Mediaboss Marketing

After the success of K-pop, K-drama and even K-movies internationally, the letter K is now often placed in front of Korean products that make Koreans proud. K-quarantine was a word used in multiple headlines this year to recognize the relative success of Korea in containing the COVID-19.

However, there is one K- word that became widespread online this year that does the opposite: K-censorship is a derogatory term used to criticize excessive censorship in Korea.

Internet portal site Naver was plagued this summer by a series of scandals concerning violence and sexual references in some of its webtoons, resulting in the removal or re-editing of certain scenes. Each time, Naver Webtoon apologized and promised stricter guidelines for its webtoons.

But the result was not what readers had expected.

Naver Webtoon has a guideline that has been written while taking into consideration the standards set by the Publication Ethics Committee, the Korea Media Rating Board, the Korea Communication Standards Commission, and others. The guideline is not made available to the public, according to a Naver Webtoon Official.

Naver does not censor the final product unilaterally. It checks the work of the authors and make changes only in collaboration with the author. Yet, edited webtoons often come under criticism from both readers and authors.

Although Naver and the artists concerned intended to change scenes that highlighted female bodies or showed violence, some fans thought the censorship went too far.

The blade of a knife is gone after it was edited. (Naver Webtoon)

Readers displeasure about the scenes that had caused trouble in the summer can be felt in the comments and ratings of the webtoons. Popular webtoons that had consistently received high ratings of 9 out of 10 before the readers were disturbed by the stories, are now getting ratings below 5 on many of the controversial episodes. Additionally, comment sections are being filled with expressions of discomfort.

Recently, people are questioning excessive censorship after a scene featuring high school students drinking alcohol was changed to a scene of the students drinking soda and a scene showing some female characters were changed to make them less provocative.

Over 20,000 people up-voted comments on Episode 151 of The Girl from Random Chatting that mocked Naver Webtoon for making one of the characters drunk off of soda after alcohol was replaced by a soft drink.

A censored scene from Life Completely Ruined (Naver Webtoon)

Some webtoon artists lamented the whole censorship situation.

Its not that I dont understand Navers stance. These days, some readers have very high censorship standards. Its natural that big platforms like Naver are cautious. But, as an author, I question whether it is possible to keep the story going with these standards, said one author on his personal blog.

The author of The Girl from Random Chatting also said in a livestream that although he wanted to upload an uncensored version, he would be responsible for any criticism received and decided not to do so. He also mentioned that Naver is trying to protect the authors.

Naver Webtoon has over 67 million monthly users and grossed over 3 billion won ($2.65 million) in a single day in August.

Other authors, such as Joo Ho-min of Along With the Gods, say that the times are difficult for webtoon artists with all the censorship by readers.

Similar censorship occurred when the Juvenile Protection Act in 1997 caused many adult comics go out of business, prompting talented comic artists like Boichi, or Park Mu-jik, of Dr. Stone to move to Japan.

Naver officials said that the companys guidelines would continue to be adjusted to meet societys requirements.

By Lim Jang-won (ljw@heraldcorp.com)

Read more:
Naver accused of excessive censorship of webtoons after string of controversies - The Korea Herald

While receiving nearly half a million dollars from Burisma, the Atlantic Council partnered with Facebook to monitor election misinformation.

Then, last week Facebook suppressed negative press about Burisma under the watch of Facebooks election integrity leader, who is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who used to work for the former VP of the United States, Joe Biden.

Conflicts of interest abound between Facebooks censorship, the Atlantic Council, Burisma, and politics.

OAN journalist Jack Posobiec connected several of the dots succinctly in a Tweet on Thursday:

The Atlantic Council signed a deal to accept hundreds of thousands in funding from Burisma Holdings

Then the Atlantic Council partnered with Facebook to monitor election misinformation

Then Facebook censored the Burisma story

Pay attention

Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) October 22, 2020

Starting in 2016, Burisma would give the Atlantic Council $100,000 per year, Yahoo News reported in November, 2019.

The Atlantic Council told Yahoo News at the time that in addition to the $100,000 given annually by Burisma, the company also reimbursed speaker travel and event costs, which amounted to around [$50,000 to $70,000] per year,' which would put the total at around $450,000 as of the end of 2019.

