Mediaboss Marketing

We all know about the censorship by social media companies, but how this got started has never been explained.

Most people think that the Big Tech companies did this on their own because of their protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Well, I have had in my possession some documents for several months that came from the congressional office of U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, on his congressional stationery and signed by him.

These documents reveal that on April 29, Schiff sent a letter to the presidents on Google, YouTube and Facebook, suggesting that they could use their position to reduce or eliminate information on the internet that was contrary to the reports of the World Health Organization. It is reasonable to conclude that when Big Tech got the green light to censor people about COVID-19 that they saw the opportunity to use the same means to censor the president and so on.

I have provided the documents to various political and legal figures.

Everyone had assumed that social media was immune from prosecution because of Section 230. It is now clear that the Big Tech firms were acting as an agent for the federal government through its agent, Congressman Adam Schiff. As such, that eliminates the protections and makes them subject to a civil lawsuit.

This is the same legal principle as someone borrowing your car. If you loan your car to a third party for the benefit of the borrower, there is nothing wrong with that. But if you give this person the keys to your car so that he can pick up something for you, then he is acting as an agent for you and any negligence he commits is imputable to you, such as in the case of Congressman Schiff.

So when you get angry about the censorship of social media companies, remember who got all this started and vote the Democrats out of office and teach them a lesson.

Editors note: According to several news accounts, including CNBC, Congressman Schiff sent a letter to the CEOs of Google, YouTube and Twitter asking them to be more like Facebook about removing misinformation about COVID-19. Facebook was already directing its users to COVID myths debunked by the World Health Organization.

See the original post:
Big Tech acting as Schiff's agent in its censorship - The Daily Advance

Niamh Algar in CensorImage: Magnet Releasing

Censor is a 2021 Giallo film written and directed by Prano-Bailey Bond, and co-written with Anthony Fletcher. The story follows Enid Baines (Niamh Algar), a woman who works at the British film censor board. She is part of a team that decides which movies make it into theaters and which films will never see the light of day. While at work shes well-liked and seen as a hard worker, but outside her job, shes haunted by her younger sisters disappearance.

Her parents want to move on, but Enid refuses to let go. Then, one day while looking at a gory slasher snuff film, Enid thinks she sees her sister in the movie. This sets her on a course of self-destruction as she aims to unravel the truth behind her sisters disappearance. Censorwhich io9 got to review out of Sundance earlier this yearcenters around the inner workings of Enids mind instead of focusing on the terrors of the real world. Bailey-Bond and Fletcher want to evoke unease and tension. However, it often gets overshadowed by its hesitancy to tell the audience the truth. Not sure why as early on its easy to predict where the story is going. Further exploring how obsession as a trauma response can lead to disastrous results would have been a better use of the movies time instead of trying to be scary.

Despite the issues, the Giallo influence is palpable and used to great effect. Censor expertly uses color and style to blend atmospheric tension and suspense. The Cinematography by Annika Summerson and Bailey-Pranos direction is Argentoesque and make it very obvious. The pinks, blues, and purples are not the usual colors used to create tension, but it works here. Theres a strong sense of claustrophobia. No matter where Enid is in the film, the super-tight shots leave no room for her to move, so the audience is forced into a state of discomfort watching this womans death spiral. The kill scenes are gory as hell and also tightly filmed, so you see everything up close and personalin all its bloody glory.

Is Censor the future of Giallo cinema? Well, its hard to say as Giallo is one of those timeless sub-genres that doesnt often see drastic changejust bigger budgets. A better question is whether modern directors and storytellers will utilize the style enough to enhance quality content? And that is what Censor does well. Read Germain Lussiers in-depth Sundance 2021 review of Censor here. The film is currently in theaters and will be available on VOD June 18.

For more, make sure youre following us on our Instagram @io9dotcom.

G/O Media may get a commission

View post:
Is Censor the Future of Giallo Horror? - Gizmodo

Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey on late Friday (local time) was heckled at the Bitcoin 2021 conference held in Miami.

"Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey heckled over censorship during an #Bitcoin event," tweeted Disclose.tv.

At the event, one of the attendees interrupted the discussion at one point, seemingly accusing Dorsey of undue censorship of free speech through Twitter.

According to US-based entertainment news company Meaww, the attendee who interrupted Dorsey was an anti-Muslim activist, Laura Loomer.

She attacked Dorsey at the bitcoin reference for being a "giant hypocrite about censorship and freedom of speech".

Laura registered her protest against the new censorship rules and accused Dorsey of "interfering" with people's rights.

"Censorship is human rights violation, " she said. Following her gimmick, Laura was quickly escorted out, reported Meaww.

Twitter banned Laura back in 2018 after she posted a tweet about Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar. In her tweet, Laura mentioned that Omar, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, was "anti-Jewish" and that her religion pushed homophobia and abuse of women.

Laura had registered her protest against getting banned from the platform by handcuffing herself to the glass doors leading into Twitter's Manhattan headquarters. "It's almost as if Twitter hates Jews and conservatives. When is Jack Dorsey going to stop censoring conservatives? When am I going to get my Twitter back? I'll be here as long as it takes, " she said, reported Meaww.

Twitter raged with reactions over Laura Loomer's heckling of Twitter CEO over censorship issues. While some agreed with Laura's stance, some condemned her act.

