The White House on Monday dismissed a request by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro for talks with counterpart Donald Trump to de-escalate tensions between the two arch-foes.The brush-off came as two Venezuelan opposition leaders backed a US naval build-up near the South American country, calling it critical for the restoration of democracy.Trump has dispatched eight warships and a submarine to the southern Caribbean in an anti-drug operation Venezuela fears could be the preamble to an invasion.US forces have destroyed at least three suspected Venezuelan drug boats in recent weeks, killing over a dozen people.On Sunday, the Venezuelan government released a letter that leftist Maduro had sent to Trump.In the missive, Maduro — whose July 2024 reelection was rejected as fraudulent by Venezuela’s opposition and much of the international community — rejected as “absolutely false” US allegations that he leads a drug cartel and urged Trump to “keep the peace.”Reacting on Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Maduro’s letter contained “a lot of lies.”She added the Trump administration’s position on Venezuela “has not changed” and it viewed the regime as “illegitimate.”The US deployment is the biggest in the Caribbean in years.Maduro has accused Trump — who during his first term tried unsuccessfully to expedite the Venezuelan president’s ouster — of trying to affect regime change.It was “a first letter, I will certainly send them more,” Maduro said Monday night during his weekly television program, during which he said his goal was “to defend the truth of Venezuela.” “If they close a door, you open a window, and if they close a window, you open a door with the truth of your country, lighting up the world, illuminating the White House with the light of the truth of Venezuela,” he added.Maduro’s defense minister, Vladimir Padrino Lopez, last week accused the United States of waging “an undeclared war” in the Caribbean, underlining that occupants of alleged drug boats were “executed without the right to a defense.”Thousands of Venezuelans have joined a civilian militia in response to Maduro’s call for bolstering the cash-strapped country’s defenses.Some Venezuelans have welcomed the US actions, however, hoping they hasten Maduro’s downfall.- ‘Real and growing threat’ -Exiled presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, who the United States views as Venezuela’s democratically-elected leader, said the military deployment was “a necessary measure to dismantle the criminal structure” he said Maduro leads.Opposition figurehead Maria Corina Machado agreed, and said Venezuelan crime gangs were “a real and growing threat to the security and stability” of the Americas.Maduro’s claim to election victory last year sparked violent protests that were harshly repressed, leaving more than two dozen dead and hundreds behind bars.The opposition said its own tally of results showed Gonzalez Urrutia, who stood in after the regime barred Machado from running, had defeated Maduro hands down.Threatened with arrest, Gonzalez Urrutia fled to Spain. Machado remains in Venezuela, in hiding.Another opposition figure, Henrique Capriles, last week came out against any US invasion.”I continue to believe that the solution is not military, but political,” the two-time presidential candidate said, adding Trump’s actions were counterproductive and “entrenching those in power.”burs-ba/jgc/sla

“Disinformation” is fast becoming a dirty word in the United States — a label so contentious in a hyperpolarized political climate that some researchers who study the harmful effects of falsehoods are abandoning it altogether.In an era of online deception and information manipulation, the study of disinformation seems more critical than ever, but researchers are battling federal funding cuts, a surge of abuse, and even death threats — fueled in part by accusations from conservative advocates of a liberal bias.Some researchers are now opting for more neutral language — words, and at times, technical jargon that are less likely to inflame or derail vital public discourse about falsehoods flooding the internet.Earlier this year, the watchdog NewsGuard announced it was retiring the labels “misinformation” and “disinformation” -– terms it said were “politicized beyond recognition and turned into partisan weapons by actors on the right and the left, and among anti-democratic foreign actors.”It renamed its so-called “Misinformation Fingerprints” database to “False Claim Fingerprints,” opting for language that it said was “more precise” and “harder to hijack.””A simple phrase like ‘false claim’ is more powerful and precise than ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,'” said NewsGuard’s McKenzie Sadeghi.”It names the problem plainly and directs attention to the content itself — without triggering partisan reflexes or rhetorical spin.”- ‘Fractured information ecosystem’ -Terms such as “fake news”, “misinformation” and “disinformation” pre-date the internet age, but they have never been more heavily weaponized by governments and vested interests to silence critics and thwart legitimate debate.Peter Cunliffe-Jones, author of the book “Fake News — What’s the harm,” has advocated for using more specific alternatives ranging from false or unproven to mislabelled or fabricated.Such labels “do not simply declare information false but explain the way in which information is untrue or misleading,” he said.”That way, we hopefully create less room for cynical disputes and more for better understanding.”Authoritarian states including Russia routinely dismiss credible Western media reports as disinformation.Some governments have even co-opted fact-checking itself — launching state-sponsored “fact checks” to legitimize their own propaganda and spin.”In today’s fractured information ecosystem, one person’s ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ is another’s truth,” said Sadeghi.”And in that ambiguity, bad actors win.”