Mediaboss Marketing

Eileen Donahoe is Executive Director of the Global Digital Policy Incubator at Stanford University, and former U.S. ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council. You can follow her @EileenDonahoe.

Democracies face an existential threat: information is being weaponized against them with digital tools. Although propaganda is not new, the speed, scale and extraterritorial reach of digital disinformation makes it different in kind from propaganda of old. Digital mechanisms of manipulationfrom bot armies and clickbait to micro targetingare being mastered by authoritarian and anti-democratic forces, outpacing democratic societies capacities to protect themselves.

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of this threat is that information itself is the weapon. Information has always been the lifeblood of democracy. For democracy to work, free and well-informed citizens must actively engage in civic discourse. Digital disinformation is destroying the prospect of democratic engagement by well-informed citizens.

Given the digital disinformation campaigns in the lead-up to BREXIT and the recent U.S. and French presidential elections, democratic governments now are seized with defending against disinformation operations by foreign governments seeking to disrupt their democratic processes. Until recently, many national security experts were focused on cyber threats to critical infrastructure that could have a physical consequences (e.g. a cyberattack causing something to blow up). Few anticipated that the target of cyberattack would be the civic infrastructure of our democraciesnot only voting machines, but public discourse around our elections. Fewer envisioned that the preferred vector of cyberattack would be disinformation.

But an ominous risk also arises when democratic governments responding to digital disinformation undermine their own democratic values. Germanys new NetzDG law, also known as the Network Enforcement Act or social media law, aims to eradicate hate speech and propaganda on digital platforms. It imposes steep fines (up to 50 million) for failure to take down evidently criminal content within twenty-four hours. The motivation for this legislation was to protect the quality of discourse necessary to sustain democracy, but its unintended effects risk greater damage to democracy than the original threat.

As private sector platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have become primary sources of information and vehicles for expression, they effectively function as the public square for civic engagement. Their algorithms affect their users access to information and how they form political opinions. This has created conceptual confusion about the roles and responsibilities of social media platforms in democracy. The German NetzDG Act manifests this confusion.

In one swoop, the German government handed over judicial authority for determining criminality to the private sector. It simultaneously encouraged censorship, by incentivizing platforms to err on the side of taking down flagged content even if not criminal. Finally, it eroded the core concept of limited platform liability for third-party speech, which has facilitated the free flow of information on the Internet and democratized distribution of content globally.

In effect, the German bill got the target wrong: Platforms should not be liable for speech posted by users, (but should take down criminal speech based on a court order.) Platforms should be accountable for their own algorithms when they push information to users to monetize attention. The German approach retreats from governing responsibility and undermines its own commitment to freedom of expression on the Internet.

This is especially true when Russia starts holding up the German law as a model for its own censorship efforts. Democratic values are at risk of serious erosion when Moscow looks at Berlin for inspiration to regulate internet content. Within two weeks of the adoption of the German law, the Russian Duma proposed a copy-cat bill, with multiple explicit references to the German law as its model. The Russian version, like the German original, compels social media companies to take down vaguely defined illegal content within twenty-four hours or face severe penalties. The official justification for the law was to prevent use of digital networks for illegal purposes. In Russia, this can mean anything that challenges the authoritarian rule of Vladimir Putin. Russias cynical use of Germanys example should raise alarm bells for all democratic actors.

Democratic governments concerned about new digital threats need to find better algorithms to defend democratic values in the global digital ecosystem. Democracy has always been hard. It requires an exquisite balance between freedom, security and democratic accountability. This is the profound challenge that confronts the worlds liberal democracies as they grapple with foreign disinformation operations, as well as home-grown hate speech, extremism, and fake news. Fear and conceptual confusion do not justify walking away from liberal values, which are a source of security and stability in democratic society. Private sector and government actors must design algorithms for democracy that simultaneously optimize for freedom, security, and democratic accountability in our digital world.

Follow this link:
Protecting Democracy from Online Disinformation Requires Better Algorithms, Not Censorship - Council on Foreign Relations (blog)

It was inevitable that the fallout from violent protests in Virginia organized by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups would extend to the virtual world of the web. The internet is our modern commons. But the past few days have shown how fast we can glide down the slippery slope to web censorship.

Facebook and Twitter were perfectly within their rights, legally and ethically, when they banned accounts of certain hate groups and their leaders. These are private companies enforcing their own rules about how their services and platforms can be used. Providers of web infrastructure, however, must be held to a stricter standard since they act as choke points that can prevent an individual or group from being able to express themselves online.

