Mediaboss Marketing

Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron at a joint press conference in Paris in June. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

The terrorism legislation watchdog has likened Theresa Mays proposals to punish companies such as Facebook and Google for failing to tackle extremist propaganda to Chinas strict regime of internet censorship.

Max Hill QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said internet companies should be brought firmly onside rather than threatened with fines.

In a speech delivered at the Terrorism and Social Media conference in Swansea, reported in the Times, he said: I struggle to see how it would help if our parliament were to criminalise tech company bosses who dont do enough. How do we measure enough? What is the appropriate sanction?

We do not live in China, where the internet simply goes dark for millions when government so decides. Our democratic society cannot be treated that way.

May outlined the idea of punishing companies such as Facebook, YouTube and Google if they fail to remove extremist propaganda and terrorist material from their platforms in the wake of the Manchester Arena bombing.

After a meeting with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, in June, May said they were both determined to ensure the internet could not be used as a safe space for terrorists and criminals.

The UK and France are to develop plans to create a new legal liability for tech companies that fail to take action against unacceptable content.

Speaking at the time, May said: The counter-terrorism cooperation between British and French intelligence agencies is already strong, but President Macron and I agree that more should be done to tackle the terrorist threat online.

In the UK we are already working with social media companies to halt the spread of extremist material and poisonous propaganda that is warping young minds. I can announce that the UK and France will work together to encourage corporations to do more and abide by their social responsibility to step up their efforts to remove harmful content from their networks, including exploring the possibility of creating a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove unacceptable content.

See the rest here:
Watchdog likens May's internet fines threat to Chinese censorship - The Guardian

I recently sat down to play a game of NBA 2K as I assume most people do on a Friday night when theyre losing yet another battle with writers block. Before I even got into an actual game (where I eventually demolished the Pistons with the Raptors by the way), I heard a familiar voice on the start menu.

Mans never been in Marquee when its shutdown, eh. Trusss mi daddi

The Vine loop that swept the culture. I hadnt even heard Shutdown in 2K17 before this. Being from London, I proceeded to rap Skeptas verse out loud but something was different. The absence of p*ssy in the chorus made me realise that Id never heard the clean version before, a fact Im both disappointed and proud of. Oh well, it made no difference to me, hence the carefree performance that followed in my living room.

But some of the censorship in the first verse caught my attention again, albeit for a different reason. Perplexingly, prison and Gs were both excluded from the vocals.

It reminded me of an infamous Kanye West interview from almost twelve years ago. During a visit to Canadas Flow 93.5, Ye voiced his opinion on the phrase white girl being censored on Gold Digger. He argued that the line when he get on, he leave yo ass for a white girl was less of an insult and more social commentary. An intelligent observation more than a stereotype. The conversation about the video ended up revolving around Ye walking out of the room after being constantly interrupted by DJ Hollywood Rich but the point should not be diminished.

Censorship and Hip-Hop have always had a bizarre relationship. Perhaps its a stigma, perhaps we bring it on ourselves. Perhaps its both. I wholeheartedly comprehend leaving words like n*gga, b*tch and f*ck (and specifically for this song, rolling and smoking) off the radio and other public forums like video games but its also mandatory to look at the context in which they are utilised.

On Shutdown, Skepta raps God knows I dont wanna go prison. Skepta is arguably the biggest rapper from London and despite his success in the US being only recent, he, along with the rest of BBK, has had a dedicated legion of fans for about a decade now. A substantial amount of those fans are impressionable youth who I can guarantee you would benefit infinitely more from hearing him say that he doesnt want to end up in prison than hearing nothing at all.

In the next bar of the song he says me and my Gs aint scared of police. A line that I can understand there being some level of contention about, but also a line that is still relatively harmless when you genuinely try to understand it. Although I think its safe to say that the police situation in America is vastly worse than here in the UK, we do face our own issues and empathise greatly with our brothers and sisters in the States. The line essentially reinforces confidence in the communities that need it and is a positive message well worth spreading.

However, both Gs and police are withheld in the game. Ill start with Gs.

This is one of a few examples of slang getting lost in translation over time. When it first started being used in Hip-Hop, calling someone a G was actually short for calling them a God, not a gangsta. Its one of the many bits of terminology that Hip-Hop adopted directly from the Five-Percent Nation via Wu-Tang, Nas and numerous others. JAY-Z is wearing a Five-Percent chain in the image above. Its a legitimate term of endearment. Come to think of it, the word police getting censored regardless of the context has some comical irony to it.

