Mediaboss Marketing

Lost in the Labor Day weekend news about North Korea and DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was a dismaying new poll released by VCU. It showed how much the campaign against fundamental liberties has made inroads among the general public.

Conducted by the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, the poll shows that half of Virginians think colleges and universities should place more emphasis on protecting people from discrimination, even if that infringes on the right to free expression. Only 40 percent thought colleges and universities should guarantee freedom of expression even if that means some groups face discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong. Its also illegal. But the legal prohibitions apply to discriminatory actions, such as turning down a job applicant because of her race. Laws against discrimination dont infringe on the right to free speech (except possibly in those cases where the speech is so abusive and persistent that it creates a hostile work environment).

The kind of discrimination at issue in higher education more often concerns the expression of viewpoints that deviate from liberal orthodoxy on questions of race and gender, or being subject to microagressions such as when an Asian student is asked where shes from, or not receiving sufficient praise (were not making that up).

Those forms of discrimination might be obnoxious, but they do not trump fundamental constitutional rights and it is disturbing that so many Virginians think they should.

Ironically, many colleges and universities practice overt discrimination today. For instance, they do so in admissions: Asian students must score far higher on standardized tests to have the same chance of gaining acceptance as black or Hispanic students. Many schools also offer race-based housing for affinity groups i.e., people of the same ethnic background.

Colleges and universities should dismantle those very real forms of discrimination instead of policing what students and faculty say and think.

Read more:
Editorial: Too many Virginians want a safe space for censorship - Richmond.com

The Russian government has persuaded many of its citizens to avoid websites and social media platforms that are critical of the government, a new study has found.

Researchers analyzing a survey of Russian citizens found that those who relied more on Russian national television news perceived the internet as a greater threat to their country than did others. This in turn led to increased support for online political censorship.

Approval of the government of President Vladimir Putin amplified the impact of those threat perceptions on support for censorship, according to the study.

The success of the Russian regime in persuading citizens to self-censor their internet use has troubling implications, said Erik Nisbet, co-author of the study an associate professor of communication at The Ohio State University.

This is actually more insidious. The government doesnt have to rely as much on legal or technical firewalls against content they dont like. They have created a psychological firewall in which people censor themselves, Nisbet said.

People report they dont go to certain websites because the government says it is bad for me.

Nisbet conducted the study with Olga Kamenchuk, a visiting assistant professor, and doctoral student Aysenur Dal, both from Ohio State. Their results appear in the September 2017 issue of the journal Social Science Quarterly.

The researchers used data originally collected by VCIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) for the Internet Policy Observatory at the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School for Communication.

For that project, researchers surveyed 1,601 Russian citizens during May 2014 about their internet and media use, risk perceptions about the internet, support for online political censorship and support for the Putin government.

Ohio States analysis of the survey responses showed that people who relied most on the official government TV news were more likely than those who used other media sources to see the internet as a threat. These viewers were more likely to agree that the internet was used by foreign countries against Russia and that it was a threat to political stability within the country.

Not surprisingly, those who saw the internet as a threat were also more likely to support online censorship.

Support for Vladimir Putin significantly strengthened the relationship between seeing the internet as a risk and supporting online censorship, the study found.

Government authorities have convinced many Russians that censoring content labeled as extremist protects the population from harm, while at the same time failing to mention that this label is often applied by authorities to legitimate political opposition or opinions that run counter to government policies, Kamenchuk said.

The Russian regime uses its official news outlets, particularly television, to spread fear about anti-government sites. The regime often uses graphic metaphors to sensationalize the risk of some internet content, according to the researchers.

For example, the government has compared some websites it opposes to suicide bombers and tells citizens its response would be to use internet control and censorship to create a bulletproof vest for the Russian society.

Kamenchuk said Russians dont have to rely on these official government news sources.

There is opposition TV, radio and newspapers in the country that are not blocked. People can find them freely. But our studies show that many deliberately choose to ignore those outlets, she said.

Even blocked websites can be accessed through technical solutions that arent difficult to find in the country, even if they are illegal, Nisbet said.

But it is tougher to circumvent that psychological firewall than it is the legal or technological firewalls. How do you circumvent the mindset that censorship is good? he said.

Russia isnt alone in persuading citizens that the internet can be dangerous. Many authoritarian governments, such as Turkey, have labelled opposition websites and social media platforms as a threat, the researchers said.

Despite the importance of self-censorship in countries like Russia, most studies have overlooked the issue, Nisbet said.

