Mediaboss Marketing

YouTube has announced a new system to catch and flag what it calls controversial religious and supremacist videos hosted on the platform. The platform plans to hide these videos from wider audiences, and demonetize them to prevent their creators from earning revenue from YouTube.

The move was met with widespread skepticism from YouTube content creators.

To crack down on offensive content, the company is using a combination of machine learning and volunteer experts to flag that needs review. It also plans to implement tougher standards for videos that are controversial but do not violate the sites terms of service.

YouTube says it isnt going to remove the borderline content entirely, but will instead place these videos in a purgatory state preventing them from being monetized or promoted. To facilitate these changes, YouTube will be artificially altering its search algorithms to prevent offensive topics from discovery.

Well soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that arent illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos dont violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, wont be recommended, wont be monetized, and wont have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.

According to YouTube, the system, while largely automated, will mix in human reviews in the form of its already established Trusted Flagger volunteer program that works with over 15 institutions to deal with extremist content, including the Anti-Defamation League.

The ADL recently released a list naming members of the alt-right and the alt-lite, the latter of which included controversial YouTube personalities like Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich, and Brittany Pettibone.

Its worth noting that the Trusted Flagger system was later transformed into the much maligned YouTube Heroes program, which invited the public to help moderate content. It was heavily criticized for giving social justice activists the power to manipulate the platform.

Despite the apparent focus on targeting extremism, YouTubes announcement includes the companys efforts to artificially promote videos through its Creators for Change program, which in YouTubes own words pushes creators who are using their voices to speak out against hate speech, xenophobia, and extremism.

High-profile feminists, including Franchesca Ramsey, are listed as ambassadors and fellows. Notably absent is Laci Green, whose strong 1.5 million subscriber count earns her top billing as the sites most popular feminist. Green has come under fire from social justice advocates for opening dialogue with anti-feminists.

If a video doesnt break YouTubes terms of services then they absolutely SHOULD NOT be attempting to dampen the reach of the video any further, said YouTuber Annand Bunty King Virk, who raised his concerns with The Daily Caller. Who determines whats passable and what isnt? At what point do we finally realize that saying the right thing isnt always about saying what people want to hear?

By these standards, if YouTube existed previous to the Emancipation Act, theyd be censoring videos criticizing slave owners, since being anti-slavery wasnt popular at all, he added. The popular opinion isnt always the right opinion.

Matt Jarbo, who goes by MundaneMatt on YouTube, shared his views with The Daily Caller on the move. They know its almost a non-issue completely, Jarbo said. But due to the controversies surrounding those videos, theyve gotten a much larger spotlight than they deserve.

I do not trust their ability [to automatically flag extremist content], he said. I think they have an algorithm in place to help combat those issues, but its not narrow enough to not impact the skeptical/anti-SJW content.

YouTuber Jeff Holiday told The Daily Caller that he doesnt worry about the policy affecting his revenue, as hes already diversified his income with other platforms, but worries that the crackdown will affect other creators.

The move to counter extremist content is of course a good one in theory, Holiday said. But the language used in their announcement does not fill me with confidence it will be restricted to legitimate extremism. I remain optimistic but wary.

YouTube has a clear bias given who they choose to promote for free on their site such as Francesca Ramsey who perpetually produces vastly disliked videos, he remarked.

That isnt to say there is a case for them censoring controversial content. Ive had a few videos marked advertiser unfriendly, but it hasnt been something perpetual. But hearing they might crack down further does concern me greatly. Again, not for the income, but for the potential disincentives it may cause future creators of controversial politics.

I do think there are valid concerns in Google possibly funding legitimate extremist enterprises, but the fact is that people like to abuse systems, especially automated ones, said YouTuber Chris Maldonado, whos also known as Chris Ray Gun. Its really only a matter of time before this backfires in some ridiculous way.

The curator of Undoomed, a channel that regularly makes light of social justice warriors, shared his concerns about YouTubes new direction.

