Mediaboss Marketing

from the exactly dept

We've already pointed out that Facebook's latest moves to say it's okay to strip away Section 230's protections are all about giving Facebook more power and harming competitors -- and now the author of Section 230, Senator Ron Wyden, has put out quite an op-ed in the Washington Post explaining just how much damage would be done in chipping away at Section 230. In particular, he highlights two key reasons why we shouldn't do it: (1) It would lock in the most powerful companies like Facebook and Google (even as misguided critics seem to think taking away Section 230 protections will harm them), and (2) It will enable the Trump administration to increase online censorship of marginalized voices.

On the first point, the argument is the one I made regarding Facebook's new stance, though Wyden expresses it succinctly:

Some have argued that repealing Section 230 would punish Facebook and Google for their failures. Thats simply not true. The biggest tech companies have enough lawyers and lobbyists to survive virtually any regulation Congress can concoct. Its the start-ups seeking to displace Big Tech that would be hammered by the constant threat of lawsuits.

He notes, as we have in the past, that most of the lobbying to gut 230 is being lead by industries that failed to adapt to the internet, and are now using 230 as a hammer to try to stay relevant.

The argument about speech is equally as important:

Im certain this administration would use power to regulate speech to punish its enemies and protect its allies. It would threaten Facebook or YouTube for taking down white supremacist content. It would label Black Lives Matter activists as purveyors of hate.

Again, this is exactly what we've warned about. Section 230 has created spaces online for the most marginalized to speak out -- and they will be the first to be silenced. Indeed, that's exactly what we've already seen post SESTA. The law that was passed in the name of "protecting sex trafficking victims" has actually put sex workers at risk. Wyden points out that the law appears to have done the opposite of what its backers promised:

Backpage was shut down before SESTA even went into effect. And sex workers have been driven to the dark Web or the streets, where sex trafficking has increased dramatically. The most vulnerable group bore the brunt of this law.

And the same is likely for any other attempt to attack 230 as well.

What's really incredible in all of this is how little those looking to modify or remove 230 seem to even understand 230. They seem to blame all sorts of societal problems on 230, even though all 230 has done is allow people to express themselves. And from there, the complaints against 230 are often contradictory. Some are worried that two much speech is silenced through moderation, while others complain that not enough speech is silenced. But neither is a 230 problem. They are all just representations of the impossibility of pleasing everyone when it comes to moderation policies. But taking away 230 or even modifying it won't change any of that. All it will do is lead to much greater censorship, and much more power for the biggest internet companies.

As is often the case, it would be nice if others in Congress actually listened to Ron Wyden on this -- as he's been right since the very beginning, and every time people ignore him, they end up looking foolish. Unfortunately, I fear that they will end up looking foolish yet again.

Filed Under: censorship, competition, free speech, ron wyden, section 230Companies: facebook

Go here to see the original:
Ron Wyden: Modifying Section 230 Will Give More Censorship Power To Trump; And Lock In Facebook's Dominance - Techdirt

The report provides strong confirmation that conservatives face a hostile campus.

Among students who self-identify as liberals, some 10 percent said they hear disrespectful, inappropriate, or offensive comments about foreign students at least several times a semester, 14 percent said they hear disparaging comments about Muslims, 20 percent said they hear such comments about African Americans, 20 percent said they hear such comments about Christians, 21 percent said they hear such comments about LGBTQ individuals, and 57 percent said they hear such comments about conservatives. Among moderates, 68 percent said that they hear disrespectful, inappropriate, or offensive comments about conservatives at least several times a semester.

Out conservatives may face social isolation. Roughly 92 percent of conservatives said they would be friends with a liberal, and just 3 percent said that they would not have a liberal friend. Among liberals, however, almost a quarter said they would not have a conservative friend. Would UNC be a better place without conservatives? About 22 percent of liberals said yes. Would it be a better place without liberals? Almost 15 percent of conservatives thought so.

