Mediaboss Marketing

Technology

Make your day. TikToks slogan conveys the idea of another playful company to add to the list of social media giants. The reality, though, is much darker.

Initially released as Musical.ly a platform that allowed users to upload videos of themselves miming to songs the company was later acquired by Chinese ByteDance, who then launched TikTok. Rather than focusing on music videos, the app is now a place where users can create, share, and watch any kind of short videos on a continuous loop.

According to GlobalWebIndex, TikToks target demographic is primarily Gen Z and Millennials between 16 and 24 years old. In November 2019, it hit an impressive 1.5 billion downloads worldwide, placing the app third in the list of most-downloaded non-gaming apps, after Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger.

Operating on such a huge scale, TikTok has come under harsh scrutiny from governments and the press about its transparency and content regulation. With its headquarters in Beijing, questions about TikToks ethics came to fruition long before the company expanded into Europe in September 2017. Bytedance has repeatedly had to defend itself from allegations of propagandist aims and preventing mentions of Tiananmen Square. With an already-tarnished reputation in countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh and India, can the app survive fresh accusations of censorship in a relatively new European market?

Of the 500 million active TikTok users, 150 million are located in China and use the Chinese version of the app (called Douyin). Other Asian countries like Japan, Vietnam, and Thailand have an equally high engagement.

A November 2018 breakdown of TikToks European markets noted that Germany was the top country for users with 4.1 million active, followed closely by France with 4 million, where views averaged a total of 6.5 billion and 5 billion respectively. In both countries TikTok users open the app around 8 times a day.

As of October 2019, Germanys user base has more than doubled with 8.8 million users and is now the 10th country in the world with the biggest TikTok following.

Indonesia was one of the first countries to block TikTok after videos on the platform were deemed blasphemous and pornographic. As a result, TikTok was removed from all app download stores for a week, beginning July 2018. Only once TikTok agreed to clear all negative content, apply additional restrictions for 14 to 18-year-olds, and set up a team of censors in Indonesia to sanitize content, was the app reinstated in the country.

Later, in February 2019, after declaring a war on pornography, Bangladesh followed suit and also shut down TikTok. Currently, the app remains unavailable in the country.

More recently, in April this year, India joined the list of countries hitting back at TikTok. Accusations of content featuring child pornography, accidental suicides and killings, as well as dangerous trends like jumping in front of cars surfaced. Other issues included spreading fake news and cyberbullying. For two weeks, new downloads of the app were banned across all of India, costing TikTok $500,000 in revenue each day. Following an appeal from TikToks parent company Bytedance, Madras High Court reversed its decision after one week.

In November 2019, German digital rights blog Netzpolitik gained access to TikToks moderation rules. The site noted that, although guidelines were extremely loose, TikToks strategy, however, is clear: certain content is given the widest possible reach, while others are systematically suppressed.

Netzpolitik also discovered that unwanted content on TikTok is divided into four categories: deletion, visible to self, not for feed, and not recommended. General videos that do not fall into these categories can still be marked risk and be blocked by location. TikTok claims the moderation is to ensure content complies with different country laws.

The strategy, however, is clear: certain content is given the widest possible reach, while others are systematically suppressed.

An unnamed source from TikTok also told Netzpolitik that protests are generally not welcome on the app. Since its parent company Bytedance is Chinese, the recent troubles in Hong Kong, for example, have little if any exposure on the platform.

Only a month later, Netzpolitik broke another story about TikToks use of censorship. This time, a leaked document revealed how TikTok made videos of people with disabilities less visible. The app also hid videos of overweight people and people identifying as LGBTQ by grouping them on special user lists, deemed higher risk.

The justification? TikTok claimed the action was to protect vulnerable users and those susceptible to harassment or cyberbullying based on their physical or mental condition. These special user lists were curated by a team of moderators who were assigned to make their judgements based on 15-second video uploads.

The controversial measure meant that videos of users with disabilities or perceived disabilities were only shown in the country where they were uploaded. In Germany, this shrunk a potential audience of 500 million to 8.8 million.

TikTok claims the special user lists were never intended to be a long-term solution and have since changed them. The platform has also emphatically denied censoring politicized content. Nonetheless, its moderation guidelines and Bytedances likely pressure to further Chinese foreign policy still compromise the platform.

By systematically disadvantaging unfavorable content, TikTok has fueled suspicions of censorship and its broader political goals. While TikToks growth does not appear to be slowing down, it remains uncertain whether the skepticism will have a lasting impact on its user base.

Go here to read the rest:
Will new claims of censorship threaten TikToks presence in Europe? - 150sec

BuzzFeed News is sorry to report Jason Derulo wasnt the only one who had to have his genital bulge digitally removed from the psychedelic live-action adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webers musical Cats.