- ‘Provocative, dangerous’ -The debate comes as major tech platforms pull back key anti-misinformation guardrails — including scaling down content moderation and reducing their reliance on human fact-checkers, who reject accusations of liberal bias.However, Emerson Brooking, from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), said the problem with abandoning the term disinformation was the lack of a clear replacement to describe the intention to deceive.”This idea of intentionality is very important,” he told AFP.”If we see thousands of fake accounts posting a false claim in unison, we can reasonably describe it as a disinformation campaign.”The label, however, has become so heavily politicized that officials in US President Donald Trump’s administration have equated disinformation research with censorship.Following Trump’s executive order on “ending federal censorship,” the National Science Foundation recently cancelled hundreds of grants, including projects that supported disinformation research.In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio shut down the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) hub — formerly known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC) — which was responsible for tracking and countering disinformation from foreign actors.Rubio justified its closure, saying that it was the government’s responsibility to “preserve and protect the freedom for Americans to exercise their free speech.””It’s true that the term (disinformation) has been politicized, and that using it can feel provocative — even dangerous,” Brooking said.”But so long as it has descriptive value, it should still be used. My organization fights authoritarian information manipulation around the world — if we start censoring our own language, we aren’t doing a good job.”

Jury selection began Monday in a US government lawsuit accusing e-commerce giant Amazon of using tricks to enroll millions of customers into its Prime subscription service and then making it nearly impossible to cancel.Opening remarks by rival attorneys were slated for Tuesday, with witness testimony to follow.The Federal Trade Commission’s complaint, filed in June 2023, alleges that Amazon knowingly used designs known as “dark patterns” to trick consumers into signing up for the $139-per-year Prime service during checkouts.The case centers on two main allegations: that Amazon enrolled customers without clear consent through confusing checkout processes, and that it created a deliberately complex cancellation system internally nicknamed “Iliad” — after Homer’s epic about the long, arduous Trojan War.US District Court Judge John Chun last week ruled that Amazon violated an online shopper protection law by collecting Prime subscriber billing information before disclosing terms of the service, according to excerpts of the ruling shared on X, formerly Twitter.The summary judgement by Chun puts Amazon at a disadvantage for the trial before Chun in his Seattle courtroom.Chun is also presiding over a separate FTC case that accuses Amazon of running an illegal monopoly, with that case due to go to trial in 2027.- A ‘labyrinthine’ process -The cases are part of a volley of lawsuits launched in recent years in a bipartisan effort to rein in the power of the US tech giants after years of government complacency.According to court documents, Amazon was aware of widespread “nonconsensual enrollment” in Prime, but resisted changes that would reduce these unwanted sign-ups because they negatively affected the company’s revenue.The FTC alleges that Amazon’s checkout process forced customers to navigate confusing interfaces where declining Prime membership required finding small, inconspicuous links — while signing up for the service used prominent buttons. Crucial information about Prime’s price and automatic renewal was often hidden or disclosed in fine print, the FTC also alleges.”For years, Amazon has knowingly duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in its Amazon Prime service,” the original complaint states.The service has become central to Amazon’s business model, with Prime subscribers spending significantly more on the platform than non-members.The lawsuit also targets Amazon’s cancellation process, which required customers to navigate what the FTC describes as a “labyrinthine” four-page, six-click, fifteen-option process to cancel their membership.The FTC is seeking penalties, monetary relief, and permanent injunctions requiring the company to change its practices.The case in part relies on ROSCA, legislation that came into force in 2010 that specifically prohibits charging consumers for internet services without clear disclosure of terms, obtaining express consent, and providing simple cancellation mechanisms.The FTC alleges Amazon violated these requirements by failing to clearly disclose Prime’s terms before collecting billing information and by not obtaining genuine informed consent before charging customers.Amazon’s defense strategy will focus heavily on arguing that ROSCA and other regulations don’t specifically prohibit the practices in question and that the FTC is stretching the law.The company has also argued that it made improvements to its Prime enrollment and cancellation processes and that the allegations are out of date.The jury trial is expected to last about four weeks and will largely rely on internal Amazon communications and documents as well as Amazon executives and expert witnesses.If the FTC prevails, Amazon could face substantial financial penalties and be required to overhaul its subscription practices under court supervision.

