Mediaboss Marketing

Supporters of the jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny have accused Google and Apple of capitulating to Kremlin pressure after the two tech companies deleted his tactical voting app from their online stores.

Both companies had come under significant pressure from Russian regulators in the days before the courntrys parliamentary elections to block access to Navalnys Smart Voting initiative, which tries to channel opposition votes toward the strongest opponents of the ruling party, United Russia.

Google and Apple were accused of election interference by Russian officials amid a larger standoff between the Kremlin and big tech over how much control Russias authoritarian government can have over information disseminated inside the country. The Kremlin said on Friday it welcomed the apps removal.

As voting in the parliamentary elections began on Friday, the apps disappeared from both companies Russia stores and Ivan Zhdanov, a senior adviser to Navalny, posted a letter from Apple that appeared to confirm that companys decision.

We are writing to notify you that your application will be removed from the Russia App Store because it includes content that is illegal in Russia, the note read. The Navalny organisation had been declared extremist in Russia, the note added.

Zhdanov wrote: Removing the Navalny app from stores is a shameful act of political censorship. Russias authoritarian government and propaganda will be thrilled.

He also said that Navalnys team was considering launching a lawsuit against the tech firms. The Guardian has approached Google and Apple for comment.

A Russian court imposed fines on Google last month, as regulators demanded social media companies including Twitter and Facebook stored Russian users data in the country and that they deleted material banned by Russian courts and regulators. The Russian government also told Google it must remove search results related to Navalnys Smart Voting initiative.

Apple was also fined $12m earlier this year for allegedly holding a monopoly position on the app market. It has challenged that decision in court.

Google and Apple were singled out for pressure for hosting Navalnys online application before the elections. Local representatives for both companies were invited to the Federation Council, a lawmaking body, for a severe telling-off by Russian senators and regulators.

A lawmaker also said that employees of the two companies could face criminal prosecution if they ignored demands to block the Navalny application.

Entities and persons associated with Apple and Google should realise that the knowingly unlawful actions and criminal inaction demonstrated upon receiving relevant warnings from Russian officials will invariably entail legal consequences, up to criminal prosecution, Vladimir Dzhabarov, a member of the Federation Council, said at a commission meeting on Thursday, according to Interfax.

The US ambassador was summoned to the foreign ministry for a similar scolding. The Russian governments accusations of US interference in the elections appears to intentionally mirror similar investigations in the US.

The Russian side possesses irrefutable evidence of the violation of the Russian laws by US digital giants ahead of Russias elections, the foreign ministry wrote.

Link:
Apple and Google accused of political censorship over Alexei Navalny app - The Guardian

Content warning: this article contains language and content related to suicide. Reader discretion is advised.

Comedy comes from dark places.

At least, thats the case for many comedians. Richard Pryor grew up in a brothel with a prostitute and a pimp for parents. Eddie Murphys father was murdered when he was 8 years old. Trevor Noahs mother was shot in front of him. Hannah Gadsby, Jim Carrey and Tiffany Haddish were all homeless. John Belushi, Mitch Hedberg and Chris Farley lost their lives to drugs. Robin Williams took his own life. The list goes on.

Although not all comedians experience such degrees of trauma, adversity or bad childhoods, the link between comedy and tragedy is undeniable and well-documented. Humor often becomes a strength for deeply wounded people.

Take Pete Davidson for example, who lost his father in the Sept. 11 attacks when he was 7 years old. In his stand-up special SMD, he tells the audience that after his father died he was gifted a PlayStation 2. He then follows up with a joke about how pushing his mother down the stairs might get him a PlayStation 3.

Thats my new life, Davidson quips. Murder and toys.

Regardless of how you feel about the joke, its admirable that Davidson managed to take a personal tragedy and turn it into something positive that people can laugh about, himself included. Instead of attempting to ignore or suppress the pain of losing his father, he deals with it directly and tries to find the humor in it.

Taken at face value, it sounds insane. How can someone possibly find humor in the death of their father, especially when it happened as the result of a national tragedy?

