Mediaboss Marketing

By Garth Davies, Sarah Negrin, for The Conversation

The Canadian government iscurrently holding consultationson a new online hate bill. This bill would updateBill C-36, which addresses hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech; the amendment died following the election call last year.

Hate propagated on social media and other online spaces has grown exponentially in the past couple of years,driven to a significant degree by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The occupation of Ottawa earlier this year by the so-called freedom convoy also exposed anincreasingly worrisome relationship between online and offline environments.

It is difficult to argue against the motivations for the proposed anti-hate bill. At the same time, the discourse around the proposed bill is rapidly becoming fraught. There are serious concerns about the scope and unexamined assumptions of the bill which will result in legislation that is overly broad and unwieldy.

While the perceived imperative to do something about hate speech is understandable, the bill runs the very real risk of making things considerably worse.

First, there is danger in usingeuphemisms such as de-platforming and content moderation,which circumvent tricky discussions over censorship. We have to be honest about the fact that we are talking about censorship.

Rather than get bogged down by more philosophical concerns, we should instead be concerned about practical ramifications. Specifically, the very real likelihood that attempts to silence particular voices will only succeed in exacerbating the issues we are trying to address.

We must be wary ofthe law of unintended consequences, which addresses the unforeseen outcomes of legislation and policies.

Overt silencing will only serve tosubstantiate foundational far-right narratives, which include: The government is out to get us and Our ideas are so dangerous, the government has to suppress them. This, in turn, further animates and perpetuates the movement.

These attempts also expose the inherent hypocrisy of censorship, which is that it is not censorship if enough people disapprove of the intended target. The far-right will seize upon this sentiment and offer it as further corroboration, and will use it to amplifytheir calls for fundamental social change.

We must avoiding feeding these narratives.

Second, consideration must be given to the vulnerable groups that are most often the targets of hateful speech. It has been argued, and quite correctly, that particular communities including visible minorities, Indigenous and LGBTQIA2S+ people, immigrants and refugees are disproportionately harmed by, and deserve to be shielded from,far-right invective. Unfortunately, the potential dangers for these people by the new bill have received insufficient attention.

Members of vulnerable communities have expressed concern that the bills provisions could be used tolimit their online freedoms. This fear is grounded in fact, as historically, they have been disproportionately targeted for control by law enforcement. The thorny gap between best-laid plans on one side, and the realities of implementation and enforcement on the other, brings us back around to the law of unintended consequences.Internet scholar Lisa Nakamura describes different types of online racism.

Third, much of the discussion around the bill makes unrealistic assumptions aboutthe capabilities of the tech companies that manage social media platforms. Contrary to popular belief, big tech does not have the capabilities to easily identify and remove specific content. Relying on purely technological solutions massively underestimates and betrays a worrisome lack of understanding regarding the difficulties in moderating language.

Considerable research, including work one of the authors (Garth) has conducted with criminologists Richard Frank and Ryan Scrivens, has revealed that the far-right ecosystem is marked by an essentially distinct,coded language that is constantly evolving. This work has similarly highlightedthe challenges of trying to identify specifically violent language.

Apart from the fact that they dont want it, we should be leery of turning over editorial control to private corporations. So far, their efforts have beenchequered and may best be described as suspect. Any faith that this could be addressed through an over-reaching legislative framework is woefully misplaced.

This is not an argument for a social media free-for-all. It has long been evident thatthe anything-goes ethos underlying the earliest incarnations of the internetboth comically and tragically failed to anticipate the toxic quagmire that it has become. Certain online content must be (and in most cases already is) prohibited, including threatening and promoting violence.

But when we come to efforts to restrict content thatcouldlead to violence, we find ourselves standing on much thinner ice. Of course legislation has a role to play. And yes, tech companies should be part of the discourse aimed at finding solutions.

However, as the past 20 years have demonstrated, we cannot kill or arrest our way out of violent extremism, nor can we moderate or de-platform our way out of it. Hate speech is a social problem that requires social responses. In the interim, we must guard against unintended consequences of attempts to address online hate speech and refrain from feeding far-right narratives.

