Mediaboss Marketing

Here we go again. When you're a cryptocurrency that has seen 99% of its value vanish since the crypto bubble of 2017 to early 2018, getting an articleor even a mention in Wikipediacan feel like an insurmountable task. Or it can feel like censorship.

To Charles Hoskinson, it feels like the latter. The founder of Cardano has taken to YouTube to complain about Wikipedia. In a 9:46-minute rant, he accused the community-run free encyclopedia of bias. He claimed that the site is hostile toward cryptospecifically, his crypto projectand threatened legal action.

At issue is a proof of stake Wikipedia page, which Hoskinson claims is badly out-of-date. He said that when certain Cardano community members (he didnt specify who they were) tried to edit the page to include a blurb on Ouroborosthe consensus algorithm that powers CardanoWikipedia volunteers promptly removed the changes.

This is another example of the existential danger to an industry when people rely on things that appear to be open but are actually controlled by a few people who are incredibly biased and who are not accountable to anyone else, he said.

Few people? Who is he referring to? We discovered that one of the offending editors is nocoiner gatekeeper David Gerard. Other crypto projects, notably Decred (which has since slipped five more ladder rungs to 41st cryptocurrency), have complained that Gerard has barred them from Wikipedia.

Yes David Gerard is the one who has been a censor. It has been going on for years since the Ethereum days. I don't know why he hates us so or where his ego comes from, Hoskinson, former CEO of Ethereum, tweeted.

Gerard, though, is not the only editor who has taken issue with the Ouroboros blurb.

In recent days, three other Wikipedia editors also removed the blurbonly to have Cardano members put it back in againwhile a fourth editor removed proposed links to the blurb.

Why? Wikipedia says the content is promotional and therefore verboten.

The text proposed above is hardly neutralit talks about diligent research and innovative features which lend credibility to it's[sic] claim, etc., an editor named Bonade wrote on Tuesday. That kind of wording is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, even if the content should be acceptable.

Hoskinson countered (during his video rant, which he also posted to Twitter) thats not the only instance where editors targeted Cardano. A Cardano Wikipedia page even enjoyed a brief existence before Wikipedia editors rudely snuffed it out in November 2018.

Thats unfair, especially, when historically, weve had a market cap larger than SpaceX, he argued, referring to Elon Musks aerospace project. It is very anti-crypto.

Hoskinson claimed the edits are unsubstantiated and hostile. What does Wikipedia want that the Cardano community isnt proffering up? Tell us the standard and well meet that standard...We are not afraid to have a debate. We are not afraid to represent our technology, and our progress," he said.

In fact, Wikipedia, which has been around since 2001, does have well-documented standards. For starters, to warrant an article on the site, a topic has to be notable. That means the topic needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reliable sources include mainstream press and peer-reviewed academic presentations.

The way to get coverage in Wikipedia is to have substantial coverage in a high-quality mainstream sourcenot the crypto press, Gerard told Decrypt, which is crypto press. [ex, Josh Quittner, founding editor: What are we, chopped liver, Gerard?"]

Crypto media does not count as a reliable source because they're really about advocacy: promoting their hodlings, he wrote in an article detailing why Wikipedia editors are harsh on sourcing for crypto articles. Crypto projects are an ongoing firehose of spam, he wrote.

It is quite possible Cardano is adequately sourced; the next stage is an article entirely sourced from good sources, Gerard said.

But from Hoskinsons position, thats simply unjust. Where coins like Spankchain can have an article on Wikipedia. A lot of other cryptocurrencies and top 20s apparently have articles, and thats perfectly fine. But then we are not allowed to have an article for some reason, even though we have been mentioned by the US Congress. Weve been mentioned by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times.

Spankchain does not have a Wikipedia page. We tried to find the reliable sources that Hoskinson listed but we couldnt find anything in mainstream beyond the slightest passing mention.

