Mediaboss Marketing

Oakland News Now

video made by the YouTube channel with the logo in the videos upper left hand corner. OaklandNewsNow.com is the original blog post for this type of video-blog content.

Government censors in Democratic Republic of the Congo banned seven pop songs last week, most of them critical of president Felix Tshisekedi and his party.

via IFTTT

Note from Zennie62Media and OaklandNewsNow.com : this video-blog post demonstrates the full and live operation of the latest updated version of an experimental Zennie62Media , Inc. mobile media video-blogging system network that was launched June 2018. This is a major part of Zennie62Media , Inc.s new and innovative approach to the production of news media. What we call The Third Wave of Media. The uploaded video is from a YouTube channel. When the YouTube video channel for Al Jazeera English International News uploads a video it is automatically uploaded to and formatted automatically at the Oakland News Now site and Zennie62-created and owned social media pages. The overall objective here, on top of our is smartphone-enabled, real-time, on the scene reporting of news, interviews, observations, and happenings anywhere in the World and within seconds and not hours is the use of the existing YouTube social graph on any subject in the World. Now, news is reported with a smartphone and also by promoting current content on YouTube: no heavy and expensive cameras or even a laptop are necessary, or having a camera crew to shoot what is already on YouTube. The secondary objective is faster, and very inexpensive media content news production and distribution. We have found there is a disconnect between post length and time to product and revenue generated. With this, the problem is far less, though by no means solved. Zennie62Media is constantly working to improve the system network coding and seeks interested content and media technology partners.

Oakland News Online Links From Oakland's Only News Aggregator Blog

See more here:
Government censor in DR Congo outlaws critical songs - Oakland News Now

You would think that kind of money would buy some tolerance and open-mindedness, perhaps a nod toward academic freedom. Kids at Middlesex walked out of class last week, to protest what they called their schools weak leadership.

Tolerance and open-mindedness seem to be at the heart of an MIT initiative launched Monday. Dubbed Real Talk For Change, the more than 200 community conversations offered through an online portal, realtalkforchange.org, are aimed at, as my colleague Meghan E. Irons put it in her story about the new initiative, fostering conversations that will help prompt future community dialogues about the lived experiences of everyday Bostonians, particularly those in marginalized communities.

But what about marginalized scientists?

Last month, MIT canceled a prestigious lecture by Dorian Abbot, a University of Chicago geophysicist. Abbots lecture was about science, not his well-publicized opposition to the way universities are increasing diversity on campus, views that have drawn the ire of his critics.

Robert van der Hilst, head of MITs Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences department, was unmoved by those, especially scientists, who complained that canceling Abbots lecture flew in the face of academic freedom.

As van der Hilst sees it, for all the talk about academic freedom, MIT has the freedom to pick who they want to speak on campus.

Indeed they do. But that ignores the real point: Should scientists empirical views on science be censored because of their unrelated, subjective theories on politics or social policy?

No, of course not, said Harvey Silverglate, the Cambridge civil libertarian who with co-author Alan Charles Kors sounded the alarm 23 years ago with their book The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on Americas Campuses.

This phenomenon, of shutting down speech on campuses, is not new; its just getting worse and worse, Silverglate said.

He contends that elite schools like Middlesex and universities like MIT are run by midlevel bureaucrats who are afraid of their own shadows. The great marketplace of ideas is being shut down by midlevel bureaucrats.

Silverglate also finds it ironic that Abbot is a tenured professor at the University of Chicago, where in 2014 the university adopted the so-called Chicago Principles, which protect the right of faculty and students to engage in speech that some might consider offensive.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 82 colleges and universities have adopted the Chicago Principles or something akin to them, including Boston University, Suffolk University, Brandeis University, and Smith College.

The first university to adopt them after Chicago, Princeton, invited Abbot to speak there after MIT canceled his lecture. The speech took place last Thursday, when Abbots speech at MIT was originally scheduled.

In introducing Abbot, Princeton professor Robert P. George said, We believe that one of the enduring principles in our tradition of civic life, civic liberty, is free speech and academic freedom. And that is why we are hosting Dr. Abbots lecture.

More than 30 years ago, when he was an undergraduate at MIT, Adam Dershowitz challenged MITs policies on censorship, which became a case study in The Shadow University. He was brought up on disciplinary charges, which were ultimately dropped.

But, even as he went on to get his masters and PhD at MIT and became an engineer, the university continued to censor speech.

He agrees with Silverglate that censorship at MIT and other universities where you would think academic freedom would be jealously guarded has gotten worse, not better in the intervening years.

Things should have changed by now, he said.

Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at kevin.cullen@globe.com.

See the original post:
The cost of censorship - The Boston Globe

President Joe Biden's selection to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, has a track record that suggests she is unlikely to help him overhaul a controversial law that gives social media platforms legal immunity for content moderation decisions.

Biden has expressed an interest in both repealing and reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media companies such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter from being sued for content posted by their users, toward the goal of empowering regulators to crack down on misinformation and disinformation.

The FCC has some jurisdiction over Section 230, but Rosenworcel has said she doesn't believe the agency should play a role in moderating or censoring content.

"While social media can be frustrating, turning this agency into the president's speech police is not the answer," Rosenworcel said in July 2020 in relation to a Trump administration petition asking the commission to develop rules to stop social media platforms from censoring content under Section 230.

Earlier this year, Biden revoked Trump's order for the commission to review the law.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REVIEWS CONTROVERSIAL LAW THAT PROTECTS BIG TECH FROM LAWSUITS

Liberal scholars of internet and tech policy say that it's highly unlikely that Rosenworcel will change her mind regarding Section 230 now that Biden is in power and she runs the FCC.

