Mediaboss Marketing

Newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form have always, and I mean always, reserved the right to publish or not publish whatever they feel like publishing or not publishing for whatever reasoneven just because. I come from printed stuff. This belief is baked into me. When newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form decide not to publish something, it's not nor ever will be censorship. It's reserving the right to publish or not publish whatever for whatever.

This right to publish or not publish whatever they want for whatever reason is rooted in the history, tradition and constitutional guarantee of the rights to free speech, free thought, free expression and free inquiry. People who do not own the local newspaper have the equal right to raise hell when the paper doesn't publish their letters to the editor, when the newspaper won't run their press releases, but the local newspaper is not silencing them or canceling themand it is not censoring them. Everyone in America has the right to free speech. No one in America has the right to be published.

Newspapers and magazines and any kind of media in printed form used to be the exclusive venues for the expression of public opinion. Obviously, that's still partly the case, but Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have expanded the square infinitesimally. Instead of writing for the New Haven Register, and hoping to have a modicum of influence on the political thinking of my neighbors, I now write this newsletter, hoping to have a modicum of influence on the political thinking of my fellow Americans. The principles of free speech, however, are the same. If Substack, the platform I'm using, stopped working with me, for whatever reason, there might be serious consequences, but among those would not be credible allegations of censorship. Substack has the right to publish or not publish whatever for whatever.

I'm making a big deal about this for a good reason. We are in a moment in our history where politics is slowly taking our culture further, a few steps further, in a liberal direction. The election of an out-and-out fascist in 2016 unleashed a torrent of political energy, especially with respect to women (#MeToo) and Black people and people of color (George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, DACA, the border wall and Muslim ban). The unseating of a sitting president by an anti-racist and anti-fascist coalition is, to me, the greatest illustration of this forward movement. One of the consequences of this torrent of history-changing political energy has been that "white peoplewhite men, in particularface a little more scrutiny today than in the past," wrote Thomas Zimmer, a historian and visiting professor at Georgetown University, recently:

In other words, the more liberal we get, the more likely people benefiting from the status quo are going to bitch and moan about censorship. As we debate "cancel culture" and other terms made up by those who benefit from the status quo, the meaning of censorship has expanded so aggressively and in so many directions it has come to mean anything that's not unfettered, unchallenged, highly lubricated and friction-free speech. Censorship is now so uncritically defined that it means anyone disagreeing with me is censoring me. Again, Professor Zimmer: "You can see why white men with big public platforms from across the political spectrum see 'persecution' where I see progress: If you believe you are entitled to say and do whatever you want without legal or cultural sanction, 'leftist' activism is a threat."

There's that word, "entitled." We have confused entitled speech for free speech. They are not and never have been the same. But as we move through this moment in history, in which we reexamine how we elected a fascist and, furthermore, the social and political conditions from which he arose, we are blurring them. In the process of protecting the privileges of those who have benefited from the status quo, we are, ironically, protecting the conditions that made us weak enough to elect a fascist.

Facebook, Twitter, or any social media platform banning anyone for any reason is not censorship. It is not silencing. It is not cancelling. It is that platform exercising its own right to host, or "publish," whatever it wants for whatever reason. It is an exercise of that platform's right to free speech, free expression, etc. We live in a time in which there are unprecedented ways to express oneself. You don't need Facebook to be a free citizen. Write a blog! Write a letter to the editor! Speechify from a soapbox in a public park! We are acting like we're entitled to a Facebook account. When it bans someone for whatever reason, it's big bad censorship. No, it's not. Instead, it's complaining about not getting what you want when you want it. It's acting more like a consumer than a citizen, more like a spoiled child than responsible grownup. People who see themselves as victims are people ready to put a dictator in the White House.

When Twitter bans a former president, that's not censorship. When Facebook bans a former president temporarily, that's not censorship. When someone criticizes someone else, calling them a racist, that's not censorship. When organized groups build social pressure to force public or private institutions to live up to their stated ideals, that's not censorship. When someone says, "Hey, you can't say that!" that's not censorship. When a crowd shouts down a speaker, that's not censorship. When a Black person or person of color tells a white person to take a seat, that's not censorship. When a town enacts noise ordinances or when it outlaws the breach of peace, that's not censorship. When a state outlaws the distribution of child pornography, that's not censorship. When the government asks social media platforms to stop hosting misinformation about the health, safety and efficacy of the covid vaccines, that's not censorship. All of these are acts of free speech or counter-speech. All of them are legitimate politics.

