Mediaboss Marketing

Verbal attacks by right-wing groups and politicians in Beer Sheva are threatening both NGOs and the local university.

By Daniel Beller

A meeting at Multaqa-Mifgash, the only joint Arab-Jewish group operating in Beer Sheva. (Negev Coexistence Forum)

Over the past year various entities, including right-wing movements, have been trying to close down a joint Jewish-Arab cultural institution in the southern Israeli town of Beer Sheva. The Multaqa-Mifgash Center, founded by the Negev Coexistence Forum (NCF), operates out of a municipal bomb shelter and stages activities and events focused on coexistence. Its a unique institution in Beer Sheva, and aside from Ben-Gurion University is the only place in the city that holds discussions on fundamental, sensitive issues within the local community.

Actions taken against the NCF have included sabotaging attempts to host a panel discussion on conscientious objection featuring members of Breaking the Silence, as well as the screening of a Palestinian-Dutch film, which were canceled following threats from right-wing political activists and warning noises from the Beer Sheva municipality.

Furthermore, the municipality has previously tried to cancel a Multaqa-Mifgash film screening, prompting the councils legal advisor approached by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel to spell out that banning political activities harms freedom of expression.

On May 11, 2017, the municipality sent the NCF a letter in which it claimed that the NGO had violated the contract under which it has been using the shelter to hold Multaqa-Mifgash events since 2006. A few days later, an Association for Civil Rights in Israel attorney, Dan Yakir, responded to the municipality and rejected its claims.

A few days later, on May 14, Beer Sheva council member Ortal Perlman Shmueli announced that she and fellow city councilors from Shas, Yisrael Beitenu and LIkud would be seeking to ban the NCF from using the municipal shelter. Later on, Shmueli posted on Facebook that the goal had been achieved and that the organization had been removed from the shelter. The Beer Sheva municipality stated afterwards that the only thing which had been requested was a clarification of the groups activities.

NCF CEO Haia Noach explained that the shelter used by Multaqa-Mifgash is the only one out of 60 assigned to NGOs that is used for shared Jewish-Arab activities We demand that the municipality immediately step back from canceling the assignment of the shelter [to us], and we intend to fight with every tool we have in order to guarantee Multaqa-Mifgashs can continue.

The NCF is not alone: on Wednesday, Jewish Home MK Bezalel Smotrich summoned an emergency debate in the Knessets Education Committee on Ben-Gurion University and its president, Professor Rivka Carmi. Smotrich claimed that the university supports BDS, pointing at a series of statements made by the academic staff and conferences he alleged had been held on its premises.

Jewish Home MK Bezalel Smotrich at a Knesset committee hearing, November 28, 2016. (Photo by Miriam Alster/Flash90)

The debate featured a broad spectrum of participants, including representatives from the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, the Justice Ministry, Ben-Gurion University, the Council for Higher Education, the Anti-Defamation League, student organizations, and a range of different government departments, including the Prime Ministers Office. Carmi, who received a tidal wave of criticism from Beer Sheva residents, was forced to respond to the allegations thrown at her by Smotrich and members of far-right group Im Tirtzu. (It should be noted that the committee of university heads fiercely condemned Carmis summons to the hearing.)

Ben-Gurion University seems, over the last few years, to have become a greenhouse for people who delegitimize the IDF and the State of Israel, Smotrich wrote prior to the debate. In particular, there is a growing discourse among faculty members against the State of Israel. Professor Neve Gordon, for example, said that the most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. And Dr. Eyal Nir, who said: I call on the world to come and break the necks of these bastards (right-wing activists).

Professor Carmi read out her response during the hearing. The current debate held under a baseless and degrading heading and accompanied by wild and violent online incitement against me does no credit to its initiator, she said. Carmi detailed contributions by the university and its faculty to the fight against the boycott of Israel, and described hers and her staffs appearances in support of Israel at international forums. The hearing occasionally resembled those of the McCarthy era.

This is the third year in a row of attempts to attack the university in the same week as the meeting of its board of governors. Time and again futile claims are made and rehashed that have no relation to facts, reality, or truth. The same few academic staff who have expressed individual political opinions and signed petitions as is appropriate in a democratic state are, again and again, singled out from a faculty of over 850. They are not doing so in the name of the university, which is a pluralistic institution with many different opinions just like any other organization in Israel and the world.

Daniel Beller is a journalist, blogger and radio broadcaster based in Beer Sheva. This post was originally published in Hebrew on Local Call, where he is a blogger.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

Read the original post:
Creeping censorship in a southern Israeli town - +972 Magazine

With nearly 2 billion users, Facebook reaches nearly a quarter of the people on the planet. And while its broadcasting power can be used for promoting good causes and unleashing viral cat videos, it can also be used to distribute hateful and violent content. This has put Facebook in the uncomfortable position of making judgment calls about whether the millions of posts flagged by its users as objectionable each week should be allowed to stay, flagged to other users as disturbing, or removed completely. Its an unprecedented responsibility at this scale.

