Mediaboss Marketing

Chinese American users of the messaging app WeChat are finding their messages containing political criticism of China particularly those aimed at the protests in Hong Kong are being censored, The Verge reports.

In one instance an American information security analyst named Bin Xie had his account taken down after writing "The pro-China candidates totally lost," referring to Hong Kong's recent election in which pro-democracy candidates gained huge ground against pro-China candidates.

"If you have censorship in China, fine," he told The Verge. "But in this country? I'm a Republican, but on WeChat I suffer the same as Democrats we are all censored."

Xie then joined a WhatsApp group full of Chinese Americans who had similarly been kicked off WeChat for expressing political views.

For Chinese Americans with family in China, being kicked off WeChat is a major problem. The WeChat app is more or less ubiquitous in China, where it covers a broad range of uses. It acts as a messaging app, a dominant payment platform, a social network, and a platform for accomplishing everyday tasks like paying utility bills and booking doctor's appointments. WeChat and its rival Alipay's payment systems have become so everyday that even street vendors and buskers use QR codes rather than accept cash.

Losing access to the app is a major hindrance to anyone wishing to contact Chinese relatives as popular Western messaging apps like Facebook and WhatsApp are blocked in China and for anyone who wants to visit the country.

The Verge notes that while generally WeChat applies different censorship rules to Chinese nationals and foreigners, Chinese Americans may fall through the net if they once possessed a Chinese phone number.

In a statement to Business Insider, WeChat's parent company Tencent noted that WeChat is a separate app to Weixin, which operates inside China. Tencent said WeChat and Weixin are are interoperable, describing them as "sister apps." People signing up with Chinese phone numbers would be using Weixin, while people with international numbers would use WeChat.

"Tencent operates in a complex regulatory environment, both in China and elsewhere. Like any global company, a core tenant is that we comply with local laws and regulations in the markets where we operate," a spokeswoman said.

"Weixin and WeChat use different servers, with data stored in different locations. WeChat's servers are outside of China and not subject to Chinese law, while Weixin's servers are in China and subject to Chinese law," she noted.

She added that the interoperablity between WeChat and Weixin messages could lead to "misunderstandings."

"For example, if a WeChat user sends a message to a friend using Weixin, China law applies to the Weixin user and certain content may be blocked. The same content shared between two WeChat users however, would not be blocked," she said.

The extension of Chinese censorship laws beyond its borders has become more pertinent to American citizens in recent months through three high-profile news stories.

Originally posted here:
WeChat users in the US say the app is censoring their messages about Hong Kong - Business Insider

Radford University, a taxpayer-supported institution in southwestern Virginia, is in a public relations hole entirely of its own making. The question is how deep its administrators will insist on digging.

In September, roughly 1,000 copies of the Tartan, Radfords student-run newspaper, disappeared from campus news racks after having been delivered hours earlier. The next day, administrators summoned the papers editor, junior Dylan Lepore, to a meeting at which they criticized as insensitive a photo published on the papers front page. However, they appeared surprised to hear most of the issues had been stolen from 22 news racks around campus.

It turns out, after what campus police called an in-depth investigation, that a low-level university employee neither administrator nor professor was caught on video and admitted stealing papers from four of the news racks, as The Posts Joe Heim reported. The administration and police wont reveal the thiefs identity, although they know it; they wont charge the employee because they say taking free newspapers is not a crime; and they wont offer an explanation of who swiped the papers from 18 other news racks. Nor will they offer a motive or explanation for the theft.

The universitys strategy, if you can call it that, is tailor-made to prolong the colleges embarrassment, calling into question its leaderships judgment.

The photo in question upset a few administrators and faculty members, including Radfords president, Brian Hemphill, but apparently no one else; Lepore, the editor, told us he received no criticism from fellow students or on social media. The photo depicts Steve Tibbetts, a newly hired criminal-justice professor who died suddenly at age 49 a few weeks after arriving on campus, and it was given to the Tartan for publication by Tibbetts widow. In it, Tibbetts and his daughter are standing beneath a road sign that reads Tibbetts St. and, next to it, Dead End.

Radford said the thief has been disciplined and that the matter, along with incriminating police video, is a closed personnel issue. The thief was not acting on anyones direction, a university spokesman said.

That strains credulity. It is also hard to believe the employee acted alone; when the newspaper is delivered to campus each week, it takes two hours to distribute it, by golf cart, to all the news racks. Nor, as campus police suggest, does the fact that the Tartan is distributed for free mean that no crime was committed. The paper, whose publication costs include a $750 printing bill, Lepores salary and other expenses, is an object of value, whether it is sold or given away.

