Mediaboss Marketing

Netflix has recently published its annual Environmental, Social and Governance Report, documenting all the occasions when it has censored content on its streaming platform due to government requests.

According to the document, the streaming giant has taken down content on a governments request just nine times, all of which have been made over the past five years. Singapore tops the list, removing a total of five items, including The Last Temptation of Christ a title completely banned in the country a Brazilian comedy calledThe Last Hangover, and three cannabis-related shows, as weed is illegal in the Asian country. New Zealand had NetflixremoveThe Bridge, which the government considers objectionable, while Vietnam pulledFull Metal Jacket and Germany bannedNight of the Living Dead. Finally, Saudi Arabia had Netflix remove an episode of Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj after it criticized the Middle Eastern state, which made international headlines.

Despite having taken the aforementioned content down in its respective countries, Netflix reassures that it doesnt take these censorship demands lightly, saying that it will only do so if the company receives a written government request and cannot, in any circumstance, reach an agreement with local authorities. Where it deems necessary, the streaming service will also actively fight against those demands, as in the case of Brazil withThe First Temptation of Christ, which depicts Jesus as a gay man in a religious satire. Netflix had taken the issue to court, ultimately winning the case in the countrys Supreme Court last month.

In other entertainment news, check out the freshly-releasedThe Invisible Man trailer now.

Read more from the original source:
Netflix Reveals All Its Government Censorship Incidents Over the Last 5 Years - HYPEBEAST

February 10, 2020 (American Thinker) One of the most worrisome things in America today is that the public square isn't public. Instead, it's owned by tech oligarchs, all of whom hew left politically. For years, Google (and its subsidiary YouTube), Twitter, and Facebook have systematically shut down conservative speech while giving almost unlimited passes to speech coming from the Left.

Twitter has been especially fierce in silencing conservatives, but Facebook has had its moment. Of late,privateFacebook groups are finding their posts censored, even though they're being shared only among members of like-minded communities. Facebook also has a revolting habit of appending to certain links that it doesn't like claims that the link could be false and directing people instead to "reputable" sources such as theNew York Times,the Washington Post,the AP, orReuters.

For this reason, it's noteworthy when social media outletsallowa popular conservative video to remain on their sites. In this case, the video was a re-cut showing highlights from Trump's State of the Union speech, intercut with endlessly repeated footage of a vindictive, petty Pelosi ripping that same speech.

Those who opposed the video, which has been viewed millions of times, claimed that it's a "manipulated video," which violates Facebook's current rules and Twitter's upcoming rules. Both outlets, however,rejected that viewpoint and rightly too. The concept of a dangerously manipulated video arises in the context of "deep fakes" that is, videos so subtly manipulated that people do not realize that the video has been altered.

In this case, it's clear even to the meanest intelligence that the video has been altered to make a point (a good point):

Kevin Jackson made a similar, equally good video:

Sooner or later (with sooner being better), Trump is going to have to address the way in which the social media giants systematically suppress conservative speech. In an ideal world, competition would create competitive sites. However, it's been years now, and none of the competitive attempts have taken off.

The unique status of the tech giants makes them very difficult to challenge in the free market. In many ways, they have become the internet equivalent of the restaurants and hotels that the Civil Rights Act addressed when it passed legislation overriding private property rights and holding that people who own places of "public accommodation" cannot discriminate. Given social media's extraordinary reach and control over communications among members of the public, it's dangerous to allow these tech sites to hold such unlimited power over the content of speech in America.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Visit link:
Conservatives shocked as Facebook, Twitter refuse to censor pro-Trump video - Lifesite

The coronavirus is the greatest crisis to have faced President Xi Jinping since he took power in 2012.

Since the outbreak began in the central city of Wuhan last December, it has killed 565 people and infected more than 28,200. All but two of the deaths were in mainland China. It has forced the government to lock down cities with a population exceeding 60 million and is likely to cut GDP growth this year by at least 0.5 percentage points.

Who is responsible for this catastrophe? Beijing cannot blame it on the United States and the hostile foreign forces it holds responsible for eight months of protest in Hong Kong and helping Tsai Ying-wen to win a second presidential term in Taiwan. No the guilty parties are within China.A bitter war is being waged on the Chinese internet over this issue.

