Mediaboss Marketing

Moscows lawsuits against five social media giants for not removing calls to join government-banned rallies from their platforms are part of a new wave of censorship in President Vladimir Putins Russia, experts said on Wednesday.

Twitter is among other social networks targeted by the Russian authorities. (Photo: Flickr)Last week, the Magistrates Court of Moscow filed separate cases against Facebook, Google, Twitter, TikTok and Telegram that could result in administrative fines of up to four million rubles (about US$ 54,000) for failing to delete illegal content that incited teenagers to join protests supporting Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, for exaggerating the number of people who took part in the demonstrations and for spreading misinformation about police brutality, Russian news agency Interfaxreported.

Similarly, Russias tech and media regulator fined the domestic internet company Mail.ru with a total of four million rubles ($54,000) in early March for the late deletion of allegedly harmful content posted on the social platform Odnoklassniki.

Last month, Human Rights Watchwarned of Russias escalating pressure on social media platforms to censor content they deem illegal, condemning the countrys rapidly growing oppressive legislation.

Human Rights Watchs Russia researcher Damelya Aitkhozhina told OCCRP on Wednesday that the growing restrictions on digital freedoms are part of a new wave of censorship which includes also a series of laws that restrict other civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly.

We have seen a progressive escalation since 2012, when President Putin came into power. There was a wave in 2012, another one in 2014, and now were seeing a new one since late 2020, with so many laws coming into force and having a detrimental effect on civil society, Aitkhozhina said.

Two new laws related to digital freedom have entered into force since last January - one obliging tech companies to delete illegal content and the other introducing fines of up to 10% of a companys annual revenue for failing to do so.

Additionally, President Putin set August as a deadline for the creation of a new regulation that will force big tech companies to open local branches.

The new regulation will come right before the September legislative elections in Russia, which raised concerns among experts who believe the move is part of government efforts to prevent critics.

Russian authorities also slowed down access to Twitter following the sites failure to remove illegal content from its platform, limiting the possibility to upload photos and videos.

According to theregulator, the measure stems from the companys failure to censor content that allegedly incites minors to commit suicide, while also promoting the use of drugs and disseminating child pornography.

However, in previousstatements issued by the oversight body, the government specifically spoke about tech and social media companies not censoring calls to join peaceful protests against the imprisonment of Navalny.

Aitkhozhina expressed concern over accusations against Twitter, hinting that the government might be using the argument it was protecting users from child pornography and other harmful content as an excuse to suppress freedom of expression.

Ive never seen that content online, said the HRW expert. What we did see in the wake of the pro-Navalny protests was that part of the demands from the authorities to the social networks was to take down the videos where users called others to take part in those protests.

Follow this link:
Experts Concerned about Growing Censorship in Russia - OCCRP

In a show of bipartisanship, both conservatives and progressives testified against SB228 (Electronic Free Speech Amendments), which passed both chambers during the recent Utah legislative session and currently sits on Gov. Spencer Coxs desk for his signature or veto. We urge Cox to veto SB228 because it leverages the power of the government to violate the First Amendment rights of private companies.

Despite the hopeful title of this bill, giving governments more control over private speech is the opposite of promoting free speech.

For starters, this bill requires technology companies like Facebook, Google and even Parler to follow specific notification procedures, timelines and rules set by Utah lawmakers and submit to an untested appeals processes also set by Utah lawmakers for account holders who are suspended or find their content removed.

By requiring technology corporations to jump through new hoops created by government regulations, this bill could discourage social media platforms from halting online voter suppression, stopping the spread of misinformation directed by foreign governments, and even prevent the blocking of credible threats of violence if they relate to a political viewpoint.

If this bill takes effect, it could also result in less online speech for Utahns and expose them to more harassment and vitriol because technology companies would fear lawsuits and sanctions if they tried to proactively moderate content on their platforms.

Even worse, this bill would effectively authorize the government to force private online platforms to carry and distribute speech they would have previously restricted. Historically, the Internet has been less regulated than traditional media outlets like television and radio. This approach has given consumers more options and platforms to express themselves than ever before. Twitch, Discord, Reddit, Snapchat, Clubhouse, Locals, Pinterest, TikTok the list of alternatives to consider is expanding all the time. If the goal of this bill is to promote electronic free speech, it should follow the successful origins of the internet and rely on less government intervention, not more.

In addition, by trying to mandate absolute consistency in applying a social media platforms terms of use, legislators are making a bold assumption that such mandates are even feasible. Platforms like Facebook have tens of thousands of content moderators reviewing hundreds of thousands or even millions of posts, rendering moderation a daunting task.

