Mediaboss Marketing

A young woman overcome by tear gas shot is carried away by fellow demonstrators when opposition activists clashed with riot police in Caracas on April 10, 2017.

Photo by FEDERICO PARRA/AFP/Getty Images

The Netizen Report offers an international snapshot of challenges, victories, and emerging trends in internet rights around the world. It originally appears each week on Global Voices Advocacy. Afef Abrougui, Mahsa Alimardani, Ellery Roberts Biddle, Oiwan Lam, Weiping Li, Leila Nachawati, and Sarah Myers West contributed to this report.

Protesters in Venezuela have been mobilizing almost daily and in large numbers since the Supreme Court of Justice temporarily nullified the National Assembly on March 30, a move that many described as a self-inflicted coup. The change sparked international outrage.

Although the court reversed course days later and reinstated the National Assembly, public unrest has continued, forcing public officials to confront the economic and political crisis that has been ongoing since 2014. Alongside political turmoil and rising rates of violent crime, the global drop in the price of oil, the countrys main export, has left Venezuela with staggering inflation rates for more than three years. Inflation has not fallen below 50 percent since 2014. It exceeded 100 percent in 2015, and reached 800 percent at the end of 2016. President Nicolas Maduro has repeatedly blamed the United States for the downturn in the oil market.

Citizen media have become increasingly important for Venezuelans throughout this period, as the Maduro administration has sought to maintain tight control over official and corporate media outlets. A mainstay of critical reporting on the country, CNN, was kicked off of cable television in February 2017.

This has left citizen media outlets among the few sources of information regarding protests and crackdowns that readers can turn to. Perhaps as a result, numerous independent journalists have experienced harassment and physical threats while on assignment in recent weeks. Elvis Flores, a cameraman for the online channel VPITV, was arrested midbroadcast while filming protesters in Caracas. For nine hours he held in custody, where he was reportedly beaten. VPITV and other popular web TV channels including Vivoplay and El Capitolio TV were blocked from April 7 onward, according to Venezuelan netizens. In response to the censorship, protesters have united around the hashtag #VzlaTrancaContraElGolpe (Venezuela blocks the coup).

Womens rights campaigners face online threats in Kuwait Kuwaiti human rights defender Hadeel Buqrais received a rash of online threats after she took part in a march in Kuwait City calling for womens rights in Saudi Arabia. The march was part of the Namshi Laha, or Walking for Her, campaign, which launched online last week. There have been attempts to block the campaign, and other participants involved in the campaign have also been targeted with insults on social media, according to Frontline Defenders.

Southeast Asian lawmakers use fake news fears to justify censorship Multiple governments in Southeast Asia are leveraging the issue of fake news as a justification for stricter laws and to harass journalists. In Singapore, Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim said the country will soon amend its Broadcasting Act in order to ensure that overseas content providers [are] in line with our community values, including the need to uphold racial and religious harmony.

In the Philippines, House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez filed a bill mandating that social media companies verify the identity of users before registering them on their networks, in what he describes as an effort to more easily prevent users from creating fake accounts and spreading fake news.

Russian authorities block Zello, amid trucker protests Russia's media regulator announced plans to block Zello, a mobile push-to-talk app that Russian long-haul truckers have used to organize protests in recent months. Roskomnadzor, the authority responsible for monitoring Russian media, has publicly stated that Zello failed to submit company information necessary to be included on the federal Registry of Information-Dissemination Organizers, a list of online platforms that Roskomnadzor oversees.

Irans internet, between Rouhani and a hard place As presidential elections approach in Iran, the contrast between the relatively moderate current president, Hassan Rouhani (who is expected to seek re-election), and political hardliners is increasingly visible. In the first-ever Iranian government press conference to be broadcast over Instagram Live, Rouhani boasted about many of the achievements of his administration, including the effort to improve internet speeds in Iran, which indeed have seen a tenfold increase. He also claimed that if it wasnt for the efforts of his administration, all social media platforms would have been sacrificed. Although Facebook is still blocked inside Iran, Instagram has remained uncensored throughout the Rouhani administration, along with other popular foreign platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram.

Nevertheless, some people have paid high prices for their participation on said platforms. On March 14, 12 a dozen administrators of news channels on the messaging app Telegram were arrested by Irans hardline Revolutionary Guards, who said the channelswhich are chiefly reformist and moderate in their political leaningsrepresented a threat to national security. To the chagrin of the judiciary, President Hassan Rouhani has since called for an investigation of the arrests, underscoring the political cleavage between the two entities.

