Mediaboss Marketing

TikTok's logo on a stand at The First International Artificial Products Expo Hangzhou on October 18, 2019 in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province of China.

VCG | Visual China Group | Getty Images

TikTok's director of creator community brushed aside allegations of Chinese influence on the social media app Tuesday, as the app faces a U.S. national security investigation.

The U.S. government announced earlier this month that it was opening a national security investigation into TikTok's parent company, Beijing-based ByteDance, after U.S. lawmakers expressed concern that the Chinese company may be censoring politically sensitive content, and raising questions about how it stores personal data.

Since then, TikTok executives have embarked on a campaign to refute the allegations. In an extensive profile published earlier this month, TikTok's chief executive Alex Zhu emphasized the autonomy of TikTok's U.S. operation from the headquarters in Beijing.

TikTok's director of creator community Kudzi Chikumbu on Tuesday echoed the words of his chief in an interview with Wilfred Frost and Courtney Reagan on CNBC's Closing Bell.

"We don't remove content based on sensitivities around China or other governments," he said. "What we're focused on is building a platform where people can express themselves freely, be creative, be joyful and that's kind of the main direction that's led to the growth of TikTok."

As he appeared on the show, the Washington Post reported that a 17-year-old user in New Jersey, Feroza Aziz, was locked out of her account after she posted a viral video criticizing the Chinese government's treatment of the Uighur ethnic minority. The Chinese government's discriminatory treatment of the country's Muslim Uighur population is well documented.

Representatives from TikTok confirmed to CNBC that the user has been locked out of her account, but said it is not a matter of censorship as the video in question is still on the platform.

"TikTok does not moderate content due to political sensitivities," a TikTok spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC. "A previous account belonging to this user had been banned after she posted a video of Osama Bin Laden, which is a violation of TikTok's ban on content that includes imagery related to terrorist organizations. Another account of hers, @getmefamouspartthree, and its videos including the eyelash video in question were not affected and the video continues to receive views."

But, in an interview with the Post, Aziz said the reference to bin Laden was a "joke." And it clearly was, here's the video that Aziz was locked out for:

See the article here:
TikTok says it doesn't censor content, but a user was just locked out after a viral post criticizing China - CNBC

Radford University, a taxpayer-supported institution that is located in southwestern Virginia, is in a public relations hole entirely of its own making. The question is: Just how deep will the schools administrators insist on digging?

In September, roughly 1,000 copies of the Tartan, Radford's student-run newspaper, disappeared from campus news racks after having been delivered hours earlier. The next day, administrators of the university summoned the paper's editor, junior Dylan Lepore, to a meeting at which they criticized as insensitive a photo that was published on the paper's front page.

However, the schools administrators appeared surprised to hear that most of the issues had been stolen from the 22 news racks that are located around the campus.

It turns out, after what campus police called an "in-depth" investigation, that a low-level university employee who was neither administrator nor professor was caught on video and admitted stealing papers from four of the news racks, as The Washington Post's Joe Heim reported.

The administration and police won't reveal the thief's identity, although they know it; they won't charge the employee because they say taking free newspapers is not a crime; and they won't offer an explanation of who swiped the papers from 18 other news racks. Nor will they offer a motive or explanation for the theft.

The university's strategy, if you can call it that, is tailor-made to prolong the college's embarrassment, calling into question its leadership's judgment.

The photo in question upset a few administrators and faculty members, including Radford's president, Brian Hemphill, but apparently no one else; Lepore, the editor, told us he received no criticism from fellow students or on social media.

The photo depicts Steve Tibbetts, a newly hired criminal justice professor who died suddenly at age 49 a few weeks after arriving on campus, and it was given to the Tartan for publication by Tibbetts' widow. In it, Tibbetts and his daughter are standing beneath a road sign that reads "Tibbetts St." and, next to it, "Dead End."

Radford said the thief has been disciplined and that the matter, along with incriminating police video, is a closed "personnel issue." The thief was not acting on anyone's direction, a university spokesman said.

