Teenage Girl Kidnapped, Gang-raped and Live-Streamed On Facebook Live

A 15-year-old Chicago girl appeared to be the victim of a horrifying gang rape -- by a group who streamed the attack on Facebook Live.

None of the roughly 40 people who watched the video called police about the attack, investigators said. It’s the second time in months that Chicago police have investigated an apparent attack streamed live on Facebook.

Police finally learned of the attack after the girl’s mother approached Superintendent Eddie Johnson late Monday afternoon and showed him screenshots of the alleged assault, spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. Johnson was leaving a news conference in the Lawndale neighborhood on the city’s West Side.

“Here’s what’s even more disturbing, more than the fact that they did this, there were so many people that saw it and didn’t pick up the phone to dial 911,” Johnson told WGN-TV. “That’s not right. It’s just not right.”

Johnson, who reportedly was “visibly upset” after he watched the video, immediately ordered an investigation and the department asked Facebook to take the video down.

The girl was reported missing after she didn’t return to her Lawndale home after going to the store on Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported. Then, the girl’s uncle reportedly came across a Facebook Live video showing a group of boys assaulting the 15-year-old.

The girl was found Tuesday morning walking four blocks from her home. Police said she appeared to be in “good condition” and was returned to her mother, the Tribune reported.

In January, four people were arrested after cellphone footage streamed live on Facebook showed them allegedly taunting and beating a mentally disabled man.

The suspects in that case -- Jordan Hill, 18, Tesfaye Cooper, 18, Brittany Covington, 18, and Tanishia Covington, 24 – were charged with hate crime and battery for allegedly torturing the white man for as long as 48 hours, while shouting racial and anti-Donald Trump slurs.

Facebook, Google and Twitter Drag To Court By Families of Orlando Nightclub Shooting Victims

Families of the victims of the Orlando gay nightclub shooting on Monday filed a federal civil suit against Twitter, Facebook and Google for allegedly providing “material support” to the Islamic State and helping to radicalize shooter Omar Mateen.

In a complaint filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, the families of Tevin Crosby, Javier Jorge-Reyes and Juan Ramon Guerrero argue that the three web platforms "provided the terrorist group ISIS with accounts they use to spread extremist propaganda, raise funds, and attract new recruits."

"Without Defendants Twitter, Facebook, and Google (YouTube), the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible," the lawsuit states. 

Mateen, a 29-year-old security guard who pledged allegiance to ISIS, opened fire inside Orlando’s Pulse nightclub back in June; killing 49 people and wounding 53 others before being killed by a SWAT team to end the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

"Life has not been easy for me or my whole family," Juan Guerrero, the father of one of the victims, said. "It is something I remember and have to live with every day."

ISIS quickly claimed responsibility for the attack via its Amaq news agency, although further investigation found that Mateen was not a member of the terror group but had been inspired by them in part through what he saw on the Internet.

“Mateen was radicalized by ISIS using the defendants tools for that express purpose,” Keith Altman, the lawyer representing the three families, said.

ISIS maintains an active presence on both Facebook and Twitter and also relies heavily on the Google-owned YouTube to post propaganda messages and videos of executions.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the interpretation of a provision tucked deep inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 called Section 230.

The language of Section 230 states that “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 layman’s terms, this basically means that sites like Facebook or YouTube are not liable for what their users post on their sites.

“Section 230 is a free pass to online service providers as long as they act only as a pass-through,” Mark Bartholomew, a professor at the University Of Buffalo School Of Law, said. “If you set up a place for people to talk, but don't communicate on it yourself, then you are basically immune from prosecution.”

Section 230 of the CDA has protected social media sites in the past, but some lawyers and academics have begun to argue sites like Facebook may be violating the provision with their heavily-guarded algorithms. Despite these algorithms having come under fire before – from how Facebook curated its Trending Topics to accusations that YouTube was censoring people – this lawsuit alleges something much more nefarious behind one of the tech world’s most secretive processes.

“The defendants create unique content by matching ISIS postings with advertisements based upon information known about the viewer,” Altman said.  “Furthermore, the defendants finance ISIS’s activities by sharing advertising revenue.”

Representatives from Facebook, Twitter and Google did not immediately reply to IPRESSTV’s request for comment.

While these social platforms have cracked down and deactivated accounts affiliated with terrorist groups in the past, Altman argued that another account will almost immediately pop up and that companies think they’re not responsible because they are not ones producing the content.

"I wish we could get some regulations put in place," Guerrero said. "They have to do something to prevent these people from doing things like this."

Experts on Internet law say that while in the past courts have been reluctant to hold these platforms responsible for content posted on their sites, if the suit filed by the Pulse victims’ families is successful, it could drastically reshape the world of social media.

