Mediaboss Marketing

Internet cafe in Vietnam. Photo by Ivan Lian via Flickr (CC BY_NC-ND 2.0)

Vietnamese government officials said on April 26 that Facebook has committed to help local law enforcement prevent and remove from Facebook content that violates the countrys laws against offensive and anti-government messages.

According to a government statement, Facebooks Head of Global Policy Management Monika Bickert and Vietnamese Information and Communication Minister Truong Minh Tuan met in Hanoi and formed an agreement to establish a special channel to coordinate monitoring and removalof content from the platform. The statement also indicated that Facebook had agreed to help removefake accounts and fake content, a designation that could be used to label unflattering news or opinions about government policies or officials.

Facebooks most recent transparency reportsays thatthe company did not restrict any content at the behest of the Vietnamese government between July 2015 and June 2016. If the agreement holds, this will likely change soon.

The agreement could mark a shift in Vietnams rocky relationship with Facebook. The US-based social media platform was wholly blocked in Vietnam between 2009 and 2010, and has been briefly blocked in various moments of heightened political tension ever since. While an improved relationship with the company may help prevent wholesale blocking of the platform, the prospect of government entities having close cooperation with Facebook on issues ranging from messages critical of the government to the ill-defined category of fake content is concerning in a country where free speech and media rights are systematically suppressed.

One recent example of Vietnams intolerance for critical media coverage is the arrest of Nguyen Van Hoa, a journalist, security trainer and contributor to Radio Free Asia who has been in state custody since January for abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state. Hoa covered stories about environmental disaster in Vietnam, including capturing video of a peaceful protest attended by over 10,000 people last October. Digital and human rights advocacy groups have called on the Vietnamese government to release Hoa immediately.

According to Reporters Without Borders 2017 World Press Freedom Index, released in late April, Vietnam ranks just ahead of China on a global scale and falls below countries including Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Chinese blogger Wu Bin was arrested by Shenzhen national security police for comments he made online. Wu Bin has been a target for police harassment over the past few years, for allegedly picking quarrels online, participating in a public gathering about the death of a Chinese citizen while in police detention, and spreading rumors about protests in Wukan village. It is unclear what triggered his arrest, though it is increasingly common for netizens critical of the government to be summoned or detained by the police under recent stability control measures.

Human rights defender Bondita Acharya received death threats on social media after condemning the arrests of three Bangladeshi refugees in the state of Assam, India for the possession of beef on April 4. Acharya was critical of the arrests, pointing out that while Assams Cattle Preservation Act outlaws the slaughter of cows, the law does not criminalize possessing or consuming beef. Acharya filed a complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department in Assam, but continues to receive posts threatening violence against her.

Russian authorities are considering increased regulations on the Internet in coming years, including requiring ISPs to decode all Internet traffic and store it for at least six months after it is generated. Officials say this would include forced decryption of Internet traffic (though it is unlikely that they can actually do this), blocking access to circumvention tools that allow Russian users to visit to blacklisted websites, and even potentially regulating Internet exchange points with other countries and the .ru and . domain names. Many of these proposals are technologically complex if not untenable, prohibitively expensive and strongly opposed by businesses. But they nevertheless are an indication of possible restrictions to come.

Eighteen NGOs filed legal submissions before Frances Council of State opposing a ruling by Frances data protection authority (the Commission nationale de linformatique et des liberts, or CNIL) that would require right to be forgotten rulings to have worldwide effect. This would affect Internet content that a court orders removed from the network, on grounds that it is either harmful (to its subject) or out of date and not relevant to the public interest. While the policy currently applies only to content online as it is seen in the European Union (and generally recommends that it be geo-blocked), the ruling would necessitate full removal of said content from the global Internet.

According to the letter, The order of the CNIL sets a dangerous precedent, by opening the door for national authorities in other countries to impose global restrictions on freedom of expression through remedies grounded solely in their own domestic law. The possible race to the bottom is of the utmost concern to the interveners.

Telecom industry advocates in Africa are considering a proposal that would deny Internet resources such as domain names and bandwidth to African governments that shut down the Internet. As described by a member of the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), which is considering the proposal, the group would be shutting down the Internet for governments that shut down the Internet. The proposal raises questions about the role of Internet governance organizations in relation to state actors amid a rising trend of politically motivated Internet blackouts. In 2016 alone, there were 18 shutdowns in 11 countries, while the country of Cameroon shut down the Internet for over four months in English-speaking regions.

