Mediaboss Marketing

This is a version of an article published in the Out of Frame Weekly, an email newsletter about the intersection of art, culture, and ideas. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Friday.

In this newsletter, we often talk about how social media companies decide what content is and isnt allowed solely based on the subjective opinions of people who run the platforms. And this week gifted us two glorious examples.

The Intercept reported that Facebook will allow users to praise the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian White nationalist paramilitary group, in contradiction to the social network's policy banning support for "dangerous individuals and organizations." According to the United Nations, the Azov Battalion raped and tortured civilians in 2014.

Facebook said it made the change to "allow Facebook users to obtain information about the forces' military activity" and "ensure that news coverage of the conflict can continue to be shared on the platform," according to Insider. It is unclear why this change was necessary to allow that, but that may speak to bigger problems in how Facebook's rules conflict with users' ability to freely share information.

Facebook also made an exception to its hate speech policy to allow statements like "death to the Russian invaders" and calling for violence against Russian president Vladimir Putin and his ally, Belarussian president Aleksandr Lukashenko.

The change only applies in several countries in the Caucasus and Central and Eastern Europe, including Russia, where Facebook is currently banned.

People should rightfully condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But these actions by Facebook, along with decisions to ban propaganda from only one side in the war, demonstrate that decisions that should be made on some kind of objective principle are instead being made on the basis of team sport. Policies are chosen on the basis of trying to help "the good guys" and harm "the bad guys." What is the objective reason that people should be allowed to call for the death of Putin and Lukashenko but not any of the world's dozens of other dictators?

This shows that while banning "false information" or "hate speech" sounds good in theory, in practice it is not so simple, and the execution is prone to political bias.

Read more:
The Most Blatantly Biased Social Media Censorship Decisions of the Week | Matt Hampton - Foundation for Economic Education

An unknown person on Top Channels show Top Storys Facebook page on Thursday sent shockwaves across Albania after claiming that the TV channels bosses had cancelled the airing of an important documentary entitled The Oligarchs of the Urban Renaissance.

This #Investigation sheds light on abuses and corruption in town centre reconstructions carried over the last eight years, the anonymous statement read.

Top Story staff have been under pressure from the directors, starting from the way in which themes were dealt with to the firing of the shows director, it adds.

Shortly after, Top Channel issued a statement naming former director Endrit Habilaj as the author of the Facebook post, and accusing him of blackmail. The channel called the statement defamatory and said Habilaj had been fired for breach of ethics.

Our legal team is preparing the documents and will forward them to the authorities to ascertain the legal responsibilities and damages that the individuals caused the company by using the profession and the show as a tool for extortion and threats, also misusing foreign donations, the statement read.

It claimed that the doc was axed for breach of ethics.

When the board analyzed the materials and observed serious ethical and professional breaches, it decided to not air this extortion, done in the name of two individuals who once worked for Top Channel but not in the interests of the truth, the statement added.

Habilaj, who anchored the show for four years, responded by accusing the CEO and owner of Top Channel, Vjollca Hoxha, of a list of extortion campaigns against other businessmen and state officials.

He did not deny, nor did he confirm authoring the statement on the shows Facebook page but dismissed claims that the canceled show was an act of blackmail.

Oligarchs of the Urban Resonance was not produced by me but by Esmeralda Keta, the winner of two EU Awards [on Investigative Journalism], Habilaj said.

This show was produced through an EU-funded project, he added, listing several alleged acts of blackmail carried out by channel owner Hoxha.

Habilaj is also an entrepreneur who owns two companies whose stated activities are media production, marketing and media buying.

A number of businessmen in Albania have been targeted as oligarchs in reference to their alleged sway over the government of Prime Minister Edi Rama.

Rama has claimed these oligarchs do not exist and has accused the media of using its own influence on public opinion to extort money from businesses.

