Mediaboss Marketing

@reggi3jReggie

JD lover, Arm Chair activist, Founder Gather Network

It is no secret that big tech has been actively monitoring and censoring users. The past three years have seen a big rise in reported censorship events by the likes of Youtube, Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

According to John Wolfsohns article on Brown Political Review; quoting here: Every 60 seconds, 3.8 million questions are entered into the Google Machine an international hegemon that has 1.7 billion users and a market value of $990 billion.

According to a November 2019 Wall Street Journal investigation, Google has been found to be manipulating search results, creating politically-partisan algorithms, and maintain blacklists to prevent users from accessing certain websites.

Facebook, which has a market value of $572 billion, and Twitter, which has a market value of $28 billion, hold considerable economic and political clout in our society, as 68 percent of Americans periodically use social media as a source for news.

What is more alarming is that such censorship is getting worse, case in point - the US elections - we will come to that later in the article. Below depicts a diagram of censorship in the world, notice anything?

Western countries seem to have the most free speech, but is that really so? Lets rewind the clocks back and take a look back at recent history.

Most people should be familiar with what censorship actually is, but for people who are not, here is the good old Oxford dictionary definition:

The act or policy of censoring books etc..

Thanks Oxford.

Great definition. Here is a better version according to a user on the popular (and probably more relevant) website Urban Dictionary:

Stopping the free flow of art and ideas.

Here is a working example of what censorship is, again from a user on the popular site UrbanDictionary.

Very eloquently explained, Yosheek.

Many years ago when myspace was still a thing, and people were still using Limewire to wait two hours to download the latest hits - online censorship was still in its infancy.

Why?

Largely due to the fact the dominant social media platforms were still coming up.

But, online censorship did exist.

Take the case of Myspace, according to MoveOn, they claimed that; that the website practices censorship by not showing anti-media ads, removing fake profiles for high-profile media executives like Rupert Murdoch, and attempting to force users away from using certain third-party Flash applications on their profiles.

This is just one example of censorship within the budding social media platform. I digress, moving on.

While Myspace is just one example, Censorship in various forms has existed for millennia, the earliest recorded example being was in 443 BC when the first office of the censor was established in Rome.

In fact, in the ancient Greek communities, Censorship was viewed as an honorable task.

China followed it through with a Censorship law in 300AD. From here Censorship kept evolving and started to proliferate into many forms of society in Print media, television ads, and now social media.

The key difference is that the general public was not as acutely aware as they are now, largely due to technology, and the rapid spread of information.

Index Librorum Prohibitorum (1564) - The list of Banned or Prohibited books

While many may think that censorship has no place in the world, it does serve a purpose.

Now what that purpose is, may be debatable.

From stopping the spread of misinformation, or to further a party(ies) hidden agenda, for either direct or in-direct monetary gains.

An example being censoring a certain individual who looks like an orange Cheeto to supposedly provide a material advantage to his aged opponent (None of this is proven fact, Jack please dont block my 200 follower Twitter account).

This is an extreme example, however, there are other grey examples of big tech flexing:

Banning Youtube crypto accounts or Facebook banning Crypto ads, albeit Youtube did reinstate some of the accounts, it just goes to show that even in the free world big tech is acting like big brother and the moral police.

Lets not forget the poor souls in China whose nine to five include going through thousands of questionable videos to censor them.

While the above include some questionable acts of censorship, lets not forget that depiction of acts of terrorism, child pornography, violence, and other clear examples of why we need censorship.

It is a fine balance, between respecting free speech, and keeping the peace.

Recent events have shown the dark side of censorship, but it is a needed evil. However the question is about the fine line here, and respect for that fine line.

Censoring actual content that is harmful or dangerous, and not using some vague justification to censor content that is in the grey area or open for interpretation.

To put it more plainly. - Big Tech, stop abusing your power, censorship is needed but in legitimate cases only. Stop using censorship to further your agendas.

And for those companies that will continue to abuse their power,

I have three words for you:

Go. Fornicate. Yourself.