Many believe the government is guilty of a cover-up after the first patient in Wuhan experienced the symptoms of the disease on December 1. On the social platform Douban, many people have written reviews of the television series Chernobyl, about the Soviet nuclear disaster in April 1986. The Soviet government delayed news of the catastrophe and did not report faithfully what had happened. In any era, any country, its the same. Cover everything up, wrote one blogger. That is socialism.

On December 30, Li Wenliang (pictured), a Wuhan doctor, informed fellow doctors in an online chat group that seven patients from a local seafood market had been diagnosed with a SARS-like illness and were quarantined in his hospital. Contaminated animals in the market are the most likely source of the virus.

Li and seven other doctors were visited by city police; they accused them of rumour-mongering and warned them not to discuss the disease in public. Li himself was tested positive for the virus on February 1 and died in the early hours of February 7.

His death caused an outpouring of grief and anger on social media. Wuhan government owes Dr Li Wenliang an apology, said one. We want freedom of speech, said another. Tens of thousands read the comments before the censors deleted them.

If any of us here is fortunate enough to speak up for the public in the future, please make sure you remember tonights anger, said another comment.

Lis death is the most tragic result of a cover-up. On January 2, hospitals in Wuhan accepted 27 patients who had direct exposure to the seafood market. By January 18, the number of infected patients in Wuhan had risen to 62; that day the city government arranged a public banquet with 40,000 families making and sharing food. By then doctors had told the city government that the virus could be spread from human to human.

But it was only on January 22 that the city was quarantined and severe measures put in place. In the weeks before, five million people had left Wuhan to travel all over China and around the world. It is they who have carried the disease across the globe.

Chinese are asking why it took seven weeks from the first case to the public announcement and imposition of drastic measures. The answer is Chinas highly centralised reporting system. The Wuhan government is likely to have reported details of the disease to Beijing; but it could not announce anything or take strong measures without approval.

Was it only Xi himself who could make such a major decision? Did the Prime Minister and Minister of Health have to wait for him?

Many of the bloggers direct their anger at Wuhan Mayor Zhou Xianwang and Hubei governor Wang Xiaodong. During an interview that Zhou gave to state television, one commentor wrote in a live stream: Stop talking. We just want to know when you will resign.

To avoid the censors, bloggers must be ingenious. Some refer to Xi Jinping as Trump. Others describe the police and police stations with characters that are incorrect but have the same sound as the correct ones. This works because most of the censoring is done by computers, which cannot detect wordplay.

In the early days of the crisis, control of the Internet was eased, allowing criticism of the local government. Then this week President Xi said that the government needed to step up propaganda and strengthen online media control to maintain social stability. Many WeChat accounts have been shut down. State news media runs positive stories about how China is defeating the virus and about health workers in the front line.

This epidemic is devastating and figures at the very top of government are implicated in the appalling response. The Chernobyl catastrophe was so horrific that it helped to speed the collapse of the Soviet Union. The question now is what the consequences will be for the Chinese government of this terrible, growing crisis that it has handled so incompetently.

Follow this link:
Censorship, lies and death: China's government under fire - TheArticle

In its 23 years of service, Netflix has removed only nine pieces of content due to government censorship.

In a new report titledEnvironmental Social Governance, the streaming giant revealed that over the years it has received takedown requests from the governments of New Zealand, Vietnam, Germany, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia. The first ever takedown notice came from New Zealand in 2015, but Singapore is by far the most active.

[Read: How to opt out of Netflixs autoplay previews]

Here are the nine titles Netflix removed over the years:

For what its worth, Netflix aims to make as much content as possible available on its platform, but it says itll ultimately comply with removal notices if a country has forbidden the distribution of certain titles.

This is the first time Netflix has revealed the list of titles that have been removed following government pressure, but the company intends to continue disclosing such information in the future. Beginning next year, we will report these takedowns annually, the company writes in the report.

via Axios

Read next: Every c-suite leader needs to be a Chief Empathy Officer

Continue reading here:
Here are the 9 titles Netflix purged due to government censorship - The Next Web

Mobile apps for Big Tech giants are featured. (Photo credit: DENIS CHARLET/AFP via Getty Images)

Theres a divide on the political right concerning whether Google and the social media companies are suppressing or censoring their views, and, indeed, promote values antithetical to free markets and a free society. Many social conservatives argue they do and demand government action.

