Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

PlayStation Reportedly Censoring PS5 Users on Twitter – ComicBook.com

PlayStation is reportedly censoring PS5 users on Twitter. Over the course of the PS4 generation, Sony came under fire from some PlayStation gamers for censoring sexual content in a few different games. Continuing this streak of censorship, it's now censoring PS5 users on Twitter, or at least that's what new reports claim. More specifically, users are reporting that the PS5's share functionality comes equipped with a built-in profanity filter that prohibits users from using certain words when tweeting from their PS5 by blocking the publication of the tweet until the word is removed. Adding to this, apparently, the filter is broken, with one user providing a concrete example of a tweet being flagged for containing problematic language, except it doesn't contain any profanity whatsoever.

Reports of the filter can be found from Twitter to Reddit, but the best example comes way of Patrick Beja. Taking to the former social media platform, Beja revealed that when trying to share a post about Astro's Playroom, full of PG praise for the game and Sony, the PS5 blocked its publication, citing issues with the text.

As you can see below, the tweet has zero profanity, though it's possible "torrent" is triggering the filter, though, for now, this is just a theory.

Oddly enough, there's no mention of this feature within the parental controls, which suggests it can not be removed.

At the moment of publishing, Sony has not commented on this feature or the backlash and speculation it has created. If this changes -- or if more information on the filter itself is provided -- we will be sure to update the story. Until then, for more coverage on the PS5 -- including all of the latest news, rumors, leaks, guides, and deals -- click here or check out the links below:

H/T, The Gamer.

Read more from the original source:
PlayStation Reportedly Censoring PS5 Users on Twitter - ComicBook.com

Snowden: The modern internet became less for the individual and all about centralized control and censorship – Reclaim The Net

Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald has interviewed NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Greenwald was the journalist Snowden contacted in 2013 when he decided to go public with documents revealing global mass surveillance carried out by US and British spy agencies.

In the video interview published on Wednesday, Greenwald and Snowden, who is living in exile, spoke about a range of issues, including the state of the internet today and how it compares to its early days.

Greenwald wanted Snowden to recall what the internet was like in its infancy, for the benefit of those who are too young to remember it and only know it the way it is today marked by centralization, and corporate Big Tech control and censorship.

Snowden spoke about the values that made the web exciting in the early days, when it was creative and cooperative, but also decentralized by virtue of most websites being built by individuals. These were small and not particularly sophisticated but original and human a value that was lost as the internet became more and more centralized with the influx of big corporate and commercial players.

Another difference Snowden spoke about was the ability of people to protect their identities, choosing their own names and staying outside the system of personal data collection and tracking made possible by real identity rules imposed by Facebook and others.

And it wasnt a commercial space, Snowden continued but then it started turning into that, with companies, governments and institutions moving in, competing with each other and making it less for the individual and more for them.

Today, he said, even those whose email is on their own server, private and secure, who then send a copy to somebody with a Gmail account Google has that copy.

This is emblematic of the way a small group of companies is now able to learn more and more about everybodys lives through access to content people share, even in private accounts and direct messages that are nevertheless increasingly visible to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter.

So they know everything about us, at the same time they work in very secretive ways and they have very little due process, Snowden said.

If your YouTube or Gmail account got banned, you can do nothing, he added because youre not Googles customer and the giant has no customer service for you, the regular user only for advertisers.

Greenwald asked if it was misguided to think that as long as Big Techs online censorship and corporate regulation targets those who are considered to be misfits and extremist people should be fine with it and only start objecting once it hits themselves or those they agree with.

Snowden thinks that the big picture that is rarely considered is that censorship often targets people for who they are and what their beliefs are, rather than what they are actually saying.

Are we talking about an intentional call to violence that creates imminent threat? Well thats already not protected under US law, he remarked.

What Snowden finds interesting is that those who want to silence others for using the internet to call for violence are not suing them but are turning to and putting pressure on tech companies to silence these people on their behalf.

The reason this is popular is because some of those targeted are terrible people, he said. But thats also indicative of the way restrictive laws are made and sold to the public, when worst possible examples are singled out to justify controversial action.

One example are the attempts to introduce legislation that would outlaw encryption when things like child pornography are always brought up as an argument in favor of the move, Snowden said.

Take this small group of worst people in the world and use them as a wedge if you dont give us X concession, then Y will happen, he explained the thinking behind it.