The range of issues is broadfrom bullying and hate speech to terrorism and war crimesand complex, Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, recently wrote in an op-ed. To meet this challenge, she said, our approach is to try to set policies that keep people safe and enable them to share freely.

Once Facebook sets these rules, it relies on 4,000 human content moderators to apply them to individual flagged posts.

The job isnt straightforward. According to a Guardian report based on thousands of pages of Facebooks content moderator training materials, Someone shoot Trump should be permitted, but not the phrase Lets beat up fat kids. Digitally created art showing sexual activity should be removed, but all handmade erotic art is fine. Videos showing abortions are also permittedas long as they dont feature nudity.

Guidelines like these illustrate the complexity of content regulation, which until social media came around, involved questions that, for the most part, only governments faced at scale. What constitutes dangerous speech? Should some peoplesuch as the presidentbe treated differently when they make criticisms or threats, or hate speech (paywall)? When is it in the public interest to show obscenity or violence? Should nudity be permitted, and in what contexts?

Some of Facebooks answers to these difficult questions mimic content regulation laws created by democratic governments. According to the Guardian, for instance, Facebook tolerates some violent content, unless it gives us a reasonable ground to accept that there is no longer simply an expression of emotion but a transition to a plot or design. This is somewhat similar to how the US views violent content, which tends to be protected unless it incites immediate violence. (Many European countries, meanwhile, have laws that prohibit violent content or hate speech.)

But the process Facebook uses to create and apply these policies has little in common with democratic governments, which have long, often-transparent processes for creating new laws and courts that weigh each case with considerations that arent available to Facebook moderators. Facebook could improve its content moderation policies, some suggest, by also borrowing some of these ideasrelated to process rather than policyfrom democratic governments.

The multiplication of guidelines, says Agns Callamard, the director of Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University, as well meaning and well written as they may be, cannot be the answer.

Time to a decision: Facebook relies on thousands of content moderators to make decisions about whether to remove, permit, or label specific content as disturbing based on its rules. To deal with the massive scale on Facebook, the company recently said it would hire 3,000 additional people to review posts. It has also invested in artificial intelligence that could reduce the amount of work for human moderators.

For now, according to one report, a typical Facebook content moderator makes a decision about a flagged piece of content about once every 10 seconds (a Facebook spokesperson declined to confirm or deny this number, saying she didnt have the data). Context is so important, Facebooks Bickert told NPR last year. Its critical when we are looking to determine whether or not something is hate speech, or a credible threat of violence, she said. We look at how a specific person shared a specific post or word or photo to Facebook. So were looking to see why did this particular share happen on Facebook? Why did this particular post happen? Those questions take time to evaluate effectively.

Thats one reason why in most democratic countries, Callamard says, content regulation by media regulators and the courts involve decisions that take days or weeks.

Debate: Content moderators on Facebook dont hear arguments for why they should either permit or remove a piece of content. Users whose pages or accounts they remove do have an option to appeal the decision by submitting it for another review (Facebook recommends they remove the violating content first).

Government content regulators usually have more input from opposing sides. [Decisions] will often involve a judicial process, including several parties arguing one side or the other [as well as] judges reviewing the various arguments and making a decision, Callamard says.

Open discussion of rules: Facebook publishes broad guidelines for what it allows and disallows on its site, but, to keep users from gaming the system, the specifics are only shared in internal documents like the hundreds of training manuals, spreadsheets, and flowcharts that leaked to the Guardian.

A Facebook spokesperson says the company consults experts and local organizations to inform its community standards, but the public doesnt know all of Facebooks content moderation rules, nor is it part of creating them.

By contrast, Callamard says, in a democratic government, the laws upon which these decisions are made have been discussed and debated in Parliament by members of Parliament; by government ministers and where they exist by regional inter-governmental bodies. These laws or decrees would have been the object of several readings, and in the best case scenarios, the general public (including those particularly concerned by the law, e.g. the media) would have been brought in a formal consultation process.

Fundamental context: Governments have different goals than Facebook. In a democratic society, fundamental guiding principles include freedom of expression, freedom of political debate, and protecting content related to the public interest. At an advertising business like Facebook, success involves attracting and retaining users, many of whom dont want to visit a website that shows them offensive or dangerous content. This is a fundamental dimension of the way, in my opinion, Facebook always approaches content regulation, Callamard says. It cannot go so far and so as to undermine or weaken a business model based upon, and driven by data and more data (individuals data).