No one can really say whos going to be impacted by this new road map, and thats the point isnt it? If their policies and terms of service arent there to help guide creators anymore, then why even have them? So really, anyone could be at risk without even knowing it, he said.

I have no problem with YouTube cracking down on terrorist recruitment videos and the likes, clarified Undoomed. What I dont understand is how such videos couldve possibly been considered acceptable under the extant TOS and policies.

I think there is a high probably for collateral damage with this new attitude, he said. Some people could conceivably consider skeptics and anti-SJWs extremists, while all we are doing is arguing for a little common sense, and of course for freedom of speech as demanded by the Constitution.

My suspicion is that trusted flaggers is just a code word for the usual suspects. i.e. the same type of radical left-wing reactionaries that have reshaped Twitter into an Orwellian nightmare, he concluded.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Go here to see the original:
Popular YouTubers React To Censorship Of 'Controversial' Content - The Daily Caller

Photo Credit: Jewish Press, Facebook

Jewish and social media lit up last month over an advertisement published in the Flatbush Jewish Journal, a Brooklyn weekly.

The ad was placed by social media personality Adina Miles, famous for her rabble-rousing Instagram account Flatbush Girl, and was meant to show appreciation to City Councilman Chaim Deutsch for helping her in a local graffiti clean-up effort. When the Flatbush Jewish Journal refused to run the ad because it contained a picture of a woman and the word girl, Miles placed an emoji over her face and changed her name to Flatbush Boy. The advertisement ran.

This incident, though extreme, is not the first of its kind. For years, a number of Orthodox specifically haredi publications have refused to publish photos of women and even their names for the sake of modesty.

In 2015, the website Behadrei Haredim blurred the faces of the Israeli governments new female ministers in a picture taken at the home of Israels president. That same year, two haredi newspapers in Beit Shemesh blocked a sock ad that showed the feet of a two-year-old female child.

In 2011, the Brooklyn-based newspaper Der Zeitung made headlines when it removed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from a photograph taken in the Situation Room of the White House.

It wasnt always like this. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was known for his efforts to elevate the position of Jewish women. In fact, he was insistent that if a boy was on the cover of the Chabad childrens magazine The Moshiach Times, a girl had be there as well.

In 1973, Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, founder of the Hineni outreach movement, took center stage at Madison Square Garden to spread her message. No one questioned her place on that stage or her right to be a public leader.

Over the past couple of decades, however, a shift in our values has rendered the presence of women in some Orthodox publications practically non-existent.

Censorship of female pictures in magazines is just one of many chumras being put on the community, said Flatbush Girl Adina Miles. Comparing the phenomenon to the spread of antibodies on an invading virus, Miles said its just one of the many gut reactions to the outside world banging on our doors.

The basis for the practice is unclear. The phrase Kol kevuda bas melech penima (a womans beauty lies within) from Psalms and Hinei Sarah baohel (Behold, Sarah was in her tent) from the Chumash are commonly cited as texts from which the laws of tzniut (modesty) are derived. The Rambam follows a Gemara in Kesubot that uses the phrase from Psalms to rule that a woman should not leave her home more than once a month a view clearly not accepted by Orthodox Jews.

But somewhere along the line, critics charge, interpretation has become skewed and women have disappeared.

Certainly if she is tzanuah, there is no halachic case for [the removal of women in publications], said Rabbi Mordechai Weiss, an award-winning educator and speaker. Like many others who have closely followed the controversy, Rabbi Weiss believes the growing practice of censorship is an example of a shift to the far right in Orthodoxy.

I think most people in society are able to look at modest pictures of women without it eliciting impure thoughts, said Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey.

Rabbi Pruzansky calls the practice an unnecessary stringency.

Extremism is what I would call it, said Naomi Klass Mauer, publisher of The Jewish Press, which has always featured pictures and names of women. I think everything is moving to the right. Its not a halacha if the woman is dressed properly.