One user wrote, "Jack Dorsey, why don't you do the right thing and allow all voices to be heard? Seriously, what are you so afraid of? That people will think for themselves?"

One of the comments slamming Laura Looner read, "Hearing Laura Loomer just lost it on Jack Dorsey at a Bitcoin event in Miami -for censorship Sorry, dopey Laura, wrong platform It's Facebook you're mad at today. But hey, keep it up! Rational America really appreciates the help getting Trump permanently banned from Twitter!"

Another tweet read, "Laura Loomer is a racist islamaphobic loser who feels important because every once and a while she trends on twitter for doing some dumb... like she did today with Jack Dorsey"

At the conference, Dorsey was joined during the discussion by Alex Gladstein the chief strategy officer of Human Rights Foundation and another advocate for the sovereign potential of Bitcoin.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!

See more here:
Twitter's CEO Jack heckled at Bitcoin 2021 conference over censorship issue - Mint

June 2, 2021Social media platforms that have automated moderation policies have been wittingly or unwittingly censoring legitimate speech, according to activists, with those corporate tools coming into focus following last months violence in the Middle East.

Platforms like Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram, as well as others, have moderation systems that automatically flag and remove posts that may encourage hate speech or violence.

But those systems has been taking down, blocking and censoring content from Palestinians, made evident as violence erupted between Israelis and Palestinians last month and continues today, according to a panel hosted by the Middle East Institute Wednesday.

Words have been incorrectly misinterpreted as terrorist speech, flagged and removed, the panelists say. Middle East policy analyst Marwa Fatafta used the example of the erroneous association of Islams third-holiest mosque, Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, to a terrorist organization. This error led to blocked hashtags, removed users, and deleted posts, and Facebooks response was that it was just a technical glitch.

Their machines are blind to the vital context, Fatafta said. This is not unique to the Palestinians. This is bad news to all aspects of social justice.

Palestinians have said that their perspective has not been reflected adequately in traditional media, and they have taken to social media as a way to get their message across.

The discussion comes as conversations heat up about possible reforms to Section 230, the legal provision governing platform liability for what users posts.

In a time of such violence, Fatafta explains this is a profound problem from a human rights perspective that needs to be addressed immediately by these large companies. She said the danger of the power being given to these big tech companies is that hey can choose the narrative they want the world to hear, and censor what they deem unacceptable.

Ignacio Delgado Culebras, a journalist covering the Middle East and North Africa, said there needs to be more transparency with these social media platforms. He explained we are still left in the dark about how companies make these decisions and who they consult with, and thousands of requests over the years to adjust the community standards have been denied.

These are ultimately human policy decisions, and they can be addressed or reversed, said Eliza Campbell, an associate director at the Middle East Institute. These are systems that we chose, and we can choose to reconsider them, and hopefully, that will be something we can see going forward.

Go here to see the original:
Automated Social Media Moderation In Focus Following Allegations Of Censorship - BroadbandBreakfast.com

Twenty years ago, Toronto police ordered a series of degrading paintings to be pulled from the window of a Queen Street East shop, after neighbourhood residents complained.

The paintings (and their creator Ann-Marie Cheung) are pictured here in this 1991 photo by the Toronto Stars Jim Wilkes. The paintings depicted bare-breasted, blue-tinged women bound by chains and thorny rope, with their long ethereal hair escaping restraint.

Razzle Cameron, the manager of the shop Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, agreed to remove the paintings to stay out of trouble. However, Cameron did not agree with the complaint, noting at the time that a strip club down the block was not being painted with the same brush.

Cheung remembers feeling rather surprised and found it quite humorous that some people could be so offended by a work of art. But the censorship of her work did not amuse: I was angered that my freedom of expression was stripped from me.

These paintings by Cheung had been displayed without incident at an Ottawa art gallery three years earlier. However, it seemed that Toronto audiences were more sensitive.

As an artist, Cheung says, it is my job to evoke an emotional response. In that case I was successful; but, it wasnt my initial intention.

Today, Cheung lives just outside of Toronto, with a home studio in which she can continue to paint the goddess and explore the divine feminine.

Reflecting on those controversial pieces, Cheung describes them as painted in a surreal symbolist style. She explains, The one in chains was personifying how women are chained to certain roles. The one blindfolded and bound was ironically about censorship, symbolizing how our eyes and hands are restricted. To this day she maintains there was nothing sexual or pornographic about the pieces.

There is certainly nothing unusual or new about depictions of nude women in fine art, neither today nor when Cheung painted these pieces. At art school we study and draw and paint from live nude models, says Cheung, who graduated from the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto. I feel that it is the artists right to express and interpret anything they desire.

Cheung sees her mission as an artist as one of release. I help adventurous spirits create a joyful, magical space in their lives with my unique, vibrant, whimsical artwork, she says. And, Cheung believes we all have an inner artist eager to come out and play. She produces workshops and programs to guide others in their own sacred painting practice, even those with no artistic experience.

As unconventional today as she was 20 years ago, Cheung is also a certified yoga instructor, is learning to scuba dive, and hopes to hold in-person art retreats once the pandemic is over. She looks forward to encouraging artistic expression through exploring ancient symbols, meditations and exercises that will ignite creative spark and help others, as well as herself, connect with the art that is your life.

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

Read the rest here:
A Toronto artist's painting symbolized censorship of women. In 1991, Toronto police ordered it removed - TheSpec.com