Here is the original post:
Facebook has a government-size censorship responsibility without the structure to handle it - Quartz

KGW 7:36 PM. PDT May 29, 2017

Rally organizer Joey Gibson (in yellow hat) (Photo: courtesy Joey Gibson)

PORTLAND, Ore. -- After Mayor Ted Wheeler announced Monday that the city will not issue permits to alt-right groups for two planned June rallies in Portland, the organizer of one of the rallies said that move could make the event more dangerous.

Joey Gibson is organizing a rally on June 4 and has already received a permit for the event at Shrunk Plaza from the federal government, which controls the downtown park. A second rally is scheduled for June 10 but is not yet permitted.

Wheeler called for the federal government to cancel permits already issued to alt-right groups for the rallyon June 4, and asked organizers to cancel both June events.

During a press conference Monday, Wheeler said the rallies had no place in Portland, following the deaths of two men at the hands of Jeremy Christian, a self-proclaimed White Supremacist who has attended alt-right rallies in the past, including one organized by Gibson.

"Im reminded constantly that they have a first amendment right to speak," he said. "My pushback on that is hate speech is not protected under the U.S. Constitution."

Gibson, who runs the group Patriot Prayer, said he is a Libertarian and does not promote hate speech.

I promote freedom. I promote love and I promote bringing spirituality back into this country," he said.

Gibson said if the permit is revoked, the event could be more dangerous. He said he won't be able to kick people out if they're causing problems.

Christian was kicked out of a prior Patriot Prayer demonstration, Gibson said.

Jeremy Christian has nothing to do with us and nothing to do with our movement, he said.

Gibson said no matter what happens, people will be showing up for the June 4 rally. He said some are even flying in from out of town. He plans to meet with Mayor Wheeler on Tuesday.

The ACLU of Oregon said Wheeler's request is unconstitutional.

Despite the brutal nature of Christian's attack and the racist vitriol that precededit,ACLU of Oregondirector Mat dos Santos said that "government censorship is not the answer."

Our hearts are broken, but government censorship is not the answer. We must defend the constitution even when it is uncomfortable. https://t.co/7K33oLAbcZ

The ACLU of Oregon posted more on its Twitter page, saying "the government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators. Period."

The organization said if there is evidence of an imminent threat, the government should address it "without restricting 1A rights of all."

If the government has concrete evidence of an imminent threat they can and should address it, without restricting 1A rights of all. https://t.co/jfxgJyvCpi

Portland GOP chair James Buchalhad a different take. Buchal told The Guardian that militia groups such as the ThreePercenters (some of whom were involved in the takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge last year) should be used as security at public events.

Wheeler called for the event cancelations via his Facebook page:

On Friday three men Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher stood up against bigotry and hatred. Two paid with their lives. A third was seriously injured.

Our community remains in shock and mourning. But we are also tremendously grateful to our heroes and their families for their selflessness and heroism. They will serve to inspire us to be the loving, courageous people we are meant to be.

As Mayor, I wanted to update you on a few developments:

1) I have reached out to all of the victims and their families, including the two women who were terrorized and subjected to such hatred and bigotry. I have offered my unconditional assistance and support, day or night.

2) I have confirmed that the City of Portland has NOT and will not issue any permits for the alt right events scheduled on June 4th or June 10th. The Federal government controls permitting for Shrunk Plaza, and it is my understanding that they have issued a permit for the event on June 4th.

3) I am calling on the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th. Our City is in mourning, our communitys anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation.

4) I am appealing to the organizers of the alt-right demonstrations to CANCEL the events they have scheduled on June 4th and June 10th. I urge them to ask their supporters to stay away from Portland. There is never a place for bigotry or hatred in our community, and especially not now.

5) I am calling on every elected leader in Oregon, every legal agency, every level of law enforcement to stand with me in preventing another tragedy.

6) When and if the time is right for them, I would like to work with the families to find an appropriate way to permanently remember their sacrifice and honor their courage. Their heroism is now part of the legacy of this great city and I want future generations to remember what happened here, and why, so that it might serve to both eradicate hatred and inspire future generations to stand up for the right values like Rick, Taliesin, and Micah did last week.

2017 KGW-TV

KGW

Fundraising pages for stabbing victims raise $1 million

KGW

Trump tweets hate attack in Portland 'unacceptable'

KGW

'He didn't die alone': Man who performed CPR on Trimet attack victim speaks

KGW

Witness shares MAX attack victim's last words

KGW

Community honors bravery of stabbing victims at vigil

KGW

TriMet rampage: 'Compassion, courage and love will prevail'

More here:
Rally organizer: Revoking permit could make event more dangerous - kgw.com

The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Trump administration Tuesday to uncover public records showing that federal employees have been censored from using words or phrases related to climate change in formal agency communications.