It's effective politics, from the point of view of people who benefit from the status quo, to get as many people as possible to think it's censorship. That way, people don't have to think about whether it's a good idea to let a massive social media platform keep hosting misinformation about the health, safety and efficacy of the covid vaccines in a pandemic that's likely to kill a million Americans before it's all over. That way, people don't have to think about the role of white supremacy in the shaping of the republic. They don't have to think. They can instead dismiss it, as if it were illegitimate. And while they are doing that, people who benefit from the status quo, especially white men, can enact laws that actually do infringe on the right to free speech. Many states, but especially southern states, are now outlawing teaching the history of slavery. This, my friend, is what censorship is: when a government forbids learning and knowledge, because ignorance and poverty are better for people who benefit from the status quo.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Here is the original post:
Are we really in a crisis of 'censorship'? - AlterNet

Popular Twitch streamer and wildlife conservationist Maya Higa revealed to viewers that she literally cannot use her surname in Twitch stream titles, as it is deemed to be potentially inappropriate.

Twitch has come under fire for its censorship of words many times before.

While certain words are appropriately moderated, the likes of Nick Nmplol Polom have slammed Twitch in the past for censoring words like obese, which he argued should be allowed as a genuine medical term.

Questions were also raised at the height of the hot tub meta, as Twitch appeared to censor the term hot tubfrom the official channels own chat, prompting backlash from viewers.

And its not just censorship of words in chat, too. Minecraft sensation GeorgeNotFound had his channel ThisIsGeorgeNotFound banned, apparently for containing words that intimidates, degrades, abuses or bullies others.

But on her July 24 Twitch stream, Maya revealed perhaps the most bizarre example of censorship yet, as she said that her boyfriend Mizkif wasnt able to use her actual surname in a stream title as it was too similar to a racial slur.

Mizkif had to name her as Maya Robert in his title instead, prompting widespread confusion among viewers as chat was spammed with question marks.

She explained: He tried to write Maya Higa, and they wouldnt let him write it because they said it was potentially inappropriate. It reads too much like the N-word. They wont let you put it in a title.

However. Mayas surname is only banned from being in titles, meaning viewers are still able to type Higa into chat, further blurring the boundaries on censorship of supposed slurs.

Twitch has not publicly responded to the situation, but either way, it remains one of the strangest pieces of censorship on the platform.

Read more from the original source:
Streamer Maya Higa literally cant use her own surname on Twitch - Dexerto

The largest decentralized exchange [DEX] Uniswaps software development studio had earlier revealed restricting access to some tokens, including synthetic stocks and derivatives from the platform interface.

Over the past couple of weeks, several cryptocurrency firms such as Binance have removed their tokenized stock products. But Uniswaps move is different than most centralized exchanges since it is only restricting access through its own interface.

Uniswap Labs did not clearly mention the actual reason behind the restriction but in the official blog post, the studio had said that the tokens in question represented a very small portion of the overall volume on the Uniswap Protocol. However, it is important to note that there are several ways in which censorship can be bypassed. In fact, the users can still access these tokens through other portals on the DeFi platform that supports them. Parafi Capitals Nick Chong also revealed that there are a ton of alternative interfaces.

Chong observed that the restricted assets accounted for a total of $5.9 million worth of volume over the past seven days which is around 0.076% of the decentralized exchanges 7-day volume. He called it a rounding error. Chong also emphasized the need for bookmarking decentralized interfaces and mirror applications and asserted,

The world needs decentralized interfaces. Wouldnt it have been bad if all non-power user DeFi traders woke up one day and the Uniswap Labs interface was gone w/ no alternatives? This is a wake-up call! Bookmark the decentralized interfaces.

The latest move has opened a can of worms about the never-ending decentralization and the impact of regulatory oversight on decentralized finance [DeFi]. Interestingly, the development comes days after the United States regulatory watchdog announced that that they would increasingly monitor these types of products. Needless to say, the platform has been at the receiving end of severe backlash from the community.

Joey Krug, the co-CIO of Pantera Capital and co-founder of Augur said that even though he loves Uniswap, he said that the decision sets a bad example. Krug reiterated General Douglas MacArthurs famous quote and claimed that this would not be the first case of defi censorship.

History teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement begets new and bloodier wars. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace.

See original here:
Uniswap's Users Can Still Bypass Censorship Of The Main UI, Trade Restricted Assets - TronWeekly

MIAMI (CBSMiami) With the Cuban governments ability to limit access to internet communications during the current anti-government demonstrations, US Government officials and Cuban American activists have suggested the US provide unfettered internet.