Apple TV bows to Chinese censorship demands In the first week of April, the Apple TV app store blocked the satirical news show China Uncensored from users based in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The creators of the show said that while they understand why the show is censored in China, they do not think the block in Hong Kong and Taiwan is justified. They sent a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook demanding the company unblock the show in Hong Kong and Taiwan within 30 days.

Read the original:
Netizen Report: Censorship spikes in wake of Venezuela's self ... - Slate Magazine (blog)

Earlier this month the Chinese social media giant Tencent passed Wells Fargo as the world's tenth most valuable publicly traded company.

It would never have grown to that size were it not for the company's close relationship with China's government. The government requires a high level of cooperation from technology companies, which is one reason Google ( googl ) decided to leave the market seven years ago and why overseas social networks like Facebook ( fb ) , Twitter ( twtr ) , Pinterest, Line, Telegram, among others, remain blocked in China.

When it comes to censoring topics the government wants, Tencent's cooperation has gone to impressive new lengths, according to a new report released yesterday by The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.

The report details the ways Tencent ( tcehy ) censors keywords without users ever knowing; deletes images appearing on WeChat news feeds, which was previously undiscovered; and doesn't subject overseas users to the same onerous censorship as Chinese users.

Similar censorship exists on Sina Weibo, China's Twitter.

But WeChat, with 889 million monthly average users and a Facebook-like closed infrastructure that creates a sense of privacy, is becoming the more important platform for China's one-party government to monitor and shape.

Researchers tested censorship using terms related to the imprisonment of 250 human rights lawyers and workers starting in the summer of 2015. The episode earned the moniker "709 crackdown" for the first disappearances of two lawyers on July 9th, 2015. The topic has since gained attention inside and outside the country as the biggest crackdown on human rights workers since just after the Tiananmen Square massacre. In January, one lawyer's description of his treatment was made public. Im going to torture you until you go insane, human rights lawyer Xie Yang said one of his interrogators told him .

Citizen Lab found 41 keyword combinations related to the "709 crackdown" were censored on WeChat without users knowing. If they sent messages to friends containing the phrases, or posted them to their Moments "news feed," the messages appeared on their end but couldn't been seen by anyone else.

Previous research has found WeChat censors terms, such as those relating to the Hong Kong protests in 2014. A Tencent spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment Friday.

New in the latest report was that images are now being censored. In the past, images were a way to evade censors. Citizen Lab found infographics and profiles of the lawyers caught up in the 709 crackdown were censored in individual messages and Moments pages. "Our discovery of related blocked images on WeChat confirms the existence of image filtering and reveals the high level and extent of censorship enforced on this popular chat app," the researchers wrote.

More keywords and images were censored if they were sent to group chats containing up to 500 members than one-on-one exchanges, researchers said. But the same keywords were not censored on accounts registered to a phone number outside China.

The research shows how easily China's censors can co-opt the social network, as well as the consequences. "While there is tremendous effort and numerous global petitions to help Chinese rights defenders, many of these messages fail to reach domestic audiences in China due to information control practices, including search filtering and keyword and image censorship on chat apps," researchers wrote.

Excerpt from:
China's WeChat Is A Censorship Juggernaut | Fortune.com - Fortune

This spring, the Open Campus Initiative was formed to explore the limits of free speech on Harvard's campus by inviting controversial speakers across the ideological spectrum, starting with Jordan B. Peterson. In response to Petersons statements on gender nonconformity and reports of harassment from his previous lectures, many students took issue with his invitation, echoing the backlash to Harvard Financial Analyst Club's invitation of Martin Shkreli this February. Although we have qualms with the mission statement of OCI and disagree with Petersons statements, we nonetheless recognize OCIs potential value and the difference in the two groups purposes and processes.

As we have previously argued, since HFAC never provided any justification for Shkrelis invitation, it seems that they invited him simply for the sake of publicity. Under the guise of valuing free speech principles, HFAC gave Shkreli a platform to praise himself, all while censoring questions regarding his controversial legal and financial decisions and impeding the press from reporting on the event. Rather than informing the campus discussion, HFAC used the controversy to indulge in Shkrelis oversized persona. The difference in intellectual weight between Shkreli and Peterson aside, OCI displayed much more respect for campus discourse. Not only did OCI moderate the discussion wellwith the event moderator continually pressing Peterson and rejecting simple talking point answersbut they also allowed attendees to ask questions directly, as protesters silent through the talk ultimately did.