On its own website the Atlantic Council lists Burisma on its list of contributors who doled out between $100,000 and $249,999 to the think tank in 2019 alone.

The Atlantic Council has a stellar reputation looking at innovative solutions to hard problems Facebook

While that was going on, Facebook announced a new election partnership with the Atlantic Council,on May 17, 2018.

The social media giant said that it was using the Atlantic Councils Digital Research Unit Monitoring Missions during elections and other highly sensitive moments, and that experts from theirDigital Forensic Research Labwill work closely with our security, policy and product teams to get Facebook real-time insights and updates on emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world.

Facebook said the partnership would allow it to focus on monitoring for misinformation and foreign interference and also working to help educate citizens as well as civil society.

So, Facebook partnered with the Atlantic Council to monitor for misinformation during elections while the think tank was being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Ukrainian energy company Burisma a company that had the son of the former United States VP on its board.

Then last week, Facebook censored the New York Post article that was critical of Burisma, to say the very least.

And the person leading Facebooks election integrity efforts, Anna Makanju, is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council whoused to be the special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia (including Ukraine)to the former vice president of the United States.

When the New York Post published its smoking gun story on October 14, Facebooks communications director Andy Stone announced that the social media giant was already suppressing the story evidently before the article was even reviewed by Facebooks third party fact checkers.

While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebooks third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.

Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 14, 2020

To recap:

Do you see a pattern of conflict of interests?

And there it is.

The leaders of the Atlantic Council shoulder-to-shoulder with the Ukrainian oligarchs of the Burisma Group

Including Hunters boss Vadym Pozharskyi, who we now know met with Joe Biden while he was VP

This is what we call receipts. pic.twitter.com/i6DiPMR1vt

Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) October 22, 2020

The list of contributors to the Atlantic Council is extensive, with most of the big tech companies (Twitter, Google, Facebook, Microsoft), foreign and domestic organizations, banks, telecoms, governments, the US Marine Corps, and even Henry Kissinger all giving money to the DC think tank.

Facebook praised the Atlantic Council at the time of their partnership, saying that the DC think has a stellar reputation looking at innovative solutions to hard problems.

Facebooks partnership with the Atlantic Council to monitor election misinformation, the money the Atlantic Council received from Burisma, and the person in charge of election integrity having worked for Facebook, the Atlantic Council, and the former vice president, might be factors contributing to Facebooks suppression of the smoking gun story.

Senate Judiciary Committee considers subpoenas for Facebook, Twitter CEOs over censoring NY Post

Online censorship is toppling statues that havent been built yet: op-ed

Censor social media content & harvest data from banned accounts: House Intel witnesses testify on combating misinformation

Go here to read the rest:
Conflicts of interest with Facebook censorship, the Atlantic Council, Burisma & politics: perspective - The Sociable

The convergence of law and politics is a common occurrence in Washington. While law is used to ascertain truth, politics is often used to obscure it.

That is why the truth is rarely evident in looking at a scandal straight on.Rather it requires peripheral vision or analysis often what is not evident is what ismost enlightening.

This most famous example of such reasoning was found in Sir Arthur Conan Doyles story Silver Blaze, on Sherlock Holmess investigation of the disappearance of a racehorse.

The local inspector asked if there was any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?

ADRIANA COHEN: FACEBOOK, TWITTER'S THUGGISH CENSORSHIP AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE MEAN NO CITIZEN IS SAFE

Holmes responds, To the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime.

When the inspector objects, The dog did nothing in the night-time, Holmes replies, That was the curious incident.

There is always something a tad curious of Washington legal scandals in what has not occurred. That is why the latest Hunter Biden scandal is so curious.

When the story broke in the New York Post, the Biden campaign was faced with thousands of emails that purportedly showed clear support for allegations that Hunter Biden was given millions as part of an influence-peddling scheme related to his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden.

There was ample reason to be skeptical about the sketchy account of a computer being left by Hunter Biden at a computer store with a man who cannot see beyond a couple of feet. And then there is the timing of disclosure just weeks before an election.