Meanwhile, citing Hoskinsons posted videoand the potential for a flood of Cardano fans to now rush in and defend the storyGerard has put the proof-of-stake article under extended confirmed protection. That means that from now on, it can be edited only by those who have at least 30 days' tenure on Wikipedia and have done 500 edits. And another editor has initiated an investigation into sockpuppetry, meaning one person in the Cardano community may be making edits to Wikipedia under different aliases, which Wikipedia does not allow.

Continue reading here:
The face of crypto censorship on Wikipedia? - Decrypt

By Ulrich Rippert 23 March 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic is highlighting the class character of politics. The health care system has been cut to pieces, hospitals privatised and trimmed for profit, laboratory capacities and nationwide treatment options massively restricted.

Despite warnings from China, no preparations have been made to protect the population. The government cares only about the interests of big business and is making unlimited financial resources available to corporations and banks. Although the danger of the virus was known, and public life has been drastically restricted, many workers are being forced to continue their work without adequate protection.

Resistance is growing against this criminal irresponsibility by the government and employers. Various opposition groups are forming on the internet to refute government propaganda and describe and fight against the dramatic conditions in hospitals, rescue stations, care facilities and factories, but also the devastating effects of government measures on workers in precarious employment.

Politicians have responded to this opposition with calls for censorship and dictatorial measures.

At the beginning of the week, Lower Saxonys state Interior Minister Boris Pistorius (Social Democratic Party, SPD) called for sanctions against the distribution of so-called fake news in connection with the Coronavirus pandemic. He demanded that the government urgently intervene, saying, It must be prohibited to publicly spread false allegations about the supply situation of the population, medical care or cause, ways of infection, diagnosis and therapy of COVID-19.

According to Pistorius, the government must examine whether bans could already be based on the infection protection law. If not, the penal code or the law on administrative offences should be amended as quickly as possible.

The greatest misinformation currently being spread comes from the government itself. It claims that the German health care system is well prepared for the spread of the pandemic, and no one need worry. For weeks, the government played down the dangers.

Now that reality has refuted its propaganda, any criticism of it is to be criminalised and suppressed. If Pistorius has his way, the government will rigorously enforce its monopoly on information and opinion. This is a call for censorship and dictatorship.

Pistorius has long been known as a right-wing social democrat in the tradition of Gustav Noske, who during the November Revolution in 1918 allied with the German army and far-right Freikorps to suppress working-class opposition to the bourgeois order.

For seven years as Lower Saxonys interior minister, he has been advocating a strict right-wing course against refugees and for stepping up the repressive powers of the state. In summer 2017, he presented an SPD position paper on domestic policy, the central point of which was strengthening the federal police force financially and with more personnel. One year later, more than 10,000 people demonstrated in Hanover against the new police law of Lower Saxony, which Pistorius had drafted, because it massively expands the powers of the security authorities while at the same time restricting elementary civil rights.

With his call for censorship and police-state measures, Pistorius speaks for a party that has always responded to crisis situations and resistance from the population by calling for the strong state and dictatorial measures. Pistorius comes from the same political stable as former German Chancellor Gerhard Schrder, who brutally smashed up the welfare systems with the Hartz laws. For the past three years he has also been living in a relationship with Schrders fourth wife, Doris Schrder-Kpf, from whom the former chancellor separated in 2015.

There is no doubt that the fight against the pandemic requires the restriction of social contacts and individual freedom of movement. However, it must not be allowed that the conditions for a dictatorship are created under the slogan necessity knows no law! The coronavirus pandemic, its ominous health, social and economic consequences and the drastic measures required to combat it raise the question of who exercises power and controls the statethe financial oligarchy or the working class?

The ruling class everywhere is trying to use measures against the Corona crisis to strengthen its power. According to information from DPA and Der Spiegel, the president of the Bundestag (federal parliament), Wolfgang Schuble (Christian Democratic Union, CDU), for example, has proposed to the leaders of the parliamentary groups that they expand the Emergency Laws by amending the constitution.