By Garth Davies, Sarah Negrin, for The Conversation

Garth Davies is Associate professor, Criminology, Simon Fraser University

Sarah Negrin is Masters student, Criminology, Simon Fraser University

Read more:
Regulating online hate will have unintended, but predictable, consequences - StopFake.org

Censorship is something that takes place in every country all around the world. Not all countries share the same forms of censorship or the same amounts of censorship, but in one way or another, all societies are affected by it. In a general sense censorship is the supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society. There are many different ways that censorship is implemented though. In the United States we are used to curse words being blocked out along with nudity which is most of the censorship we experience. In Poland and Ukraine however it is different. Censorship in those two countries is more like prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages. In Poland and Ukraine, the censorship that they experience has more of an effect on the societies, because they are not always exposed to the whole truth.

Media censorship can really hinder a society if it is bad enough. Because media is such a large part of peoples lives today and it is the source of basically all information, if the information is not being given in full or truthfully then the society is left uneducated. Both Poland and Ukraine experience this type of censorship but Ukraine experiences it more now because they are in a state of crisis. This type of censorship in these two countries is a setback in todays world. International communication and globalization are such major advances in our world, but if the information that is being given to these societies is one sided and only what the government wants them to hear, then they cannot fully understand and accept other countries and cultures.

Censorship is probably the number one way to lower peoples right to freedom of speech. When a journalist has to report on only what the government wants people to know, they do not have the freedom to express what they really want to. In the countries of Poland and Ukraine people have to be careful of the information they are putting out there because, although they are supposed to have the right to freedom of speech, there can be some serious consequences for their words and actions.

References:

http://www.worldissues360.com/index.php/how-censorship-affects-society-580/

http://www.targetgdpi.com/2014/03/media-censorship-good-or-bad.html

Read the rest here:
Censorship Effects on Society | World Wide Women

Parenting is hard. There is no other way to describe it. And parenting at a time of social and political turmoil is especially challenging. Old social norms are losing their authority. Social media intrude on the family, often supplanting parental authority. Predators are a concern. Video games are a concern. The music is a concern. The list goes on and on.

As parents, our first instinct is to do everything we can to shield our children from the world around us. And that is a good instinct. But at the same time, it comes with a cost. If we shield them too successfully, do we keep them from preparing to take on the world when they become adults? What are parents to do?

I have thoughts about these things, as you do. I have made my share of mistakes as a parent, and Im sure you would admit you have as well. And there is probably no one answer for every family. Having said this, I would suggest that most parents are trying too hard to protect their children from the world today. I certainly sympathize with this. When I look around, a lot of what I see scares me. But fear shouldnt be our motivation as parents.

We need to find a way to strike a balance between too much fear and too little fear. We must look for ways to keep the pendulum from swinging too far in either direction. Aristotle taught that virtue is a mean between an excess and a defect between too much or too little of something. And courage is a mean between too much fear and too little fear.

Let me ask a question: What do we see as our primary goal as parents? Obviously, we want to provide all the love and support we can for our children. But I suspect that many of us would say that our primary goal is to prepare our children for the future so that they can live successful, independent lives on their own. If that is our goal, then the most important thing is to teach them how to think for themselves. And that means that sheltering them too much is a mistake. They are going to need to know how to respond for themselves to all of the things that we hope wont hurt them.

In other words, our children need to learn how to think critically. That involves weighing and balancing competing arguments. It means developing an ability to confront the harshness and the evil of the world around them. It means our children need to learn their limits. And it means that we need to know our limits as well. We cant do this for them.

Of course, all of this needs to be done in an age-appropriate manner. No sensible person would want a kindergartner to be reading about abortion. But we should even look for age-appropriate ways to challenge kindergartners to think for themselves. If we set the bar too low for them at that age, they may never develop true independence. And by the time our children make it to high school, we shouldnt be trying to shelter them. Its time for them to deal with everything the world brings their way.

Censorship in schools is therefore the worst possible thing for our children. We do them a disservice if we try to keep them from feeling uncomfortable when their beliefs are challenged, even if those are our beliefs as well. And if we keep them from learning about the darkest moments in our nations history, they will not be able to understand todays world. They need to read novels that reveal the beauty in the world around us and the ugliness of which human beings are capable. They must confront racism, sexism, antisemitism and other forms of hatred and prejudice. They need to ask questions about gender.

So the nationwide push by parents and politicians for new forms of censorship in schools harms our children. We are not showing them the respect they deserve if we focus on trying to indoctrinate them rather than inviting them to think for themselves. Laws that prohibit specific topics, books and even discussions from the classroom limit the ability of our children to think. If we want to bless our children by giving them the strength and wisdom they need to be independent, then we have to restrain our desire to always be protecting them.