When you try to ignore something that bothers you, whether its an intrusive thought, character flaw or negative experience, it chips away at the back of your mind. No matter what you do, it never goes away. When you purposely acknowledge that thing, point it out and laugh at it, it removes all the power and control it has over you. To quote Charlie Chaplin: In order to truly laugh, you must be able to take your pain and play with it.

Its a concept that can be difficult for some people to grasp, but for Davidson and like-minded comedians, its how they heal themselves and their audiences. When therapy and medication fail to do their jobs, humor becomes a coping mechanism.

As much as comedy helps performers and listeners, some feel that it goes too far in the subject matter. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries and poked fun at sensitive topics, which has led a lot of groups and activists to demand censorship across the medium. If comedy was censored, anything considered potentially offensive would be off-limits to joke about (like Davidsons 9/11 joke).

Because comedy functions as an art form, censoring it would set a dangerous precedent. Comedy is in the same category as music, film, painting or literature. Everyone has their own taste, style and preference.

For example, I think country music is one of the worst things thats ever happened to our planet. The fact that bands like Florida Georgia Line are successful makes me question the existence of a God. Almost every song uses the same basic melodies and is about drinking, driving or drinking while driving. At some point in the song, the main character gets hammered, goes for a cruise and ends up near a body of water surrounded by women. The phrases raisin hell, good stuff and step up in the truck are said for what it feels like hundreds of times.

As much as Id like to see Florida Georgia Line get catapulted into space, there are millions of people who find enjoyment in their music. Its the same concept with comedy. A comedian, late-night host or entertainer you think is terrible might bring joy to someone else. We all have different opinions on whats good, whats bad, acceptable and funny.

Also, as with all forms of art, comedy tends to come from a personal place thats deep, emotionally raw and unfiltered. Any attempt to censor that is a bad idea. Passing comedy through a filter is like shaking up a Dr. Pepper and drinking it after its flat. Sure, its still Dr. Pepper, but all of the flavor is gone.

Humor comes from real-life experiences and you cant censor reality. The comedians I mentioned in the beginning all used comedy to deal with their adversity. Humor was the only thing that helped mend their pain and allow them to tell their stories, which allows other people to heal and tell their own stories.

Comedy can be just as healing to the people who tell it as it is to the people who hear it. For those people, laughter isnt just the best medicine its the only medicine.

Featured Illustration by J. Robynn Aviles

Continued here:
The power of comedy and why censorship does not belong in it - North Texas Daily

The big-name social media companies have all done a ratheratrocious jobof moderating user speech on their platforms. However, much like Florida's similarlyunconstitutionalattempt to address the issue (S.B. 7072), Texas' recently enactedH.B. 20would make the matter worse for Texans and everyone else.

Signed into law by Governor Abbott last week, the Texas law prohibits platforms with more than 50 million users nationwide from moderating user posts based on viewpoint or geographic location. However, as we stated in ourfriend-of-the-court briefin support of NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Associations lawsuit challenging Florida's law (NetChoice v. Moody), "Every court that has considered the issue, dating back to at least 2007, has rightfully found that private entities that operate online platforms for speech and that open those platforms for others to speak enjoy a First Amendment right to edit and curate that speech."

Inconsistent and opaque content moderation by online media services is a legitimate problem. It continues to result in the censorship of a range of important speech, often disproportionately impacting people who arent elected officials. That's why EFF joined with a cohort of allies in 2018 to draft theSanta Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation, offering one model for how platforms can begin voluntarily implementing content moderation practices grounded in a human rights framework. Under the proposed principles, platforms would:

H.B. 20 does attempt to mandate some of the transparency measures called for in the Santa Clara Principles. Although these legal mandates might be appropriate as part of a carefully crafted legislative scheme, H.B. 20 is not the result of a reasonable policy debate. Rather it is a retaliatory law aimed at violating the First Amendment rights of online services in a way that will ultimately harm all internet users.