With Warm Regards,

Reggie

All of the above is my personal opinion and does not represent the opinions of any organizations, parties, politically exposed individuals, individuals that look like flaming cheetos, dictators or anyone else. None of this constitutes any form of advice let alone financial advice or solicitation.

You can solicit me for a drink though.

Preferably JD honey.

Create your free account to unlock your custom reading experience.

Here is the original post:
Censorship: From Ancient Greece To Today's Big Tech - A Brief Overview - hackernoon.com

The World Health Organisation has removed social media filters which were censoring the words Taiwan and China from its Facebook page after an online backlash, but said the blocks were because of an onslaught of cyber attacks.

The about-face comes amid intense criticism over Chinas continued blocking of Taiwan which has gone more than 215 days without a local case of Covid-19 from participation in meetings of the WHOs decision-making body, the World Health Assembly.

This week internet users began reporting the WHOs Facebook page would not allow comments that included the word Taiwan. The Guardians attempts to post comments found it was also blocking the word China. Posters began replacing characters in the word to get past the censors, including , or using the islands former name, Formosa.

Taiwans foreign ministry said the block ran contrary to the neutrality the WHO should be upholding, and expressed its strong regret and dissatisfaction, but a spokesman for the WHO said the moves were a practical measure which didnt reflect a value judgement or policy.

During the World Health Assembly, WHO faces an onslaught of cyberattacks by online activists on a number of controversial issues, using keywords such as Taiwan and China, the spokesman said.

The social media team applied filters as the onslaught hindered its ability to moderate conversations, he said. After the block was lifted the WHOs page was flooded with pro-Taiwan and anti-China messages.

The WHOs history with Taiwan has been controversial, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. China, which considers Taiwan a rogue province and its government to be separatists, has blocked its admission to the WHA despite an increase in international support for their inclusion.

Intense lobbying for Taiwans inclusion preceded a WHA meeting last week but it remained excluded. The WHO maintains any inclusion is a matter for WHA member states to vote on.

Taipei says it has much to share with the global community given its success in preventing a large outbreak. It has reported around 580 cases of Covid-19 in total, mostly imported and contained by the quarantine system, and just seven deaths.

Go here to see the original:
WHO drops censorship of words 'Taiwan' and 'China' on social media after backlash - The Guardian

On November 11, the government issued an order bringing online news portals and Over The Top (OTT) contentproviders such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Hotstar under the regulatory purview of the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry. This is a move with far-reaching consequences and could kickstart an era of more frequent and stricter censorship on what online services air.

The Information and Broadcasting Ministry has found a vast swathe of unregulated content, namely online news and Over the top (OTT) platforms which had escaped any architecture of regulation. While the print media were regulated by the Press Council of India, and television content both news and entertainment was being regulated by the Cable Networks Regulation Act (2005), content published online, the government felt, fell into a black hole that did not permit oversight.

So, what kind of oversight will this be? How will it work? And what is the potential for misuse or overreach?

Guest: Anuradha Raman, Associate Editor, The Hindu.

Find the In Focus podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Stitcher. Search for In Focus by The Hindu.

Write to us with comments and feedback at socmed4@thehindu.co.in

Dear subscriber,

Thank you!

Your support for our journalism is invaluable. Its a support for truth and fairness in journalism. It has helped us keep apace with events and happenings.

The Hindu has always stood for journalism that is in the public interest. At this difficult time, it becomes even more important that we have access to information that has a bearing on our health and well-being, our lives, and livelihoods. As a subscriber, you are not only a beneficiary of our work but also its enabler.

We also reiterate here the promise that our team of reporters, copy editors, fact-checkers, designers, and photographers will deliver quality journalism that stays away from vested interest and political propaganda.

Suresh Nambath

See more here:
Will regulation of digital media lead to an era of government censorship? | The Hindu In Focus podcast - The Hindu

In an act of online political censorship aimed at silencing left-wing and socialist views, Twitter has suspended the account of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality in the US.