Tuesday's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, seeks to require four federal agencies to release climate-censorship records, in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. The U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of State have failed to provide records requested by the Center for Biological Diversity or indicate when they might do so, violating deadlines established under the law.

"The Trump administration's refusal to release public information about its climate censorship continues a dangerous and illegal pattern of anti-science denial," said Taylor McKinnon at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Just as censorship won't change climate science, foot-dragging and cover-ups won't be tolerated under the public records law."

On March 30 the Center for Biological Diversity filed Freedom of Information Act requests for all directives or communications barring or removing climate-related words or phrases from any formal agency communications. The records requests followed news reports that federal agencies had removed climate information from government websites and instructed Department of Energy staff to avoid using the phrases "climate change," "emissions reductions" and "Paris agreement."

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed identical requests with the Council on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

On March 23 the Center for Biological Diversity joined conservation biologist Stuart Pimm and the Center for Media and Democracy in a separate Freedom of Information Act request to prevent the administration from removing hundreds of environmental data sets on government websites.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, when federal agencies receive requests for the same records three or more times, they must make the records freely available to the public on their websitesa rule known as "the Beetlejuice provision."

Records responsive to the Center for Biological Diversity's climate censorship requests will be made available to the public and the media.

Excerpt from:
Trump Sued for Censorship of Climate Change Data - EcoWatch

"Knowledge is power," as the old saying goes, so it's no surprise that Wikipediaone of the largest repositories of general knowledge ever createdis a frequent target of government censorship around the world. In Turkey, Wikipedia articles about female genitals have been banned; Russia has censored articles about weed; in the UK, articles about German metal bands have been blocked; in China, the entire site has been banned on multiple occasions.

Determining how to prevent these acts of censorship has long been a priority for the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, and thanks to new research from the Harvard Center for Internet and Society, the foundation seems to have found a solution: encryption.

In 2011, Wikipedia added support for Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS), which is the encrypted version of its predecessor HTTP. Both of these protocols are used to transfer data from a website's server to the browser on your computer, but when you try to connect to a website using HTTPS, your browser will first ask the web server to identify itself. Then the server will send its unique public key which is used by the browser to create and encrypt a session key. This session key is then sent back to the server which it decrypts with its private key. Now all data sent between the browser and server is encrypted for the remainder of the session.

"The decision to shift to HTTPS has been a good one in terms of ensuring accessibility to knowledge."

In short, HTTPS prevents governments and others from seeing the specific page users are visiting. For example, a government could tell that a user is browsing Wikipedia, but couldn't tell that the user is specifically reading the page about Tiananmen Square.

The researchers saw a sharp drop in traffic to the Chinese language Wikipedia around May 19, 2015, indicating a censorship event. This did in fact turn out to be the casethe site had been blocked in anticipation of the upcoming anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Image: Harvard

Up until 2015, Wikipedia offered its service using both HTTP and HTTPS, which meant that when countries like Pakistan or Iran blocked the certain articles on the HTTP version of Wikipedia, the full version would still be available using HTTPS. But in June 2015, Wikipedia decided to axe HTTP access and only offer access to its site with HTTPS. The thinking was that this would force the hand of restrictive governments when it came to censorshipdue to how this protocol works, governments could no longer block individual Wikipedia entries. It was an all or nothing deal.

Critics of this plan argued that this move would just result in more total censorship of Wikipedia and that access to some information was better than no information at all. But Wikipedia stayed the course, at least partly because its co-founder Jimmy Wales is a strong advocate for encryption. Now, new research from Harvard shows that Wales' intuition was correctfull encryption did actually result in a decrease in censorship incidents around the world.

The Harvard researchers began by deploying an algorithm which detected unusual changes in Wikipedia's global server traffic for a year beginning in May 2015. This data was then combined with a historical analysis of the daily request histories for some 1.7 million articles in 286 different languages from 2011 to 2016 in order to determine possible censorship events. At the end of their year-long data collection, the Harvard researchers also did a client-side analysis, where they would try to access various Wikipedia articles in a variety of languages as they would be seen by a resident in a particular country.

Read More: Jimmy Wales to China After Blocking Wikipedia: I Can Outwait You

After a painstakingly long process of manual analysis of potential censorship events, the researchers found that, globally, Wikipedia's switch to HTTPS had a positive effect on the number censorship events by comparing server traffic from before and after the switch in June of 2015.

Although countries like China, Thailand and Uzbekistan were still censoring part or all of Wikipedia by the time the researchers wrapped up their study, they remained optimistic: "this initial data suggests the decision to shift to HTTPS has been a good one in terms of ensuring accessibility to knowledge."

See the original post here:
Wikipedia's Switch to HTTPS Has Successfully Fought Government Censorship - Motherboard