We have to re-evaluate what were trying to do with censorship. Are we dismissing negative words and messages or are we fearfully cleaning things up to an extent that we oversimplify and are ignorant of the rebellious roots which have been so fundamental in Hip-Hop? When dealing with such complex material, we cannot afford to look through such a narrow scope. Surface level analysation of songs invites surface level songs and vice versa. A vicious cycle. Context is pivotal.

by Akaash Sharma

See more here:
The Necessity Of Context In Hip-Hop Censorship - HipHop-N-More (blog)

All Photos Courtesy Ryan Estrada

The Russian-owned blog community LiveJournal previously banned political solicitation, part of a decade-long effort to censor Russians who were using the platform to criticize the government. Now, LiveJournals former comic artist has returned from an eight-year absence... bringing back LiveJournals Frank the Goat one more time to protest the sites abuses from the inside.

Back in 2006, indie comic artist (and LiveJournal user) Ryan Estrada really wanted to make a series about Frank the Goat, LiveJournals longstanding mascot. So, he worked out a deal with the sites owners: Hed make a commissioned comic about the goat with full creative control over the character and story, and in exchange they wouldnt have to pay him for it. For three years, Estrada charmed LiveJournal fans with a variety of stories about Frank and his friends.

It was a weird experimental series, where each chapter was a different genre. I did a musical, a rom-com, a murder mystery, a kids book, a horror story and others, Estrada told me. It was a fun way to try new things with a character that had a built-in fanbase.

This was right around when the Russian government was really starting to take interest in the site, as it had grown in popularity among journalists and citizens who were trying to circumvent Putins censorship of the media. One year later, everything came to a head. A Russian business bought LiveJournal and began the process of moving it over to Russian servers... meaning everybody who used the service (Americans like George R.R. Martin included) were subject to Russian censorship laws. Estrada ended the comic in 2009.

LiveJournal, a blog community thats hosted a lot of science fiction authors and fans (including

Estrada recently learned about just how bad Russian control of the site has gotten, primarily from a recent episode of the Reply All podcast. He told me he was appalled to learn how the Russian government was actively censoring anti-government and pro-LGBTQ content, which reportedly included a governor hiring thugs to assault a Russian who was using LiveJournal to spread his message, breaking his fingers so he couldnt type.

They were doing all this under the flag of a mascot that I may not have created, but that I had given personality to, Estrada said. The Frank the Goat I know didnt stand for that. I didnt want an outdated comic praising the company under my name to be this sad time capsule that might lead people to believe I support any of it.

When Estrada realized he still had administrative access to his Frank the Goat LiveJournal account, and the contract was never technically canceled, he decided to use his platform to create one final Frank the Goat comic. One that speaks out against what hate and fear turned a beloved site into.

As of now, the comic is still up on LiveJournal. It technically violates the sites rules against political solicitation, particularly involving LGBTQ representation but, since Estrada lives in South Korea, he wouldnt face actual prosecution for it. However, he can be kicked off LiveJournal for posting the comic, and the Frank the Goat account can be shut down. In the meantime, it serves as an homage to a community that was once treasured by scifi fans, and later used as a tool to fight for freedom.

If something isnt right, you should speak up. Use what little scrap of power and privilege you have to raise your voice, even if it is super dumb and involves drawing pictures of goats singing and kissing sheep, Estrada said.

Read the original:
LiveJournal's Goat Mascot Is Back to Protest the Site's Russian Censorship - Gizmodo

June 30, 2017 BerlinGerman lawmakers approved a bill on Friday aimed at cracking down on hate speech on social networks, which critics say could have drastic consequences for free speech online.

The measure approved is designed to enforce the country's existing limits on speech, including the long-standing ban on Holocaust denial. Among other things, it would fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros ($56 million) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory "fake news."

"Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins," said Justice Minister Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill.

Mr. Maas said official figures showed the number of hate crimes in Germany increased by over 300 percent in the past two years.

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter have become a battleground for angry debates about Germany's recent influx of more than 1 million refugees, with authorities struggling to keep up with the flood of criminal complaints.