Soon after the Charlottesville events, domain name registrars GoDaddy and Google separately decided to no longer serve the Daily Stormer after the neo-Nazi site wrote a disparaging story about Heather Heyer, the woman who died after being struck by a car while protesting the Charlottesville rally. Registrars act as a sort of phone book for the internet by turning a raw IP address like 62.23.150.94 into a line of text, like Bloomberg.com. Without GoDaddy or Google, it would be impossible for people to find the Daily Stormer online. Shortly afterward CloudFlare, which offers firewall services for websites to help them ward off attacks, kicked the Daily Stormer off its servers.

In a refreshingly candid email to his employees and blog post, CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince admitted that his decision was arbitrary and dangerous, and departed from years of maintaining strict neutrality about the content of the sites his company protected. As Prince told Gizmodo: I think the people who run The Daily Stormer are abhorrent. But again I dont think my political decisions should determine who should and shouldnt be on the internet.

Its hard not to cheer Princes courage and his motives. But his decision and those of the registrars have big implications for the debate over how the internet should be regulated. To reach web users, publishers of content small and large rely on a complex machinery of web hosts, domain registrars, transit providers, platforms, proxy servers and search engines.

While the companies that provide the back-end services of the web are less well known than the Facebook and Snapchats of the world, theyre indispensable to its smooth functioning; they are effectively the plumbing that allows the whole system to function. When they take sides, everyone loses.

Many, myself included, may be happy to see the Daily Stormer pushed into web oblivion, but we probably wouldnt feel the same way for publishers of content we agreed with. What if a dissident politician or a corporate whistle-blower got similar treatment?

There are no U.S. laws or regulations to prevent web infrastructure providers from taking such actions. Under federal law, private corporations can deny service to groups or individuals as long as its not because of their race, religion or sexuality. Nor does the principle of net neutrality really apply since that merely calls for broadband providers like Verizon or Comcast to treat all data equally.

We may need new rules in the U.S. that specifically bar web infrastructure providers from cutting off services to publishers based on their content. This would limit firms like GoDaddys ability to use their terms of service to silence people with controversial views.

It would be preferable to keep efforts to eradicate hate speech at the platform level and not among the providers of internet infrastructure services. After long resisting, platforms like Facebook and Twitter now acknowledge that they bear some responsibility for what people post. Since they are governed by local laws where they operate, they fall under the jurisdiction of elected officials with the legitimacy to regulate. Just look at Germanys tough new law that levies fines up to $58.5 million if social networks dont remove hate speech promptly.

Regulators will make mistakes and may even overreach. But they have more standing to make tough calls on free speech than the internets plumbers.

Leila Abboud is a Bloomberg Gadfly columnist covering technology. She previously worked for Reuters and the Wall Street Journal.

Visit link:
Leila Abboud: Keep the internet's backbone free from censorship - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

BEIJING Cambridge University Press faces a major backlash from academics after bowing to Chinese government demands to censor an important academic journal.

CUP announced Friday it had removed 300 articles and book reviews from a version of the China Quarterly website available in China at the request of the government.

The articles touched on topics deemed sensitive to the Communist Party, including the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989, policies towards Tibetan and Uighur ethnic minorities, Taiwan and the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution.

The articles would still be available on a version of China Quarterly accessible outside China.

The demand to remove the articles came from Chinas General Administration of Press and Publication, which warned that if they were not removed the entire website would be made unavailable in China.

But academics around the world have accused CUP of selling out and becoming complicit in censoring Chinese academic debate and history.

In an open letter published on Medium.com, James A. Millward, a professor of history at Georgetown University called the decision a craven, shameful and destructive concession to the Peoples Republic of Chinas growing censorship regime.

Millward said the decision overruled the peer-review process and the views of editors about what should be in the journal and was a clear violation of academic independence inside and outside China.

He added it was akin to the New York Times or the Economist publishing versions of their papers inside China omitting content deemed offensive to the Party. And as my colleagues Greg Distelhorst and Jessica Chen Weiss have written, the censored history of China will literally bear the seal of Cambridge University.

It is noteworthy that the topics and peoples CUP has so blithely chosen to censor comprise mainly minorities and the politically disadvantaged. Would you censor content about Black Lives Matter, Mexican immigrants or Muslims in your American publication list if Trump asked you to do to?, he asked.

In a tweet, James Leibold, an associate professor at Melbournes La Trobe University, whose scholarship about the Xinjiang region was among the censored articles, called the decision a shameful act."

