Mediaboss Marketing

Following Red Dress Day on May 5, a day aimed to raise awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG), Indigenous activists and supporters of the campaign found posts about MMIWG had disappeared from their Instagram accounts. In response, Instagram released a tweet saying that this was a widespread global technical issue not related to any particular topic, followed by an apology explaining that the platform experienced a technical bug, which impacted millions of peoples stories, highlights and archives around the world.

Creators, however, said that not all stories were affected.

And this is not the first time social media platforms have been under scrutiny because of their erroneous censoring of grassroots activists and racial minorities.

Many Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists were similarly frustrated when Facebook flagged their accounts, but didnt do enough to stop racism and hate speech against Black people on their platform.

So were these really about technical glitches? Or did they result from the platforms discriminatory and biased policies and practices? The answer lies somewhere in between.

Every time an activists post is wrongly removed, there are at least three possible scenarios.

First, sometimes the platform deliberately takes down activists posts and accounts, usually at request of and/or in co-ordination with the government. This happened when Facebook and Instagram removed posts and accounts of Iranians who expressed support for the Iranian general Qassem Soleiman.

In some countries and disputed territories, such as Kashmir, Crimea, Western Sahara and Palestinian territories, platforms censored activists and journalists to allegedly maintain their market access or to protect themselves from legal liabilities.

Second, a post can be removed through a user-reporting mechanism. To handle unlawful or prohibited communication, social media platforms have indeed primarily relied on users reporting.

Applying community standards developed by the platform, content moderators would then review reported content and determine whether a violation had occurred. If it had, the content would be removed, and, in the case of serious or repeat infringements, the user may be temporarily suspended or permanently banned.

This mechanism is problematic. Due to the sheer volume of reports received on a daily basis, there are simply not enough moderators to review each report adequately. Also, complexities and subtleties of language pose real challenges. Meanwhile, marginalized groups reclaiming abusive terms for public awareness, such as BLM and MMIWG, can be misinterpreted as being abusive.

Further, in flagging content, users tend to rely on partisanship and ideology. User reporting approach is driven by popular opinion of a platforms users while potentially repressing the right to unpopular speech.

Such approach also emboldens freedom to hate, where users exercise their right to voice their opinions while actively silencing others. A notable example is the removal by Facebook of Freedom for Palestine, a multi-artist collaboration posted by Coldplay, after a number of users reported the song as abusive.

Third, platforms are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to help identify and remove prohibited content. The idea is that complex algorithms that use natural language processing can flag racist or violent content faster and better than humans possibly can. During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media companies are relying more on AI to cover for tens of thousands of human moderators who were sent home. Now, more than ever, algorithms decide what users can and cannot post online.

Theres an inherent belief that AI systems are less biased and can scale better than human beings. In practice, however, theyre easily disposed to error and can impose bias on a colossal systemic scale.

In two 2019 computational linguistic studies, researchers discovered that AI intended to identify hate speech may actually end up amplifying racial bias.

In one study, researchers found that tweets written in African American English commonly spoken by Black Americans are up to twice more likely to be flagged as offensive compared to others. Using a dataset of 155,800 tweets, another study found a similar widespread racial bias against Black speeches.

Whats considered offensive is bound to social context; terms that are slurs when used in some settings may not be in others. Algorithmic systems lack an ability to capture nuances and contextual particularities, which may not be understood by human moderators who test data used to train these algorithms either. This means natural language processing which is often perceived as an objective tool to identify offensive content can amplify the same biases that human beings have.

Algorithmic bias may jeopardize some people who are already at risk by wrongly categorizing them as offensive, criminals or even terrorists. In mid 2020, Facebook deleted at least 35 accounts of Syrian journalists and activists on the pretext of terrorism while in reality, they were campaigning against violence and terrorism.

MMIWG, BLM and the Syrian cases exemplify the dynamic of algorithms of opression where algorithms reinforce older oppressive social relations and re-install new modes of racism and discrimination.