The problem was the absence of "barks" from the Biden camp.The computer files revealed a host of embarrassing pictures of Hunter Biden using drugs or exposed in other embarrassing ways. The emails contain dates and addresses that match up with confirmed records.

If they are fabricated, there were three barks that we would have expected within hours of the release.

Bark 1: This was not Hunter Bidens computer

The most obvious response would be that this is not the computer of Hunter Biden. After all, the computer store owner John Paul Mac Isaac who is legally blind said that he could not recognize the person who dropped off the laptop.

However, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has now stated, as a fact, that the laptop was left by Hunter Biden, in an inebriated, heavily inebriated state with the merchant. That does not purport with what Isaac said.

However, there remains the question of a laptop with a Beau Biden Foundation sticker on it with highly incriminating files.

Someone in the campaign must have called Hunter Biden and he had to have told them whether or not it was his laptop.

The response on ownership has been crickets for days.

Bark 2:These were not Hunter Bidens photosor emails

Even if the campaign cannot deny that the computer was Hunter Bidens, it could deny that these incriminating pictures and emails were his.

Again, crickets.

Note that if these are fabricated emails or pictures, this would be a seriousfederal crime and the basis for legal action.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS OPINION NEWSLETTER

The Biden camp has no shortage of lawyers. Indeed, they have been signing up lawyers in droves in preparation for election challenges.

Yet, there is not a single allegation of fraud or fabrication after days of a brewing scandal.

Bark 3: This is defamation

Perhaps this bark is the most telling.If these emails or pictures are fabricated, it is a clear case of defamation and other tort actions.

It would seem that one of the hundreds of lawyers currently lined up by the Biden campaign would fire off an "intent to sue" letter.

Truth is a defense to defamation, so the letter might start with the earlier bark and deny that this was Hunter Bidens computer and these were Hunter Bidens file.

One big difference between the legal and political worlds is that in the latter there is no protection for the right to remain silent. In politics, scandals can be managed but not silently.

Instead of these obvious barks, the public heard something closer to a whimper: that the campaign could not find any notation on Vice President Biden's official schedule that he met with a Ukrainian figure connected to the payments to his son Hunter Biden.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It would be a curious sight in itself for Bidens official schedule to include meeting with Ukrainian connected to Hunter. Many meetings are not part of an official schedule that staffers know is subject to official records laws for preservation and review.

That is what is so curious about the Hunter Biden story and, to move from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to Lewis Carroll, it is becoming curiouser and curiouser.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

Go here to see the original:
Jonathan Turley: Hunter Biden's laptop and the Facebook, Twitter censorship scandal watch these 3 things - Fox News

Ask any tech investor what makes companies like Google and Facebook so insanely valuable, and you'll hear the magic "p" word: because they're platforms.

Geekwire, for instance, devoted a whole podcast last year to "Platform Power: the hidden forces driving the world's top businesses." Platforms, said MIT's Michael Cusimano, "generated roughly the same amount of revenues [as other firms, but] were almost twice as profitable and also much more valuable." Everyone wants to be a platform these days. Uber's not a taxi company--it's a platform! Airbnb: platform. Twitter: platform. Amazon: platform. Etc.

The thing about online platforms is that they're supposed to function as meeting grounds for users without the company itself needing to get too involved, which is what keeps costs down and makes the economics so attractive. Libraries, actually, are old-school platforms. No one would sue a library, for instance, for defamation as a result of a book or magazine it distributed--they'd sue the author or publisher, and the law protects libraries that way.

And that brings us to this week's Big Tech censorship controversy. Facebook and Twitter yesterday took the extraordinary step of limiting users from sharing a New York Post front-page story about the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine. Facebook said it was waiting on outside fact-checkers to review the story's claims. Twitter, by the end of the day, said the problem was the photographs of emails posted with the story and that they didn't want to encourage hacking. Jack Dorsey later admitted their communication about the situation "wasn't great."

As expected, this sent up howls over censorship, bias, double standards, and free speech. But the real issue is whether these companies are platforms, or publishers. And by acting as publishers yesterday--intervening in how political speech gets treated--the companies are at risk of losing the "platform" protections that have underpinned their success.