His Cats costars Francesca Hayward (Victoria), Laurie Davidson (Mr. Mistoffelees), and Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) shed some much-needed light on the pressing situation during an interview on Friday with BuzzFeed News morning show AM to DM.

Everyone was gone! Nobody had a bulge!" revealed Fairchild.

The conversation around Jason Derulos genitalia has been one of the more bizarre news items to come out of an already bizarre movie.

Derulos dick, if anyone needs a refresher, has been having a hard time lately. First, it was censored by Instagram and then, apparently, by the movie. The Instagram controversy occurred after he posted a thirst trap which was subsequently removed by the platform because of its policy regarding aroused genitalia, but he argued he was only semi-aroused.

During a subsequent appearance on Andy Cohens radio show, Derulo, who plays Rum Tum Tugger in Cats, boasted proudly that producers of the movie "CGId the dick out" because it was so big.

But Fairchild said it wasn't just Derulo's package that had to be erased. "Its Cats!" he said. "If ours were gone, his should be gone!"

When told during his AM to DM interview that the Derulo penis censorship in Cats had been a "huge topic" of conversation in the BuzzFeed office, Davidson joked, "Huge topic? That's up for debate."

Cats is based on T.S. Eliots Old Possums Book of Practical Cats. It follows a group of cats called the Jellicle cats as they perform songs until one cat, named Old Deuteronomy (played by Dame Judi Dench in the movie) picks one of them to go to kitty-cat heaven.

Hayward confessed to BuzzFeed News that shes never seen the original musical performed live. I had a video and I just used to watch that all the time when I was, like, 8 years old, and I would always be Victoria, she said. Hayward is now the principal ballerina at the Royal Ballet and has had roles in major productions like The Nutcracker and Sleeping Beauty.

The cast members told BuzzFeed News that they had to go to three months of cat school to prepare for the role. We played a lot of games to get into the mindset and physicality of cats, Davidson said.

Hayward said that soon it became normal to see their costars as cats, adding that it would be weird to see them without the CGI setup, like dots on their faces, outside of filming.

Cats came out Friday, but the purr around it started months ago when the first trailer released and everyone was collectively shocked to see cat versions of A-listers like Dame Judi Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Taylor Swift, and Jennifer Hudson.

The reviews of the movie have been roughly the same.

But Fairchild said he feels the musical itself has always been polarizing."

Read more from the original source:
Jason Derulo's "Cats" Costars Revealed It Wasn't Just His Bulge That Had To Be Removed - BuzzFeed News

China has censored online all mentions and video clips of a rare protest at a university after the institution dropped the phrase, freedom of thought, from its charter.

The new charter for Fudan University in Shanghai one of Chinas most prestigious now includes a pledge to serving the governance of the Communist Party and pushes academic independence below patriotism, leading to uproar among students and faculty.

The changes came to light Tuesday when the countrys education ministry said it had approved similar alterations for three universities.

Within hours, the Fudan charter amendments were trending online, with at least one hashtag generating at least a million views. Clips also circulated online showing students staging a flash mob protest on campus, singing the schools anthem, which includes the phrase freedom of thought.

Fudan professors also took online to express their alarm. Qu Weiguo, a professor of foreign languages, posted that he was very shocked to learn about the changes, which he said were made without consulting faculty.

But shortly after, such mentions and posts online were all deleted by Chinas active government censors, which routinely block news and information, and scrub the internet clean of any dissenting comments.

View post:
China censors viral clips of a rare university protest after the academy downgrades 'freedom of thought' - The Telegraph

Mondoweiss readers, can you help us meet the challenge weve been offered this month? If we raise $100,000 from you and others by December 31, generous long-standing donors will match it with an additional $100,000.

We have less than two weeks left to unlock these funds. Can you donate today in honor of Elyse Crystall, Rabab Abdulhadi, and others fighting McCarthyism on campus? A gift of $40, $75 or whatever amount you can manage will make a difference!

If youve already donated this month, please accept our thanks! And read on to understand why activist professor Elyse Crystall supports Mondoweisss coverage of ChangeMakers.

As an academic and an activist, I believe justice in Palestine depends on changing minds in the U.S, which is the reason why Mondoweiss is of such value to me and I urge you to join me today in supporting their work.

You are, Im sure, well aware that while repression in Palestine increases, here in the U.S. we see greater awareness of the horrific conditions in Palestine. More people today understand that U.S. policy underwrites and U.S. taxpayer dollars fund the violation of Palestinian human rights. I have personal experience of how Mondoweisss coverage is critical in this process of increased understanding, and thats why Im asking you to contribute today.