While AI is celebrated as autonomous technology that can develop away from human intervention, it is inherently biased. The inequalities that underpin bias already exist in society and influence who gets the opportunity to build algorithms and their databases, and for what purpose. As such, algorithms do not intrinsically provide ways for marginalized people to escape discrimination, but they also reproduce new forms of inequality along social, racial and political lines.

Despite the apparent problems, algorithms are here to stay. There is no silver bullet, but one can take steps to minimize bias. First is to recognize that theres a problem. Then, making a strong commitment to root out algorithmic biases.

Bias can infiltrate the process anywhere in designing algorithms.

The inclusion of more people from diverse backgrounds within this process Indigenous, racial minorities, women and other historically marginalized groups is one of important steps to help mitigate the bias. In the meantime, it is important to push platforms to allow for as much transparency and public oversight as possible.

Visit link:
Beyond a technical bug: Biased algorithms and moderation are censoring activists on social media - The Conversation CA

Social science lecturer fears 'decolonisation'

A national newspaper is reporting accusations of 'Soviet-style' censorship at Exeter University.

The Daily Telegraph, a Conservative paper, says it's been told academics at the university's department of Social Sciences must develop courses that move away from a "white, Eurocentric" curriculum. One lecturer, unnamed by the newspaper and possibly the only complainant,is said to be "shocked" that academic freedom is being undermined.

One says: "It is like there is a Maoist cultural revolution taking place in our centre of learning."

Maoism, named after Chinese leader Mao Zedong,led to the deaths of millions of his people in a ruthless quest to impose a communist regime.

No one is reported to have died at Exeter University because of a possible change of course structure in the social science department.

The Telegraph's Exeter informant says: "It is just ridiculous - we are supposed to be a leading Russell Group university. This affected thousands of students and hundreds of academics."

The lecturer told the Telegraph the "movement to 'decolonise' the curriculum has swiftly progressed from a 'faddish fringe theory' to being 'adopted as the new orthodoxy' in universities. He likened the approach to the Soviet Union where academics might be asked to prove how their courses would advance radical socialism in the face of reactionary capitalist imperialism from the West."

The paper says the fear of Exeter University lecturers they spoke to is that their courses will not be approved unless they 'decolonise' them.

In the Queen's Speech opening the new session of parliament last week, a new bill on academic freedom was outlined, which education secretary Gavin Williamson says will end "the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all."

A spokesperson for Exeter University says:We are following the guidance from theQuality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, which asks us to consider the needs of all students -including those studying at different locations, from different cultural/educational backgrounds, with additional learning needs, or with protected characteristics when we design modules. We are an international organisation with staff and students from around the world, and from a wide range of backgrounds, and it is right this is recognised in our teaching and assessment.

Read the original here:
Exeter University accused of 'Maoist' censorship - Radio Exe

Larry Strauss, Opinion columnist Published 1:00 a.m. MT May 17, 2021

My job is to challenge students to wrestle with ambiguities. Trying to convince them critical race theory is valid would be indoctrination, not teaching.

Rep. Justin Lafferty of the Tennessee General Assembly debates critical race theory bill on May 4, 2021, in Nashville.(Photo: AP)

When I read that Tennessee legislators hadpassed a ban on teachingcritical race theoryin public schools,I remembered the oath I swore to the country when I was hired to teach public school in Los Angeles. I had to promise not to promote any ideas that could lead to the overthrow of our government (I was flattered to be suspected of having such power).

I do not live in Tennessee and have only been to the state twice in my life, but this is a concerning trend. Restrictions and prohibitions on what teachers can and cannot say or teach about the ugly and ongoing history of race in the United States are emerging not only in Tennessee but also in Indiana, Texasand other states. In Oklahoma, the governor was kicked off a commission on the 1921 Tulsa race massacre last week for signing a ban.

These measures may satisfy the concerns ofwhite parentswho fear a conspiracy ofleftist political indoctrinationgripping ourpublic schools. Or parents who wish to protect theirchildrenfromthe discomfort or shame of our racial past and present.At the very least,there are politicalpoints to be scored from adunk shotonprogressive ideology that simultaneously condemns and censors it.