Much of the academic research on the subject comes from the United States, where there is a lot of support for free expression and internet freedom, he said. But the U.S. is an exception in this regard, and not the norm. Much of the world is much more supportive of censorship than is the U.S.

These results also mean that the United States needs to adjust how it pursues its goal of increasing internet access and freedom around the world. The U.S. State Department has allocated millions of dollars to promote internet freedom, primarily in the areas of technology for getting around censorship.

Thats not going to help a lot if people agree with the censorship and dont want to use these tools, Nisbet said.

Read the rest here:
Why many Russians have gladly agreed to online censorship - ScienceBlog.com (blog)

COLUMBUS, Ohio The Russian government has persuaded many of its citizens to avoid websites and social media platforms that are critical of the government, a new study has found.

Researchers analyzing a survey of Russian citizens found that those who relied more on Russian national television news perceived the internet as a greater threat to their country than did others. This in turn led to increased support for online political censorship.

Approval of the government of President Vladimir Putin amplified the impact of those threat perceptions on support for censorship, according to the study.

The success of the Russian regime in persuading citizens to self-censor their internet use has troubling implications, said Erik Nisbet, co-author of the study an associate professor of communication at The Ohio State University.

This is actually more insidious. The government doesnt have to rely as much on legal or technical firewalls against content they dont like. They have created a psychological firewall in which people censor themselves, Nisbet said.

People report they dont go to certain websites because the government says it is bad for me.

Nisbet conducted the study with Olga Kamenchuk, a visiting assistant professor, and doctoral student Aysenur Dal, both from Ohio State. Their results appear in the September 2017 issue of the journal Social Science Quarterly.

The researchers used data originally collected by VCIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) for the Internet Policy Observatory at the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School for Communication.

For that project, researchers surveyed 1,601 Russian citizens during May 2014 about their internet and media use, risk perceptions about the internet, support for online political censorship and support for the Putin government.

Ohio States analysis of the survey responses showed that people who relied most on the official government TV news were more likely than those who used other media sources to see the internet as a threat. These viewers were more likely to agree that the internet was used by foreign countries against Russia and that it was a threat to political stability within the country.

Not surprisingly, those who saw the internet as a threat were also more likely to support online censorship.

Support for Vladimir Putin significantly strengthened the relationship between seeing the internet as a risk and supporting online censorship, the study found.

Government authorities have convinced many Russians that censoring content labeled as extremist protects the population from harm, while at the same time failing to mention that this label is often applied by authorities to legitimate political opposition or opinions that run counter to government policies, Kamenchuk said.

The Russian regime uses its official news outlets, particularly television, to spread fear about anti-government sites. The regime often uses graphic metaphors to sensationalize the risk of some internet content, according to the researchers.

For example, the government has compared some websites it opposes to suicide bombers and tells citizens its response would be to use internet control and censorship to create a bulletproof vest for the Russian society.

Kamenchuk said Russians dont have to rely on these official government news sources.

There is opposition TV, radio and newspapers in the country that are not blocked. People can find them freely. But our studies show that many deliberately choose to ignore those outlets, she said.

Even blocked websites can be accessed through technical solutions that arent difficult to find in the country, even if they are illegal, Nisbet said.

But it is tougher to circumvent that psychological firewall than it is the legal or technological firewalls. How do you circumvent the mindset that censorship is good? he said.

Russia isnt alone in persuading citizens that the internet can be dangerous. Many authoritarian governments, such as Turkey, have labelled opposition websites and social media platforms as a threat, the researchers said.

Despite the importance of self-censorship in countries like Russia, most studies have overlooked the issue, Nisbet said.

Much of the academic research on the subject comes from the United States, where there is a lot of support for free expression and internet freedom, he said. But the U.S. is an exception in this regard, and not the norm. Much of the world is much more supportive of censorship than is the U.S.

These results also mean that the United States needs to adjust how it pursues its goal of increasing internet access and freedom around the world. The U.S. State Department has allocated millions of dollars to promote internet freedom, primarily in the areas of technology for getting around censorship.

Thats not going to help a lot if people agree with the censorship and dont want to use these tools, Nisbet said.

Read this article:
Why many Russians have gladly agreed to online censorship | The ... - The Ohio State University News

XIAMEN, China (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that there was no censorship or official pressure behind the arrest of a film and theater director whose edgy work has angered traditionalists in the Russian establishment.

Russian prosecutors say they suspect the director, Kirill Serebrennikov, of embezzling at least 68 million rubles ($1.17 million) in state funds earmarked for an art project. Serebrennikov, under house arrest awaiting trial, denies the charges.