In a way, the US Government is already in the game with the help of a Canadian-based software company.

Canadian-based Psiphon provides people with uncensored access to the internet.

Psiphon bypasses government restrictions by letting people sign on to a server that gives them secure access to web pages anywhere.

Critical in the developing Cuban street protests, as in all movements, especially those in nations in the grips of repressive regimes, where internet services are censored or cut off entirely.

Psiphon engineers say they can keep the Cuban demonstrators hooked up.

We reconnect you to the internet. A secure tunnel that cant be interfered with, said Michael Hull, President and founder of Psiphon.

Cubans in recent years have accessed, embraced the internet.

They make use of communication apps like WhatsApp and Facebook, but when the anti-government protests spread across the island the regime shut down those services.

The protestors ability to communicate and send videos went dark.

A simple free app helped cut through the censorship.

Our service is designed to be able to support that type of activity. Upholding social media or sending through instant message app. We make it so that continues to work, said Hull.

US politicians have suggested internet satellite services such as Elon Musks star-link might skirt the Cuban internet crackdown, but the service is not practical, since it requires a dish, which would be easily spotted by the Cuban government.

An app, on the other hand, in the hands of a Cuban protester would be a much different story.

Psiphon claims, There are a million and a half people in Cuba using Psiphon, getting on the internet.

The cry is for the US Government to bring uncensored internet to Cuba.

A healthy portion of Psiphons funding, according to the company, comes from the US Governments open technology fund.

It is a determined effort by the u.S. Congress that internet freedom, in general, is available, said Hull.

Keeping the movement alive on both sides of the straits of Florida depends heavily on communication and mobilization. Psiphons app has been used to push through video of the Cuban demonstrations.

We are there to solve a real-world problem and then happily step away, Hull said.

It is a cat and mouse game. The Cubans continually modify their censorship technology and Psiphon reenforces their secure tunnel.

Excerpt from:
Cubans On The Island Circumvent Internet Censorship With Psiphon App - CBS Miami

Booksellers at Hong Kongs annual book fair are offering a reduced selection of books deemed politically sensitive, as they try to avoid violating a sweeping national security law imposed on the city last year.

The fair was postponed twice last year because of the coronavirus pandemic. It usually draws hundreds of thousands of people looking for everything from the latest bestsellers to works by political figures.

This year, far fewer politically sensitive books are on display. Vendors are curating their books carefully to avoid violating the national security law, which Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in June 2020. Authorities have used it to crack down on dissent, arresting more than 100 pro-democracy supporters in the region.

The law has drawn criticism for restricting freedoms not found on the communist-ruled mainland that were promised to the former British colony for 50 years after it was handed back to China in 1997.

Jimmy Pang, a local publisher who used to sell books about the 2014 pro-democracy demonstrations that became known as the umbrella movement, said many books critical of the government had disappeared.

Every vendor will read through the books that they are bringing to the book fair to see if there is any content that might cause trouble, said Pang, who is president of the Subculture publishing house.

We dont want to get into trouble that will affect the operation of the book fair, so we self-censor a lot this time. We read through every single book and every single word before we bring it here, he said. Some books published by Subculture were pulled from the shelves of Hong Kongs public libraries earlier this year. Those books are not available at the fair.

Now that authorities have used the national security law to quash dissent, publishers, distributors and even importers and exporters have become wary about the risks of publishing or dealing with potentially sensitive books, said Hui Ching, research director of the Hong Kong Zhi Ming Institute, a private, independent thinktank.

Political author Johnny Lau, author of a book about the Chinese Communist party and Hong Kong in the last century, said his book was not allowed at the fair this year because of the political pressure from government policies.

Thats why we can only see publications which are (in) favour to the government, he said.

Benjamin Chau, deputy executive director of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, which organises the fair, told reporters earlier this week that books written by pro-democracy authors could still be sold as long as they didnt break the law.

Some visitors, such as Alex Chan, lamented the lack of such books this year. Is the book fair still a place we can buy any kinds of books? Is Hong Kong still a place with freedom of speech or freedom to publish? he said.

A number of publishers have gone ahead and displayed books about the 2014 protests and other politically sensitive topics.

When we publish a book, we put a lot of effort into ensuring the content is legal. Thats why we dont think theres a big problem and would still bring them, said Raymond Yeung, a spokesman for publisher Hillway Culture Company. We hope this will be an encouragement to our fellow publishers, to show that theres still some people publishing books like this, he said.

Original post:
Self-censorship hits Hong Kong book fair in wake of national security law - The Guardian