Days after new US Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said he would start proceedings to repeal the countrys net neutrality rules, a federal appeals court struck back by rejecting a request to review its decision to uphold the rules. The trade group behind the request, USTelecom, could take its appeal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the FCC will vote on starting the proceedings to get rid of the rules on May 18.

The group Security Without Borders launched FlexiKiller, a tool to identify whether someone has placed the stalkerware FlexiSPY on your computer and remove it from your system. Motherboard reported on FlexiSPY last month, describing the cheap, powerful and widely available software that enables invasive surveillance of consumer devices.

See the original post here:
Netizen Report: Vietnam Says Facebook Will Cooperate With Censorship Requests on Offensive and 'Fake' Content - Advox (press release) (blog)

The Donald J. Trump for President campaign accused CNN of engaging in censorship andepitomiz[ing] the meaning of fake news Tuesday by refusing to air a Trump campaignad on its network.

The ad, titledFirst 100 Days, began airing on networks across the country Monday.It touts President Donald Trumps bold actions taken in his first 100 days to restore prosperity, keep Americans safe and secure, and hold the government accountable. In particular, the ads narrator noted, you wouldnt know about the presidents accomplishments from watching the news.

The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad.

The mainstream media lies. Dont let fake news dominate the truth, the adsays. President Trump promised to make America great again, and he is fulfilling his promise to you.

CNN declined to air the ad, citing objections to the depiction of thefake news media.

CNN requested the advertiser remove the false graphic that says mainstream media is fake news,' the networks communications department tweeted Tuesday. The mainstream media is not fake news, and therefore the ad is false. Per our policy, it will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted. Those are the facts.

Its no secret Trump does not hold CNN in particularly high esteem. During a campaign rally held Saturday in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the president singled out CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times as"fake news" thatcover him and his administration unfairly.

In response to CNNs rejection of the ad, the Trump campaign blasted the network with a press release Tuesday titled, "Fake News Station Refuses to Run Ad Highlighting the Presidents First 100 Days." The statement noted that the campaign "was stopped by the mainstream media from running a new television ad on CNN."

"It is absolutely shameful to see the media blocking the positive message that President Trump is trying to share with the country. It's clear that CNN is trying to silence our voice and censor our free speech because it doesn't fit their narrative," Michael Glassner, the campaigns executive director, said in the statement.

Later in the afternoon, the campaign issued a secondstatement in direct response to CNNs tweet, titled, "CNN Epitomizes the Meaning of Fake News, Censors Trump Campaign Ad."

"This is censorship pure and simple. By rejecting our ad, CNN has proven that it supports censorship is biased and fears an opposing point of view," Glassner said. "President Trumps loyal supporters know the truth: The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad."

Link:
Trump Campaign Accuses CNN of 'Censorship' - LifeZette

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the annual Facebook F8 developers conference in San Jose, Calif.Stephen Lam REUTERS

Censoring the Internet is easier than ever. In the past, governments tried to rely on technology to stifle online dissent, but now they have another option: They can just use trolls and social media to rob protest movements of their power.

That's the view of Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist and computer programmer, who joined law professor Tim Wu at Columbia University on Monday on a panel titled, "Free Speech in the Networked World." It was hosted by the recently-launched Knight First Amendment Institute and the Tow Center for Journalism.

"Its very rare theres not a way to circumvent censorship tools," said Tufekci. "We're now in a censorship environment where they're not going to block you, but will disempower you through ... too much information and distraction."

As an example, Tufekci pointed to Turkey where she says Internet access is not a problem for activists who are challenging the emerging regime of President Recep Erdogan. Instead, she says these activists complain of an onslaught of fake news and social media disinformation that makes it impossible to share reliable information or figure out what is authentic.

Tufekci points to a similar phenomenon in China and Russia, described in her new book , where the governments pay an army of Internet trolls to wear down dissenters and distract citizens with other stories.

All of this distraction, say Tufekci and Wu, amounts to an insidious 21st century censorship built on the back of Facebook and other platforms that manipulate emotions.

"The architecture of Facebook promotes things to make angry, or to distract us with cuddly cats," said Tufekci. "Facebook has cracked the human code, and used edgier content to drag us down a rabbit hole."

The social network also poses a special danger because of personalized advertising, she claimed. According to Tufekci, the Trump campaign and others have used personalized ads to secretly spread misinformationa tactic that has proved successful because, unlike a TV commercial, a Facebook ad is not public, so it's hard to challenge false claims.

So how did we get to this point in the first place? Wu, known for coining the phrase " net neutrality ," said the problem is less the technology of social media but the business model behind it. In particular, he and Tufekci argued that Internet publishersnot just Facebook but news sites toohave little incentive to care about accuracy since they make money based on clicks. In this environment, an incendiary or even false story will flourish (and make money), meaning few publishers will press very hard for quality control.

