Mediaboss Marketing

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently outlined proposed reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[1] Section 230 has been in place since the early days of the Internet and protects online platforms from liability for certain third-party posts. It has recently become a point of contention between Big Tech and the Trump Administration. Recently, a presidential tweet was labeled with a fact-checking message that described the content as unsubstantiated.[2] The President claimed the label was intended to chill his rights under the First Amendment and subsequently signed the Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, calling for review and clarification of the scope of Section 230. The Executive Order also calls on the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General to engage in rule-making with the Federal Communications Commission to clarify when a tech company could be deemed to be taking part in not taken in good faith.[3] Additionally, the Order encouraged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate unfair or deceptive acts or practices committed by online platforms.

How did this relatively small piece of legislation become the center of a heated debate?

By way of background, Section 230 shields websites from legal liability for posts, including comments, images, and videos, of third-party users. At the time this legislation was passed, the Internet was vastly different from what it is today. In the 90s, as the tech world was beginning to grow, Congress sought to encourage that growth through statutory protections. Section 230 provides websites with immunity for posts left by users, and allows for Good Samaritan protection from civil lawsuits if websites remove or moderate posts that they consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.[4] This way, websites can still clean up posted content without having to worry about being targeted via lawsuits for choosing to police and self-regulate their own domains, so long as they do so in good faith.

Section 230 allows platforms to be available to all users to share, gather, and disseminate information. Websites, especially those with enormous platforms, host millions upon millions of individual posts every single day. Even with dedicated moderators and advanced algorithms in place, it is a huge undertaking to examine every single post to determine whether it is illegal or inappropriate; and even with a robust procedure in place, it is hardly fail-safe. But there is growing concern about who gets the final say about what is considered inappropriate and when it should be revised, removed, or labeled. Section 230 has become a flashpoint and raises complex First Amendment, online safety, and competition considerations.

The Executive Order alone might not seem like it has teeth, unless Congress agrees with the President and passes legislation that repeals or amends Section 230. But the rule-making prompted by the Executive Order could shift interpretation of the law, calling into doubt the wide protections enjoyed by tech companies. Moreover, Attorney General William Barr has been vocal about his concerns regarding Section 230 and its protections, prompting the DOJ to seriously examine the law to propose a way forward.

In February, the DOJ hosted a one-day workshop called Section 230 Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability? inviting both public and private stakeholders to confer about the laws transformation since its enactment to the present day and whether it needs to be modified to account for this new era of Big Tech. The DOJ states that it also met with companies that attended or indicated interest in talking about Section 230, although it is unclear which companies that included.

Last month, following its 10-month review of the law, the DOJ released its recommendations for Section 230 reform.[5] Rather than seek a complete repeal of the legislation, the DOJ identified four key categories where reform should take place in order to realign the scope of Section 230 with the realities of the modern internet.[6] These four areas are (1) Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content, (2) Clarifying Federal Government Enforcement Capabilities to Address Unlawful Content, (3) Promoting Competition, and (4) Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency.[7]

The first category seeks to strip away protection from those who purposely facilitate or solicit unlawful content and allows for civil lawsuits involving child abuse, terrorism, and cyber-stalking to proceed, thus incentivizing websites to be proactive about tracking and removing illegal content. The second category proposes more government intervention through civil enforcement actions. The third category seeks to clarify that companies cannot use Section 230 to protect themselves from antitrust actions where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.[8] Finally, the fourth category is aimed at refining the language of Section 230, including an addition of good faith.