Lee C. Bollinger: Free speech on campus is doing just fine, thank you

Self-identified conservative students do in fact face distinct challenges related to viewpoint expression at UNC, the authors conclude. They urge a conversation about how the campus can become more accepting of conservative students as well as more willing to hear and engage with conservative ideas. After all, they ask, who would dispute that universities should be places where each idea is considered on its own terms, and not prejudged? Where sincerely held conclusions can be offered up for vigorous and civil contestation? Where students are assumed to be arguing in good faith and where they feel valued and respected, even should they turn out to be wrong?

As important, the authors correctly emphasize that the wrong way to interpret our report would be to see it as pitting liberals against conservatives, not only because many liberals and moderates harbor similar anxieties about sharing earnest views, but also because even though political hostility emerges disproportionately from the political left at UNC, that hostility comes from a minority, not a majority, of liberals. Tolerant students belong to a cross-ideological majority. While divided in their politics, both are ill-served by the minority faction of intolerant censors.

Self-censorship is among several significant reasons to believe that free speech remains under threat on American campuses, harming undergraduate education. I try to avoid talk of crisis, because I believe that free speech is perpetually threatened and requires constant vigilance to sustain. But however we label the status quo, Americas professors ought to be aware of these problems.

Originally posted here:
Evidence That Conservative Students Really Do Self-Censor - The Atlantic

The UK government has unveiled its proposals to tackle so-called online harms. It wants to regulate social media through Ofcom, which currently regulates the media and the telecoms industry.

Under the proposals, Ofcom will be empowered to ensure that tech firms adopt a duty of care towards users, especially children. This is to protect users, first, from illegal content, such as child pornography, which Ofcom will require tech firms to remove; and second, from harmful but legal content. In the second case, Ofcom will require tech firms to be upfront about what behaviour is acceptable and unacceptable on their sites, in the shape of transparently enforced terms and conditions. So, if a social-media platform states that promoting self-harm is unacceptable, Ofcom is empowered to ensure that stipulation is enforced. In addition, all companies will need to ensure a higher level of protection for children, and take reasonable steps to protect them from inappropriate or harmful content.

Failure to comply with Ofcoms demands could, or so at least one report suggests, result in executives at offending companies receiving substantial fines or even prison sentences.

Full details about the legislation and the powers it entails will be released this spring. But make no mistake: even as it stands this plan is a serious threat to internet freedom.

For one thing, these proposals dont just encompass the internets social-media behemoths, such as Facebook. Ofcoms writ will run to all sites that provide services allowing the sharing of user-generated content or user interactions. That means if you run a pressure group, or a political website, and publish material or comments from users, then you are potentially in Ofcoms crosshairs.

Whats more, quite apart from demanding that tech firms take down illegal material, Ofcom will require all sites featuring user-generated content to ensure their own terms and conditions are enforced. That is quite a burden. First, all sites will be forced to draft terms and conditions, and conceive of thresholds for harmful but legal content. They will then also have to come up with processes and systems to deal with complaints and allow for redress. And then they will have to take responsibility for enforcing the terms and conditions or face the potential wrath of Ofcom.

Empowering Ofcom to enforce sites own regulation of harmful but legal content could be disastrous. And you can bet that there will be plenty of people and pressure groups itching to use this new state power to suppress discussions they would rather not see take place.

Yes, the plan states that safeguards for freedom of expression have been built in throughout the framework. Hence the freedom to publish harmful but legal content as long as its clearly permitted in a platforms terms and conditions. But unfortunately, even this freedom is qualified by the imperative to respect the rights of children, and the corresponding demand that companies ensure there is a higher level of protection for children. From this, it could follow that there will be removal-of-content orders aimed at legal discussions of, for example, the morality of suicide, or anti-vaccination, because they are deemed too harmful to children.

Besides, the line between legal and illegal speech is pretty fluid anyway. Despite former policeman Harry Millers minor victory over an over-intrusive Humberside Police last week, the catch-all prohibition in section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 on grossly offensive material online is open to interpretation. It still means that any pungent or forceful statement that happens to annoy some interest group or other could give Ofcom reason to think it criminal and demand removal.