The more libertarian-leaning argue that the charge of bias is not clear and, in any case, using government against these companies infringes on economic liberty and will be used by the left when it has power.

Both sides have legitimate points, but a nuanced understanding of the situation points to an opportunity for friends of freedom.

The leadership of the aforementioned companies and a good portion of employees are certainly more liberal, if not hardcore left. In the current primary season, high-salaried engineers and programmershave been big donors to socialists Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

But the real issue is not just about political views, but rather the legality of tech giants actions. Under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, social media companies are treated as platforms that third parties can use for posting content or communicating with others. Those companies are not treated as publishers like newspapers, meaning they are not subject to lawsuits for materials posted on their platforms in the same way a newspaper or a television news outlet would be.

However, in order for platforms to enjoy the protections of Section 230, they must not prohibit political and other kinds of legal speech. If they do, then they are essentially publishers who must be held to the same standards applied to other media outlets.

Although platforms like Facebook deny that they pick and choose the material they permit on their sites, theres evidence that many tech giants, often in subtle ways, do just that. For example, PragerU has fought ongoing battles with YouTube because the video platform has taken down numerous videos posted by PragerU, despite the fact they are not obscene, advocate for violence, or harass others. Twitter has been accused of shadow banning conservatives, that is, not suspending their accounts but using certain techniques to prevent their posts from being widely viewed.

Theres also no question that leaders of numerous tech giants have been caught advocating for left-wing causes or admitting that they desire to use their companies to aid left-leaning politicians. For instance, a Project Veritashidden camera video caught Jen Gennai, Googles head of responsible innovation, taking exception to Warrens call to break up Big Tech companies like hers because the resulting smaller companies who dont have the same resources we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation and thus presumably be in a weaker position to do so. Gennai also spoke of Google manipulating its search engine to weed out algorithmic unfairness.

Numerous other examples offer prima facie evidence for examining whether these companies are really publishers and should be treated as such.

Some lawmakers on the right would go even further. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) promotes legislation that would require such companies to conform to best business practices with periodic government reviews. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) would remove Section 230 protection for companies that cannot demonstrate to federal regulators that they are politically neutral.

If social media companies are frightened by the prospect of being beholden to government regulators with their liberty limited, they should be! And now they know how the rest of us feel about the policies of the leftist candidates that they support would unleash on us all!

Attacks on these companies also come from the left, with critics calling for changes in Section 230 to force them to engage in more censorship of what they call hate speech and fake news. Conservatives should be concerned about this since they are the prime voices the left would silence.

Some conservatives say demanding platforms act in a more balanced manner is not enough. They say antitrust laws should be used against these companies and that they should be broken up into smaller businesses, a view many on the left agree with.

Although its understandable why some would take this approach, using antitrust laws is generally against free-market principles and should be avoided whenever possible, a position the political right has rightly espoused since the days of Ronald Reagan. Putting that sort of power in the hands of the national government would be far too dangerous over the long term.

Instead of attempting to use government to punish businesses the right fearshowever reasonable that fear might beit should embrace free-market values while demanding that tech giants act as truly open platforms if they wish to enjoy legal protections that publishers are not eligible for.

Conservatives and libertarians should also encourage these companies and their talented professionals to realize that they have prospered because of the free market, not in spite of it. Its Americas market economy that allowed companies such as Google and Facebook to innovate, create a valuable, highly desired product, and to revolutionize the world we live in and the way we all communicate.

Keeping government from controlling tech giants is going to be especially important in the years and decades to come, as many of these businesses and their subsidiaries are investing in cutting-edge exponential technologies like AI, robots, biohacking, and nanotech, which have the potential to cure diseases and raise living standards for all.

Those on the right should call out Big Tech for their bias, yes, but they should also praise them for their remarkable achievements and appeal to them to use their resources and talented staffs to continue making the world a better, more prosperous place for everyone using technology and the free market and by rejecting the socialist principles that caused unprecedented chaos, destruction, and misery throughout the twentieth century.

Tech companies should stand up for an open society and open exchange of ideas, not censorship and the centralization of power. Its not only in their own best interests but also in the best interests of the entire world.

Edward Hudgins, Ph.D., is research director at The Heartland Institute and an expert on technology policy. He can be reached at ehudgins@heartland.org.

See the article here:
The Right Should Challenge Tech Giants to Side with Liberty and Reject Censorship - CNSNews.com