Others posit a different explanation for the dwindling appearance of women. Earlier this year, in a Headlines podcast interview hosted by Dovid Lichtenstein, the renowned posek Rav Dovid Cohen said that sales competition is behind the removal of women from some Orthodox publications. Once a publication decides it will not print women, there is a domino effect.

Their competition, Rav Cohen added, cant let them be frummer, so they stop doing it [as well].

(On that same podcast Dovid Lichtenstein noted that when HaRav Chaim Kanievsky was looking through a biography of his wife he asked, Wheres the Rebbetzin? because all the pictures were of him.)

Rabbi Simon Jacobson, former editor of the Algemeiner Journal, said its all about the readership of the publication. If their constituency is one that will not tolerate womens pictures, they are serving their constituency. To Jacobson, it has to do with the wishes of advertisers and readers more than the will of the publishers.

Whether the decision stems from religious or business reasons, the effect is equally negative.

Its overly sexualizing women, said Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, director of interfaith affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. Its not a question of dressing provocatively. Its saying that because you are a woman, you are provocative. That is a dangerous message.

Critics of censoring women in Orthodox media point to a growing backlash among many Orthodox women.

Now it comes down to the women in the communities themselves really feeling disenfranchised and resentful, said Allison Josephs, founder of Jew in the City, an organization devoted to correcting public misperceptions of Orthodox Jews.

As an activist, Josephs prides herself on respecting different ways of life, even if she herself may not necessarily align with their schools of thought. However, after interacting with women in haredi communities who voiced their discomfort with the practice, Josephs realized there was a problem.

A reason for the resentment, she said, is the burden it places on the women. In general, women are commanded to dress modestly while men must keep their minds in an appropriate place. Were supposed to exist in a partnership and meet in the middle, said Josephs. When women are removed completely, then men dont have to do their job at all.

On the other hand, some women dont feel burdened at all. A chassidic woman who heads a Jewish organization said she views the removal of women from Orthodox publications as protection for the women, not subjugation.

To others, however, the insistence on the removal of womens names and pictures from the public sphere is far from beneficial. In practice, they say, it goes against the history of Judaism.

Hashem saw it appropriate to include female names when He wrote the Torah, mused Josephs. Are we more frum than Hashem?

In an Instagram post on July 10, Adina Miles wrote, What kind of message are we sending our daughters & sons when they look through a magazine & there are no female faces to be seen? Miles rallied Orthodox men and women alike to join her social media campaign and share pictures with the caption #FrumWomenHaveFaces.

The main goal, she said, was to start a conversation within the mainstream of the community, which I am proud to say has been accomplished.

Other men and women are jumping on the bandwagon. A Facebook group called Put the Women Back in Frum Media! encourages its members to protest for the inclusion of women in Orthodox publications and has fostered an initiative to create a new magazine that would prominently feature modestly dressed women.

The Layers Project, founded by Shira Lankin Sheps, was created in order to publish photographs of Jewish women and give them a space to talk about their experiences without being censored. We need to stop removing women from what we read and do the opposite, wrote Sheps in a blog post titled Put Women Back in Orthodox Media.

The rising opposition is taking the lead in undoing the damage. It is not uncommon now to find essays and articles speaking out against the removal of women from Orthodox media outlets.

For the first time ever, said Miles, alternate voices have a platform that cant be censored.

One voice that stands out is that of Merri Ukraincik. Her essay The Invisible Jew (published last month on hevria.com and in The Jewish Press) describes her fear of all women being systematically washed out of society.

I lack the power to alter the course of a tide that washes our footprints from the shore as if we never touched down at all, she writes. But I know Im not alone.

Ukraincik, like many other Jewish women, is determined to combat the invisibility before it silences all women.

Women have a very strong voice, especially when we join together, she said. Its our greatest strength in trying to effect change.