And a petition is now circulating among academics warning that Cambridge University Press could face a boycott if it continues to acquiesce to the Chinese governments demands.

It is disturbing to academics and universities worldwide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative, Christopher Balding, an associate professor at Peking University HSBC School of Business in Shenzhen, China, the petitions originator, wrote.

If Cambridge University Press acquiesces to the demands of the Chinese government, we as academics and universities reserve the right to pursue other actions including boycotts of Cambridge University Press and related journals.

The petition requests that only academics and people working in higher education sign, and give their affiliation. By Monday afternoon in China it had attracted 290 signatures on change.org although it could not be immediately established how many signatories were academics.

In a statement, CUP said it has complied with the initial request to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market.

It added it had planned meetings to discuss our position with the relevant agencies at the Beijing Book Fair this week.

In an editorial, Chinas state-run Global Times newspaper also cast the issue as a matter of principle and said that if Western institutions can leave if they dont likeit.

Western institutions have the freedom to choose, it wrote. If they don't like the Chinese way, they can stop engaging with us. If they think China's Internet market is so important that they can't miss out, they need to respect Chinese law and adapt to the Chinese way.

Experts said the decision was part of a broader crackdown on free expression in China under President Xi Jinping that has intensified this year as the Communist Party becomes more confident and less inclined to compromise.

In the past, China's system of censorship, nicknamed the Great Firewall of China, has concentrated mainly on Chinese-language material, and has been less preoccupied with blocking English-language material, which is accessed only by a narrow elite. But that may now be changing.

The China Quarterly is very reputable within academic circles, and it does not promote the positive energy that China wants to see, said Qiao Mu, a former professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University who was demoted and ultimately left the university after criticizing the government. Instead, it touches on historical reflection, talks about Cultural Revolution and other errors that China has made in the past. These are things that China does not like and does not want to be discussed.

Qiao said the decision might seem wisefor the publisher as a company, since China is a huge market. But it would have a negative effect on already limited academic freedom in China.

For Chinese academics, the effect is mainly psychological, he said. They will think more when doing research and impose stricter self-censorship.

Internet companies have also faced similar dilemmas: Google chose to withdraw from China rather than submit to censorship, and has been displaced here by a censored Chinese search engine, Baidu.com. But LinkedIn has submitted to censorship and continues to operate here. Apple recently complied with a demand from the Chinese government to remove many VPN (virtual private network) applications that Netizens use to access blocked websites, from its App Store in China.

Millward argued that Cambridge as a whole has more power than it perhaps realized in a battle of wills with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

China is not going to ban everything branded Cambridgefrom the Chinese realm, because to do so would turn this into a big, public issue, and that is precisely what the authorities hope to avoid, he wrote.

To do so would, moreover, pit the CCP against a household name that every Chinese person who knows anything about education reveres as one of the worlds oldest and best universities. And Chinese, probably more than anyone else, revere universities, especially name-brand ones.

Cambridge University Press has made available a complete list of the censored articles here.

Luna Lin contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Cambridge University Press faces backlash after bowing to China censorship pressure - Washington Post

As a conservative, I agree with editors of the Post-Dispatch about as frequently as total solar eclipses occur in St. Louis. I have to however give very high praise to the editorial "First Amendment under attack" (Aug. 18). It is well-written and speaking to the heart of this matter.

I will be surprised if the paper is not criticized by those on the left who feel they have the right to determine what is hate speech (viewpoints they disagree with) and further have the right to not only censor but punish those who use it. Sadly there are already versions of this policy in parts of the socialist paradise of Europe. I believe the only speech that should be censored are direct calls for violence against others.

I note also that the ACLU has at least gotten this issue right. It indeed helped the right-wing radicals schedule the protest in Charlottesville, Va. I'm sure it disagreed with their message. That's exactly the point.

Thanks for this rare phenomenon; I'll think of the editorial when I watch the eclipse Monday.

Chuck Freeman Festus

More:
Editorial is right to speak out against censorship - STLtoday.com

Bitcoin proponents often talk about the many benefits the decentralized currency can offer the world, and one of these attributes is bitcoins censorship resistance. This week news.Bitcoin.com chatted with, Firas Zahabi, a well known Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) grappling trainer from Canada who decided to use bitcoin as an incentive to promote online grappling events.