For all home secretary Priti Patels talk of needing to tame the Wild West of the internet in order to protect our children, it is clear what we have here: a plan for worryingly sweeping restrictions on what we can say, or allow others to say, online not to mention an enormous increase in bureaucrats power to snoop.

It is not even clear that any of this will be very effective. Even Ofcom accepts that it can only realistically intervene in sites in the UK. Depending on how the government responds to criticisms already made of its proposals, we shall have to see whether its plans merely prompt controversial sites to move abroad, or even to some convenient offshore jurisdiction, like the Isle of Man. If this happens, there will be precious little Ofcom will be able to do about them even if what they say is truly criminal. Even by Ofcoms curious standards, that would be a spectacular own goal.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

Picture by: Getty.

Read the original post:
This is state censorship of the internet - Spiked

A coalition of civil, political and human rights groups have penned an open letter to Apple, calling on the company to stop enabling censorship and surveillance in China.

As spotted by Phayul: the letter was signed by groups such as Tibet Action Institute, Free Tibet, Keep Taiwan Free and SumOfUs.

The letter, addressed directly to Phil Schiller, reads:

We are a coalition of civil, political, human rights, freedom of expression, corporate accountability, privacy, and digital security organizations, many of whom are longtime Apple users. Together we represent communities in the US and abroad gravely impacted by Apple's decisions with regard to the Chinese App Store and user information. We are writing to express our serious concerns over Apple's confirmed removal of applications from the iOS App Store in China, including 1,000+ Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and news apps like the New York Times and Quartz, as well as the transfer of Apple users' iCloud data to a Chinese state-run telecom company. Many of our organizations have submitted letters1 to CEO Tim Cook raising these concerns and have yet to receive any response. Given that Apple's removal of VPNs and news apps sets a blatant and unethical double standard for the Chinese App Store, we are now bringing our serious concerns directly to you, the head of the App Store.

The letter highlights concerns such as Apple's "compliance with China's censorship and surveillance demands", which puts the App Store's actions "in direct contradiction" with its claim that "Privacy is a fundamental human right." It continues:

In reality, Apple's actions demonstrate that privacy is only a right for certain people. Since Apple removed VPNs from the App Store, iOS users in China have been left unable to easily protect their internet communications from pervasive surveillance. Apple's closed App Store ecosystem forces users who want to install banned applications to jailbreak their devices and give up the security measures that make Apple devices unique. Additionally, since relocating China's Apple iCloud data to mainland China, Apple has further ensured that hundreds of millions of people are forced to choose between allowing their data to be obtained without effective due process, or forgoing the online storage and backup measures your company has diligently developed.

The letter also mentions incidents such as the HKmap.live app, as well as the removal of the Taiwanese flag for users in Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland China.

The letter concludes by asking that Apple meets with the group to discuss the concerns outlined, as well as asking that Apple pressure governments to be "specific, transparent, and consistent in their requirements". You can read the letter in its entirety here.

You can buy some very expensive cars that don't support CarPlay yet, but someone managed to make it work with their Raspberry Pi 3.

Amid growing concerns about the threat posed by coronavirus, Mobile World Congress 2020, one of the year's biggest tech events, was cancelled last week. Here's what it means for the industry, vendors, and consumers.

Hell has frozen over. Pigs are flying. And cats and dogs are living together in perfect harmony

Apple's iconic rainbow logo has often been associated with the LGBT+ movement. Show your support by wearing an Apple-themed Pride t-shirt, including the one we like the best.

Originally posted here:
Organizations pen letter to Apple calling on an end to censorship in China - iMore

A new study of World Bank data finds that aid disbursement to highly aid-dependent countries coincides with sharp increases in bank deposits in offshore financial centers. According to The Economist, the World Bank refused to release the study. Afterward, its chief economist resigned. Here is the full content of the allegedly-censored paper.