Some argue that Section 230 should be updated to address some of the potential dangers of the growing Internet that were not present in 1996. If this effort gains more traction, many view it as imperative that tech representatives be involved in the conversation because they are the experts in devising the algorithms and training the moderators to track down illegal and harmful content. A companys role and responsibility to police, remove, and/or label content may implicate complex First Amendment concerns. There may not be a one-size-fits-all approach to updating Section 230 to address all posted content in all types of forums. Many will be watching to see whether there will be changes to this law that has helped fuel online growth.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform.%5B2%5D Twitter Safety (Twitter Safety). We added a label to two @realDonaldTrump Tweets about Californias vote-by-mail plans as part of our efforts to enforce our civic integrity policy. We believe those Tweets could confuse voters about what they need to do to receive a ballot and participate in the election process. May 27, 2020, 10:54 p.m. tweet.[3] Exec. Order on Preventing Online Censorship (May 28, 2020), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/.%5B4%5D 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(2)(A).[5] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform.%5B6%5D https://www.justice.gov/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996.%5B7%5D https://www.justice.gov/file/1286331/download.%5B8%5D Id. at p. 4.

The rest is here:
DOJ Takes a Stance on Section 230 Reform that Could Place Additional Burdens on Online Platforms - JD Supra

Parler CEO John Matze on offering a Twitter app alternative which allows users to express free speech and engage in discussions without censorship.

Some users have become frustrated with the most mainstream social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, over alleged conservative censorship, data security issues and other concerns.

They're creating accounts on sites like Gab, 4chan and the newly minted Parler however, it's unclear whether these companies will ever take significant market share away from today'ssocial media giants.

WHO IS PARLER CEO JOHN MATZE?

Some sites, like 4chan,have reputations as gathering places for extremists since the site isloath to censor offensive posts.

Meanwhile, sites like Parler are marketing to conservatives who think that companies like Twitter and Facebook are censoring right-of-center viewpoints.

Parler's homepage. (Screenshot)

"I think they are censoring," Parler CEO John Matze Jr. told FOX Business' "Mornings with Maria." "I don't think they believe they are. I don't know that they would admitthey are, but it is pretty clear that they're behaving like publications. ... They're telling you they're an open community forum for people behaving like publications, choosing what gets to reach its audience, what doesn't."

WHO IS TWITTER CEO JACK DORSEY?

Here are some alternative social media sites trying to grow their platforms or rehab their images:

Imageboard 4chan, a weird and often lewd corner of the internet,was founded by 15-year-old Christopher Poole in 2003. The site allows users to post anonymously on topic boards that range from politics to anime.

WHICH SOCIAL MEDIA SITE HAS THE MOST USERS?

Poole left 4chan and is now a product manager at Google. 4chan has grown to more than22 million monthly visitors worldwide.

Christopher Poole, founder of 4chan, speaks during the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in New York, on Tuesday, May 25, 2010. (Ramin Talaie/Corbis via Getty Images)

4chan has also faced serious criticism for its lack of controls after killers posted gory photos of their victims, including in the case of slain teen Bianca Devins.

Andrew Torba foundedGab.comin 2016,nearly 15 years after 4chan was created, and Gabhas a much smaller user base than 4chan's. Gab's interface is similar to Twitter's, but it is banned by both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store because of its content.

WHAT IS SECTION 230?

Gab insisted it has "zero tolerance" for racism and terrorism after facing backlash when it was revealed that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter had posted anti-Semitic messages on the website.

The site had more than 1.1 million registered users as of April.

In June, alternativesocial mediasite Parler seemedto have sprung up overnight after fed-upconservativesannouncedthey were making accounts because of Twitter's censorship policies.

But the sitehas been around since 2018 and was founded by John Matze Jr. and Jared Thomson. Both studied computer science at the University of Denver.

Conservative pundit Dan Bongino ispushing Parler afterannouncingearlier in June that he had taken an ownership stake in the platform.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Ello now describes itself as a network for "creators" after starting out as an ad-free Facebook alternative in 2014. The site was not user-friendly and therefore unable to retain a solid user base, according to TechCrunch. Its reinvention focuses on connecting artists with partnership opportunities and allowing them to share their work with the wider world.

Ello's homepage. (Screenshot)

The site had about 625,000 artists as of 2017, according to TechCrunch.