Women like Merri Ukraincik, Adina Miles, and Allison Josephs, who defy what has become the status quo, are actively fighting for change. Women like Naomi Klass Mauer, through The Jewish Press, and Shira Lankin Sheps, through her Layers Project, are tirelessly defending a womans right to an uncensored presence in print and online.

Beneath the blurry images and silhouettes, you can almost hear the voices of generations of Jewish women. They are perched on the precipice of a new world, bracing themselves for an anticipated leap into acceptance and inclusion.

Read more from the original source:
Invisible Women: Censorship By Some Orthodox Publications - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

What do Winnie the Pooh, an image of an empty chair, and Justin Bieber have in common? They all have been recently banned by Chinese censors. BBCreportedthat China banned Winnie the Pooh from its social media sites because bloggers have been comparing him to Chinas President Xi Jinping.

Since the late NobelLaureateLiu Xiaobos death, Chinese WhatsApp userscomplainedthat Chinese censors blocked their attempts to send images of an empty chair to commemorate Liu inreal time. Last but not least, Chinese Bieber fans weretoldrecently by Beijings Culture Bureau that the Canadian pop star is banned from having concerts in China due to his past bad behaviors which caused public dissatisfaction. Thus banning him is necessary to purify Chinas domestic entertainment scene.

Id never imagined that Winnie the Pooh, an image of an empty chair, and Justin Bieber would all become symbols of liberty one day. For the last 30 years, while the daily lives of Chinese citizens have dramatically improved, their opportunities for free speech, assembly, and expression havent. Chinas wealth enables the Chinese government to control information flow, promote propaganda, and monitor and suppress dissent much more efficiently and effectively.

With Communist Partys leadership reshuffle getting close, Beijing has stepped up its censorship. Banning Winnie the Pooh and Justin Bieber are small potatoes compared to Chinas latestcrackdown on virtual private networks (VPNs), a popular method Chinese use to bypass Chinese authorities Great Firewall. The most intrusive tool the government deploys is facial recognition technology and iris scanners installed everywhere to keep a watchful eye on the entire Chinese population.

The Wall Street Journalestimatedthat China has 176 million surveillance cameras in public and private hands, and the nation will install about 450 million new ones by 2020. The U.S., by comparison, has about 50 million.Chinas vast, technology-driven surveillance system has made it easier for the state to arrest political dissidents. The all-seeing big brother George Orwell imagined in 1984 has become a reality in China.

During Maos Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), the Chinese government not only controlled every aspect of each citizens lifewhat to eat, how much to eat, where to live, and what one was supposed to do for a livingbut it also demanded full control of every citizens mind through thought control. Today the Chinese government no longer decide how much people can eat, but the state has even better control over the Chinese peoples minds.

Not all censorship flows from top-down. Many Chinese citizens and businesses have taken cues from the government and censor themselves. Chinas popular video and Internet streaming sitescleanedthemselves up by voluntarily taking down all foreign films and TV shows, replacing them with government-sanctioned propaganda that glorifies the Communist Party in the name of social harmony and patriotism.

One livestream showed a young woman host who dressed in Red Army uniform and filmed herself buying Mao Zedong badges at a gift shop. Chinas information control is so successful that she was probably never told that someone in her family perished during the man-made famine or tortured by Maos Red Guards in similar uniforms only four decades ago. Even if she was told the truth, will it change her self-censored behavior?

The most worrisome part of this whole situation is that while some Chinese reject state thought control (and pay a dear price for their struggle), many not only accept the governments propaganda, but also vigorously defend it. Pew Researchshowsroughly three-quarters (77%) of the [Chinese] public believes that their way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence.

Why should we care whats going on inside China? Because the impact of Chinas censorship and thought-control can be easily felt outside China. Many Chinese overseas echo propaganda like people inside China do. The most famous Chinese Internet troll group, Little Pink, is largely made up of Chinese females both inside and outside China. Theyre notorious for bombardingthe overseas social media of anyone who expresses any negative views about China, even fellow Chinese.