The World Bank Groupconsiders corruption a major challenge to its twin goals of ending extreme poverty by 2030 and boosting shared prosperity for the poorest 40 percent of people in developing countries. On its website, the World Bank acknowledges that corruption is one of the main obstacles to development. However, according to a new study, World Bank aid actually fuels corruption: It is no surprise, then, that the World Bank allegedly tried to censor that paper.

In its latest issue, The Economist tied the abrupt resignation of World Bank chief economist Pinelopi (Penny) Goldberg with the story told in the paper Elite Capture of Foreign Aid: Evidence from Offshore Bank Accounts. One of that papers three authors, Bob Rijkers, is a World Bank economist. The other two are academics: Jorgen Juel Andersen (BI Norwegian Business School) and Niels Johannesen (University of Copenhagen).

This paper, The Economist writes,

passed an exacting internal review by other researchers in November. But, according to informed sources, publication was blocked by higher officials.

Today, Johannesen posted the most recent draft tohis personal website. It is not difficult to understand why World Bank executives were upset.

Anderssen, Johannesen, and Rijkers found that aid disbursements to highly aid-dependent countries coincide with sharp increases in bank deposits in offshore financial centers known for bank secrecy and private wealth management, but not in other financial centers. The most plausible explanation for this result is that local officials steal a significant part of development aid funds and hide that money in their personal offshore accounts.

The paper studies a sample of the 22 most aid-dependent countries, with average disbursements from the World Bank exceeding 2 percent of GDP: In quarters when a country receives aid equivalent to 1 percent of GDP, its deposits in havens increase by 3.4 percent relative to a country receiving no aid, but its deposits held in non-haven financial centers remain constant. The implied average leakage is around 7.5 percent: This means that for every $100 of development aid, $7.50 apparently becomes corruption profits, hidden in offshore financial centers.

The data the three authors use for their study all comes from the Bank of International Settlements and from the World Bank. The development aid that fuels corruption is actually money disbursed by two major World Bank institutions: the International Development Association and the Bank of Reconstruction and Development.

Countries that depend most on aid, like Afghanistan or Burkina Faso, are usually also the worst managed. According to the papers results, development aid might improve ordinary peoples lives and respond to their immediate needs, but it can also help local corrupt politicians amass personal wealth that can consolidate their power. If local politicians become richer and more powerful the more aid they receive, they will have no incentive to actually work to develop their country.

The most aid-dependent country in the world is Afghanistan: It receives 33.5 percent of its GDP in foreign aid, from different sources. The sum of Afghanistans deposits in the 17 countries the paper classifies as havens now totals $34 million.

Andersen, Johannesen, and Rijkerss paper raises multiple questions. The most serious is regarding the efficacy of the World Banks development aid projects and of its anti-corruption provisions: Apparently, they dont work very well.

The second question is on censorship and academic research. Powerful institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, or the Federal Reserve have talented economists and virtually limitless resources for research: Their potential contribution to the advancing of economic knowledge cannot be underestimated. But employees clearly lack the independence and freedom that academics are supposed to have.

The alleged censorship of the paper on foreign aid and corruption lasted only a few days because one of the authors decided to post it on his personal website. Johannesen is a tenured professor at the University of Copenhagen, so he is independent of the World Bank. However, every choice comes with a price: He has relied upon World Bank data for many of his projects, and now he has put himself at risk of retaliation from top World Bank officials who will likely oppose the visibility of the paper.

International institutions, like private corporations, have what economists need to do research: data. The credibility of research, and the enduring process of the scientific pursuit of knowledge, are seriously damaged if only flattering results are published and troubling findings are hidden or silenced.

Papergate, as it is now called on Twitter, proves that no censorship is possible if at least one of the people who know the secret is free to speak.

The censorship chain is as fragile as its weakest link. A few hours after Johannesen published the draft paper on his personal website, the World Bank also published the final version of the study as Policy Research Working Paper 9150.

The ProMarket blog is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests. The posts represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty. For more information, please visitProMarket Blog Policy.

Go here to see the original:
The World Bank's "Papergate": Censorship Is Not the Best Way to Stop Development Aid From Fueling Corruption - - ProMarket