Even with terrorism, Snowden continued, the threat comes from a small group of people, but after each attack authorities want even more powers, even though theyve already had plenty to stop the threat before the act happened.

When it comes to censorship and free speech online, pressure groups imposing it dont want to go the hard way of using the legal system, instead wanting to be granted exceptional powers.

They go: lets pressure companies to do this on their own, beyond what the law affords, he said, likening it to how spy agencies work to forge relationships beyond the law.

This is effective because Big Tech companies, most of whom are really ad companies, worry about what advertisers think, Snowden explained, and thats why they accept to impose censorship thats beyond their legal obligations, and even if they internally dont think its right.

View post:
Snowden: The modern internet became less for the individual and all about centralized control and censorship - Reclaim The Net

Was this censorship?: Noam Chomsky, Vijay Prashad ask Tata Lit Live after it cancels their discussion – The Hindu

Celebrated linguist and activist Noam Chomsky, and journalist Vijay Prashad have expressed regret at the abrupt cancellation of their discussion at the online Tata Literature Live festival, asking if the move was a result of censorship.

The dialogue about the 91-year-old Chomskys new book Internationalism or Extinction was scheduled to be held at 9 p.m. on Friday. But at 1 p.m., Chomsky and Prashad received an email informing them that the virtual event will not be taking place.

Noam and I were to speak at the Tata Lit Festival about Noams latest Book. Our Panel was abruptly cancelled just hours before it was to go live, Prasad said in a tweet.

In a statement issued on Peoples Dispatch, Chomsky and Prashad said that they were informed of the events cancellation in the mail.

Then, out of nowhere, near 1 p.m. Indian Standard Time, we received an email which said, cryptically, I am sorry to inform you that due to unforeseen circumstances, we have to cancel your talk today, they said in the joint statement.

It is with regret that we could not hold our discussion at the Mumbai Lit Fest, now owned and operated by the Tata Corporation... Since we do not know why Tata and Mr. Dharker decided to cancel our session, we can only speculate and ask simply: was this a question of censorship? they asked.

The sponsors of the festival did not respond despite repeated attempts to reach out to them.

The panel was to talk about the broad issues that threaten the planet, but then also talk about the specific role of countries such as India and corporations such as the Tatas, the statement said

The issues about the Citizenship Amendment Act, Adivasi (tribal) killing, the industrialisation of indigenous lands and environmental degradation were also to be discussed during the session, it said.

We wanted to talk about how governments such as those led by the Bharatiya Janata Party and corporations such as the Tatas are hastening humanity towards a deeper and deeper crisis, the statement said.

We wanted to appear at this platform in the spirit of open discussion to hold our dialogue about extinction and internationalism, about the darkest part of our human story and the brightest sparks of hope that shine in our world, it said.

Chomskys book is based on a lecture that he delivered in Boston in 2016, in which he warns that human beings must act to end various calamities. The dominant themes in the book include the dangers of nuclear war, climate catastrophe, erosion of democracy.

Excerpt from:
Was this censorship?: Noam Chomsky, Vijay Prashad ask Tata Lit Live after it cancels their discussion - The Hindu

Tata Lit Fest cancels a discussion between Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad, raising concerns of censorship – Frontline

A discussion between Noam Chomsky, a political activist and celebrated linguist, and Vijay Prashad, writer and Frontline columnist, organised by the Tata Literature Festival, was abruptly cancelled a few hours before the event. Chomsky and Prashad were scheduled to speak on November 20 on an online platform about Chomskys latest book Internationalism or Extinction. The organisers said they cancelled the event to protect the integrity of the festival.

Both Chomsky and Prashad accused the organisers of censorship and said they will find another platform to have the discussion, which they said was important and relevant.

Over 50 well-known activists had urged Chomsky and Prashad to bow out of the event, organised by the Tatas, who, they alleged, were involved in widespread human rights violations. It is believed that Chomsky and Prashad were planning to read out a statement during the discussion against corporations such as the Tatas, and the Tatas in particular. The organisers reportedly learned of the plan to open the discussion with the statement and cancelled the event.

In a statement published on Peoples Dispatch (an international media organisation highlighting voices from peoples movements) and released to the media,Vijay Prashad says: Both of us agreed to hold this dialogue because we believe that the themes in the bookthe dangers of nuclear war, climate catastrophe, erosion of democracyrequire the widest circulation and debate. We were pleased to join even though we had reservations about the sponsor of the event.