I mentioned libraries; bookstores and newsstands have also traditionally been exempt from defamation claims. So when internet platforms came around, Congress offered them the same treatment, in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This gave online platforms immunity for users' defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. But, "they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication--not curators of acceptable opinion," as City Journal has noted.

Yes, the platforms are encouraged to moderateoffensivespeech--so they can't get in trouble for removing content that is, for instance, "obscene," "excessively violent," or "otherwise objectionable." But courts have ruled that "otherwise objectionable" does not include political speech.

It would seem, in other words, that by limiting political speech, especially in such a high-profile way this week, Facebook and Twitter are practically asking to lose their Section 230 protections. If they did, they would suddenly become liable for everything "published" on their websites; I don't see how they could survive that. Still, investors don't seem too concerned. Shares of each are off only about 2% today after monster gains this year.

A final point: both Trump and Biden have come out in favor of repealing Section 230 altogether, and it would seem to have plenty of public support. But why should that even be necessary? Section 230 could continue to protect online platforms that are genuinely open forums from litigation, while those like Facebook and Twitter (and possibly Google) who choose to moderate speech would lose that protection.

Perhaps that would be the fairest way to "punish" and/or regulate Big Tech; let it fall victim to its own success. Only by becoming so central to the political dialogue and getting sucked into it themselves have these companies now put their entire business model at risk.

More coming up around 2 p.m! See you then...

Kelly

P.S. Click here to listen to The Exchange as a podcast.

Twitter: @KellyCNBC

Instagram: @realkellyevans

More here:
Kelly Evans: The Big Tech censorship confusion - CNBC

North Carolina Republican Rep. Ted Budd introduced a bill Friday morning limiting the Section 230 immunity of Big Tech, after conservatives blasted social media giants for censoring a New York Post article about the Biden familys alleged ties to Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.

The bill, which mirrors Missouri Republican Josh Hawleys in the Senate, would allow Americans to file lawsuits against Big Tech companies who breach good faith user agreementsby censoring political speech or suppressing content.

The bill also withholds Section 230 protections from Big Tech companies unless they change their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith. They would agree to be subject to a $5,000 fine, actual damages and attorneys fees if they violate the agreement.

Recent acts of political censorship by Twitter and Facebook are a disgrace, Budd said in a statement announcing the bill. Big Tech bias has gone too far in suffocating the voices of conservatives across our country. If these companies want to continue to receive legal protection, they should be forced to play by a fair set of rules in good faith. Im extremely proud to join Sen. Hawley in this fight.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS CALL FOR EMERGENCY HEARING ON TWITTER, FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP

On Wednesday, the Post released a report on purported emails theyd obtained from a whistleblower that appear to show that Hunter Bidenintroduced his father, the then vice president, to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before the Obama administration pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company.

Facebook admitted to limiting distribution of thePost story until it could be verified by independent fact-checkers, and Twitter prohibited the story from being shared via tweet or direct message altogether.

President Trump has called for stripping Big Tech of their Section 230 protections altogether.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The section has been pivotal in the rise of today's social media giants by allowing not only Internet service providers but also Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others to be shielded from liability from content posted on their platforms by third parties, in most cases. But some critics on the right feel that tech giants should no longer benefit from protections of Section 230 if they censor conservative viewpoints, including controversial postings by Trump.

SENATE REPUBLICANS CALL ON TWITTER, FACEBOOK BOSSES TO TESTIFY AMID CENSORSHIP CLAIMS, SAY SUBPOENA IN WORKS

Big Tech got something years ago that let them become Big Tech, Trump said of social media platforms liability protections. Were going to take away their Section 230 unless they shape up.

The companion bill in the Senate is led by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., along with Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind.,Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga. It was introduced in June.

For too long, Big Tech companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook have used their power to silence political speech from conservatives without any recourse for users. Section 230 has been stretched and rewritten by courts to give these companies outlandish power over speech without accountability, Hawley said in a statement. Congress should act to ensure bad actors are not given a free pass to censor and silence their opponents.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee have also called for an emergency hearing before the Nov. 3 election to hold Twitter and Facebook accountable for "election interference."

Fox News' Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
Rep. Budd introduces bill to limit Big Tech's Section 230 immunity amid censorship outcry - Fox News