Mediaboss Marketing

Almost two weeks into Russias invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities have already banned over 200 websites, 300 foreign companies have pulled out of the country and fears are growing that the government may move towards disconnecting Russia from the global internet.

The Kremlin has cracked down on independent media by bringing in a new law making dissemination of "false information" punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Simply referring to the Russian invasion as a "war" instead of a "special military operation" is enough to fall afoul of these new rules.

To circumvent the censorship bearing down on the country, Russians are increasingly turning to VPNs - or virtual private networks - to keep channels open to information from outside Russia.

VPNs are a kind of software that creates an encrypted tunnel between the user and a remote server, changing the users unique IP address in the process and concealing where in the world their IP address is originating from.

"If a website is trying to block Russian traffic, you no longer appear to be Russian. It looks like you're coming from London or from Paris or anywhere in the world," Simon Migliano, head of research at Top10VPN, told Euronews Next.

VPN apps rose to the top of the App Store and Google Play in Russia last week as the government blocked social media sites.

According to data from Top10VPN, search traffic originating from Russia related to VPNs rose 633 per cent week-on-week.

At the time of writing, it is still possible to access banned social networking sites via VPNs in Russia but Migliano cautions that even while using VPNs, there are ways that states can still try and block websites.

"The Russian government will be desperately trying to block VPNs. It is possible to identify VPN traffic at the network level and block it. And what that means is that your VPN will stop working," said Migliano.

What happens in this instance, Migliano says, is that the biggest, paid VPN providers with lots of budget end up constantly hiding the traffic and performing what is known as "obfuscation".

"This is what works in China. This is why there are VPNs that still work in China, despite China being the most advanced nation on Earth when it comes to censorship," he explained.

"Russia is a long way behind China. But as you know, they are ever more closely allied with China, and I'm sure they'll be sharing information."

According to Migliano, while a VPN itself is completely secure, it is possible for a VPN provider to be compromised or for a government to pose as a VPN provider.

They can then access all of your traffic, he added.

Miglianos advises people to be judicious when selecting a VPN and recommends paying for one where possible because you do get what you pay for.

Some of the VPNs Migliano recommends for Russians to download are Proton VPN, Astrill and PrivateVPN.

[Note: Proton, Astrill and PrivateVPN are not main partners of Top10VPN but the website receives customer referral fees if users sign up to a paid subscription plan and have clicked through from their site]

Beyond that there are a few trustworthy free VPNs, but research is recommended.

Make sure you choose a provider that is well known, that has plenty of information about them already online and isn't a no-name provider, [one] that might be top of the VPN download chart at any given time, he said.

See more here:
Russians turn to VPNs to stay connected as online censorship tightens over Ukraine war - Euronews

In India, there is constant struggle between freedom of expression and reasonable restrictions especially in the field of entertainment.

The battle between censorship and artistic freedom had started from early 1970s wherein the Apex Court first examined the question relating to pre-censorship of cinematograph films in relation to the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution[1]. The artistic freedom of a filmmaker is not absolute in India and is subject to restrictions. The courts have interpreted application of Article 19(2) of the Constitution vis-a-vis censorship to include restraints on such content which is against the sovereignty, integrity and security of India or is defamatory, in contempt of Court or leads to incitement of any offence. Any expression in a movie, which hits any of the aforementioned grounds, is censored by the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

It is imperative to strike a balance between artistic freedom and censorship. Too much freedom and no censorship would result in display of content which is inappropriate for children or may have harmful impact on the society as a whole. On the other hand, too many restrictions in form of censorship may lead to restriction on freedom of expression and narrow the boundaries of creativity.

With the advent of technology and low footfall in theatres in the pandemic world, filmmakers have adopted the OTT Platforms as their favourite medium for release of motion pictures and web-series. This shift can be said to have a major relief for the filmmakers as it is not mandatory for procuring CBFC certification for making movies available on OTT Platforms. With the rising popularity of OTT Platforms and social media which can be said to have been unregulated by law for a certain timeframe, led to the enactment of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Guidelines). Thus, it is not the case any longer that the content on OTT Platforms is unregulated as such content has to mandatorily comply with the Guidelines.