Censoring K-12 teachers is nothing new, as I know from personal experience.I've never been accused of violating the oath I took 30 years ago, but the truth is it wouldn't have been difficult to build a case against me. Teaching kids to think for themselves which I proudly do is a threat to those with political and economic power, albeit a very small one from my small corner of the universe.

I have never explicitly advocated any political or economic ideology, but I certainly have not tried to hide from studentsanyinjustices, past or present, nor discouraged themfromtheir ownradical thinking.My job is tochallenge everything they say. To show them multiple perspectives to anything and everything and demand evidence for any and all claims they make. If they areskeptical of popular or traditional beliefs andanyonein positions of power including me then I have done my job.

Los Angeles high school teacher Larry Strauss says goodbye to his fall 2020 class on Zoom.(Photo: Family photo)

I do not "teach critical race theory" and I never will.I will teach them about itand helpthemunderstand its assertions and the evidence appropriate to support those assertions but it must always be up to students to arrive at their own conclusions.

Students: Police don't belong in schools. Here's how we forced them out.

An educators job is to present ways of thinking. Not ever to "teach" children what to think or how to see the world or the history of it.Ifanyteachersobjective is to convince students of the validity ofcritical race theory or any other theory on raceor anything else,theyare not teaching; and those concerned parents are right. That is indoctrination.

Any educator anywhere teaching anything must not only accept but also cultivate dissent from students or they are not really educators.

Larry Strauss, a high school teacher in South Los Angeles and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors(Photo: Anthony Maya)

Like anyone else, educatorshave opinions and, yes,biases. And if we believe we are right in our views, then we ought to have confidence that those views, presented objectively along the spectrum of views, will convince their young minds. More important, we should be open-minded enough to accept when a student arrives at a different conclusion.

Put simply, if we wont listen to reason, why should they?

If your objective is to make childrenof any ethnicityfeel shame or guilt, you should not be working with children.You shouldnt be teaching anywhere.

Our objective should be to open their eyes and trust that they will open their hearts. One of our most effective tools to that end is to listen, to show that we care aboutour studentsand respect them as individualswith minds of their own.

I wish someone would explain this to the politicians who believeit's their obligation to narrow the scope ofreality we may present to children,who believe that learning can occur without some discomfort, and who seem not to understand that any idea they seek to ban from our curricular discourse is easily accessed on the internet.

College: Does your first-choice college have you on the waitlist? You better come up with a Plan B.

In the information age, abridging the curriculum like this only serves to make school less relevant. Most students, especially if they go on to college, will learn about critical race theory one way or another. If you think it's a bogus theory, encourage those students to do the research. Otherwise, they'llknow you're just hiding a truth that angers orembarrasses you.

Real education authentic, legitimateand meaningful means providing opportunities for students to wrestle with the ambiguities of the world they are supposed to inherit. The lawmakers of Tennessee are selling out thechildren they are supposed to represent, ensuring that fewer of them will be prepared to function at a high level in a complex and ambiguous world.

Larry Strauss is ahigh school English teacher and retiredbasketball coach in South Los Angeles. A member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, he isthe author of more than a dozen books, most recently"Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher"and, on audio,"Now's the Time"(narrated by Kim Fields). Follow him on Twitter:@LarryStrauss

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/05/17/banning-teaching-critical-race-theory-shortchanges-students/5078218001/

Go here to see the original:
Bad teaching: Bans on critical race theory in schools narrow reality and sell out kids - AZCentral.com

Inage Credit: WWE via Bleacher Report

More than two decades after Right to Censor debuted, it remains one of the most memorable groups in WWE history.

The stable, led by Steven Richards, was a fitting foil to the overall product at the time, as the company was in the thick of the Attitude Era.

In a recent interview with Chris Van Vliet, Richards explained how the group defied the odds by lasting as long as it did. He also reflected on how this portion of his career was beneficial, as it allowed him to tap into new aspects of his abilities as a performer.