OCIs understanding of First Amendment principles therefore comes off as much more genuine. Freedom of speech is valuable because it allows individuals from across the ideological spectrum to engage with one another. The resultant clash strengthens and advances our best ideas, and prevents our campus from becoming an echo chamber. If OCI continues to properly moderate controversial speakers, substantially engaging with and scrutinizing them, they will have enriched campus discourse and helped move towards the ideal of free speech that informs their mission.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the benefits of broadened discourse come with an uneven distribution of cost. Petersons comments regarding gender nonconformity, seen as inconsequential or valid among some students, are direct attacks on the identities of others. Regardless of one's personal view about the necessity of engaging with uncomfortable ideas, everyone should recognize the potential emotional burden that students bear in countering these proposals.

This is not to say that students should be insulated from concepts with which they disagree or even that such debate is unimportant. The better informed that students are, the better they will be able to engage with contrary viewpoints once they exit Harvard. Refusing to debate speakers who we find uncomfortable is unproductive, and including them in a conversation does not necessarily validate their views. As OCI has shown, it is possible to frame such speech so that we may confront it, placing it on an operating table rather than an oratory lectern.

Nonetheless, the backlash to Petersons comments highlights the need for support in these debates. Free speech is too often championed for more privileged members of discourse, making unqualified support of it tone-deaf to those who potentially have a part of their identity at stake. Those who have the privilege to do so should help shoulder that burden and debate against ideas which are more targeted at marginalized individuals.

To reach the truth, we must consider all ideasnot just ones that we are comfortable with. Organizations that invite controversy in the name of free speech should use that controversy to further campus discourse rather than to simply garner publicity. We commend OCI for leaving a positive first impression, but it is crucial to continue to hold that speech accountable through proper moderation and engagement, lest we celebrate regressive speech where we should instead challenge it.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

On-Campus Interview Participation Drops

The program, which brings employers on campus for full-time job and summer internship interviews, saw a 13 percent drop in sign-ups compared to last year.

Students Welcome Earlier On-Campus Interviews

A combination of faculty pressure and student demand brought about the shift in the timing of OCIs first week, which is traditionally marked by a high concentration of interviews with financial firms.

'A Quiet Place' Overcomes Constraints

Plays often rely on elaborate lighting, lavish costumes, and richly decorated sets to entertain; A Quiet Place featured none of these. But, in spite of some elements that made the play feel unfinished, this 80-minute production was never boring.

Islamophobia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islamophilia

Rather than shrouding Islam with implicit speech regulations, why not debate it?

With Provocative Speakers, New Group Aims to Test Free Speech Values

Here is the original post:
Moderation Over Censorship | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson - Harvard Crimson

Screen glitches occurred on IRIB's Shabakeh Khabarbroadcast when the reporter mentioned the candidate registration of Hamid Baghaei, the former Vice President and close confidant of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Screen capture from a Fars News tweet of the broadcast.

In an unusual broadcasting flub this week, Iran's official state medianetwork cut off the live video feed of a reporter in mid-sentence when she mentioned the name of presidential hopefulHamid Baghaei, one of the more controversial politicians who has filed to run for president next month.

Baghaei served as vice president to former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both represent a frequently contested hardline political position, and both men now have registered to run for president in Iran's May 2017 elections.

The broadcast, which aired on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcaster's Shabakeh Khabar channel, featuring a reporter identified as Ms. Nouri, was shot on location from the Ministry of Interior on Wednesday as prospective candidates filed their registration forms.

A video clip of the incident has gone viral on social media.The video plainly shows that within less than a second of the the reporter mentioning Hamid Baghaei, the broadcast feed abruptly cuts and goesback to the anchor in studio. As the anchor waits to resume the report, Nouri's voice can be heard asking her producers, I shouldn't mention Baghaei?

Shabakeh Khabardid not give their reporter the permission to announce the registration of Hamid Baghaei as a candidate.

The hashtag, translating into the Nouri's question, I shouldn't mention Baghaei? started trending amongst Iranians remarkingon the broadcasterscensorship.