The IYSSE is the youth and student movement of the Socialist Equality Party and is affiliated with the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) and the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).

The IYSSE is an officially recognized campus group on dozens of university campuses in the US, the UK, France, Germany, Sri Lanka and Australia. At Berlins Humboldt University, the IYSSE holds multiple seats in the student parliament.

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on Wednesday, members and supporters of the IYSSE noted that the Twitter account @IYSSE_US had been stripped of its profile and header image and the account timeline of tweets had been replaced by a message that says, Account suspended: Twitter suspends accounts that violate the Twitter Rules. A link to the Twitter Rules page was included as part of the notice.

When the IYSSE contacted Twitter to demand the reinstatement of the account, the company replied, Your account was suspended because it appears you may be managing a number of Twitter accounts.

The IYSSE responded:

The International Youth and Students for Social Equality is a campus political organization officially recognized on dozens of campuses in the United States and internationally. Each different campus chapter manages its own Twitter account. Because these chapters are affiliated with the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), numerous chapters may post the same or similar articles from the WSWS, as is their right.

This type of activity is explicitly condoned in Twitters guidelines of September 2020. The guidance states that organizations with related but separate chapters or branches, such as a business with multiple locations, is not a violation of this policy.

We request (1) a more thorough, detailed showing of any alleged violations, and (2) that the suspension of this group (@IYSSE_US) be lifted immediately.

Twitter gave no additional information about the suspension, and the IYSSEs account remains suspended.

Taking place one week after the 2020 US elections, the shutdown of the IYSSE (US) account has occurred amidst increasing online censorship of left-wing and socialist publications, combined with an aggressive attack on free speech by all of the social media tech giants before, during and after the presidential elections.

Among the final posts on the IYSSE account late Tuesday were a retweet of a link to the WSWS article titled, Why did some working class regions vote for Trump? There was also a retweet of a post by SEP National Secretary and 2020 US presidential candidate Joseph Kishore on the significance of the coronavirus vaccine announcement by Pfizer and the importance of independent political action by the working class against the pandemic and the murderous ruling class response to it.

Twitter is engaging in political censorship to silence a leading voice of socialist politics among young people and students around the world. The IYSSE (US) has beenthrough its publishing activity and engagement on Twitter and other popular social media platformsthe most consistent voice for socialism and against racism, right-wing nationalism, the threat of fascism and for the international unity of the working class across national boundaries in a common struggle against the capitalist system.

Responding to the Twitter suspension, IYSSE National Secretary Genevieve Leigh said, There is no legitimate reason for the suspension of the IYSSE Twitter account. We know that particularly over the past two years there has been a concerted effort on the part of social media companies, at the behest of Washington, to censor left-wing, socialist, antiwar and progressive websites. These efforts have been well documented and opposed by the WSWS.

This political censorship 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 these efforts to suppress freedom of speech and thought, especially among youth.

The suspension of the IYSSE (US) Twitter account must be seen within the context of the longstanding and ongoing censorship measures by Google and the other social media platforms against the World Socialist Web Site. Google Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai admitted on the congressional record on October 28 that the search giant had been censoring the WSWS.

There have been several instances of Reddit moderators banning the WSWS from the approved whitelist of domain names and labeling content links from the WSWS as an unacceptable source. Meanwhile, as far back as August 2018, Facebook has removed the accounts of left-wing publishers, including deleting the accounts of World Socialist Web Site reporters on the basis of unsubstantiated claims of inauthentic behavior.

The suspension of the IYSSE (US) account by Twitter is the first time that one of the major social media platforms has moved to shut down a primary account of an organization connected with the ICFI and the WSWS.

We call on all readers of the World Socialist Web Site to demand that Twitter restore the account of the IYSSE (US), @IYSSE_US, by posting statements to @TwitterSupport.

View post:
Stop online censorship: Restore the Twitter account of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (US)! - WSWS

Our commenting has been temporarily disabled.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Excerpt from:
Letter to the editor: We must address censorship, media, corruption - TribLIVE