Last spring my campus, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, came under attack when the Duke-UNC Consortium on Middle East Studies hosted a conference called Conflict over Gaza: People, Politics, and Possibilities. As the faculty advisor for our campuss chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), I was not entirely surprised. I know how long and hard campus groups have fought to destigmatize support for Palestinian rights and to dismantle the notion that criticism of Israeli state policies equals anti-Semitism.

A pro-Israel blogger generated controversy by distributing to local news media an edited video of a brilliant satirical performance by Palestinian rapper Tamer Nafar. Prompted by a local right-wing legislator, Trumps Department of Education (DOE) launched an investigation. Mondoweiss reported on the results, released in September. The DOE conditioned any future Title VI funds on our providing detailed information about how each activity of our program advances the national security interests and economic stability of the United States.

Obviously, this warning sought to intimidate all area studies programs nationally, and specifically Middle East studies, by making an example of ours. In response to the Trump administrations clampdown on our program, over 350 outraged professors nationwide signed a petition declaring their support for Palestinian rights and their refusal to be silenced. And Mondoweiss spread the word.

These attempts to silence Palestine solidarity in the U.S. have culminated in the Executive Order signed this month, aimed at providing easier legal paths for claims of anti-Semitism on campus. And you know as well as I that neither faculty nor students will go quietly in the face of this repressionand Mondoweiss will help alert the public at large of our resistance.

Over a dozen Israel-aligned groups make it their job to monitor pro-Palestinian academics, many of whom have been fired as a result. Pro-Israel groups tactics include media smears on Israels critics, labeling them anti-Semitic; efforts to rewrite university policies or state laws to penalize criticism of Israel; and pressure on donors and administrators. Im Jewish and still I feel the chill of censorship, and I know that the threat to those of Palestinian descent is much, much greater.

Earlier in the year Mondoweiss shared with you the fight of my friend Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, who was sued multiple times for creating a threatening environment on her campus. Her own university, San Francisco State University, retaliated against her because of her passionate pro-Palestine positions. At Fordham University, students attempting to form an SJP chapter faced an intense, two-year legal battle.

As campus activism continues to come under attack, more than ever we need you to stand in solidarity with us. They wont stop trying to silence us, leveraging their influence and weaponizing anti-Semitism.

We rely on Mondoweiss to tell the truth loud and clear and to help us track the movement for justice in Palestine in the U.S. and globally.

The students, faculty, and staff at our universities are ChangeMakers because right now U.S. campuses are crucial arenas in the struggle for Palestine. Campus advocates fight effectively with historical facts, critical analysis, and persuasive rhetorical skillsand that inspires others to fight. Thats one of the reasons why those who seek to defend the indefensible focus their efforts on universities.

Universities are under attack, and sometimes we win as the students at Fordham University finally did! These success stories inspire us all, and we are indebted to Mondoweiss for informing us of each others struggles and victories.

Please join me in supporting Mondoweiss, so that thorough coverage read by hundreds of thousands can continue to advance our work for real change. Your donation today makes a difference.

Continue reading here:
They want to silence you and mebut we stand up against the censorship - Mondoweiss

Edward Snowden is not entitled to the profits from his memoir Permanent Record, and any money made must go to the US government, a judge has ruled.

Permanent Record, in which Snowden recounts how he came to the decision to leak the top secret documents revealing government plans for mass surveillance, was published in September. Shortly afterwards, the US government filed a civil lawsuit contending that publication was in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed with both the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA), and that the release of the book without pre-publication review by the agencies was in violation of his express obligations. Snowdens lawyers had argued that if the author had believed that the government would review his book in good faith, he would have submitted it for review.

Earlier this week, district judge Liam OGrady ruled that the government is entitled to Snowdens proceeds from the book.

In response, Snowden wrote on Twitter: The government may steal a dollar, but it cannot erase the idea that earned it I wrote this book for you, and I hope the governments ruthless desperation to prevent its publication only inspires you read it and then gift it to another.

Asked by one fan if it was possible to buy the book and donate the same amount to Snowden, as an easy way to stick it to the US government, Snowden recommended that readers donate money to the families who had helped shelter him in Hong Kong after the story broke in 2013, providing a link to the charity that supports them.

Snowden said the book would continue to be sold. The courts ruling is a hack intended to circumvent first amendment limits on what the government can censor, he told his followers. They cant (yet) ban the book, so they ban profit to try and prevent such books from being written in the first place.

Snowdens lawyer, Brett Max Kaufman, told the New York Times that it was far-fetched to believe that the government would have reviewed Mr Snowdens book or anything else he submitted in good faith, and for that reason, Mr Snowden preferred to risk his future royalties than to subject his experiences to improper government censorship.

We disagree with the courts opinion and will review our options, he added.

Excerpt from:
Edward Snowdens profits from memoir must go to US government, judge rules - The Guardian