Vijay Prashads statement says: Noams book is based on a lecture that he delivered in Boston in 2016, in which he warns that human beings must act to end various calamities. Of nuclearism, Noam writes specifically, Either we will bring it to an end, or its likely to bring us to an end. The urgency of these matters cannot be dismissed. In conversation with the actor Wallace Shawn, which followed the lecture, Noam speaks about the perils of public discourse. Objectivity has a meaning, he notes. It means reporting accurately and fairly whats going on inside the Beltway, White House, and Congress. In other words, what is being said by the elites is notable and must be given judicious care by the media owned by large corporations, but what is said outside those circles must be ignored or disparaged. Since we do not know why Tata and Mr. Dharker decided to cancel our session, we can only speculate and ask simply: was this a question of censorship?

Regarding India, the issue of the erosion of democracy is a serious matter, with the passage of bills such as the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the vast sums of money that have now suffocated the voices of the hundreds of millions of impoverished Indian voters as examples of the problem; the issue of warfare is significant, with the Indian government participating in the highly destabilising Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with Australia, Japan, and the United States. We wanted to talk about how governments such as those led by the Bharatiya Janata Party and corporations such as the Tatas are hastening humanity towards a deeper and deeper crisis.

Anil Dharkar, Tata Mumbai Literature Festival director, issued a statement saying: The festival which I founded and run with a dedicated team, owes its success to a free expression of ideas, not a free expression of someones specific agenda. The expression of such an agendawhether against a specific organisation, a corporation or an individualis therefore misplaced in the discussions at our festival.

Go here to see the original:
Tata Lit Fest cancels a discussion between Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad, raising concerns of censorship - Frontline

Google, Facebook and Twitter threaten to leave Pakistan over censorship law – TechCrunch

Global internet companies Facebook, Google and Twitter and others have banded together and threatened to leave Pakistan after the South Asian nation granted blanket powers to local regulators to censor digital content.

Earlier this week, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan granted the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority the power to remove and block digital content that pose harms, intimidates or excites disaffection toward the government or in other ways hurt the integrity, security, and defence of Pakistan.

Through a group called the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC), the tech firms said that they were alarmed by the scope of Pakistans new law targeting internet firms. In addition to Facebook, Google and Twitter, AIC represents Apple, Amazon, LinkedIn, SAP, Expedia Group, Yahoo, Airbnb, Grab, Rakuten, Booking.com, Line and Cloudflare.

If the message sounds familiar, its because this is not the first time these tech giants have publicly expressed their concerns over the new law, which was proposed by Khans ministry in February this year.

After the Pakistani government made the proposal earlier this year, the group had threatened to leave, a move that made the nation retreat and promise an extensive and broad-based consultation process with civil society and tech companies.

That consultation never happened, AIC said in a statement on Thursday, reiterating that its members will be unable to operate in the country with this law in place.

The draconian data localization requirements will damage the ability of people to access a free and open internet and shut Pakistans digital economy off from the rest of the world. Its chilling to see the PTAs powers expanded, allowing them to force social media companies to violate established human rights norms on privacy and freedom of expression, the group said in a statement.

The Rules would make it extremely difficult for AIC Members to make their services available to Pakistani users and businesses. If Pakistan wants to be an attractive destination for technology investment and realise its goal of digital transformation, we urge the Government to work with industry on practical, clear rules that protect the benefits of the internet and keep people safe from harm.

Under the new law, tech companies that fail to remove or block the unlawful content from their platforms within 24 hours of notice from Pakistan authorities also face a fine of up to $3.14 million. And like its neighboring nation, India which has also proposed a similar regulation with little to no backlash Pakistan now also requires these companies to have local offices in the country.

The new rules comes as Pakistan has cracked down on what it deems to be inappropriate content on the internet in recent months. Earlier this year, it banned popular mobile game PUBG Mobile and last month it temporarily blocked TikTok.

Countries like Pakistan and India contribute little to the bottom line for tech companies. But India, which has proposed several protectionist laws in recent years, has largely escaped any major protest from global tech companies because of its size. Pakistan has about 75 million internet users.

By contrast, India is the biggest market for Google and Facebook by users. Silicon Valley companies love to come to India because its an MAU (monthly active users) farm, Kunal Shah, a veteran entrepreneur, said in a conference in 2018.

Read more from the original source:
Google, Facebook and Twitter threaten to leave Pakistan over censorship law - TechCrunch