In May this year, Chinese student Yang Shuping gave a commencementspeechat the University of Maryland. She praised the fresh air and freedom of speech in the United States and contrasted it to her experiences growing up in China: wearing a mask to fight air pollution and passively accepting government-authenticated truth. Many Chinese netizens, especially those from Little Pink, called her a traitor who was sucking up to westerners at the expense of belittling her motherland. Many demanded that she apologize, which she did.

Still, her home address was posted online and some Chinese threatened her should she return to China. Even the Chinese government stepped in,withthe spokesperson of Chinas foreign ministry stating all Chinese should behave responsibly in their public statements.The cyber bullying and harsh reaction from China actually proved Yangs point that China lacks freedom of speech and thought.

But its the oversea reaction from Chinese to this student that really shocked me. Some Chinese students did speak out to support her, but it seems their rational reaction was drowned out by criticism. The Chinese Students and Scholars Association at the University of Maryland quickly put out aproud of China video campaign. Throughmedia interviewsand social media postings, many Chinese students in the United States said Yang was unpatriotic and she embarrassed herself and her motherland by speaking ill of her country in front of a biased western crowd.

I recently experienced such a feverish defense of China in the United States first hand. At the Las Vegas Freedom Fest, one of the largest libertarian gatherings, one of my fellow panelists was a 30-something young man who emigrated from China to the United States when he was 12. Facing a libertarian-conservative audience, he confidently proclaimed that Chinese President Xi is a virtuous leader, Chinas current economic system is laissez faire capitalism, western-style democracy is not suitable for China because of Confucianism, Chinas one-child policy was humane, and people can freely express themselves in China without any repercussions.

It was almost as if he took the talking points from Chinas foreign ministry and just read them. I thought he was telling a joke, but he finished his speech with a straight face. Later during the Q&A, he demonstrated that he believed everything he said by defending his statements unequivocally, despite mountains of evidence provided by other panelists.

If we believe some people inside China defend the government because they dont have access to information due to censorship, or they are doing so out of fear, whats the excuse for oversea Chinese like this young man and those from the Little Pink, who have all the information at their fingertips yet willingly accept and defend lies? They are the latest proof that Cultural Revolution-style censorship and thought control never dies because so many Chinese are willing participants and enforcers. If people like this young man can live among us for so long but stay immune to western ideas of human freedom, what does this say about the strength of our education, culture, values, and ideas, compared to the power of Chinas censorship and propaganda?

The ripple effect of Chinas censorship obviously doesnt stop at Chinas border. We in the west need to not only keep an eye on whats going on inside China, but also be aware how that affects our lives here. Its time we realize that not everyone who comes here and lives among us naturally seeks truth and freedom. Orwell wrote in1984thatThe choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness, and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better. If we want the bulk of mankind to choose freedom, we have a lot of work to do.

See the original post here:
China's Censorship Powers Are Bigger And More Dangerous Than You Know - The Federalist

August 1, 2017 11:00 PM By George Solis

BALTIMORE (WJZ) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland is suing Maryland Governor Larry Hogan for his alleged Facebook censorship.

RELATED:A Slap In The Face(book): Comments Deleted, Some Banned From Gov. Hogans Page

The ACLU claims comments were deleted and people were banned from posting on Governor Larry Hogans official Facebook page after posting comments critical of Hogan on his page.

The lawsuit comes after a similar lawsuit was filed against President Donald Trump for blocking some users from his Twitter page.

RELATED:Trump Sued For Blocking Some Of His Critics On Twitter

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four people who the ACLU says have been censored by Governor Hogan. It seeks a permanent injunction against the Governors unconstitutional social media policy as enforced by the Governor and his staff.

Those that disagree have been deleted and censored. So, it gives much rosier picture of the state of affairs in Maryland than is actually real, said ACLU legal director Debbie Jeon.

In February, when asked about the allegations the governor fired back saying it was justified.