A lot of people thought we died and went away and the whole time weve been cultivating a really niche and creative community thats gotten more focused as Ive been able to enact my vision," CEO Todd Berger told TechCrunch.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Here is the original post:
What alternative social media sites are there? - Fox Business

Ellen Pao keeps trying to make Ellen Pao happen. But, to paraphrase her own words the world doesnt seem to think shes important.

This former Reddit CEO was forced to quit after a backlash caused by her (early) attempts to muzzle and censor free and unruly-by-nature Reddit communities. And although her legacy in this sense has since been gaining more and more momentum on that fairly unique social platform few credit or still remember Pao as the pioneer of the current woeful policies.

Pao, who has since co-founded a diversity consulting non-profit called Project Include, (which is exactly what it sounds like it is) also in the meanwhile lost a gender discrimination lawsuit against former employers Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

But there are still friendly outlets like The Guardian who will give her space and time, and now, its time for Pao to offer her two cents on free speech moderation on giant social media in the context of their treatment of ills such as racism, and presidents such as Donald Trump.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

Under the headline, They dont think its important: Ellen Pao on why Facebook cant beat hate Pao whose approach to Reddit back in the day is described cynically as a more holistic view of protecting free expression shares lessons she thinks she learned while attempting to detoxify Reddit (Guardians choice of words).

The issue is Facebook allowing Trump to have a voice on the platform, even as others like Twitter, Reddit itself, and YouTube went about labeling his posts, banning subreddits, etc., all on hate speech grounds.

So why is Facebook holding out? According to Pao, Facebook has an unintelligible set of rules for moderators, and the higher-ups are simply not paying any attention.

Pao also advises less outsourced mercenary moderator staff and instead incorporates them into the full-time employee collective for better allegiance to the cause and of course, better control.

She even suggests that some Facebook moderators despite insider testimonies showing some of them stringently and openly anti-free expression might be making pro-Trump decisions because they are being bullied, unbeknownst to Facebook.

But why would Facebook disregard these points? The interviewer prods Pao on in a tiringly predictable direction.

Most of the CEOs of social media companies are white, and most of them are men. I believe that youre the only woman of color who has run a major platform. Do you think that that informed the way that you approached the job?

To nobodys surprise, Pao agreed. As for what Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Susan Wojcicki need to do Just do the right thing. Most of them know what the right thing to do is. Just have that conviction and push your way through.

Go here to read the rest:
Ellen Pao calls for more Facebook censorship, says its the right thing to do - Reclaim The Net

TikTok was never supposed to be political. When it launched in the US in 2018, the video app was marketed as a fun place to discover goofy content and experiment with its sophisticated editing software and vast music library. Yet nearly two years and 165 million nationwide downloads later, TikTok has been a platform for teachers strikes, QAnon conspiracy theories, Black Lives Matter protests, and a teen-led campaign to sabotage a Trump rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The TikTok algorithm is perfectly suited to spread political content faster and to a wider audience than any social media app in history, whether the company wants to admit it or not.

Now TikTok is proving itself to be political in a much broader way, one that challenges the very existence of the app. White House officials are talking seriously about attempting to ban it (how the government would choose to do so is less clear) in the wake of rising tensions with China, where TikToks parent company ByteDance is based.

There are two major factors at play when we talk about the risks TikToks ownership could potentially pose: data privacy and censorship. While the former is potentially easier to understand (the Equifax hack, where members of the Chinese military were charged with stealing the personal information of 145 million Americans, is perhaps the most famous example), the latter, which includes how TikTok instructs its moderators and changes its algorithm, could have more existential and more difficult-to-predict consequences for the US at large.

Will a ban actually happen? President Trumps chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said in July that a decision could come in weeks, not months. But the conversation is a lot more complicated than Is China stealing our data? although thats likely how the Trump White House would prefer to frame it. TikTok has become a straw man for fears over a serious competitor to Silicon Valley: If a generation of kids is synonymous with an app owned by China, what does that mean for Americas role in global technology?