That strains credulity. It is also hard to believe the employee acted alone; when the newspaper is delivered to campus each week, it takes two hours to distribute it by golf cart to all the news racks.

Nor, as campus police suggest, does the fact that the Tartan is distributed for free mean that no crime was committed. The paper, whose publication costs include a $750 printing bill, Lepore's salary and other expenses, is an object of value, whether it is sold or given away.

The question of whether publishing the photo was tasteful is a topic of legitimate debate. Stealing two-thirds of a student newspaper's press run is an act of theft and an affront to the First Amendment.

By its stonewalling, the university suggests that it takes neither matter very seriously.

GateHouse Media

Follow this link:
Other Voices: It was censorship by theft at a university - Lexington Dispatch

Chinese American users of the messaging app WeChat are finding their messages containing political criticism of China particularly those aimed at the protests in Hong Kong are being censored, The Verge reports.

In one instance an American information security analyst named Bin Xie had his account taken down after writing "The pro-China candidates totally lost," referring to Hong Kong's recent election in which pro-democracy candidates gained huge ground against pro-China candidates.

"If you have censorship in China, fine," he told The Verge. "But in this country? I'm a Republican, but on WeChat I suffer the same as Democrats we are all censored."

Xie then joined a WhatsApp group full of Chinese Americans who had similarly been kicked off WeChat for expressing political views.

For Chinese Americans with family in China, being kicked off WeChat is a major problem. The WeChat app is more or less ubiquitous in China, where it covers a broad range of uses. It acts as a messaging app, a dominant payment platform, a social network, and a platform for accomplishing everyday tasks like paying utility bills and booking doctor's appointments. WeChat and its rival Alipay's payment systems have become so everyday that even street vendors and buskers use QR codes rather than accept cash.

Losing access to the app is a major hindrance to anyone wishing to contact Chinese relatives as popular Western messaging apps like Facebook and WhatsApp are blocked in China and for anyone who wants to visit the country.

The Verge notes that while generally WeChat applies different censorship rules to Chinese nationals and foreigners, Chinese Americans may fall through the net if they once possessed a Chinese phone number.

In a statement to Business Insider, WeChat's parent company Tencent noted that WeChat is a separate app to Weixin, which operates inside China. Tencent said WeChat and Weixin are are interoperable, describing them as "sister apps." People signing up with Chinese phone numbers would be using Weixin, while people with international numbers would use WeChat.

"Tencent operates in a complex regulatory environment, both in China and elsewhere. Like any global company, a core tenant is that we comply with local laws and regulations in the markets where we operate," a spokeswoman said.

"Weixin and WeChat use different servers, with data stored in different locations. WeChat's servers are outside of China and not subject to Chinese law, while Weixin's servers are in China and subject to Chinese law," she noted.

She added that the interoperablity between WeChat and Weixin messages could lead to "misunderstandings."

"For example, if a WeChat user sends a message to a friend using Weixin, China law applies to the Weixin user and certain content may be blocked. The same content shared between two WeChat users however, would not be blocked," she said.

The extension of Chinese censorship laws beyond its borders has become more pertinent to American citizens in recent months through three high-profile news stories.

Originally posted here:
WeChat users in the US say the app is censoring their messages about Hong Kong - Business Insider

Radford University, a taxpayer-supported institution in southwestern Virginia, is in a public relations hole entirely of its own making. The question is how deep its administrators will insist on digging.

In September, roughly 1,000 copies of the Tartan, Radfords student-run newspaper, disappeared from campus news racks after having been delivered hours earlier. The next day, administrators summoned the papers editor, junior Dylan Lepore, to a meeting at which they criticized as insensitive a photo published on the papers front page. However, they appeared surprised to hear most of the issues had been stolen from 22 news racks around campus.

It turns out, after what campus police called an in-depth investigation, that a low-level university employee neither administrator nor professor was caught on video and admitted stealing papers from four of the news racks, as The Posts Joe Heim reported. The administration and police wont reveal the thiefs identity, although they know it; they wont charge the employee because they say taking free newspapers is not a crime; and they wont offer an explanation of who swiped the papers from 18 other news racks. Nor will they offer a motive or explanation for the theft.