The race for clicks makes television look dignified by comparison," said Wu, who makes this case in his new book The Attention Merchants.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter .

Taken together, this online environment of distraction and propaganda combined with a toxic business model, risks sapping democracy. In Tufekci's view, it's also why recent protest movementssuch as the women's march on Washington or Hong Kong's umbrella revolutionfeel so ephemeral. Unlike the original 1963 March on Washington, the more recent demonstrations did not come together after years of organizing, but were spun up with hashtags and dissipated soon after. Tufekci claims this is why governments, even repressive ones, are less afraid of street demonstrations since they see them now as the product of fleeting Internet dross.

If all this sounds bleak, well, that's because it is. Wu and Tufekci, who are part of a fledgling intellectual vanguard confronting social media distraction, concede there are no legal solutions for Facebook's rabbit hole. And Tufekci argued one obvious answersuch as putting down your phone and reading a bookcan be salutary on an individual level, but will do little to fix a broken Internet culture.

All these warnings, though, might prove more persuasive if Wu and Tufekci also took time to acknowledge the many upsides of the Internet, flawed as it might be. For instance, it's thanks to Twitter , I and many others discovered Tufekci's ideas in the first place. Without social media, it's unlikely her influence would have spread far beyond her North Carolina classroom.

And while Wu is technology savvy, his views of BuzzFeedwhich he denounced repeatedly as nothing more than a gimmick for attentionhad a get-off-my-lawn tone, which will be off-putting to a generation for whom the website, which now invests heavily in serious reporting, is a favorite news source. Such a critique is not just grouchyit also fails to acknowledge how older media brands likewise pander with stories that can distract from "real" content. (Even the New York Times, for which Wu writes, publishes fluffy fare like its "Vow" section.)

See the original post here:
A Look at Government Censorship in the Age of Facebook - Fortune

From ultramodern skyscrapers to artificial islands, Dubai is known for unveiling buzzworthy projects that promote it as a placeof innovation. The citys latest endeavor to brand itself isDubai Font, a set of type commissioned by the the Crown Prince of Dubai Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, and launched by the executive council of Dubai in partnership with Microsoft. Its available for anyone to use free of charge, and you candownload it online in 23 different languages.

Dubai is now the first city to have a specially designed Microsoft font although it is technically a typeface, available in four weights.The projects website crowsthatits so much more than just a newcomer to the world of typography; itwas honed to reflectthe modernity of the city. It was designedto create harmony between Latin and Arabic, reads a description. It is an embodiment of a vision one of promoting literacy, unity, and forward-thinking laced with tradition, carrying within it aspirations beyond its outlines. It is young, dynamic, and full of passion and energy.

Dubai Font is also supposed to be a new global medium for self-expression which is a pretty peachy claim when you consider the citys history of censorship. The executive directors of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth and Andrew Stroehlein, were quick to point outthe irony of the typefaces purpose on Twitter, noting that the initiative very likely represents anempty promise of free speech for Dubais own citizens. The campaigns hashtag, #ExpressYou, has also predictably been deployed on social media to highlight the hypocrisy of a government known for detaining artists and activists for expressing themselves.

Notably, the Crown Prince has urged government institutionsto adopt the typeface in all official correspondence so anyone punished for their opinions will receive asentence spelled out in forms celebratingthe voice of our brave new world.

Read this article:
Dubai, a City Known for Censorship, Launches Typeface for Self-Expression - Hyperallergic

The Trump campaign is calling it censorship pure and simple that CNN is refusing to air their ad celebrating the first 100 days of Donald Trumps presidency.

Trumps team put out a statement earlier today blasting CNN as fake news again when the network wouldnt let the ad run on their airspace. CNNs public relations division responded by saying that they took issue with the commercial for featuring a graphic decrying them and other news agencies as fake news:

The Trump camp took notice of this, and they offered this response:

In response to a claim today by CNN that it refused to run a TV ad by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. because the mainstream media is not fake news, executive director, Michael Glassner said, This is censorship pure and simple. By rejecting our ad, CNN has proven that it supports censorship is biased and fears an opposing point of view. President Trumps loyal supporters know the truth: The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad.

And theyre now promoting the video as the ad CNN refuses to air.

[Image via screengrab]

>> Follow Ken Meyer (@KenMeyer91) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Read the original post:
Trump Campaign Accuses CNN of 'Censorship' in Rejecting Ad: 'Epitomizes' Fake News - Mediaite