Maas claimed that 14 months of discussion with major social media companies had made no significant progress. Last week, lawmakers from his Social Democratic Party and Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right Union bloc agreed a number of amendments to give companies more time to check whether posts that are flagged to them are illegal, delegate the vetting process to a third party, and ensure that users whose comments are removed can appeal the decision.

But human rights experts and the companies affected warn that the law risks privatizing the process of censorship and could have a chilling effect on free speech.

"This law as it stands now will not improve efforts to tackle this important societal problem," Facebook said in a statement.

"We feel that the lack of scrutiny and consultation do not do justice to the importance of the subject. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure safety for the people on our platform," the company said, noting that it is hiring 3,000 additional staff on top of 4,500 already working to review posts.

Aside from the hefty fine for companies, the law also provides for fines of up to 5 million euros for the person each company designates to deal with the complaints procedure if it doesn't meet requirements.

Social networks also have to publish a report every six months detailing how many complaints they received and how they dealt with them.

Among those cheering the law was Germany's main Jewish organization, which called it a "strong instrument against hate speech in social networks."

Germany has long had a law criminalizing Holocaust denial a response to the country's Nazi-era history of allowing racist ideas to become genocidal policy.

"Jews are exposed to anti-Semitic hatred in social networks on a daily basis," the Central Council of Jews said. "Since all voluntary agreements with platform operators produced almost no result, this law is the logical consequence to effectively limit hate speech."

The nationalist Alternative for Germany party, which has frequently been accused of whipping up sentiments against immigrants and minorities, said it is considering challenging the law in Germany's highest court.

Here is the original post:
Germany passes censorship law to fight online hate speech - Christian Science Monitor

If you tried to search for Emma Watsons Wikpedia page in Iran in 2013, you wouldnt have been able to find it; the article was one of 963 blocked by the government. This tidbit about the Harry Potter actress is found in a 2013 University of Pennsylvaniareport on Irans censorship of Wikipedia. Researchers at Harvards Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society recently built on this publication by analyzing censorship of the site in 15 countries since 2014. In a report published in May, they found that censorship of Wikipedia has declined since then due to the sites new security measures.

In fact, they discovered that only three countries blocked access to parts of Wikipedia during the duration of the study: China and Uzbekistan were blocking the Chinese- and Uzbek-language versions of Wikipedia (read more coverage of censorship in China, and its use of fake social media posts to influence public opinion). Thailand had once blocked the Yiddish versionmost likely a weird misconfiguration, says Justin Clark, a software developer at the center and the principal author of the report. They derived their results partly by analyzing data from the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedias parent organization) that showed when people load Wikipedia articles, and partly from 41 servers located in different countries around the world that tried to load Wikipedia and could determine if the website was blocked.

Clark says there are multiple reasons for the changing levels of censorship. The first is Wikipedias transition from HTTP to HTTPS. HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) guides the way a websites data is sent to a browser. Because the connection is unencrypted, however, other people can intercept that connection and see the data being sent. In HTTPS, the s stands for secure; the major difference between the two protocols is that HTTPS encrypts the data being communicated.

Wikipedias transition affected the way countries could block access, Clark explains. With HTTP, a country could block an individual Wikipedia article. But with HTTPS, the country needs to choose between blocking every article or none. Countries are choosing the latter. As the report states: Russia once again blacklisted Wikipedia over a single cannabis-related article, but the ban was reversed less than 24 hours later.

Monitoring censorship of Wikipedia matters because Wikipedia is one of the most prominent, and most important, sites out there, says Rob Faris, the research director at the center, who also worked on the report. How countries treat Wikipedia, he continues, is indicative of how important Internet freedom is not only to them, but also to the rest of the world. Clark adds that understanding the information controls imposed on the Internet is important for allowing an informed citizenry to emerge.

As the first complete empirical deep dive into incidents of the blocking of Wikipedia projects around the world, Faris says, the report will inform future research as other investigators follow its methods. He also notes that accessing Wikipedia server data is novel. Such research paves the way for examining global Internet outages, Clark says, especially those deliberately caused by countries during elections or protests. He adds that after the study concluded, China blocked access to Wikipedia in additional languages spoken there, and Turkey in all languages, so the Berkman Klein Center will continue to monitor Wikipedia around the world.

Originally posted here:
Wikipedia Against Censorship - Harvard Magazine