organization that would permit it the authority to dictate U.S. policies during a pandemic, The Epoch Times has reported.

The "zero draft" of a pandemic treaty was published earlier this month and the final terms are scheduled to be worked out next week so that all members can then sign.

This came on the heels of a meeting in September, where a joint announcement put out by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared that a platform has been developed "to maximize the longstanding U.S. government-WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people."

Despite widespread criticism of the organization for its actions during the coronavirus pandemic, the zero draft grants the organization the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency.

If a health emergency is declared, all signatories would have to submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations, according to The Epoch Times report over the weekend.

David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer specializing in epidemic policy, warned The Epoch Times that "they want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations.

"They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare."

The WHO pandemic treaty is part of a two-track attempt, coinciding with an initiative by the World Health Assembly, the rule-making body of the WHO, to create new global pandemic regulations that would also supersede the laws of member states.

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University, told The Epoch Times that "both [initiatives] are fatally dangerous. Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros.

"If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians."

A key question is whether the Biden administration can bind the U.S. to treaties and agreements without the consent of the Senate, which is required under the Constitution.

The zero draft states that, per international law, treaties between countries must be ratified by national legislatures, but the draft also includes a clause that the deal will go into effect on a "provisional" basis, as soon as it is signed by delegates to the WHO, and therefore it will be legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures.

Republican lawmakers are attempting to revive the attempt to take the U.S. out of the WHO, which former President Donald Trump did, but President Joe Biden reversed upon entering the White House.

Last month, GOP House members introduced the "No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act."

Texas Rep. Chip Roy, lead sponsor of the bill, stated that "the WHO … praised China for their 'leadership' at the beginning of COVID-19 and has done nothing to hold the CCP accountable for the spread of COVID-19."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/who-pandemic-biden/2023/02/20/id/1109356/

US says UN Security Council silence on North Korea is dangerous

The United States proposed on Monday that the U.N. Security Council condemn North Korea's ballistic missile launches and encourage Pyongyang to engage in diplomacy, warning that the 15-member body's failure to respond had become dangerous.

China and Russia oppose any further action by the Security Council, arguing that putting further pressure on North Korea would not be constructive. The pair vetoed a U.S.-led push to impose more U.N. sanctions on North Korea in May last year.

"The reality is that those who shield the DPRK (North Korea) from the consequences of its escalatory missile tests put the Asian region and entire world at risk of conflict," said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

"The council's lack of action is worse than shameful. It is dangerous," she told the Security Council, proposing that it adopt a formal presidential statement - one step below a resolution - to condemn North Korea's action and urge diplomacy.

Such statements have to be agreed by consensus. The last time the council took action on North Korea was when it adopted a resolution to strengthen sanctions in December 2017 over Pyongyang's ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programmes.

China's Deputy U.N. Ambassador Dai Bing said repeated council meetings and calls for more sanctions on North Korea "neither embodies the constructive role of easing the situation, nor brings new ideas conducive for solving the problem."

"Exclusively pursuing and piling on sanctions will only lead to a dead end," Dai told the council. "China genuinely hopes for stability rather than chaos on the peninsula ... China calls on all parties to remain cool-headed and restrained."

The Security Council met on Monday after North Korea launched two more ballistic missiles, with the powerful sister of leader Kim Jong Un saying Pyongyang's use of the Pacific as a "firing range" would depend on the behavior of U.S. forces.

The launches on Monday came just days after North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) into the sea off Japan, prompting the United States to hold joint air exercises with South Korea and separately with Japan on Sunday.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/currency/US-DOLLAR-RUSSIAN-ROUBL-2370597/news/US-says-UN-Security-Council-silence-on-North-Korea-is-dangerous-43036282/