IRIB gets more shameless everyday. A broadcaster with lies, broken screenings, and censorship. There is a lot missing #I_shouldn't_mention_Baghaei

Candidate registration for the 12th Presidential elections of the Islamic Republic of Iran began on April 11 andwill last for five days, followed by a period when the registrants will be screened for their political and Islamic qualifications by the hardline and religious body tasked with vetting, the Guardian Council. The Council typically disqualifies the majority of registrants.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcaster (IRIB) is known as a mouthpiece forIran's hardline conservatives, echoing the concerns and opinions of this establishment. The IRIB's director is a position directly appointed by the country's highest power, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

When it comes to reporting on elections, the IRIB's decisions about who to mention and who to omit are often seen as areflection of internal sentiment aboutthe prospective candidates. The interruption of Nouri's report isa sign that Baghaei may be disqualified from the running.

It is unknown whether Nouri already knew not to report on Ahmadinejad's registration as well, or if she wasdeterred post-facto.

Former controversial populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces his intention to run for President today in the May Iranian Presidential elections. He is flanked by Hamid Baghaei to the left, and Mashaei to the right Photo shared on Twitter, by Mohammad Ali Marizad.

Wednesday's registrations made headlines as former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, flanked by his close confidants formerVice President Baghaei andformer Chief of Staff Esfandiar Mashaei, stopped by the Ministry to announce that he and Baghaei hadregistered.

This is a change in course for Ahmadinejad, who inSeptember 2016 announced he would not join the race, after being warned by the Supreme Leader that his candidacy would cause polarization and harmful divisions in Iranian society. While also banned in 2013 from running for reelection, Ahmadinejad campaigned for the candidacyof Mashaei, whoultimately failed to win the Guardian Councils approval.

The IRIB is known for inserting bias an censorship into election reporting. During the 2013 presidential campaigns, several of the candidates remarked on the IRIB's unfair coverage and use of censorship. Rouhani accused the state broadcaster of defaming prominent figures during an interview on 27 May 2013, while the reformist candidate Mohamad Reza Aref's campaign accused the IRIB of cutting his campaign appearances in an inappropriate manner.

While the broadcaster is watched by millions of Iranians, it is notorious for not giving airtime to those who do not fall in linewith Khamenei and the clerical establishment, and for serving the interests of Iran's intelligence agencies, sometimes going so far as to air forced confessions of political prisoners under duress.

Continued here:
Censorship Undressed: Iranian State TV Cuts Broadcast Mid-Sentence - Global Voices Online

Last Thursday, Twitter sued the federal government. At issue was a demand from the Department of Homeland Security that Twitter reveal the user(s) behind an account critical of the Trump administration. The government withdrew its request the next day, and the issue seemingly drew to a close.

But this is not the end.

The DHS request came on the heels of another Trump administration move that could be viewed as hostile to internet freedom. On April 2, President Trump signed a bill passed last month releasing internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon and AT&T from having to protect consumer data, in effect jeopardizing peoples privacy and opening them up to surveillance. And FCC Chair Ajit Pai is planning to weaken net neutrality rules, which would allow ISPs to create fast lanes for preferred internet traffic while slowing other traffic sources.

If we dont have net neutrality, the ISPs could slow people who are talking about, for example, going to a rally, says Kate Forscey, associate counsel at Public Knowledge, a free speech organization. Its not just about streaming Netflixits about fundamental engagement in a democratic environment. Against this backdrop, the DHSs attempt to strong-arm Twitter looks less like a defeat and more like a testing of the waters.

These developments dont on their own spell internet censorship. Rather, they lay the groundwork for it: They create the conditions that allow a regime, whether its headed by Trump or another administration down the line, to squelch dissent. Its part of a broader trend around the world, in which numerous governments are whittling away at internet freedoms.

On a global level social media platforms have been facing growing censorship over the past year, says Jessica White, an analyst at Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization. Twitters lawsuit put an end to one attempt by the Trump administration to undermine free online expression, but it is unlikely to be the last. It is just the freshest in a long string of ploys by governments around the world to solidify their power over online communities.

In the US, social media companies have abided by an uneasy truce with the government, cooperating in criminal investigationsalbeit reluctantlyby handing over user data. What makes Twitters most recent case noteworthy, however, was that the account in question, @ALT_USCIS, broke no laws and only used Twitter to voice dissent. The handle is a reference to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, an office within DHS, and its tweets were supposedly the voice of current and former federal employees disillusioned with the Trump administration. After news of the lawsuit broke, the government withdrew its request and Twitter dropped the suit.