Many of the people on there are putting hateful, rude, you know profane death threats racist comments and sometimes just repetitively spamming, Hogan said.

It was also in February that WJZ spoke with Allison Heintz who said her post was nothing of the sort but was still blocked.

I find it insulting to be called a spammer, Heintz said.

Heintz has since been unblocked from the governors Facebook page but others, like those involved in the lawsuit, said their first amendment rights are still being violated.

One of the individuals being represented in the lawsuit said their post was neither threatening or rude but merely inquiring about the governor stance on the proposed travel ban.

One legal expert said this isnt the first case of its kind. Its a complicated issue that likely wont being ruled on local courts.

I think ultimately it will end up either this case or a case similar to this in the Supreme Court, said attorney Warren Alperstein.

The lawsuit was filed in Greenbelt, Maryland on behalf of four Facebook users.

In February, the governors office said that about 450 people had been banned from the governors Facebook page over two years for spam or abusive language.

Governor Hogans office released the following statement:

This frivolous lawsuit is completely without merit, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and has more to do with partisan politics than anything else. The governors office has a very clear social media policy, and we will continue to remove all hateful and violent content and coordinated spam attacks to foster an open and constructive dialogue. Ultimately, with all of the challenges we face in this country and across the globe, we can all agree that the ACLU should be focusing on more important issues than monitoring Facebook pages.

OTHER RELATED STORIES:

ACLU Says Governor Is Censoring Commenters On Facebook Page

Report: Comments Deleted, Facebookers Banned From Gov.s Page For Anti-Trump Posts

Follow @CBSBaltimore on Twitter and like WJZ-TV | CBS Baltimore on Facebook

George Solis joined the WJZ-TV in March 2016. A Southwest Florida native, George is excited to live and explore the Northeast! Prior to relocating to Charm City, George spent three years reporting in his hometown of Fort Myers,...

Read the rest here:
ACLU Suing Gov. Hogan Over Alleged Facebook Censorship - CBS Baltimore / WJZ

Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) notified a number of software developers Saturday that their virtual private network iOS apps would no longer be accessible in censorship-heavy China.

Consumers use the VPNs to circumvent the governments Great Firewall filtering internet content and limiting access to overseas sites, which renders some of the app features illegal and non-compliant with App Store guidelines.

A spokesperson implied that the decision is punitive merely for VPN developers failing to secure a government license.

We have been required to remove some VPN apps in China that do not meet the new regulations, Carolyn Wu, Apples China spokeswoman, told Bloomberg.

The apps are still available in other global markets, and at least one developer noted its continued accessibility in China through non-iOS platforms. ExpressVPN confirmed that users with international billing addresses will still be allowed to access the app in China.

Still, it expressed concern with the latest restrictions.

Were disappointed in this development, as it represents the most drastic measure the Chinese government has taken to block the use of VPNs to date, and we are troubled to see Apple aiding Chinas censorship efforts, the firm wrote in a press release. ExpressVPN strongly condemns these measures, which threaten free speech and civil liberties.

Golden Frog and Star VPN responded similarly.

We view access to internet in China as a human rights issue, and I would expect Apple to value human rights over profits, Golden Frog President Sunday Yokubaitis told the New York Times.

While many took the occasion to debate Apples social responsibility, some discussed the firms Catch-22 business position. Nearly a quarter of global sales come from China.

One argument is that, for the sake of its continuation in the Chinese market, Apple needed to submit to government standards and comply with regulations.

Conversely, some point out that its decision effectively repels consumers, whose only incentive to buy Apple over Android was the formers capacity to bypass security.

Related Links:

Can Apples Mega Cycle Overcome Chinese Demand Issues?

What The Future Holds For Apple In China

________ Image Credit: By Simon Wade - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Posted-In: News Topics Legal Global Markets Tech Media General Best of Benzinga

2017 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Read more here:
Apple Bows To Chinese Regulators, Removes Internet Censorship-Defying Apps - Benzinga