Mediaboss Marketing

Social media users cannot escape censorship. In an age of misinformation, Facebook and Twitter are attempting to regain control over their platforms and prevent users from spewing unreliable facts online. Removing problematic content is completely understandable, but the actions are also raising concerns.

Music streaming giant Spotify has subtly entered the discussion, and podcast creatives have every reason to be concerned about their work. Love him or hate him, Joe Rogan started this conversation, and his ongoing battle with Spotify is proving just how important it is.

Rogan is among the worlds most popular podcasters, and The Joe Rogan Experience has garnered a fiercely loyal fanbase. His fans not only respect his jokes, but they appreciate his willingness to embrace controversy. From politics to sports to neuroscience, he covers it all.

Rogan dominated podcasting independently before agreeing to a $100 million deal with Spotify earlier this year. Afterward, Spotify employees held meetings to voice their concerns about including his content on the platform. They even threatened to walk out if they could not have direct editorial oversight of the show. Rogan promised back in May there would be no censorship, and that the entire library would be available on Sept. 1.

[Review: The Queens Gambit is a gorgeous look at femininity, addiction and the 1950s]

Yet, when it first debuted on the platform, his show was missing episodes with his most controversial guests. Those included Mikhaila Peterson, Owen Benjamin and Alex Jones, among other right-wing activists, comedians and YouTubers.

Recently, fans noticed another recent episode with Jones had disappeared. If you believe what Spotify has said, then youd think that the episodes deletion was due to a technical glitch. Rogan said the same in an Instagram post that ironically was also deleted. But everything is riddled with speculation nowadays.

Even if listeners believe Rogan, the glitch reminded everyone of how serious censorships effects can be, and the desires of some Spotify employee to censor Rogan have brought up huge red flags for creators on the platform.

Rogan is not affiliated with a political party, but he is definitely a vocal commentator who leans libertarian. The JRE has never been labeled a news podcast, and Rogan is certainly not trying to win the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting.

Instead of acting like a professional news anchor, he often presents repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories while painfully stoned. Rogan was brought to Spotify to be himself, which inevitably means making waves. An episode is sometimes like listening to a group of friends contemplate the existence of aliens while under the influence. Its concerning that Spotify employees hope to have serious editorial privileges over a show that is not even taking itself seriously (and, that utter ridiculousness is arguably responsible for podcastings shocking increase in popularity.)

[Netflix, we need to talk]

Fans are pointing out now that his recent apologies about spreading misinformation are uncharacteristic. In that recent episode with Alex Jones, Rogan met him with a healthy amount of questioning and included a fact-checker.

Trying to be more responsible is a worthwhile effort. However, Rogan should not be forced to lose his unfiltered attitude. That would be a blow to the shows creative integrity, especially given that it was never meant to be an accurate source of information.

Critics argue that someone is bound to take the nonsense that Rogans guests often spew seriously. This would require them to disregard the shows many disclaimers or labels. Some of the guests stances can absolutely be dangerous; however, context is crucial.

Listeners are not deceived into thinking they are hearing from the most sophisticated sources. The JRE could easily be classified as a comedy show. Criticizing a comedians content is easy. A good political comedian needs to push boundaries and make their audience a little uncomfortable. If Rogan cannot do that, he cannot properly do his job.

Call Her Daddys Alex Cooper is another comedy podcast host who deals with controversy over her content. Given the unclear standards for censorship across the internet, there is nothing stopping Spotify employees from going after the beloved Gluck Gluck, too. If political comedy is inappropriate for audiences, vulgar sex jokes are not immune to potential censorship, either.

Ultimately, Spotifys potential restrictive powers are not a political issue but a creative one. Due to the apps size, creators dont have many alternative platforms. Not everyone has a massive Rogan-sized following and budget that would allow them to work independently. Censorship needs to be watched to ensure the platform continues to welcome all podcasters and encourage creativity.