Also read: Markets Update: Bitcoin Cash Rallies for Three Solid Days

Firas Zahabi has trained many champion MMA fighters and is the founder of Tristar Gym, a grappling martial arts training center located in Quebec, Canada. The gym is well known as one of the worlds top MMA training camps, and grappling fights are very popular in the region. However, Zahabi tells us over a phone conversation that the local governments in Canada have deemed holding MMA events illegal. Grappling martial arts itself is legal in the region, but MMA events are not allowed, which gives young Canadian fighters less of an opportunity to compete and show their skills. So Zahabi decided to create online events on Youtube which he calls the Pure Victory Championship and fighters compete for bitcoin prizes. Zahabi believes the act of hosting events online decentralizes the playing field and bitcoin leaves the middle man out of the equation.

Bitcoin.com (BC): Can you tell our readers about the Pure Victory Championship?

Firas Zahabi (FZ): Recently they made grappling events illegal where Im from here in Quebec, and then they made events illegal in Ontario. Quebec is a hotbed for grappling talent, and the biggest MMA event in the world called the Abu Dhabi Combat Club (ADCC) is happening soon, and two of my students are attending this year. So grappling in Quebec is really popular, but the local governments made it illegal because there was bickering back and forth between event promoters that were calling the cops on each other. They were trying to cancel each others events and corner the market.

Law enforcement got tired of all these calls, and now we are not allowed to have grappling events. Grappling is perfectly legal still, but holding grappling events here is illegal. Alongside this, Canada recently declared bitcoin as a commodity, and to the government, its not money, not a currency. So Im not allowed to hold events and give out prize money, but we are allowed to film and upload ourselves fighting online. And now the fighters get bitcoin, and its kinda like them getting a free t-shirt or swag, because I am giving them a commodity as a prize for participation. We thought it was an excellent idea and the viewers can tip the fighters as well and our grapplers have been making money during an event. The grapplers are also enthusiastic about competing again in the future and the audience absolutely loves it.

Its been all positive feedback and people are following the events. We only have four episodes so far and the fifth episode should launch next week. Its really creating a great buzz with just four episodes.

BC: How much bitcoin have the fighters been getting?

FZ: Theyve been getting roughly $100-300 dollars in bitcoin between winnings and tips. Dont forget that theyre getting bitcoin and that could be worth a lot in the future. This is only after one match, and when you grapple you have to pay to compete, so it helps the fighters earn. Further, these episodes could still give fighters some earnings, and after twenty videos it will create a fishnet effect. I think the fighters havent finished collecting and once they get more and more popular they create a bigger following, and the prizes will get bigger.

BC: What gave you the idea to include bitcoin into these events?

FZ: The politics and the government. They need to let young fighters have a place to release their energy. If these kids cant find anything to do they will likely find some trouble and grappling is such an amazing outlet for the youth. Not only are they getting fit but they are exercising their minds, and they are building a whole community. We are a thriving community, and they just came and shut us down. Could you imagine if they made baseball events illegal? I dont understand it, these kids need an outlet rather than being in the pool halls and the streets. Martial arts is one of the most constructive things a human being can do, especially in their youth.

So I said lets decentralize jiu-jitsu. If we cant have grappling events how can we monetize our skills? The middleman is just such a problem, hes always sticking his hands in our pocket and always bullying us. So lets decentralize our jiu-jitsu, lets make it so the audience can see the competitors compete, pay them in cryptocurrency and remove the middleman.

So my next phase for Pure Victory Championship will be global and what Im going to do is let fighters film their match, and if your game is good enough I will air it, and the winner will get $300 in cryptocurrency. Which is a lot for fighters just starting off, and the internet is hard to stop.

BC: Did the government give a formal explanation to why they made grappling events illegal?

FZ: No they told us if you have any more grappling events they will come and shut us down, and they have already. One major grappling event was canceled with hundreds of competitors. So what Im hoping to do is put the power back into the competitors hands.

BC: Have the fighters mentioned anything about receiving cryptocurrency as a prize?

FZ: They love it, every fighter loves it. Look at the price of bitcoin right now. The guy who recently got $100 worth of BTC is pumped as its worth about $300-400 right now.

The world loves MMA and its a very popular sport and grappling enthusiasts are going to hear an awful lot about cryptocurrency this year.

What do you think about FirasZahabis Pure Victory Championships? Let us know in the comments below.

Images via Pixabay, Bitcoin.com,FirasZahabis, and Pure Victory Championship

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

Original post:
Grappling Championships Use Bitcoin To Circumvent Censorship ... - Bitcoin News (press release)