The interesting thing about the Right to Censor was, I dont think it was supposed to be for the long term, and I dont think it was supposed to turn into what it did, said Richards. It was obviously supposed to be a political statement against the Parent Television Council. It was supposed to really be something of a middle finger and an FU to that.

But also at the same time, it gave me the opportunity to really look at myself and have people look at me in a completely different light, that I can talk, and I can talk in this vein, not just the silly comedy.

RELATED:Stevie Richards On Goldberg vs. Undertaker Being Designed To Fail, His Best Runs

Richards also explained how most characters or storyline elements that are based on politics tend to fizzle out in roughly a month, but Right to Censor was presented as more of a cult to prolong its longevity. He also argued that the group could have lasted longer, as it could have set up its members for success. Plus, Richards shared his idea that the stable could have explored getting The Godfather and Val Venis back to their uncensored gimmicks.

Theres a lot of things I think that Ive done that had more legs, said Richards. And I look at this in the vein of getting babyfaces over. I dont look at it as a run of getting myself over. The heels are strictly there to really, in the end, get babyfaces over.

We could have gotten a lot more babyfaces over. It felt a lot longer than a year because we were out there so much on everything. And it was really only about a year, maybe a year and a couple months. I think it could have had a really good two-year run where we could have figured out how to get Godfather back from the Good Father, how to get Val back to a porn star, if we could do it politically, obviously, with ads and stuff.

I think we could have gone another year, just to springboard everybody into a different position.

The full interview is available here:

Read this article:
Stevie Richards On Right To Censor: I Dont Think It Was Meant To Last, It Could Have Had A Two-Year Run - Wrestlezone

Facebooks very own independent content oversight board has testified about the social media behemoths content moderation shortcomings!

Michael McConnel, the Co-Chairman of the panel, followed by the bodys decision to indefinitely ban former President Donald Trump, said that Facebooks rules are a shambles and there is no transparency, nor any consistency.

McConnel, on Fox News Sunday said that the independent body gave a series of recommendations to Facebook on making the rules clearer. And now it is being anticipated that the company will take the new few months to implement and apply the same in a straightforward way.

The social media behemoth suspended Trumps account after he encouraged his loyal supporters to storm the Capitol, an event which became a deadly attempt to overturn the counting of the Electoral College votes in favour of Joe Biden. The ban was originally only a temporary measure, but its status was turned to indefinite on the following day.

According to McConnell, Trumps posts were a plain violation of Facebooks rules, which state that one must not praise dangerous individuals and organisations during a time of violence. During the riot on January 6th, even though Trumps statements seemed like he was asking for peace, he was mostly egging them on to continue.

After Facebook went on and banned the former President, members from both parties in the U.S Congress called for breaking up large tech companies by arguing that they are exercising monopolistic powers on the marketplace by censoring voices and holding back innovations.

But McConnel, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University and a former federal judge, dismissed the concerns about Facebook violating Trumps First Amendment rights by leaving the ban in place by stating that the social media giant is a private company.

McConnel said that Facebook is not a government-owned entity, making Trump a customer and not a citizen of Facebook. But that being said, he mentioned that the lack of consistency and transparency around Facebooks content moderation rules do contribute to questions about unfairness and biases.

The Co-Chairman of Facebooks Independent Content Oversight Board said that fairness and consistency are the bedrocks of freedom of expression rules. Therefore, if Facebook simply let Trump off the hook, then it wouldnt exactly be called equal treatment as he is subjected to the same rules all other users of the platform operate under.

McConnel dismissed the concerns from Senator Hawley and others who have remarked that the oversight board members are simply toadies for the social media against as Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, appointed them.

For long Facebook has been facing criticism over its content moderation policies. In many other countries, such as India and Myanmar, the social media giant faced the heat for making moves against certain content that people felt was a biased approach to favour certain parties.

It now remains to be seen when and how Facebook plans to make amends in the content moderation and oversight policies. We will keep you updated on all future developments. Until then, stay tuned.

See the article here:
Facebooks Content Censorship Policies Are Broken, And It Must Be Fixed ASAP! - Dazeinfo