Read more:
Joe Rogan and other creators are in trouble if Spotify has censorship power - The Diamondback

'); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(""+val.title+""); // if (window.location.hostname == "www.kmov.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.kctv5.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.azfamily.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.kptv.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.fox5vegas.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.wfsb.com") { if (val.poly != "" && val.polyimg != "") { $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append('"+val.ihtml+""); $("#expandable-weather-block .weather-index-alerts").show(); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body h2").css({"font-family":"'Fira Sans', sans-serif", "font-weight":"500", "padding-bottom":"10px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body p").css({"font-size":"14px", "line-height":"24px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body span.wxalertnum").css({"float":"left", "width":"40px", "height":"40px", "color":"#ffffff", "line-height":"40px", "background-color":"#888888", "border-radius":"40px", "text-align":"center", "margin-right":"12px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body b").css("font-size", "18px"); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body li").css({"font-size":"14px", "line-height":"18px", "margin-bottom":"10px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body ul").css({"margin-bottom":"24px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body pre").css({"margin-bottom":"24px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body img").css({"width":"100%", "margin-bottom":"20px", "borderWidth":"1px", "border-style":"solid", "border-color":"#aaaaaa"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).css({"borderWidth":"0", "border-bottom-width":"1px", "border-style":"dashed", "border-color":"#aaaaaa", "padding-bottom":"10px", "margin-bottom":"40px"}); }); } function parseAlertJSON(json) { console.log(json); alertCount = 0; if (Object.keys(json.alerts).length > 0) { $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body ").empty(); } $.each(json.alerts, function(key, val) { alertCount++; $("#mrd-wx-alerts .alert_count").text(alertCount); $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body ").append(''); $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(""+val.title+""); // if (window.location.hostname == "www.kmov.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.kctv5.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.azfamily.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.kptv.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.fox5vegas.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.wfsb.com") { if (val.poly != "" && val.polyimg != "") { $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(''); } else if (val.fips != "" && val.fipsimg != "") { // $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(''); } // } //val.instr = val.instr.replace(/[W_]+/g," "); $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(val.dhtml+"

Instruction

Link:
Twitter censors and blocks Trumps tweets - CBS46 News Atlanta

In a statement before a Senate hearing on October 28, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Googles parent company Alphabet, admitted that the dominant online search company has censored the World Socialist Web Site.

At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, when asked by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah to provide the name of one left-wing high profile person or entity that has been censored by Google, Pichai named the WSWS.

The hearingwhich included testimony from three top tech CEOs--Pichai (Google), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Jack Dorsey (Twitter)had been called by the Republican-controlled committee for the purpose of promoting its completely false claim that only right-wing and conservative publishers have been censored by internet and social media corporations in the lead-up to the 2020 elections.

During his allotted time for questioning, Senator Lee asked the three executives, I think the trend is clear that you almost always censormeaning block content, fact check or label content or demonetize websitesof conservative, Republican or pro-life individuals or groups or companies... Can you name for me one high profile person or entity from a liberal ideology who you have censored and what particular action you took?

While both Dorsey and Zuckerberg refused to give namesclaiming they would provide a list at a later datewhen Lee got to Pichai, the Google executive responded that we have moderation policies which we apply equally... We have had compliance issues with the World Socialist Review [sic], which is a left-leaning publication.

Although Pichai used the name World Socialist Review, a print newsletter that ceased publication in 2011, it is clear that he was referring to the World Socialist Web Site. In fact, a Google search for World Socialist Review actually yields the WSWS in its top two results.

Pichai did not explain what he meant by compliance issues, but his response to Senator Lee was absolutely clear. He was saying that Google does in fact take censorship action against left-wing and socialist publishers, and an example is the censorship of the World Socialist Web Site.

The extraordinary admission by Pichai that Google has been suppressing content from the WSWS is a vindication of the campaign launched by the International Committee of the Fourth International against online censorship going back to the spring 2017.

In April 2017, following the implementation by Google of a new search algorithm, the WSWS reported that access to its content and that of other left-wing, anti-war and progressive websites was being heavily censored. In an article published on August 2, the WSWS published data that showed traffic to 13 websites had been reduced by Google between 19 percent and 67 percent. The data showed that the World Socialist Web Site has been the most heavily affected. Its traffic from Google searches has fallen by two thirds.

The WSWS characterized the modification of Googles search algorithm as a corporate-state conspiracy to drastically curtail democratic rights and then called for broad-based collaboration among socialist, left and progressive websites to alert the public and the widest sections of the working class.

The analysis was then followed on August 25, 2017 by an open letter from David North, chairperson of the WSWS International Editorial Board, to the executive leadership of Google and Alphabet demanding a halt to internet censorship. The letter called on Google to stop blacklisting the WSWS and renounce the censorship of all the left-wing, socialist, anti-war and progressive websites that have been affected adversely by your new discriminatory search policies.

The open letter further stated that the censorship of the WSWS reflects the fear that a genuine socialist perspective, if allowed a fair hearing, will find a mass audience in the US and internationally. There is widespread popular opposition to your efforts to suppress freedom of speech and thought.