Though the Guidelines provide for a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism and a person aggrieved by any content available on the OTT Platform has the option to furnish his/her grievance to the self-regulatory mechanism (i.e. Level I of the three-tier grievance redressal mechanism), it appears that the Courts are still being preferred by individual to seek redressal of his/her grievances including seeking directions to ban content on the grounds for excessive obscenity, filthy language, public morality, hurting religious sentiments, etc.

One of the recent instances in relation to the content available on OTT Platform came up before the Honble Kerala High Court whereby it was contented that the language used in the Malyalam film titled Churuli (Film), is filthy and thus, opposed to public order, decency and morality[2]. It is interesting to note that the CBFC was made a party to these proceedings as the Film available on the OTT Platform was not the version that was approved or certified by the CBFC.

This matter drew light on the predominant issue of:

The Honble Kerela High Court has while dealing with the core issue before it, opined that the Court cannot dictate the film maker to use any particular type of slang by the characters in the Film and that the Court can only verify if the Film violates any existing law to ensure public order, decency or morality, bearing in mind the artistic freedom of a film maker. Interestingly, the Court had directed the State Police Chief to constitute a team to watch the Film, for verifying and submitting a report, if there are any statutory violations or any criminal offences made out in the Film. The report submitted by the police team primarily stated that the Film contains foul language which was essential for the Film to be believable to the audience; and no statutory offence or criminal offence has been committed by use of foul language and depiction of obscenity, as these are offences only if committed in a public place.

The Honble Kerala High Court has whilst dismissing the petition:

In relation to the aspect of CBFC certification for content made available on OTT Platforms the CBFC has admitted, and the Honble Court has concurred that CBFC has no role with regards to the films displayed on OTT Platforms. The content on internet cannot be governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 which relates to theatrical content and from which CBFC draws its powers. Hence, it can be inferred that currently CBFC certification is not mandatory for any content displayed on OTT Platforms unless the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is amended to include the same.

Important Aspects in Relation to OTT Content Censorship:

The Guidelines do not contain any provisions for censorship of the content and OTT Platforms are only required to comply with self-classification of the content with appropriate age classification and content descriptor for each content displayed on the OTT Platforms.

The films/content first released on OTT and subsequently broadcasted on television will need to be in compliance with the Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995 (CTNA) and the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 (CTNR).

It is however possible, that producers of films by way of abundant caution, may take a narrow interpretation and procure CBFC certificate for the OTT films. However, it is not mandatory to procure CBFC certification for any film/content directly or first released on OTT Platforms

Even though there is no censorship, if any content on the OTT Platforms contravenes Article 19(2) of Constitution, the Government under Section 69A of Information Technology Act and the IT (Blocking Rules), 2009 i.e., Power to issue directions for blocking public access of any information through any computer resource, has the power to remove such content which is objectionable.

Conclusion:

The judgement passed by the Honble Kerala High Court is a landmark judgment as it recognizes and values artistic freedom of the filmmaker in the world where cuss words are heard all around the city, used loosely by people in general and it is not that people learn such abuses only through the film. Nobody can dictate a filmmaker to use only decent language in his film and it is his artistic discretion to choose the language within the reasonable restrictions as provided in Article 19(2). This judgement re-establishes the principle that use of foul language and/or presence of obscenity will not mandatorily lead to restriction on public exhibition of the film as long as the same is used in the context of the film and each film has to be viewed in its entirety to understand this context.

It can be said, this case recognizes that censorship requirements are less for OTT Platforms possibly due to the very nature of this medium itself whereby content can be viewed only by the subscribers. It being understood that the content on OTT Platform is a pull mechanism as against the push mechanism whereby subscribers are well aware of the nature of content they opt to view who make an informed decision basis the classification and description of the content provided on the OTT Platform(s), thereby reducing the need of censorship.

Go here to see the original:
Artistic Freedom versus Censorship in the OTT Age - Lexology

The West's effort to curb pro-Russian websites and media outlets in reaction to Russias invasion of Ukraine is driven by lopsided business interests that could eventually censor conservatives, critics say.