We fully expect that once H.B. 20 is challenged, courts will draw from the wealth of legal precedent and find the law unconstitutional. Perhaps recognizing that H.B. 20 is imperiled for the same reasons as Floridas law, the Lonestar State this week filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeal of a federal courts ruling that Floridas law is unconstitutional.

Despite Texas and Floridas laws being unconstitutional, the concerns regarding social media platforms' control on our public discourse is a critical policy issue. It is vitally important that platforms take action to provide transparency, accountability, and meaningful due process to all impacted speakers and ensure that the enforcement of their content guidelines is fair, unbiased, proportional, and respectful of human rights.

See the original post here:
Texas' Social Media Law is Not the Solution to Censorship - EFF

20021 may look like a random string of numbers or a mangled date, but many Weibo users know it as a sign that they are being blocked from posting sensitive content. Telegram user @cybergraveyardcn () recently sent CDT crowdsourced, categorized data documenting many years and varieties of Weibo censorship. The report, translated below, includes screenshots of error messages, notices, and other indications that a post has been censored on Weibo. @cybergraveyardcn has since made the full report public on Telegram. Readers can view more Weibo censorship archives in @cybergraveyardcns channel by searching the term # (Weibo Archives).

Note: All of the content is my own work. Images were chosen at random to serve as examples, and do not represent my own personal views. Please forgive me for any errors you may find. Created: February 12, 2020

I. Unable to post or display

1. (Error 20021) Sorry, unable to perform the current operation due to content in violation of relevant laws and regulations or the terms of the Weibo Community Agreement. (The post is blocked because of specific content.)

2. Comments containing sensitive words cannot be viewed. Called comment gobbling for short.

II. Image or video censored

1. Image cannot be opened.

2. Video has been deleted.

3. Image can be opened from the timeline on the homepage, but not from the post itself. (In this case, animated GIFs that cannot be attached are usually official images containing the names of state leaders.)

III. Restrictions

1. Restricted circulation. The number of views is zero or a very low number. Post does not appear in the users timeline.

2. Repost button automatically disappears from post. Only comment and like buttons are displayed. Content can only be viewed by mutual friends.

3. Repost and comment functions are normal, but the contents of reposts and comments are not visible.

4. Reposting disabled from original post (repost button is gray), but can repost from other users reposts.

5. Commenting disabled. Comments cannot be viewed. Post can be reposted, and reposts are still visible.

6. Repost and comment functions disabled. Post cannot be reposted or replied to.

7. Likes disabled.

8. Post can be reposted, but the full text of the original post cannot be viewed.

9. Blocked from editing post.

10. Blocked from promoting post [a paid service].

11. Author has elected to display comments selectively.

IV. Contents of post censored

1. Repost button disappears after a certain number of reposts. Content is only visible to mutual friends.

2. Another user has reported you for violating regulations. In accordance with Weibos Rules for Reports and Complaints, [sic] has been deleted.

3. This post has been deleted for violating relevant laws and regulations and the Weibo Rules for Reports and Complaints. Displayed as Error 20112: Permission to view this post has been temporarily revoked.

4. Account inspected by cyber police for alleged violation of regulations; content processed for violation of regulations.

5. Both original post and repost chain have been deleted.

6. Original post not deleted, but reposts in chain have been selectively deleted.

7. Customer service makes Big V account viewable by account owner only.

V. Search censored

1. Account exists, but does not appear in the search bar.

2. Search results only show content from verified users.

3. In accordance with relevant laws and regulations, search results cannot be displayed.

VI. Bans

1. Likes not permitted. Likes disappear automatically.

2. Reposts not permitted. Reposts appear to work, but do not appear on the users page.

3. (Error 20016) Updated too frequently. Triggered by multiple reposts within a short period of time.

4. Must enter verification code to follow, unfollow, like, comment, or repost.

5. Because you recently posted content that violates relevant national laws and regulations, your Weibo account is suspended for seven days/30 days/90 days/one year/etc. You may or may not receive a private message notifying you of the suspension.