The Emergency Laws, which were passed in May 1968 in the midst of the largest workers strikes and student protests of the post-World War II period, give the state quasi-dictatorial powers in crisis situations (natural disaster, uprising, war). Among other things, they allow for the Bundestag and the Bundesrat (the upper chamber of parliament) to be replaced by an emergency parliament, the Joint Committee. This committee consists of only 48 selected members but has the full powers of both chambers of parliament and would thus largely override the existing parliamentary system. Schuble has now brought up the idea of including a similar regulation in the constitution for the case of an epidemic.

The deployment of the Bundeswehr (armed forces), which Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer announced at a press conference on Thursday, must also be seen in this context. For the time being, the focus is on logistical tasks. The Bundeswehr has five hospitals of its own, 3,000 doctors, mobile military hospitals as well as logistics and transport capacities that can be used in the fight against the virus.

But Kramp-Karrenbauer has more in mind. In addition to the deployment of up to 50,000 soldiers, there is also talk of mobilizing 75,000 reservists. At the press conference, the defence minister emphasized that the troops will only be properly deployed when the civilian authorities and organizations have reached the end of their capabilities. She claimed that in the area of security and order, assistance from the military would only be available under strict conditions, but in a daily order to the troops she wrote, We will help with health care and, if necessary, with ensuring infrastructure and supplies as well as maintaining security and order.

Chief of Staff Alfons Mais wrote to soldiers saying the Bundeswehr now had the task of maintaining operational readiness for any required support. We are at the beginning of a road whose direction and length we cannot yet estimated, he declared.

In Bavaria, the conservative state government declared a disaster situation last Monday. This enables them to take far-reaching measures against the spread of the coronavirus and to call on citizens to help in the form of services, material and work. However, the disaster situation also means a far-reaching encroachment on democratic rights, which can be used to suppress social and political opposition. The working class must be on its guard.

Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Site from search results.

To fight this blacklisting:

Go here to see the original:
German government prepares for internet censorship and deployment of the armed forces - World Socialist Web Site

The Israel Defense Forces on Wednesday acknowledged it had made a mistake in censoring the fact that several F-16 fighter jets were damaged due to flooding during a rainstorm earlier this year, but said this not was an effort to cover-up the incident.

This determination was made as part of an investigation into the flooding, which was completed this week and presented to IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi.

The chief of staff stressed that the investigation found that from the start of the flooding incident and throughout it, there was no intention to hide it from the public. The opposite is true there was a clear intention to publicize it. At the same time, mistakes were made in how it was handled, the military said in a statement.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

On January 9, a strong storm pummeled Israel, which flooded a stream near the Hatzor Air Base near Ashdod, sending huge amounts of rainwater into the underground hangars where a number of F-16 fighter jets were being stored, damaging eight of them. The repairs from the flooding were estimated to cost NIS 30 million ($8.7 million).

A military truck evacuates Israeli citizens through a flooded road in the northern Israeli city of Nahariya, on a stormy winter day, on January 8, 2020. (Meir Vaknin/Flash90)

The investigation presented to Kohavi this week confirmed the findings of the militarys initial probe: commanders at the base failed to sufficiently prepare for the inclement weather, which led to the flooding of the hangars.

The probe released on Wednesday also addressed a secondary aspect of the incident: the decision to censor the matter, which was seen as an attempt to cover up an embarrassing, costly mistake.

The military determined that the Israeli Air Force and Military Censor had been correct in barring publication on the matter for the first few hours of the incident, but that this ban should have ended far more quickly than it did.

The chief of staff determined that the Air Forces request of the Military Censor to delay publication of the event from Thursday, January 9, to Friday, January 10, was correct. However, by Friday, January 10, [the Air Force] could have informed the Military Censor that the information could be published. The failure to notify the censor was a mistake by the Air Force, the IDF said.

An F-16 fighter jet that was damaged by flooding during a rainstorm in January is seen in its hangar after it returned to service in this undated photograph released on February 3, 2020. (Israel Defense Forces)

The military said it had planned to inform the public of the incident on January 12, but this wasnt carried out because of an internal error in the Air Force.

News of the incident was eventually reported later that day, following multiple requests for permission by journalists.

IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi addresses a group of Kfir Brigade soldiers stationed at the Gaza border on January 22, 2020. (Israel Defense Forces)

The chief of staff summarized the matter by saying that the IDF is a glass house that the public can watch what happens inside and that it is expected of those who serve in it and of the organization in general to display high standards and moral, professional and honest behavior, the IDF said.

The military did not indicate that the chief of staff would take any disciplinary action against the officers involved in the unnecessary censorship.

In January, Israeli Air Force chief Amikam Norkin censured three officers for failing to properly prepare for the flood.

The commander of the F-16 squadron, the maintenance squadron commander and the aviation squadron commander all received official reprimands.

The officers were found to have incorrectly assessed the force of the incoming rainstorm, which dropped some 50 million liters (13 million gallons) of water onto the area around the base in the span of half an hour and caused a nearby stream to overflow.

As a result of this flawed evaluation, they did not evacuate the underground hangars in time or take other steps necessary to prevent the flooding, the investigation found.

See original here:
IDF denies cover-up attempt in censoring news of F-16s damaged in flood - The Times of Israel

Chinas political leaders will be hoping that when concerns about the coronavirus eventually start to recede, memories about the states failings early on in the outbreak will also fade. They will be particularly keen for people to forget the anger many felt after the death from Covid-19 ofDr Li Wenliang, the doctor censured for trying to warn colleagues about the outbreak. After Dr Lis death, the phrase We want freedom of speech was even trending on Chinese social media for several hours before the posts were deleted.

Dr Li had told fellow medical professionals about the new virus in a chat group on 30 December. He wasaccused of rumour-mongeringand officials either ignored or played down the risks well into January. If officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier, Dr Litold the New York Times, I think it would have been a lot better. There should be more openness and transparency.

I am currently researching the Chinese party-states efforts to increase legitimacy by controlling the information that reaches its citizens. The lack of openness and transparency in this crucial early phase of the outbreak was partly because officials were gathering for annual meetings of the local Communist Party-run legislatures, when propaganda departments instruct the media not to cover negative stories.

However, the censorship in this period also reflects increasingly tight control over information in China. As Chinese media expert Anne-Marie Bradynotes, from the beginning of his presidency,Xi Jinpingwas clear the media should focus on positive news stories that uphold unity and stability and are encouraging.

Curtailing media freedoms

The deterioration in the medias limited freedoms under Xi Jinping was underlined by a visit he made to media organisations in 2016,declaringthat, All Party media have the surname Party, and demanding loyalty to theChinese Communist Party(CCP).

There have been a series of good quality investigative reports, notably by the business publicationCaixin, since the authorities fully acknowledged the virus. As political scientist Maria Repnikovaargues, providing temporary space for the media to report more freely can help the party-state project an image of managed transparency. However, the clampdown has undoubtedly had a significant effect on the medias ability to provide effective investigative reporting, particularly early on in the outbreak.

Online, there have been a succession of measures to limit speech the party deems a threat. These include laws that mean the threat of jail for anyone found guilty of spreading rumours. In an authoritarian regime, stopping rumours limits peoples ability to raise concerns and potentially discover the truth. A point made only too clearly by Dr Lis case.

The party focuses its censorship on problems that might undermine its legitimacy. Part of my ongoing research into information control in China involves an analysis ofleaked censorship instructionscollected by the US-basedChina Digital Times. This shows that between 2013 and 2018, over 100 leaked instructions concerned problems about the environment, food safety, health, education, natural disasters and major accidents. The actual number is likely to far exceed this.

For example, after an explosion at a petrochemical factory, media organisationswere told to censornegative commentary related to petrochemical projects. And after parents protested about tainted vaccines, the media wereinstructedthat only information provided by official sources could be used on front pages.

State media play a key role in the CCPs efforts to set the agenda online. My research shows that the number of stories featuring problems about the environment and disasters posted byPeoples Dailynewspaper onSina Weibo(Chinas equivalent of Twitter) fell significantly between 2013 and 2018.