Major social media companies, including YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter, have moved to reduce Russian propaganda and disinformation on their platforms by aggressively banning or restricting content from Russian state media outlets such as RT, Sputnik, and others.

Conservatives say the social media giants' approach to censoring Russian content is hypocritical and could be aimed at Americans in the near future.

Were seeing Russia being globally deplatformed across the board, and so its impossible not to look at that and think it wont happen to others in America and elsewhere, said Dan Gainor, vice president at the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog that tracks censorship on Big Tech platforms.

A group of people, the global mob, have decided to target Russia, but theyre fine with genocides in China. How is that acceptable? There are no rules, and the few that exist keep changing, Gainor said.

Gainor added that there was no consistency or fairness to Russia being censored now when it has invaded other regions in the past without similar consequences. He noted that other countries have also taken violent actions without facing any clampdowns.

Russias attack on Ukraine is one of the first major full-scale military invasions of another country in the age of social media, where online platforms are used by billions and where a separate war is waged online by governments trying to shape alternative narratives.

For example, two anti-Ukrainian disinformation operations that were taken down by Facebook last week were tied to Ukraine Today, a Russian propaganda news outfit created to make Ukraine look like a failed state by using fake Facebook profiles. Russian state media last week also falsely reported a Ukrainian civilian genocide that officials believe was a way to justify the Russian invasion.

The social media giants are aligned in trying to curb Russian disinformation regarding what is happening in Ukraine due to pressure placed on them by users and government officials around the world.

Some of the platforms have even restricted access to Russian government accounts altogether.

INTERNET FRAGMENTS AS RUSSIAN INVASION PUSHES PLATFORMS TO CHOOSE SIDES

Republicans in Congress are wary of the Russian censorship effort by social media platforms because their decisions appear to be driven by government pressure.

In a very limited way, the tech companies should squash Russian disinformation, but theyre now public utilities that are essentially extended realms of the government, which gives me pause, said Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, one of the most conservative Republicans in Congress.

I have a dubious, skeptical eye on what the tech companies have chosen to do, which is part of why we need to revisit the laws around tech legal shields, said Biggs, who is also one of former President Donald Trumps top supporters.

Biggs added that he wished there would be a similar reaction and attention from tech companies regarding violent activities in China and Africa.

Libertarians say the targeted social media censorship of Russia versus other countries is driven by the fact that there is less money to be lost by cutting off Russians than those in other countries, namely China.

The censorship decisions are mostly a business decision. Theyre responding to what consumers want or not and trying to hit their bottom line, said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel at TechFreedom, a libertarian-leaning technology think tank.

Personally, I feel a certain level of discomfort that were all collectively saying we dont want certain content from one place, Cohn said.

Cohn added that the Russian censorship efforts by social media platforms are not indicative of significant changes with regard to online content moderation because the Ukraine invasion is a unique event.

Tech industry insiders say that if conservatives or others disagree with how major social media platforms are making content moderation decisions, they can jump to other platforms instead.

I can understand and relate to conservative frustrations with censorship, but we want private businesses to be their own arbiters of what content is appropriate or not, said Carl Szabo, vice president at NetChoice, a tech trade group that represents companies such as Facebook and Google.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The marketplace is providing the solutions we want in terms of alternative platforms like Truth Social and others," Szabo said. "If youre not getting a square deal with one platform, you can always go to another thanks to competition."

Follow this link:
Conservatives fear censorship of Russians could be turned against them - Washington Examiner

While international audiences saw images of besieged Ukrainian cities and thousands of civilians fleeing the country through humanitarian corridors that have faced Russian bombardment, Chinese viewers were shown Russian aid convoys bringing supplies to beleaguered Ukrainians.

China's People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party, posted a video on March 9 on Weibo, the popular Chinese social-media platform, showing Russia providing humanitarian aid to Ukrainians outside Kharkiv, a Ukrainian city near the Russian border that has faced artillery and rocket attacks since Moscow's February 24 invasion. The video received more than 3 million views.