The universitys strategy, if you can call it that, is tailor-made to prolong the colleges embarrassment, calling into question its leaderships judgment.

The photo in question upset a few administrators and faculty members, including Radfords president, Brian Hemphill, but apparently no one else; Lepore, the editor, told us he received no criticism from fellow students or on social media. The photo depicts Steve Tibbetts, a newly hired criminal-justice professor who died suddenly at age 49 a few weeks after arriving on campus, and it was given to the Tartan for publication by Tibbetts widow. In it, Tibbetts and his daughter are standing beneath a road sign that reads Tibbetts St. and, next to it, Dead End.

Radford said the thief has been disciplined and that the matter, along with incriminating police video, is a closed personnel issue. The thief was not acting on anyones direction, a university spokesman said.

That strains credulity. It is also hard to believe the employee acted alone; when the newspaper is delivered to campus each week, it takes two hours to distribute it, by golf cart, to all the news racks. Nor, as campus police suggest, does the fact that the Tartan is distributed for free mean that no crime was committed. The paper, whose publication costs include a $750 printing bill, Lepores salary and other expenses, is an object of value, whether it is sold or given away.

The question of whether publishing a photo was tasteful is a topic of legitimate debate. Stealing two-thirds of a student newspapers press run is an act of theft and an affront to the First Amendment. By its stonewalling, the university suggests that it takes neither matter very seriously.

-The Panama City News Herald

See the original post here:
Censorship by theft on a university campus | Editorial - Citizentribune

TV legend John Challis criticised plans to censor classic British sitcoms like Only Fools and Horses for being offensive to modern audiences. British streaming service Britbox a subscription service led by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 was launched earlier this month. However, its decision to censor and attach sensitivity warnings to shows that could offend modern sensibilities have drawn widespread criticism.

The bespoke warnings will label specific episodes with one Only Fools and Horses episode and almost every episode of Fawlty Towers impacted.

Only Fools and Horses star John Challis spoke out against the move during an appearance on the Jeremy Vine show this morning.

Challis questioned why it was right that a show like Only Fools and Horses, that was still enjoyed by hundreds every day, could be taken down because it offends two or three people.

He recommended that people who are offended by these programmes simply choose to not watch them.

JUST IN: Tony Blair talks down Britain saying dont hold your breath for US trade deal

Challis said yesterday: Well Only Fools and Horses still shows every day.

But, jokes in that show that used to get an enormous laugh at the time 30 years ago now dont. Is that acceptable now, or not?

Hundreds of people who watch the show I was in, and think what a relief, we can laugh at that.

What has happened to comedy now because you cant say anything that might offend one or two people. Is that right?

He also criticised that Benny Hill had been described as sexist remarking that it was just very silly.

Challis added: It is up to the person who is offended by it not to watch it!

Britbox was launched with the aim of rivalling streaming giants such as Netflix and Amazon.

However, some shows, such as Till Death Do Us Part, Love Thy Neighbour and It Aint Half Hot Mum, have been removed altogether because they contain content that is deemed racist or unacceptable.

DON'T MISS:

Sturgeon in danger as former Scottish Remainer vows 'to back Brexit' [VIDEO]Tropical Storm Sebastien to smash Britain - travel chaos warning [VIDEO]EU plot - Macron threatens to hold British fisheries hostage [VIDEO]

Till Death Do Us Part includes the bigoted character Alf Garnett, while Love Thy Neighbour features a West Indian couple who move next door to a white English couple.

An ITV spokesman added: Weve carefully selected a wide range of the very best in British programming which will appeal to viewers in 2019.

Following the launch of BritBox, a spokesman confirmed that the vast majority of British shows will disappear from Netflix within the next year.

Reemah Sakaan, the ITV executive leading Britbox, acknowledged that changing tastes were a factor in the selection process and some material had not aged well.

Excerpt from:
BBC blasted by John Challis for CENSORING Only Fools and Horses you cant say anything! - Express