Additionally, human content moderators carry implicit biases, and it is highly unlikely that you could get any random group of moderators to have a consensus decision on flagged content. While some supporters will call for a tech-based solution, that is based in fantasy, not reality. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence programs integrated into content moderation currently make mistakes, flagging harmless content as problematic, or vice versa. Content moderation, even with technology assistance, remains a subjective task that makes compelling consistency by law deeply problematic.

While we discourage private social media companies from blocking content based on viewpoint, its an entirely different matter and much clearer violation of our constitutional rights for the government to dictate what online platforms must publish or how they must exercise their subjective discretion in content moderation.

Lastly, constitutional experts have noted that SB228 clearly violates Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that protects websites from liability for content posted by third parties. This means the bill violates federal law and opens Utah up to lawsuits that will be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to defend.

Perhaps sensing the shaky legal ground for this bill, the sponsor of SB228 delayed its effective date until July 1, 2022, to give time for its future repeal. But we dont have to wait for the likely lawsuits to stop this bill. Cox can and should veto it now.

Marina Lowe is the legislative and policy counsel at the ACLU of Utah. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute and the author of 28 books.

See original here:
Guest opinion: Giving government control is the opposite of free speech - Deseret News

Almost a year to the day that Louisville police officers killed Breonna Taylor during a no-knock raid, the Kentucky Senate passed a bill which makes it a crime to insult and taunt cops. If S.B. 211 becomes law, you could get up to three months in jail and a $250 fine if you flip off the fuzz in a way "that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person."

It's just one example of a slew of proposed new laws that are chilling free speech. While freethinkers are rightly worried that private online platforms such as Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are increasinglyand often arbitrarilycracking down on speech for political reasons, the much graver threat comes from governments at all levels seeking to ban or compel speech.

If Amazon won't stock your book, you can still hawk it at Barnes & Noble or on your own site, but when the government says no, there's nowhere else to go.

Earlier this year, lawmakers in Kentucky also introduced legislation that "would make a user entitled to damages if a social media platform deletes or 'censors' religious or political posts." Conservatives who rightly yelled bloody murder when Christian bakers were forced to make cakes for same-sex weddings are now trying to stop social media platforms from running their businesses the way they see fit.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has proposed legislation that would ban Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms from suspending the accounts of political candidates. They would face fines of up to $100,000 a day and the new law would also allow regular users to sue platforms for damages if they feel they've been treated unfairly.

Similar legislation has been proposed in Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said, without citing actual evidence, that conservative viewpoints are being systematically silenced. "Pretty soon," he promises, such supposed censorship is "going to be against the law in the state of Texas." That law, S.B. 12, is poised to pass the state Senate.

Back in the pre-internet days, you could count on conservative Republicans to scream about the need to regulate sex and drugs on TV and in music but these days they seem to want social media companies to do no moderating of content. So maybe that's progress.

At the same time, liberal Democrats, who themselves used to scream about violent video games, are pushing for more regulation of speech they don't like. In Colorado, a proposed law would create a "digital communications commission" that would investigate platforms to make sure they don't allow "hate speech," "undermine election integrity," or "disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news"all exceptionally vague terms that aren't even defined in the legislation. The commission would have the ability to order changes in the way platforms operate.

At the national level, two congressional DemocratsRep. Anna Eshoo (DCalif.) and Rep. Jerry McNerney (DCalif.)have sent letters to the heads of Comcast, Verizon, Dish, and other cable and satellite companies demanding to know why such private services carry Fox News, Newsmax, and other supposed purveyors of "misinformation." As Reason's Robby Soave put it, the letter "was an act of intimidation." It's a rare week when high-wattage politicians such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (RTexas) don't threaten Big Tech with some sort of reprimand because they don't like what's popular on Facebook or Twitter.

The good news is that laws seeking to control individuals and platforms are blatantly unconstitutional because they compel the speech of private actors and because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows broad discretion in running websites and platforms. When challenged in court, they'll almost certainly be struck down.

The bad news is that the laws just keep coming, because politicians of all stripes want to control speech in a way that favors their agendas and they don't care about whether a law respects the First Amendment.

We should loudly criticize platforms for kicking people off in arbitrary ways that diminish our ability to freely argue and disagree about politics and culture. We want more participation, not less. But it's even more important to recognize private citizens' and businesses' right to freely associate with whomever they want.

I find it disturbing as hell that a member of the band Mumford & Sons felt compelled to cancel himself for the "pain he caused" after saying he liked a book by the controversial journalist Andy Ngo. I'm deeply bothered that eBay has delisted old copies of Dr. Seuss books and that Amazon, which once aspired to sell every book in print, sees fit to drop titles that rub some activists the wrong way. I'm outraged that Twitter and Facebook banned Donald Trump essentially for being an asshole.

But far worse than such private cancel culture is when politicians tell us we don't have a right to insult cops, or when they're the ones setting the rules about what we must prohibitor allow. That way madness lies and it makes the online outrage of the day look absolutely trivial by comparison.