As part of this campaign, the WSWS circulated an online petition that garnered thousands of signatures from readers in 70 countries and on five continents.

Although Google never officially responded to the open letter, the New York Times published an article on September 26, 2017 by Daisuke Wakabayashi that featured an interview with David North and discussed the campaign by the WSWS. Then, in a follow-up article, the Times attempted to discredit the claims of the WSWS that Google was engaged in censorship.

In November 2019, the Wall Street Journal substantiated the position of the WSWS that Google was manipulating its search algorithm to suppress content from being surfaced by its search engine. The Journal wrote, Despite publicly denying doing so, Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites or prevent others from surfacing in certain types of results.

On January 20, 2020, the WSWS published an article titled Google suppressing World Socialist Web Site content in its search results for the New York Times 1619 Project. This article showedthrough independent data analysisthat the authoritative and widely read material published by the WSWS on the historical falsification called The 1619 Project was being suppressed in Google search results.

The recent statement by Pichai is the second time he has misnamed the World Socialist Web Site in congressional testimony. In a hearing of the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 29 titled Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, Pichai responded in a similar manner to a question from Republican Congressman Greg Steube.

When Steube claimed that Googles algorithms were exclusively censoring conservative political views online, Pichai said, We do get complaints across the aisle. For example, the World Socialist Review [sic] complained in January of this year that their site wasnt found in Google search results. So, we get complaints, we look into it, but we approach our work in a nonpartisan way, and it is in our long-term incentive to serve users across the country.

Although he did not explain it, the statement by Pichai before the House committee was clearly regarding the WSWS assertion in January that content about The 1619 Project was being suppressed.

This public admission was followed by a second open letter on July 31 from WSWS Editorial Board Chairperson David North to CEO Pichai. The open letter stated: The fact that you referred specifically to the WSWS complaint in your congressional testimony speaks to the seriousness with which the matter was taken. You, the CEO of Googles parent Alphabet, were notified of the complaint. Six months after the article was published, it remained fixed in your memory.

David North then asked, why was the World Socialist Web Site never informed that its claim of suppression was being discussed within Alphabet/Google management, or that an investigation was being conducted into our complaint? Neither Pichai nor anyone else from the management of Google ever responded to this question or the open letter.

It is highly significant thatafter more than three years of stonewalling and refusing to answer any questions or respond to a single demandCEO Pichai has admitted that the technology firm controlling nearly 90 percent of worldwide search traffic has been suppressing WSWS content all along.

Why is the WSWS being censored by Google? Because the WSWS is the only online source of genuine Marxism and socialist internationalism that stands for the political independence of the working class and fights to put an end to the capitalist system on a world scale. As the struggles of the working class intensify amid the crisis sparked by the global pandemic, the recently relaunched WSWS is increasingly becoming the center of socialist political, theoretical and cultural education for masses of workers and young people throughout the globe.

Given the collaboration of Alphabet and Google with the US intelligence state, the statement by Pichai must be understood as a message to the American political establishmentwhich did not question him further on the matterthat the censorship of the WSWS will be continued and intensified in the coming period.

Along with the fight for the freedom of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, the demand for an end to online censorship and the defense of freedom of speech on the internet are fundamental democratic rights that must be taken up by the international working class.

More:
Google admits to censoring the World Socialist Web Site - WSWS

The CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Google are facing a grilling by GOP senators making unfounded allegations that the tech giants show anti-conservative bias. Their focus includes Section 230, a law relating to unfettered internet speech. (Oct. 28) AP Domestic

Facebook and Twitter may not be on the ballot, but they're getting dragged into the presidential election in its final hours.

The recurring theme from President Donald Trump's campaign: Blame Big Tech.

Tuesday, Trumps lawyer Rudy Giuliani gave an interview to Russian state media outlet RT in which he accusedtech companies of being maniacally anti-Trump and censoring information about Hunter Bidens business dealings to tip the election to former Vice President Joe Biden.Giuliani claimed the Democratic Party is under Silicon Valley'sthumb.

They dont do any censorship to favor Trump. The censorship is against Trump and to elect the guy they control, Joe Biden, Giuliani said.

His comments echoed Trump's at a rally on Election Day eve in Fayetteville, North Carolina.AttackingBig Tech, he calledTwitter phony guys who fix the elections.