Around 4.5% of all People Dailys Weibo posts between 2013 and 2015 were about the environment, but by 2018 had fallen to as low as 1%. Similarly, around 8%-10% of all posts by the newspaper were about disasters and major accidents between 2013 and 2015, but this figure fell to below 4% in the following three years.

The party wants people to focus instead on topics it thinks will enhance its legitimacy. The number of posts by Peoples Daily focusing on nationalism had doubled to 12% of the total by 2018.

Citizen journalism fights back

As well as investigative reports on the outbreak in parts of the media, some Chinese individuals have also gone to great lengths tocommunicate informationabout the virus and conditions in Wuhan. However, the authorities have been steadily silencing significant critical voices andstepping up their efforts to censorother content they deem particularly unhelpful.

The censors do not stop everything, but as the China scholar Margaret E. Robertssuggests, porous censorship can still be very effective. She points out that the Chinese authorities efforts to make it more difficult for people to access critical content that does make it online, while flooding the internet with information the CCP wants them to see, can still be very effective.

When a problem cannot be avoided, my research shows that the propaganda authorities try to control the narrative by ensuring the media focus on the states efforts to tackle the problem. After a landslide at a mine in Tibet, the media were told to cover disaster relief promptly and abundantly. Coverage of such disasters by Peoples Daily focuses on images of heroic rescue workers.

This same propaganda effort is in evidence now. As theChina Media ProjectsDavid Bandurskinotes, media coverage in China is increasingly seeking to portray the Chinese Communist Party as the enabler of miraculous human feats battling the virus.

After Dr Lis death, CCP leaders sought toblame local officialsfor admonishing him. However, the actions taken against Dr Li were fully consistent with the Partys approach to controlling information under Xi Jinping.

It is impossible to know how many people have died, or might die in future, because people have decided to self-censor, rather than risk punishment for spreading rumours, or because the authorities have sought to avoid information reaching the public. The coronavirus outbreak highlights the risks of a system that puts social stability and ruling party legitimacy above the public interest.

[ Like what youve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversations daily newsletter. ] Screen reader support enabled.

Paul Gardner, PhD Candidate in Chinese Studies and Political Communication, University of Glasgow

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters.

See the original post here:
China's Censorship And Propaganda Have Made Coronavirus Into A Monster - The National Interest Online

Nothing like a little bad publicity to get a business to change its mind.

After Hallmark scrubbed all mentions of the pro-life film Unplanned from a recent broadcast, pro-life advocates grew outraged. The star of Unplanned, Ashley Bratcher, first revealed that all references to the film had been removed from Hallmark's broadcast of the Movieguide Awards, even though Unplanned was nominated for awards in three categories.

"This is completely UNACCEPTABLE," she tweeted on Sunday.

Note that not only had the broadcast eliminated Bratcher's speech which, as she told me, "happens all the time" it had also scrubbed the name Unplanned entirely; when nominees were announced for categories in which the film had been selected, it was as if Unplanned hadn't been nominated at all.

On Monday, I wrote about the issue and reached out to a Hallmark representative for comment. On Wednesday afternoon, she got back to me. Without explaining how or why the omission occurred (although I have a few guesses), the spokeswoman said the network is sorry and a new broadcast will be airing soon.

"We have scheduled the MOVIEGUIDE Awards to re-air on Hallmark Drama on Monday, March 9th at 10 PM," the spokeswoman said in an email. "It will also be available on the TV Everywhere app. All telecasts will include mentions of the film, 'Unplanned' and its lead actress, Ashley Bratcher. We at Crown Media extend our sincere apologies to Ms. Bratcher."

Since Hallmark didn't try to explain away Unplanned's glaring omission, it's pretty clear that the media company simply didn't want to wade into any controversy. But by censoring the pro-life movement, Hallmark did anyway. And it proved, unwittingly, that pro-life voices will not be silenced.

Update: Movieguide has taken responsibility for cutting Unplanned from the broadcast that aired on Hallmark Drama. We made some decisions, Ted Baehr, founder and publisher of Movieguide, said. We may have made some wrong decisions, but weve made decisions.

Read more:
Hallmark backtracks on its censorship of Unplanned - Washington Examiner