Experts in cybersecurity and Chinese tech make it clear that the issue is not black and white, and that serious concerns about national security are likely rooted not in xenophobia but in the fact that the Communist Party of China (CCP) under President Xi Jinping has a track record of surveillance, censorship, and data theft. There are also those who warn that the US banning TikTok and other Chinese-owned apps could set a dangerous precedent for a less free and open internet ironically, the sort of internet modeled after that of China.

The governments interest in TikToks ties to China and its communist leadership stems from last fall, when Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Tom Cotton (R-AR) called for an investigation into the company. Their statements came after reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post revealed that TikTok had at one point instructed its moderators to censor videos considered sensitive by the Chinese government.

By November, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which investigates the potential national security implications of foreign acquisitions of US companies, announced that it would be reviewing ByteDances acquisition of Musical.ly, the app that would become TikTok. Meanwhile, TikTok has been steadfast in its claim that it does not send US user data to China and does not remove content sensitive to its government and would not if it were asked. Two Chinese intelligence laws from 2014 and 2017, however, require companies to assist with any government investigation and hand over all relevant data without refusal.

In a statement to Vox, a TikTok spokesperson wrote:

Protecting the privacy of our users data is of the utmost importance to TikTok. Theres a lot of misinformation about TikTok right now. The reality is that the TikTok app isnt even available in China. TikTok is led by an American CEO, with hundreds of employees and key leaders across safety, security, product, and public policy in the U.S. TikTok stores U.S. user data in Virginia, with backup in Singapore, and we work to minimize access across regions. We welcome conversations with lawmakers who want to understand our company. Were building a team here in Washington, D.C. so lawmakers and experts can come to us with questions or concerns. We know that actions speak louder than words, which is why were opening Transparency Centers in LA and DC so that lawmakers and invited experts can see for themselves how we moderate content and keep our users data secure.

In early July, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News that the US was considering a TikTok ban after months of rising tensions with China and a ban of more than 50 Chinese apps including TikTok in India the week prior. Since then, TikTok users have been panicking over the potential loss of the internets greatest time waster; the Senate just advanced a bill to ban TikTok from all government devices. Facebook, too, is closing in: The company announced it will launch its copycat product, Instagram Reels, in the US in August.

Banning TikTok isnt as straightforward as it may sound in a country built upon the First Amendment, but there are several ways it could take place. The first is that CFIUS could force ByteDance to sell off TikTok to a US-owned company by determining it a national security risk (thats what happened to Grindr after it was sold to a Chinese company). Another is that it could put TikTok on whats called the entity list so that US companies like Apple and Google would be forced to remove it from their app stores. Adi Robertson at The Verge has a thorough examination of all these possibilities, but lets get to the real issue at play.

The case for banning TikTok, for many cybersecurity professionals, is relatively simple: The risk is simply too great, no matter how wonderful the content on the app may be. Kiersten Todt, managing director of the Cyber Readiness Institute, says that despite what TikTok claims, If the Chinese government wanted that data, they would be able to get that data.

While that may not scare the apps large user base of teenagers who are pretty sure the Chinese government doesnt care about their scrolling habits, Todt says its possible China could be building dossiers on high-profile individuals, including information like passwords, bank accounts, internet addresses, or geolocation, all of which could then be cross-referenced with even more personal data on other apps.

Ive been in the national security space for a couple of decades, and there is decades worth of evidence and data around Chinese interest, intent, and capability to hack the US, whether thats through intellectual property or through data theft, Todt says. The Chinese government hacked the broadest database of personnel in the US government. Theyre the only ones who have done that.

Todts other concern relates to Chinas role in the global tech wars at large. Artificial intelligence is only as good as the data that goes into it, and so if China continues to collect all of this data from populations around the world, its artificial intelligence has a lot more data input into it. How might it aggregate that data for the purposes of innovation, research and development and science? she asks. That can sound xenophobic, but it is a national security statement, just as we are cautious about Russia and Iran and North Korea for different reasons.