In other coverage, the Moscow correspondent of China's Phoenix TV has issued reports while embedded with Russian troops outside of Mariupol, a strategic port city that is the scene of stiff fighting. In a recent clip he speaks with soldiers about their steady advance and talks to civilians allegedly welcoming the presence of Russian forces.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, China's tightly controlled media and heavily censored Internet have provided increasingly skewed coverage, omitting details on civilian casualties and the widespread international condemnation of Moscow, while quoting Russia's own state-backed networks and broadcasting the views of Russian officials -- without verification or pushback -- to its domestic audience.

While Beijing is threading the needle diplomatically and looking to put breathing room between it and its close ties with the Kremlin in the face of mounting international pressure over its invasion of Ukraine, China's state media and vocal officials are increasingly converging with Moscow's distorted narrative of the war -- even beginning to push conspiracy theories against Ukraine and the West in the process.

"U.S. biolabs in Ukraine have indeed attracted much attention recently," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on March 8, echoing a conspiracy theory regularly pushed by Russian media and online accounts that some Western officials charge could be part of an effort by the Kremlin to justify its invasion by saying that Ukraine is working on biological or nuclear weapons.

"All dangerous pathogens in Ukraine must be stored in these labs and all research activities are led by the U.S. side," Zhao added, without providing evidence to support the claim. U.S. and Ukrainian officials say the allegation is baseless.

China, Russia, And The Ukraine War

The biolab theory has been a mainstay of Russian state media -- and even some embassy accounts on social media -- with a recent report by Foreign Policy magazine highlighting how it has taken hold among American far-right online conspiracy networks and spread to other countries as well.

It is also not the first time it has been referenced by Chinese officials, with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying first raising the claim about biolabs in Ukraine during a May 2021 press conference.

Chinese diplomats have also frequently pointed to Fort Detrick -- a U.S. military facility in Maryland that the Soviet Union falsely claimed in the 1980s was the source of the virus causing AIDS and has often been a target of Russian disinformation -- to deflect questions when asked about the origins of COVID-19.

But the timing and renewed push of the theory could be part of a wider strategy, with Britain's Defense Ministry tweeting on March 8 that while the baseless claims are long-standing (Ukraine has stated that it has no such facilities), they "are currently likely being amplified as part of a retrospective justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

The biolab story also fits with a growing trend of convergence between Chinese and Russian sources that has accelerated since the war in Ukraine, with false and misleading stories echoed by Chinese media and receiving hundreds of millions of views on Weibo in the process.

Throughout the war, Chinese media have helped spread dubious Russian-state narratives about Ukrainian forces using civilians as human shields while also saying the Russian military only goes after other military targets, despite the shelling of dozens of apartment blocks and other civilian structures.

WATCH: CCTV video has surfaced showing a car carrying two pensioners being blown apart by an armored column at a crossroads in Makariv in the Kyiv region on February 28.

Chinese networks have also magnified and spread Russian disinformation, such as when Chinese state broadcaster CCTV quoted Russian officials to falsely claim that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had fled the capital, or when the state-backed Global Times, citing the Russian state network RT as its only source, said many Ukrainian soldiers had surrendered on the first day of the invasion.

Taken together, this highlights a different version of the war that viewers and online users are seeing in China compared to most of the world and how Chinese authorities have allowed the Kremlin's propaganda networks to shape its public's perception of the war with few restrictions.

For instance, the Kremlin-backed Sputnik has over 11.6 million followers on Weibo and other Russian outlets also have large and engaged followings inside China, where access to many other foreign media outlets and major information sites are blocked or restricted.

This has contributed to Russian claims about Ukrainian officials being extremists and neo-Nazis to be regularly adopted online and also picked up by Chinese-language outlets, which often reference the Azov Battalion -- a fringe unit of the Ukrainian National Guard known for having neo-Nazi sympathizers in its ranks -- and show it as representative of wider Ukrainian society.

More Than Censorship

Control of all Chinese media by the Communist Party and intensive Internet censorship make it difficult to gauge public opinion, while pervasive censorship also means the pro-Russian sentiment online in China is likely not representative of the country as a whole.

But the types of content that are allowed online or published by state-backed media show what Chinese authorities want their population of 1.4 billion people to think.