VII. Account deleted

Unusual activity has been detected on your Weibo account. Please reactivate your account to restore normal function. (Error 3022608) Commonly known as account bombing. Account page displays the message User does not exist, and posts show the message, This account cannot be viewed because the user has been reported for violating relevant laws and regulations and the terms of the Weibo Community Agreement, or Content does not exist. [Chinese]

Translation by Anne Henochowicz.

CDT has independently verified some of the images included in the report. For example, one screenshot shows that nationalistic influencer Ren Yi, better known as Chairman Rabbit ( @jeune), posted an image with a caption in Chinese that read The hypocritical mob is a cancer on the rule of law. The screenshot shows that the image had been removed, a common censorship method on Weibo, where longer texts are often shared as images. CDT found that Chairman Rabbit used the exact same title in a blog post dated July 14, 2019. The blog post also included an image of a short essay in which he criticized Hong Kong protesters. It is likely that he posted the image on Weibo, and that it was later removed, as shown in @cybergraveyardcns screenshot.

Another screenshot shows that Weibo user @ posted, Some genius translated the name of American Gileads new drug Remdesivir as Peoples Hope (Remdesivir). (The drug name, Rud xwi sounds similar to rn[mn] de xwng [] [peoples hope].) The screenshot shows that the posts comment function was disabled. CDT was unable to locate the original post, but other posts made around the same time (February 2020) attribute the sentence to the same author.

More:
Error 20021: Crowdsourced Report on the Varied Methods of Weibo Censorship - China Digital Times

By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Sep 17, 2021

In todays Wall Street Journal, my friend Tom Spence, president of Regnery Publishing (which brought out my book Lost Shepherd), lets loose on Banned Books Week. He explains that this gimmicky promotion caters primarily to those who believe that schoolchildren should have access to anything bound between two covers without the interference of those busybodies we call parents.

Unfortunately, Spence observes, there are books being banned todayalthough the sponsors of Banned Books Week have nothing to say about it. Books that offend against woke attitudes and politically-correct standards are disappearing from bookstores and from the Amazon menu. Authors are cancelled. Lecturers are disinvited.

Such censorship hurts the authors, of course. But it also hurts the rest of us, their potential readers, because we never have a chance to learn what they have to say. We dont even know what we dont know.

The censorship is not confined to written works alone, however. The social-media giants, Facebook and Twitter, are even more blatant in stifling the views that their employees find offensive. How often have you seen a fact-check pasted onto a controversial postand, if you took the time to investigate, discovered that the fact-check was far more misleading than the post it sought to correct.

An urban television news team recently issued an appeal on Facebook, asking for stories about unvaccinated people who had been felled by Covid. That Facebook page was promptly flooded with thousands of replies. But the vast majority of those replies were not giving the reporters what they wanted; instead they were telling stories about friends and relatives who had been harmed by the Covid injections, or had contracted Covid even after being fully vaccinated. Clearly this response was not what the TV news editors expected. Still, isnt it a story nonetheless?

News editorslike publishers and librarians and bookstore owners and social-media baronshave enormous power to sway public opinion. They exercise that power not only by putting their own slant on news stories, but alsofar more ominouslyby censoring the stories they find inconvenient. You cannot be outraged by an injustice, or encouraged by a positive development, if you dont hear about them.

Mistrust of the mass media is widespread in our society today. Many Americans say that they dont believe what they hear from the mainstream media. That skepticism is richly deserved, and for the most part healthy. Still a problem remains. You may not believe what you see in the mainstream media, but what about what you dont see? You dont know what you dont know.

This is why, for more than 30 years now, I have been insisting that discerning readers need to find their own trusted sources of news. If you know that the mainstream media are offering slanted coverage of some stories, and blacking out other stories altogether, you need to find outlets that will provide accurate reporting on the subjects that interest you. Which is I why I established Catholic World News, 25 years ago, and why I want you all to encourage your loyal Catholic friends to discover us.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

There are no comments yet for this item.

See the original post here:
Here's how to beat liberal censorship of ideas - Catholic Culture