Go here to see the original:
Censorship and Blackmail Accusations Rock Albania's Top TV Station - Balkan Insight

OPINION:

The last few weeks have not been good for the corporate media or anyone who values the principle of free speech on social media. From Hunter Bidens laptop to the bogus Russian dossier, to COVID-19 vaccines and transgender issues, glaring errors of journalism and stringent thought control have been proven, once again, to always flow in one direction.

The Washington Post became the latest media outlet to belatedly confirm the authenticity of Hunters laptop, nearly a year and a half after his emails and texts surfaced late in the 2020 presidential election. These materials had been derided by most media as Russian disinformation for 17 months.

The Post story followed The New York Times, which two weeks earlier inserted its own confirmation of the laptop into the 24th paragraph of a report about the ongoing federal investigation into Hunters lucrative, habitual selling of access to his powerful father, now-President Joe Biden.

But still unexamined by the media are the emails that link Mr. Biden to Hunters international business schemes.

Even so, the burst of reporting birthed a segment on CNN, previously unthinkable there, in which senior legal analyst Elie Honig intoned that the case building against Hunter represents a very real, very substantial investigation of potentially serious federal crimes, creating a realistic chance this could result in federal charges.

In the wake of this grudging journalism came news from the Federal Election Commission that Hillary Clintons 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee were fined a total of $113,000 for improperly disclosing how they paid for the infamous Steele Dossier. The fabricated opposition research document was central to the now-discredited Russian collusion hoax that most media and Democrats in Congress used to undermine the first two years of former President Donald Trumps administration.

Silicon Valley also got in on the action, and as a consultant to GETTR, a new free speech platform, I pay close attention to what happens on social media.

Twitter reminded us that it still wields unchecked power to stifle free speech by suspending journalist John Solomons account for linking to his own story about a peer-reviewed COVID-19 vaccine study.

Mr. Solomon reported on research from Swedens Lund University, which has worked closely with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization, examining how the Pfizer vaccine interacts with liver cells.

Despite the studys appearance in Current Issues in Molecular Biology, a respected medical journal, Twitter ruled that Mr. Solomon had violated its policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.

Apparently, Twitter is now staffed by expert molecular scientists who feel empowered to invalidate complex medical research.

To this point, defenders of the social media oligarchs have claimed that they run private companies, and so can enforce whatever rules they want. But what about when the government is the entity which instigates the censorship?

White House press secretary Jen Psaki has already admitted that the Biden administration flags selected social media posts and certain accounts for Facebook, identifying them as spreaders of COVID-19 misinformation. Its unknown if Mr. Solomons tweet was singled out by the White House, but at the very least, the executive branchs engagement in censorial activity emboldens tech companies and is precisely the sort of overreach the First Amendment is intended to prohibit.

And Twitter has been on a suspension rampage of late, targeting conservative accounts over the alleged misgendering of transgender people.

The satirical website Babylon Bee, commentator Charlie Kirk and Fox News host Tucker Carlson were all locked out of their Twitter accounts for various offenses involving tweets about Rachel Levine, an official in the Biden administration who is transgender.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a congresswoman from Missouri who is running for the U.S. Senate in that state, was suspended for tweeting her television ad about University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, a biological male who has been dominating womens collegiate swimming.

At the end of this troubling period of overdue reporting and crackdowns on free expression all of which displayed bias against conservatives there was at least the chance for reporters to ask the White House about the revelations contained in the presidents sons computer.

Biden communications director Kate Bedingfield handled the White House press briefing on Tuesday and Wednesday this week, which was good timing since she had dismissed the laptop as Russian misinformation during the closing days of the 2020 presidential race.

Only, not a single reporter asked her about it.

But why would they? Most of them agreed with her back then and dont want to admit their error now.

But is a tiny bit of objectivity really too much to ask?

Tim Murtaugh is a Washington Times columnist and the founder and principal of Line Drive Public Affairs, a communication consulting firm.

Read more here:
Media and Big Tech censorship is alive and well - Washington Times

Google has told its Russian translators not to use the word "war" when describing the war in Ukraine, and instead to use vague terms including extraordinary circumstances, according to The Intercept.