“It would be a big change because it would be the first crack at making these companies liable for what shows up on our feeds,” Bartholomew said. “It’ll be interesting to see how big that crack is, because right now it’s a door without many cracks.” 

Felix Kjellberg Also known as PewDiePie On YouTube Accuses Google Of Trying To Kill His YouTube Channel

Felix Kjellberg, known on YouTube as PewDiePie, said he would delete his popular channel in a 10-minute rant against the video service posted on Friday.

Kjellberg, whose channel draws nearly 50 million subscribers, is known on YouTube for his comedic video game commentary and has the service’s most popular channel. He took issue with many of YouTube’s product and content changes, which he said has caused his videos to perform poorly.

“YouTube is trying to kill my channel,” he said in a video vowing to delete it once he hit the 50 million mark. “It’s clear if you watch my analytics. It’s all going down there.”

Putting on a conspiracy theorist persona, Kjellberg said YouTube was suppressing his videos because he’s white, and suggested the company wants Indian-Canadian Lilly Singh, who also has a popular channel, to lead the brand.

“They want someone else on top,” he said. “Someone really extremely cancerous, like Lilly Singh. I’m white. Can I make that comment? But I do think that’s a problem.”

In a since-deleted tweet, Kjellberg said the comment about his whiteness was sarcastic.

It’s unclear whether Kjellberg will follow through on his threat. On Monday, he tweeted that YouTube had responded to his complaints.

 Follow

pewdiepie @pewdiepie

YouTube has responded and are digging into the issues.

12:18 PM - 5 Dec 2016

 
•  3,9513,951 Retweets
 
•  38,78238,782 likes

“YouTube has responded and are digging into the issues,” he wrote.

Donald Trump is Avoiding Conflict of Interest By Selling All His Stocks Including Apple and Google

Amid concerns that the president-elect’s holdings are a conflict of interest.

Donald Trump has ditched his stakes in Apple, Google, J.P. Morgan Chase, Nike, and Microsoft, a spokesperson for the president-elect said Tuesday.

The investment moves, which included selling shares of not only those companies, but all of his public traded shares, appear to be part of the president-elect’s effort to remove some of the many conflicts of interest Trump will have to tackle as president.

Trump transition spokesperson Jason Miller told reporters that the real estate mogul made the stock sales in June. The disclosure came on a call with reporters after one asked about Trump’s stake in Boeing—a company that Trump criticized on Twitter Tuesday.

Critics have argued that Trump’s stock holdings could be a conflict of interest for the president-elect after he steps in to the White House on Jan. 20. The president-elect held an interest in several financial institutions including Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan, as well as energy companies such as Halliburton and ExxonMobil. Those holdings have worried onlookers, who say that it could skew the president-elect’s stance of Wall Street regulation and climate change. Trump had already gotten criticism for owning a stake in Energy Transfer Partners, the company trying to develop the Dakota Access Pipeline.

It’s unclear when exactly Trump sold out of those holdings, though the S&P 500 was up roughly 2% at the beginning of June, before falling following the U.K.’s vote to leave the European Union on June 24.

Granted, Trump had a relatively small fraction of his overall wealth in the stock market, according to May filings with the Federal Election Commission. Roughly $40 million of his estimated $4 billion net worth was invested in the stock market, many of which were large-cap, value stocks, which generally do better than others when the market drops. But it also means that he hasn’t benefitted from the so-called Trump Bump. The stock market is up over 3% since Trump was elected president.

The bulk of Trump’s wealth is still tied up in his real estate development company, which will continue to create conflicts for the president-elect, and be an issue for critics.

Here were Trump’s 14 biggest stock holdings, according to the May filing, including shares of companies that Trump criticized on the campaign trail. (Campaign finance disclosure laws only require candidates give a range of value for their investments.)

14. Alphabet: $100,000 to $200,000

13. Caterpillar: $100,000 to $200,000

12. Phillips 66: $100,000 to $200,000

11. Celgene: $100,000 to $250,000

10. Gilead Sciences: $100,000 to $250,000

9. Visa: $100,000 to $251,000

8. General Electric: $100,000 to $250,000

7. Johnson and Johnson: $100,000 to $250,000

6. Nike: $100,000 to $250,000

5. McKesson: $100,000 to $250,000

4. J.P. Morgan Chase: $100,000 to $251,000

3. PepsiCo: $150,000 to $350,000

2. Microsoft: $300,000 to $600,000

1. Apple: $600,000 to $1.251 million

Trump is also expected to discuss his business holdings, as well as plans for the Trump Organization, at a Dec. 15 news conference. Trump has said he plans to turn over operations of his company to his adult children, though he has not given details on that transition.