Yet attacks on free expression, particularly on social media, have been on the rise, at the same time as countries around the world are experiencing record-breaking protests. In March, for example, Russia saw its largest protests in five years after word of them spread on social media and messenger apps. The government responded by arresting hundreds of activists, in particular the people who had led the resistance movement online, charging them with extremism and organizing unlawful meetings. But even relatively more open governments are feeling the pressure to corral social mediatake Brazil, for example, which temporarily blocked WhatsApp three times last year for not handing over user information.

Controlling dissent through censorship is a tried-and-true tactic of authoritarian governments, which have a long history of cracking down on newspapers, radio, and TV. Social media got a pass at first because its new, and people who run these regimes are old, says Joshua Tucker, a politics professor at New York University who specializes in Russian and Slavic studies. Now, he says, restrictive governments recognize that it is important to control because of its importance for protest.

Tucker and his colleagues recently analyzed the tactics authoritarian regimes use to control their countrys social media and found that governments often struggle to adopt effective measuresat least at first. Chinas infamous Great Firewall, the surgically precise, vast technical and legal apparatus that many people think of when they think of internet censorship, was established in 1997, in the internets early days. Outside China, however, the internet developed freely, making technically sophisticated filtering operations like Chinas virtually impossible without the same aggressive investments in infrastructure. During the failed coup in Turkey in 2016, for example, the government attempted to shut down Facebook and Twitter, primarily through DNS blocking and traffic throttling. But because the Turkish government does not have centralized control over the internet and relies on ISPs to carry out its orders, these measures were relatively easy to circumvent.

After trying and failing to restrict access to content, Great Firewall-style, governments are instead resorting to one of two approaches. Online, they are engaging on social media to try steer the narrative, either through their own posts or using bots and trolls. Offline, they are taking legal actions that change who is held liable for certain kinds of language.

Changes to legal infrastructure are a big deal, Tucker says. By changing who is responsible for content, you can change the ownership structure of and access to online space.

In Russia, for example, the government reportedly preferred a strategy of engagement on social media until roughly 2012, when Putin returned to power amid massive protest. Then the government pivoted to focus on the second strategy, attempting to control social media through legislative actions: It passed anti-extremism laws restricting access to content related to political opposition under the guise of fighting terrorism. The change in approach prompted Freedom House to revise its designation for Russia from partly free in 2014 to not freeand one of the most locked down in the world.

The same transition is now under way in Zimbabwe, where the internet is still classified as partly free. Robert Mugabe, 90, has been experimenting with ways to restrict social media access since the summer, when the country saw the largest protests in the dictators 30 year rule, organized primarily through WhatsApp. In January, Mugabe tried raising mobile data rates, putting internet access out of reach for the vast majority of the population. The move backfired, affecting government officials as much as ordinary citizens, so the rate hike was reversed days later. The battle is not yet over, says Nhlanhla Ngwenya, director of the Zimbabwe chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa. The government already has an arsenal of legislative instruments to impinge on my rights online.

A bill passed in 2015, for example, gives Zimbabwes government access to user data collected by ISPsnot too far off from the USs new ISP bill and the DHSs Twitter meddling. Now the Zimbabwean legislature is considering a bill that redefines cyber terrorism to include any language critical of the state, while also making ISPs liable for the content they host. If the bill passes, the government will have the authority to order ISPs to take down any material it finds objectionable.

This is coming up not only in places like Zimbabwe, but also in Europe and the US, White says. There are legitimate reasons for trying to regulate speech online, such as banning harassment and hate speech, which are not protected under the First Amendment. But laws that dictate what speech is acceptable and what is not are often dicey, and can be a slippery slope to censorship, Tucker says. Germany and Italy are both contemplating bills that would criminalize fake news. California recently tried the same. Says White: In terms of creating legal provisions criminalizing fake news, thats very tricky.

Whether the goal is restricting online extremism or the spread of fake news, the legal framework is largely the same. When democratic countries start implementing similar provisions its very problematic, White says. One of the key questions is who gets to decide whats true or not. To create a centralized body thats gets to decide what is fake news or not, that doesnt seem like a great idea.

In 2016, Freedom House ranked the US as having one of the most free webs in the world. Trumps first 100 days are likely to knock it down a few rungs. Specific steps have been taken that provide us with reasonable grounds to consider downgrading the US, says White, although at this point they cant tell by how much. Now Freedom House lists the US under countries to watch, along with Zimbabwe, the Philippines, and Denmark. With countries around the world reconsidering their internet freedoms, democracy falters.

See the original post here:
Internet Censorship Is Advancing Under Trump - Backchannel