The order was directed at contractors who translate Google products and communications into Russian. It's a clear concession to Russia's recently passed censorship law, which imposes up to 15 years of prison time for anyone who spreads what the Kremlin considers to be false information about the invasion. That law is what prompted TikTok and some news organizations to suspend operations inside Russia.

In a statement to The Intercept, Google spokesperson Alex Krasov said the company is working to ensure "the safety of our local employees."

Google has ample reason to believe its employees really could be targets they already have been. Last year, according to The Washington Post, Russian agents went to the home of one Google executive in Moscow and threatened her with prison time if Google didn't remove an app linked to opposition leader Alexei Navalny from the Play store. When Google moved the woman to a hotel, where she checked in under a fake name, the same Russian agents reportedly found her there and doubled down on their threats. Shortly after, both Google and Apple removed the app.

Google has since suspended operations of several of its commercial products, including Google ads, inside Russia. But it's continuing to offer information services, including search and YouTube, inside of the country. These products "provide access to global information and perspectives," Google president of Global Affairs Kent Walker wrote in a company blog post.

Digital rights advocates have emphasized the importance of continuing to allow information and communications to flow in and out of Russia, putting pressure on the Biden administration to ensure sanctions don't interfere with the ability of the Russian people to share and get information about the war that hasn't been filtered through the Kremlin. But ultimately, some of that is out of U.S. tech companies' hands. Last week, a Russian court deemed Meta an extremist organization, outlawing both Facebook and Instagram inside the country.

See the rest here:
Google ordered translators to censor the word 'war' in Russia - Protocol

ABC bleeped out the expletive-ridden exchange that followed Will Smiths blow to Chris Rocks face during Sunday nights Academy Awards but it didnt matter since unedited footage of the incident leaked onto social media just minutes later.

As is customary for broadcasts of live shows, ABCs feed was on a 20-second delay to enable producers to cut or bleep foul language or any other display that potentially violates Federal Communications Commission guidelines.

But while the audio was cut and censored for several seconds, closed captions indicated that the King Richard star said, Keep my wifes name out of your fking mouth.

International broadcasting crews, meanwhile, were beaming the raw feed of the awards show to global audiences. Audio from the uncensored Australian broadcast appears to confirm this, including Rocks stunned reaction: Will Smith slapped the st out of me.

So while ABC may have momentarily spared American viewers the tense Rock-Smith exchange, it quickly went viral on their mobile devices.

Rob Mills of ABC, who was in the networks production trailer during the show, told Variety that it quickly became apparent that the incident was not scripted.

Before Smith smacked the comedian, Rock had made a joke about Smiths wife, actress Jada Pinkett Smith, being in the fake action film because of her bald head. She had previously spoken about having a hair loss condition, alopecia.

Chris Rock came on and he was doing, I think, material based on what happened that night, as any comedian will do, Mills told Variety. He made the [G.I. Jane] joke. Obviously, you could see the joke did not land with Jada. And then you see Will start to get up and walk up.

Mills added: There have certainly been unpredictable moments where people have gotten up and done things, so we thought this was one of those.

Once Rock and Smith both used expletives in their reactions, it dawned on the ABC producers that this was real.

You started to realize this is real once Chris, who certainly knows the limits of broadcast standards, said, Will Smith slapped the st out of me, Mills said. Thats when it became obvious that this was not a joke.

Due to strict FCC guidelines on the use of profanity during domestic broadcasts, Mills said, he and his team erred on the side of caution in censoring the aftermath.

When youre on the button, which I wasnt but our standards people were, I think you obviously go towards overcorrection than letting something get through, Mills said.

American viewers instead relied on clips from overseas, which do not apply the same rigorous requirements against profanity.

Americans can be a bit more puritanical and outraged by these things, a radio producer for BBC told the Washington Post.

Read the rest here:
How ABC tried -- and failed -- to censor Will Smith slap of Chris Rock - New York Post