See the rest here:
Parenting and Censorship in the Schools InsideSources - InsideSources

Twenty-three international media freedom, freedom of expression, and journalists organizations today called for the immediate dismissal of the bill on disinformation and fake news which was submitted to the parliament on May 27 by the governing alliance of Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

The bill threatens up to three years imprisonment for those found guilty of the deliberate publishing of disinformation and fake news intended to instigate fear or panic, endanger the countrys internal or external security, public order and general health of Turkeys society.

Such a bill, where the definition of disinformation and intent is left so vague, puts millions of Turkeys internet users at risk of criminal action for posting information that the government disagrees with.

Placed in the hands of Turkeys highly politicized judiciary, the law would become another tool for harassing journalists and activists and may cause blanket self-censorship across the internet.

The bill would also increase any sentence by 50 percent where information is published from anonymous user accounts. This severely undermines anonymity on the internet and further intimidates those wanting to publish evidence of corruption and wrongdoing but are afraid of the consequences of being publicly identified.

The governing alliance claim the bill is in line with the European Unions Digital Services Act and General Data Protection Regulation, however there are no such provisions under either of these laws.

The law would also bring news sites under the Press Law (Basin Kanunu). This gives their journalists access to the official press accreditation and also to public advertising funds through the official Press Advertising Agency, Basin Ilan Kurumu (BIK). In practice however this will simply enable the government to fund pro-government news sites while banning critical media deemed to have breached the disinformation law.

In the drafting stage, the government reportedly organized a consultation with international digital platforms yet it failed to hold any meetings with media representatives, editors, journalism associations, or unions, despite these groups, and their members, being the most affected by the legislation.

The draft bill is currently before the Parliament. However the role of parliament has been so heavily undermined by the Presidential system that the bill is being rushed through without proper scrutiny or debate and expected to be passed swiftly into law within days.

Disinformation is an important issue and needs to be combatted but not at the price of restricting journalists rights and the publics rights of freedom of expression. Any such initiatives should be developed in close consultation with media and other stakeholders and include sufficient safeguards for free speech and independent journalism that can prevent their abuse by the government to impose arbitrary censorship.

We, therefore, call on all Turkeys parliamentarians who believe in the parliamentary process and the free flow of ideas and information as central to a democratic society to vote down this bill.

SignatoriesInternational Press Institute (IPI)ARTICLE 19Articolo 21Association of European JournalistsCommittee to Protect JournalistsEnglish PENEuropean Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)Foreign Media Association (FMA)IFEXInternational Federation of Journalists (IFJ)Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)Media Research Association (MEDAR)OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)PEN AmericaPEN InternationalPEN NorwayPlatform for Independent Journalism (P24)Reporters Without Borders (RSF)South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)Swedish PenThe Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support ProjectWorld Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)

Visit link:
International Groups Call on Turkey's Parliament to Reject the Disinformation Bill as a Tool of Digital Censorship - PEN America

Gangster Gangaraju Censor report and run time

Gangster Gangaraju is an upcoming Telugu movie which is gearing up for the grand release very soon. The movie is directed by Eeshaan Suryaah and will feature Nihar Kapoor, Laksh Chadalavada, Vedieka Dutt, Vennela Kishore and Srikanth Iyyengar as lead characters. The movie also has Goparaju Ramana, Satyakrishan, Raviteja Nannimala, Charan Deep,Srikanth Iyenger, Rajeshwari Nair, Sammeta Gandhi, Rajendra, Anu Manasa, Lavanya Reddy, Annapoorna, and others in the important roles. According to the latest update, Gangster Gangaraju has completed the censor formalities and received U/A certificate from the censor board. The movie has crisp run time of 2Hrs 12Mins.

g-Ad

In the month of August last year, the makers of Gangster Gangaraju , unveiled the first look poster of Laksh Chadalavada who was spotted wearing an under cool outfit. He was seen sipping the coconut water.

The upcoming action entertainer Gangster Gangaraju is funded by well-known producer Padmavathi Chadalavada under the banner of Sri Tirumala Tirupati Venkstwshwara Films while Chadalavada Brothers are presenting this upcoming drama, which has the music by Sai Kartheek. The promotions of the film are going on in full swing. While the first look and songs of Gangster Gangaraju got a wonderful response. Being made with a different and first-of-its-kind storyline, the upcoming drama Gangster Gangaraju has all the thrilling elements for the movie lovers.

Read the original:
Gangster Gangaraju Censor report and run time - Tollywood