Mediaboss Marketing

WARNINGS have been issued over the new "Freedom Phone" which claims to protect privacy and allow free speech without censorship.

According to the company and its founder Erik Finman, 22, the phone aims to "create a future where free communication is not banned by Big Tech".

4

4

The phone has its own app store where no information is censored, allowing customers to read and watch whatever they want.

It also contains preloaded conservative apps, including ones which have been banned by other app stores.

The Freedom Phone operates with its own software FreedomOS and has massive memory space, fast processors, front and back cameras, and all-day battery life.

Self-proclaimed Bitcoin millionaire Finman claims the $500 phone, which launched last week, is comparable to the best smartphones on the market.

"This is the first major pushback on the Big Tech companies that attacked us - for just thinking different,"Finman tweeted.

"Were finally taking back control."

But the new device has a lot of "red flags", CNET reports.

"The Freedom Phone and its politically conservative branding will appeal to many. But there is nothing to suggest that the phone, its privacy claims or avoidance of 'Big Tech' work the way Finman suggests," Patrick Holland writes.

"The fact the phone is already available to order - and that there are more buy buttons on the website than phone hardware specs describing the phone's capabilities - are all red flags.

"The absence of technical details and the fact that the company is already accepting money for preorders heightens our skepticism that the company will be able to meet those orders as well as its lofty privacy claims."

CNET highlights how Finman doesn't explain how the phone works, or how it protects your privacy or free speech.

Based on photographs from the company website a number of Internet sleuths identified that the device has the same form-factor, shape, and appearance of a Umidigi A9 Pro.

It is also unclear if the phone will be able to run apps such as Adobe Acrobat, social media apps such as TikTok or Snapchat, or even dating apps such as Tinder or Grindr.

"It also isn't clear how the phone would handle technical details like IP tracing, website cookies or other conventional tracking tools used on phones and other electronic devices," Holland writes.

Other experts have warned the device appears to be a budget phone from Asia.

Matthew Hickey, the co-founder ofHacker Houseand longtime cyber professional,told Daily Dot: "This device is a drop-shipped customizable Android-based phone.

"They can be bought and shipped in bulk from Asia with custom logos and branding so as to give the appearance of a phone that has been designed for a unique purpose."

Hickey told Gizmodo: "Based on photographs from the company website a number of Internet sleuths identified that the device has the same form-factor, shape, and appearance of aUmidigi A9 Pro."

He said the phone is known for its poor security due to its use of processors from MediaTek - a Taiwanese company that provides chips for smartphones.

"I have never encountered a secure MediaTek device in my entire life," Hickey warned.

"Using MediaTek for anything and expecting privacy or security is fundamentally flawed."

Hickey even claimed MediaTeks processors are widely used in smartphones throughout North Korea due to their "highly customizable nature and low-security barrier".

It comes after Candace Owens threw her support behind the phone.

Theconservative firebrand tweeted: "So excited that I partnered with a SOLUTION against Apple and Google."

Owens also tweeted a clip from an Instagram live, talking her followers through the phone and how she came to endorse it.

She said she was furious that conservative social media app Parler was banned from the app store in the wake of the January 6 riots, in addition to former President Trump being banished from most social platforms.

"A bunch of people contacted us saying they're making a phone," Owens said, adding they were sent a number of different concept handsets.

"Some were terrible. Some were worse than terrible," she said before Owens was finally sent the Freedom Phone.

"I'm so excited," she added. "You need to get this phone.

"I've been on social media for four years... I've never done a sponsored post."

Owens continued: "If it doesn't help save the nation, I don't pitch it."

According to the Freedom Phone website, the handsets will be shipped in August and users will be able to start using it by simply inserting their old SIM cards into their new phones.

The device works with Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and all the other domestic and international carriers.

The Sun has contacted Freedom Phone for comment.

4

4

View original post here:
Warning over new Freedom Phone that claims to protect your privacy and allow free speech without cen... - The US Sun

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