Continue reading here:
Government Censorship Is the Worst Cancel Culture of All - Reason

Creation Stories

James McClelland says Creation Stories gives a completely unsanitised account of Alan McGees wild life.

The British actor plays Noel Gallagher during the 90s when Oasis were signed to McGees Creation Records label and he says all the drug-taking and crazy partying is included in the movie which is not for the feint hearted.

Speaking to BANG Showbiz, James said: The movie is not sanitised at all, I dont think Irvine has it in him. Censorship is not something that Irvine Welsh does. Theres nothing censored about this film at all. I think one of the beautiful things is at the start on the screen it flashes up with the words which say includes scenes of drug use, sex and a full list. So prepare yourself.

The star also insisted the movie which is based on Alan McGees 2013 autobiography, written by Irvine Welsh and Dean Cavanagh will be a hit with anyone who likes Irvines other work, which most notably includes Trainspotting.

He added: I think if youre a fan of Irvine Welshs writing then I think youre going to be getting exactly what you imagine. I think a good film as a reference is 24 Hour Party People, its really on brand with that, its that kind of vibe.

If you like watching films where people get off their faces taking drugs then I think its going to be right up your street.

Creation Stories which premiered at the virtual Glasgow Film Festival last month also stars Ewen Bremner, Suki Waterhouse, Jason Isaacs, Paul Kaye, Thomas Turgoose, Jason Flemyng, and Ed Byrne, and was directed by Nick Moran.

The movie will be available on Sky Cinema from March 20.

See original here:
James McClelland says Creation Stories will tell Alan McGee's story without censorship - The List

Over the last four years, the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) has documented and analyzed changes to federal environmental websites. What our team found was alarming: unprecedented steps by the Trump administration to manipulate information about environmental issues and laws, marked particularly by patterns of removing public information prior to environmental proceedings and censoring climate change-related information on websites.

Websites are how federal agencies communicate with the public, and changes to them can impact public participation in environmental regulatory processes. The information thats availableor unavailableon federal websites matters for the health of democracy and the environment. Yet there is currently little policy guidance for the governance of information found on federal agencies websites.

The findings in EDGIs latest report Access Denied: Federal Web Governance Under the Trump Administration and academic paper Visualizing Changes to US Federal Environmental Agency Websites, 20162020 show why this needs to change.

In Access Denied, we uncovered a pattern of information being deleted or made less accessible just before or during a regulatory process. This finding was dramaticover 80% of the information removals we observed occurred just prior to or during an active regulatory proceeding. Here are some specific instances where this occurred:

In the paper Visualizing Changes, EDGIs review of thousands of web pages from federal agencies, including the EPA, NASA, and NOAA, found that the use of the term climate change decreased almost 40 percent between 2016 and 2020. We also found a pattern of using coded language such as resilience and sustainability instead of climate; changes that occurred more frequently and to a larger degree on pages of Cabinet-level agencies with a more direct connection to the White House; and changes that occurred more on higher-visibility web pages that the public would be more likely to encounter.

These are staggering findings, indicating a pattern under Trump of federal agencies manipulating information in ways that undermined the publics ability to understand environmental issues and participate in rule-making.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policys (OSTP) current review of scientific integrity at federal agencies provides an opportunity to address current policy gaps around web governance. Based on our findings in Access Denied and Visualizing Changes, we recommend the OSTP create legally-enforceable policies that ensure public digital information is accessible and protected.

Currently, no repercussions exist for agencies that strip factual public resources from websites. Moving forward, there must be systems of accountability when changes to websites occur, as well as requirements that agencies provide vital contextual information for regulatory decisions. We recommend the OSTP direct agencies to build publicly accessible historical records and archives of web pages as they are updated, with a notification process of when content will be removed from websites.

To learn more about EDGIs findings and recommendations, read the Access Denied report and Visualizing Changes paper. Faith in the scientific integrity of federal agencies needs to be restored, and establishing better web governance policies is a central piece of regaining and retaining the publics trust.

Gretchen Gehrke is co-founder and website monitoring program leader of the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. She also has worked in science communications and holds a PhD in environmental geochemistry.

Marcy Beck works in strategic communications and analysis with an environmental focus.

Eric Nost is an assistant professor in the Department of Geography, Environment, and Geomatics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

Shannan Lenke Stoll is the communications coordinator for the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. She holds an MS in environmental studies.

Science Network Voices gives Equation readers access to the depth of expertise and broad perspective on current issues that our Science Network members bring to UCS. The views expressed in Science Network posts are those of the author alone.

Posted in: Science and Democracy Tags: #ScienceforPublicGood, EPA, NASA, NOAA

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

See the original post:
Censorship of Federal Environmental Agency Websites Under Trump: What We Learned and How to Protect Public Information Moving Forward - Union of...