There are other arguments for banning TikTok, ones that relate to moderation and censorship. I find the data privacy issue to be a bit of a red herring, says Jordan Schneider, host of the ChinaTalk podcast and newsletter. The Chinese government has many likely more impactful ways of getting blackmail or corporate secrets or just general information about individual US nationals.

Instead, Schneider argues that the problem is the Chinese Communist Partys potential ability to influence conversation about politics on the app. People today are very concerned about the amount of power [Facebooks] Mark Zuckerberg has to value one type of speech over another or impacting elections by tweaking the algorithms and end up changing peoples opinions on certain things. So imagine if someone with the equivalent of Mark Zuckerbergs level of power over the US has no choice but to do what the CCP wants it to do? My sense is that is the case with ByteDance. He uses recent examples of Chinese disinformation campaigns on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube around topics like the Hong Kong protests and Taiwanese independence.

I think theyve probably learned the lesson of 2016, which is that Russia can interfere in elections and basically get away with it, he says. What might that look like? For the average TikTok user, it wont really look like anything. You can just push certain videos more than others, and theres no open API to double-check these things, Schneider says. At the end of the day, the Chinese government clearly has the leverage to push ByteDance to do this sort of thing, and would honestly be dumb not to, because the prize is enormous, which is the ability to influence who the next president of the United States is.

It would be easy to leave it there, but Samm Sacks, a senior cybersecurity policy fellow at Yale Law Schools Paul Tsai China Center and New America who has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, warns against conflating Chinese tech companies with the CCP. There is much more of a push and pull in that relationship there, particularly around the security services access to private data, she says.

Plus, she argues that the incentive to censor content and steal user data is worth less than owning one of the worlds most important global tech companies. TikTok was intended to thrive and fly on its own overseas, and so its not necessarily in the Chinese government or ByteDances interest to set up the company to be secretly beholden to Beijing. Theres a commercial incentive at play that I think we have to take into account.

TikTok has, for many people in American politics and tech, become an existential threat that no amount of distancing itself from China building headquarters in the US and London, hiring a former Disney executive as its CEO will undermine. TikToks terms of use and black box algorithm are virtually identical to Facebooks policies, but its success has foreshadowed a potential end to Silicon Valleys dominance. Unspoken in many tech executives dismissal of TikTok is protectionism and, arguably, xenophobia.

Should the US government ban TikTok, Sacks says, it would be an important step toward the US government controlling the way that Americans use the internet, which is ironically a step toward Beijings own cyber-sovereignty, the very thing weve been railing against for years.

It also would likely be against the USs commercial interests. It offers a blueprint for others around the world to think, Maybe we dont trust the way that Silicon Valley companies are handling our data, so lets just ban them, too, she says. Were already starting to see the rise of digital sovereignty in Europe and in India in these really important markets, and when we think about the so-called tech competition with China, particularly with artificial intelligence and machine learning, what is it thats going to give US companies an edge? Its access to large international data sets. If we are increasingly closed out of markets around the world and access to that data because weve helped create a blueprint for how to do it with China, I could see those same tools turned around on us.

Instead, Sacks has called for a comprehensive federal data privacy law that would be applied to all platforms, not just Chinese-owned ones, that would create standards for better data security, algorithmic transparency, and better management of online content. All of the things that I think were using is China as a foil and saying, That company is a threat, lets stamp them out, [could be dealt with by] developing our own vision for how we want to govern the internet in a more democratic, secure way, she says.

China aside, a TikTok ban would have serious effects on American youth culture, where hundreds of teenagers have now built massive followings and spread important political messaging on an app that allowed them to reach huge audiences. Its changed not only the experience of being online but the experience of being a young person.

TikTok has serious flaws conspiracy theories in particular, some related to QAnon, Pizzagate, and the coronavirus, have thrived unchecked on the app but theres still no evidence that the Chinese government has anything to do with any of those. Would setting a precedent against any one Chinese-owned tech company solve the immediate issues that affect American social media users, namely misinformation, content moderation, and transparency? Or would it allow Silicon Valley companies like Facebook to continue to mimic competitors software and grow ever larger and more powerful? Its now in the hands of the government to decide.