Jimmy Kimmel’s late night talk show, which was abruptly pulled from the air last week after the US government threatened broadcasters, will be back on Tuesday, Disney announced Monday.The sudden suspension by ABC, which is owned by Disney, came after conservative complaints about comments Kimmel had made in the wake of the shooting of Christian activist Charlie Kirk.”Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country,” said a company statement.”It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.  “We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”Kimmel’s abrupt disappearance from the airwaves, apparently after government pressure on broadcasters who distribute ABC, sparked fury in liberal America, with opponents saying Kimmel had been targeted because he is a frequent critic of President Donald Trump.Trump had celebrated Kimmel’s removal, calling it “Great News for America.”Opponents saw it as the latest step in creeping government control of free speech, which is an article of faith for many Americans as well as a right enshrined in the country’s constitution.Some on the political right were also uneasy, including people who regularly count themselves as Trump allies, like Ted Cruz, the conservative senator from Texas, and firebrand broadcaster Tucker Carlson.Trump has repeatedly complained about negative media coverage of him, and last week said he thought it was “illegal.”- FCC threat -The Kimmel episode unfolded a week after Kirk, a close Trump ally, was shot dead on a Utah university campus, setting off a bitter battle over responsibility in deeply polarized America, with conservatives — including Trump — blaming “the radical left.”Authorities have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson and have not indicated they are looking for anyone else.In his show-opening monologue last Monday, Kimmel said “the MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid… as anything other than one of them.”He then showed footage of Trump pivoting from a question about how he had been affected by Kirk’s death to boasting about the new ballroom he is building at the White House, prompting laughter from the studio audience.”This is not how an adult grieves the murder of somebody called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” Kimmel said.Two days later, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr threatened the licenses of ABC affiliates that broadcast Kimmel’s show.”I think it’s past time these (affiliates) themselves push back… and say, ‘Listen, we’re not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out, because we’re running the possibility of license revocation from the FCC,'” he told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson.Nexstar — one of the country’s biggest owners of ABC affiliate stations, which is in the middle of a multi-billion-dollar merger requiring FCC approval — then announced it would be removing the show from its stations.Sinclair, another media group that also yanked the show, said Monday it would not return it to the airwaves, despite Disney’s announcement.”Sinclair will be preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live! across our ABC affiliate stations and replacing it with news programming,” the company said on social media, using an industry term for removing a show.”Discussions with ABC are ongoing as we evaluate the show’s potential return.”- Hollywood stars -Before Disney’s about-face was announced on Monday, a constellation of Hollywood stars signed an open letter calling the decision to pull the show “a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation (that is) unconstitutional and un-American.””The government is threatening private companies and individuals that the President disagrees with. We can’t let this threat to our freedom of speech go unanswered,” said the letter by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).Signatories to the letter included Marvel star Pedro Pascal, Tom Hanks, Jennifer Aniston, Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro.After Monday’s announcement the ACLU welcomed the news, saying: “ABC made the right call.”