China's government has neither condemned nor condoned Russia's war in Ukraine and has even refrained from calling it an "invasion." Both expressions of sympathy for Ukraine and support for Russia appear online and in social media, but criticism of Moscow is regularly censored, according to China Digital Times, a group that tracks Chinese censorship and online discussion at the University of California, Berkeley.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin have grown closer in recent years and heralded a new era in their ties during a joint meeting in Beijing on February 4.

While Russia's invasion of Ukraine has left Beijing awkwardly distancing itself diplomatically from the Kremlin, the shared messaging from both countries' state media shows that ties are still intact and they could be growing in the information space, an area where many experts say cooperation has been developing in recent years.

Xi and Putin have signed a variety of media-cooperation agreements over the years and have held a Sino-Russian media forum annually since 2015.

A December report by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) found that both China and Russia had played a central role in spreading COVID-related disinformation and propaganda throughout the pandemic. However, the report did not find clear-cut evidence of direct cooperation between Beijing and Moscow, instead noting that they "borrowed from and amplified each other's campaigns."

Similarly, a June report from the Carnegie Moscow Center found that while both countries' state-backed media and officials often echo similar talking points and narratives on world events, this is largely due to Beijing and Moscow having shared "strategic objectives" in global affairs.

"Chinese and Russian online behavior are largely the result of Chinese actors' careful but independent study of and creative adaptations of the Kremlin's tools, rather than an expression of active, ongoing cooperation between the two governments," the report noted.

See original here:
China's Censorship, Propaganda Push Russian Version Of The War In Ukraine - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

In times of war, free speech suffers. Right and wrong appear indisputable. There is moral certainty that God is on our side. When we are convinced that the enemy is producing only dangerous lies and propaganda, we want to bar their entry into the marketplace of ideas.

The war between Russia and Ukraine is the latest test of our commitment to free speech. Vladimir Putin does not hesitate to censor his people, but Western democracies, and specifically the United States, are required to defend free speech. So far, they have done so. Today private actors do the censoring. Social media companies, under pressure to control disinformation, are bumbling along, blocking too much and too little. And now major cultural players in the US and Europe are canceling Russian artists, performers and anything else coming from Russia.

Cultural boycotts have mostly symbolic goals aimed at a Western audience. Any practical effect on Russia itself is hard to conceive. Artist cancellations will not further squeeze Russia financially. Russia lives on the export of oil and gas, not art. And the message of Western disapproval only entrenches Putins domestic narrative of a hostile West.

Cultural institutions in the US and Europe have the right, of course, to express their symbolic opposition to the war by blacklisting Russian artists. However, they must consider the full implications. Todays cultural institutions are full of artists and performers from countries across the globe. Should all these artists be held responsible for the misdeeds of their political leaders? Should they be asked to publicly condemn these leaders when doing so puts them and members of their family at risk of retaliation by their governments? Banning Russian artists based on their political views or, worse, solely because of their nationality, while welcoming artists from China and other repressive regimes undermines any moral high ground an institution can claim.

The people of a nation are not identical with its leadership and should not be equated with it. On the contrary, they can be allies in opposing a repressive regime from within. Among the Russian artists blacklisted today are people who have been critical of the war.

US institutions have so far limited their action to artists who refuse to condemn the regime, the more restrained path still fraught with questions likely to haunt these institutions for a long time. Blacklisting artists based solely on their political views is a tactic associated with the Cold War and the McCarthy era. That era also demanded loyalty oaths similar to current demands on artists to denounce the Putin regime or be canceled. Only this time artists are also asked to face risks in their home country by making such denunciations.

There are better ways for cultural institutions in Western democracies to get involved in the current political crisis. Rather than banning artists associated with Putin, they should support dissident cultural workers within Russia, as well as Ukrainian artists and institutions, by highlighting their work and offering them platforms to amplify their voices. If, after 30 years of open global cultural exchange, an iron curtain falls again, art and cultural institutions should not be complicit.

Information on resources and support for Ukrainian artists here

Read more:
Free Speech and the War in Ukraine - Blogging Censorship