Get our newsletter in your inbox twice a week.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

Go here to see the original:
Will Trump ban TikTok in the USA? - Vox.com

It was one of the first protests in Hong Kong after a feared national security law came into effect.

Among a dozen or so lunchtime demonstrators at a luxury mall in the Central business district, a man raised a poster that when viewed from afar read in Chinese, Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.

The government had just banned the slogan, saying it had separatist connotations and so ran afoul of the new security law's prohibition of secessionist acts.

Shortly after, riot police entered the mall, shooing away onlookers. They detained the man, telling him the slogan was banned. But when officers looked at the poster up close, no words could be made out. It merely had circular shapes against a contrasting background. They snapped a few photographs of the poster and let him go.

Since the imposition of the security law which bans secessionist, subversive and terrorist activities, as well as collusion with foreign forces, with penalties of up to life imprisonment anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, and those supporting the movement, have adapted their methods to try to make their voices heard without violating the legislation.

Before the law took effect on June 30, protesters often held up colorful posters plastered with slogans that ranged from condemning the Chinese government to calling for Hong Kongs independence. Since then, they have become creative in obscuring their messages.

Many of the protesters at the luxury mall held up blank pieces of white paper to protest against Chinas white terror of political repression. Other posters are designed to circumvent bans on slogans. The government has not yet made clear if such forms of expression are illegal.

The law has had a chilling effect on yellow shops that support the protest movement. Many have removed protest artwork and sticky notes bearing words of encouragement from customers, out of fear that they could land them in trouble with the authorities.

Some shop owners, like Tan Wong, have instead put up blank sticky notes to show solidarity with the movement.

We are doing this right now because (the shop) is private property. We are trying to tell Hong Kong people that this is the only thing that we yellow shops can do, said Wong, who runs Kok Kok Chicken, a Korean fried chicken store.

If we do not persist, we would no longer be able to deliver our message to others, he said.

Yu Yee Cafe, a Hong Kong-style diner that serves fast food, has covered its windows with blank sticky notes and even displays an origami figure of Winnie the Pooh, a playful taunt of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Chinese censors briefly banned social media searches for Winnie the Pooh in China after Xis appearance was compared to the cartoon bear.

I wonder if theres still rule of law if sticking a (blank) piece of paper on the wall is illegal, said Eddie Tsui, one of the diners customers. Its just using a different way to express our demands. If you dont allow us to protest that way, well find another way.

The use of blank paper or sticky notes to protest is a changing form of resistance, according to Ma Ngok, an associate professor of politics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

They put up blank notes so that even if the government wants to prosecute them, there is nothing that can be used against them, he said.

Protesters in Hong Kong have also come up with alternative slogans to circumvent the ban on Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.

Some users quote the initials of the romanisation of the eight Chinese characters in the banned slogan - GFHG, SDGM. Others have changed the words entirely to terms that sound similar but mean very different things. One alternative slogan now reads Patronise Hong Kong, Times Square, a reference to a popular shopping mall in the city.

A popular protest anthem, Glory to Hong Kong, has had some of its lyrics changed, with protesters replacing the words with numbers in Cantonese that sound approximately like the lyrics.

The circumventing of bans on slogans is reminiscent of how mainland Chinese internet users come up with creative ways and similar-sounding words to talk about sensitive issues without triggering censorship under the Great Firewall of China, where censors delete posts containing sensitive terms and make such keywords unsearchable on online platforms.

There is a long history of censorship where we know that people will find ways to circumvent the system, no matter how you regulate, said Fu King-wa, associate professor at the University of Hong Kongs journalism school.

Sometimes, censorship can backfire, triggering more people to discuss an issue because they think that if it is censored, then it must be something important, he said.

See the rest here:
Hong Kong protesters get creative with signs and slogans to skirt new security law - Euronews