'Who the hell elected you?'Tech CEOs accused of bias against Trump and conservatives days before election

Conservatives allege election meddling: Trump-led conservatives escalate bias charges against Big Tech beforeSenate showdown

Fueling his ire was the decision by Facebook and Twitter to throttle the spread of the New York Posts coverage of Hunter Bidens business dealings. Trump said Monday that the online platforms promote unflattering media coverage of his administration.

"Its a fix," he said.

President Donald Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani accuse social media giants of favoring Joe Biden and making decisions out of a long-standing bias against conservatives.(Photo: Carolyn Kaster, AP)

Lask week, Senate Republicans questioned the heads of Facebook, Twitter and Google on how they police content on their platforms, accusing them of politically motivated bias and suppressionand warning them of challenges to decades-old legal protections that shield them from liability for what users post.

Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, Twitters Jack Dorsey and Googles Sundar Pichai defended their companies' moderation of conservatives posts, including Trump, before the Senate Commerce Committee.

Conservatives have complained for years that social media companies systematically silence the political speech of right-leaning users.

Tech leaders deny any partisanship, saying their policies strike a balance between allowing users to freely express themselves and keeping hate, abuse and misinformation off their platforms.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/11/03/facebook-twitter-trump-giuliani-censorship-bias-biden-election-2020/6149742002/

Here is the original post:
Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani blast Facebook, Twitter over alleged censorship and bias for Joe Biden: 'It's a fix' - USA TODAY

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Twitter tried to subvert the Constitution by using the free market to turn the censoring of conservative thought into a defensible position. And now Americans are using their free-market choices to say goodbye to Twitter.

Thats called tit for tat.

Thats called just due.

Thats called paying the piper.

It was only a matter of time before Americans, en masse, grew weary of the whole social media clampdown on conservative thought. It was turning into quite a cycle: Social media minions censor conservatives followed by public outcry followed by congressional hearing followed by social media executive denials of censorship followed by social media minions censor conservatives followed by public outcry followed by well, the pictures pretty clear.

It was a never-ending circus act, one that always left the American public in the lurch, left to either make the case that government should crack down on private businesses or to accept that conservatives should just suck it up and suffer the censorship. Social medias leftist leaning leaders have been particularly adept at using Americas own freedoms to their particular anti-freedom purposes.

After all, the First Amendment only applies to government, not private businesses. Right?

Yet a private business that receives special shielding from the government, i.e. Section 230, which protects it from being sued for content created by users, ought not hide behind that special protection when its influence and presence grows so big that its become more a publisher, or news outlet, or publisher of news, than a platform that touts its openness to all views, all thoughts, all across the board. Right again?

In other words and this is a compelling argumentyou cant take Section 230 protections and simultaneously edit content as if a publisher.

Not when the content thats being edited is political in tone. Like The New York Posts recent Hunter Biden bombshell. Or the many, many, many whove simply retweeted The Post piece.

Or anyone else whos written critically of Democratic candidates, politicos or the party in general.

And then to not even explain the censorship, but rather send a form letter about violating some standards of community behavior? Tsk-tsk.

The people dont like it. And they start to show their dislike by taking their business elsewhere.

Twitter shares plunge as user growth slows, Fox Business recently reported.

The story goes on to say how Twitter posted decent quarterly revenues, but the expected daily user rate came in flat. Very flat, actually.

Twitter posted much stronger than expected third-quarter results thanks to surging advertiser demand, Fox Business found. [H]owever, profit slipped and daily users came in lower than analysts expected. The San Francisco company earned $28.66 million, or 4 cents per share, in the July-September period.

The earnings is 22% less than a year ago. Some of that can be chalked to COVID-19, of course. But heres the interesting part: Forecasts of daily user figures arent looking so great.

Twitter had 187 million daily users, on average, in the third quarter, but below analysts expectations of 195.6 million, Fox wrote.

So, either Twitter has been busily booting even more conservatives that make the news, or users are abandoning the platform at a high rate.

Smart money is on option two.

Minus the hard left, Americans by and large cherish their freedom of speech. And they dont take kindly to rich, elitist tech giants going to Congress and lying their butts off, pretending as if they dont censor. The who, me? line gets old, but quick.

If Twitters losing its users, that means one thing and one thing for sure: Free speech is seeing a resurgence.

Free speech advocates are looking for a new outlet. Thats not just good for all Americans; thats good for Americas free market, as well.

Read the rest here:
Twitter is losing users, just as censorship fatigue hits hard - Washington Times