The case has prompted an outcry among the countrys liberal cultural elite who said they feared the director was being persecuted for his work, which has often poked fun at the authorities.

Putin, in his first public comments after Serebrennikovs arrest, denied any political overtones in his case.

Serebrennikov used to receive state funds - this means there was no censorship, no pressure, he told a news conference after a summit of the BRICS nations in China.

Otherwise, he would simply have not been given state funds, if there had been intentions to rein in his creative activity.

Putin said that there were differing attitudes to Serebrennikovs work, but said it was just a matter of taste.

If authorities earmark funds, it means that at least they view it from a neutral position and allow the artist to perform, to work, he said.

The only question for the investigation is the legality of spending budget funds, he added. Should investigative and auditing bodies see someone violating the law in force, the same methods will be applied to them. And they will also be brought to justice.

Reporting by Denis Pinchuk; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Christian Lowe

Read more from the original source:
Putin: no censorship or pressure behind arrest of prominent director - Reuters

UK view: The PC Myth Harvey Obliterated

The heroism shown by ordinary Texans after Hurricane Harvey is a great antidote to the prejudices expressed by well-off liberals towards deplorable Americans, notes Sean Collins at the British site Spiked. While the politically correct view depicts the nation divided by race, the scenes from Houston told a different story a black officer wading through floodwaters with a white child in each arm, a SWAT officer saving a Vietnamese woman and her baby and three Asian and Hispanic constables moving an elderly woman in a wheelchair. Unlike PC liberals, Collins adds, most people dont see life through a racial prism. In response to Harvey, we didnt see the diversity of essentially different people we saw citizens helping citizens, Texans helping Texans.

Tech report: Beware of Googles Enormous Power

The story of the New America Foundation firing staff for criticizing Google, a major funder of the think tank, sounded familiar, writes Kashir Hill at Gizmodo. Six years ago, while working at Forbes, she was pressured to unpublish a critical piece about Googles monopolistic practices after the company got upset about it. And that article stayed unpublished. Even more disturbing is that soon after, search results stopped showing the piece at all. Scraped versions could still be found, but the traces of my original story vanished. Hill admits she doesnt have hard evidence proving Google manipulated results an almost dystopian abuse of its power. But the story Google didnt want people to read swiftly became impossible to find through Google.

Political scribe: GOP Needs Bogeyman for Midterms

Like most politics of recent years, warns Michelle Cottle at The Atlantic, next years midterm elections promise to be wild and weird, since its increasingly looking like whichever team more furiously fires up its base will come out on top. Democrats have it easy: Aim squarely at President Trump. But for Republicans, coming up with a suitably electrifying bogeyman could prove challenging. And with no obvious Democratic stars to target, Republicans are left focusing mostly on tired standbys. Theres one obvious target: the prospect of Nancy Pelosi becoming speaker once again. Her unpopularity in key districts is the gift that never stops giving. And while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be history ... the GOP bases hatred for them is still red-hot.

Activist: Imprisoned for Wanting a Free Venezuela

Writing for The New York Times from a prison cell in the dungeons of the Venezuelan secret police, Yon Goicoechea offers a dramatic first-hand account of what Venezuelans, particularly dissenters like him, suffer under the regime. As he was set to speak at a Popular Will party news conference a year ago, he was taken by armed guards and locked in a cell without light or natural ventilation. Worm-infested food and scraps of clothing covered in feces lay on the floor. It felt as if I had been buried alive. Such is the punishment for many Venezuelans who dare to dream of a democratic society, free of Communism and open to the global community. All they want is free elections, good governance, free expression, judicial independence, personal security and a modicum of economic liberty that is, what so many other people around the world take for granted.

Economist: Tax Reform Conservatives Can Back

As Washington gets set for tax reform, economics prof Aaron Hedlund at National Review suggests Republicans avoid playing small ball and seize the opportunity to craft bold tax reform that tilts the balance of power back from D.C. to the American people. He lays out several principles: limit spending, aim for simplicity, insist on permanence rather than temporary patches and gimmickry. Republicans must also take the social-justice fight to the Democrats. They should point out that liberals obsession with using the tax code for social engineering and redistribution is responsible for the very favoritism that currently exists in the tax code: big business over small business, cohabiting couples over married couples, and so on. The GOP can provide an alternative by pushing for a level playing field.

See the article here:
The PC myth Harvey destroyed, Google censorship, the 2018 boogeymen & other comments - New York Post