"I would be shocked if she tried to change Section 230 now," said Eric Goldman, who heads the Santa Clara University High Tech Law Institute. "Because it would be a complete flip, a 180, from the position she took earlier, and it's a terrible idea for the FCC to weigh in on this issue."

Biden cannot revoke or amend Section 230 by himself, using an executive order or any other mechanism. Only Congress has the power to change the law.

Capitol Hill is divided, though, regarding how to solve issues related to content moderation, with Democrats focused on curbing the spread of misinformation and disinformation while Republicans are targeting what they say is rampant censorship of conservatives by the social media giants.

Despite bipartisan agreement to hold Big Tech companies more accountable for unfair and unclear behavior in regards to content moderation, the two parties do not agree on how to change Section 230 within Congress.

Conservatives say that the only way Rosenworcel would take action on Section 230 is if she's pushed into doing so by other Democrats.

"Biden wants to address the issues of misinformation and disinformation online, and his administration could put pressure on her to at least evaluate how she and the FCC could tackle that issue through 230," said Joel Thayer, a lawyer and telecommunications policy expert who worked for former Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"But that seems like a long shot. It would be a total 180 that could only happen if she comes under big pressure from Biden," he added.

Original Location: FCC nominee's record is at odds with Biden censorship goals

Washington Examiner Videos

See the article here:
FCC nominee's record is at odds with Biden censorship goals - Denver Gazette

Truth Social, the new social media platform that former President TrumpDonald TrumpCandidates sue after Pennsylvania county sent hundreds of ballots to wrong address Harris makes a final pitch for McAuliffe Overnight Defense & National Security Biden discusses Afghanistan, submarine deals in Europe MORE says he is rolling out, will combat censorship and the "self-righteous scolds and self-appointed arbiters" who Trump said decide what everyone else is allowed to "think, say, share, and do."

The ex-president, who was banned from Twitter after a mob of his supporters fueled by false claims about last year's election invaded the Capitol to stop the Electoral College vote certification, in a lengthy statement framed his effort as an attack on Big Tech and what he said was its censorship.

"The corruption of these platforms cannot be ignored," Trump said in a statement issued by Trump Media & Technology Group. "We have fallen far down the 'slippery slope' of censorship in our country, and the topics that Americans are increasingly forbidden to debate are among the most important issues of our day."

"This wildly aggressive censorship and cancel-culture is not only un-Americanit has direct, real-world consequences," Trump added.

Trump, who claimed he might be the "only person in America with the megaphone, the resources, the experience, and the desire" to create this platform, arguedTruth Social was a necessary step in the path to restoring democracy.

Trump remains the de facto leader of the Republican Party and is flirting with another run for the White House in 2024.

But his ability to drive news cycles and communicate with millions has been significantly altered by the steps social media companies took to remove him from their platforms after Jan. 6.

Five deaths were connected to the riot at the Capitol, which a special House panel is now investigating.

The moves by Twitter and Facebook to remove Trump has accelerated conservative criticism of Big Tech, which had already become a target for the right.

Trump, who repeatedly feuded with the media while in office, said his new platformwould "challenge the dominance of Big Tech giants and Big Media Bosses."

"For me, this endeavor is about much more than politics. This is about saving our country," Trump added.

Trumpannounced the creation of a new social media platformlast week. It is expected to have abeta launchnext month with a full launch to follow in 2022.In addition to the social media project, Trump Media & Technology Group announced it would also launch an on-demand video streaming service.

This story was updated at 9:41 a.m.

See the original post:
Trump: Truth Social to take on censorship of 'self-righteous scolds' | TheHill - The Hill

When you eliminate people from making contributions to conversations because you disagree with their point of view, you are erasing the individuality that makes each person unique. There is a gross systemic problem rooted deep with liberal media to suppress conservative voices.

In the book 1984, by George Orwell there is a quote that perfectly fits this situation Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

Newspeak is a language that exists in the fictional world of 1984, simplifying language and restricting it so that those in power can control a persons expressionality. Thoughtcrime is the problem of individuals thinking incorrectly and the governments way of punishing them for their mistakes.

Although this world and language created by Orwell is fictional, many can draw parallels to current political circumstances.

The media often claims that there is no bias within telling news, which is absurd, considering that there is extreme negativity pointed towards one view, and assumptions made with no factual objectivity considering the opposite view.

When you choose to only present news on issues that are more liberal, giving no voice to conservative oneshow can you say that you arent biased?

How can you say you arent biased when assumptions are made to the extent of benefiting the liberal party? These assumptions are critically eradicated from those that present the opposite views. Not only is there a need for information for both perspectives, there is a desire from major media outlets, such as CNN, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, and HuffPost, to ostracize and condemn anyone that disagrees with them.

What generates from this type of rhetoric presented in the media creates a situation for conservatives to censor themselves or to be punished. Punishment is different in all situations, except a commonality of harsh treatment is involved in each faucet.

This often takes the form of cancellation. Cancelling means taking the livelihood of an individual simply because you disagree with their framework, the disagreement with how they see political ideology.

Im not saying that you have to agree with what is presented, all I am saying is that I should be able to state what I believe unapologetically. I shouldnt have to be afraid of losing what I have worked for, just for having an opinion that disagrees with the majority.

Limiting freedom of expression is what totalitarians do, in reality, what people do not see is that the people in power (media) are in control. They say neutrality, but in reality someone always has power.

Limit the voices although implicit, because no one will state it explicitly, takes your view and superimposes it on mine. In the end you remain in power, what youre saying is that only my voice matters.

Continue reading here:
OPINION: Censorship is the elimination of freedom of expression - Wichita State Sunflower