The question of whether publishing a photo was tasteful is a topic of legitimate debate. Stealing two-thirds of a student newspapers press run is an act of theft and an affront to the First Amendment. By its stonewalling, the university suggests that it takes neither matter very seriously.

-The Panama City News Herald

See the original post here:
Censorship by theft on a university campus | Editorial - Citizentribune

TV legend John Challis criticised plans to censor classic British sitcoms like Only Fools and Horses for being offensive to modern audiences. British streaming service Britbox a subscription service led by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 was launched earlier this month. However, its decision to censor and attach sensitivity warnings to shows that could offend modern sensibilities have drawn widespread criticism.

The bespoke warnings will label specific episodes with one Only Fools and Horses episode and almost every episode of Fawlty Towers impacted.

Only Fools and Horses star John Challis spoke out against the move during an appearance on the Jeremy Vine show this morning.

Challis questioned why it was right that a show like Only Fools and Horses, that was still enjoyed by hundreds every day, could be taken down because it offends two or three people.

He recommended that people who are offended by these programmes simply choose to not watch them.

JUST IN: Tony Blair talks down Britain saying dont hold your breath for US trade deal

Challis said yesterday: Well Only Fools and Horses still shows every day.

But, jokes in that show that used to get an enormous laugh at the time 30 years ago now dont. Is that acceptable now, or not?

Hundreds of people who watch the show I was in, and think what a relief, we can laugh at that.

What has happened to comedy now because you cant say anything that might offend one or two people. Is that right?

He also criticised that Benny Hill had been described as sexist remarking that it was just very silly.

Challis added: It is up to the person who is offended by it not to watch it!

Britbox was launched with the aim of rivalling streaming giants such as Netflix and Amazon.

However, some shows, such as Till Death Do Us Part, Love Thy Neighbour and It Aint Half Hot Mum, have been removed altogether because they contain content that is deemed racist or unacceptable.

DON'T MISS:

Sturgeon in danger as former Scottish Remainer vows 'to back Brexit' [VIDEO]Tropical Storm Sebastien to smash Britain - travel chaos warning [VIDEO]EU plot - Macron threatens to hold British fisheries hostage [VIDEO]

Till Death Do Us Part includes the bigoted character Alf Garnett, while Love Thy Neighbour features a West Indian couple who move next door to a white English couple.

An ITV spokesman added: Weve carefully selected a wide range of the very best in British programming which will appeal to viewers in 2019.

Following the launch of BritBox, a spokesman confirmed that the vast majority of British shows will disappear from Netflix within the next year.

Reemah Sakaan, the ITV executive leading Britbox, acknowledged that changing tastes were a factor in the selection process and some material had not aged well.

Excerpt from:
BBC blasted by John Challis for CENSORING Only Fools and Horses you cant say anything! - Express

Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, made a keynote speech today at ADLs 2019 Never is Now summit, in which he viciously chided the Silicon Valley tech giants for their irresponsible approach to censorship (or rather the lack of it thereof) on their terrifyingly influential social media platforms.

Cohen was at the summit to receive the ADL International Leadership Award, and began by making it clear that throughout his career, the aim of his comedy has been to uncover the insidiously passive acceptance of racism and bigotry that lurks within our society. I have to confess that up until now, I had found his characters Borat and Ali G completely unacceptable because they fall into the socially problematic category of cultural appropriation, but now I know that Cohen is woke as fuck, I shall endeavor to watch his work and make damn well sure I laugh my socks off.

During his 25-minute long speech, Cohen told his enthusiastic audience that he found Mark Zuckerbergs excuse of defending of free expression when refusing to censor his platform utter nonsense. Finally, a mainstream comedian who understands that social media must be regulated. Many people, or as I like to call them bigots, argue that the internet is the primary form of communication for many people these days and that to censor it would be morally wrong. Like a doll with a pull-string, Mark Zuckerberg often spouts shallow platitudes in defense of his multi-billion dollar corporation like: giving more people a voice, and: bringing people together. Incredibly naive and perhaps even sinister phrases considering that a lot of people out there harbor fascistic tendencies and should not be allowed a voice.

Well, on that matter Sacha Baron Cohen had this to say:

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook.

Haha! Take THAT, Nazis! Thanks to a loophole in the Bill or Rights due to James Madisons careless disregard of social media platforms when it was written in 1787, we totally CAN regulate and censor Facebook and Twitter.

After watching Cohens speech I watched a couple of his movies and instead of sitting there with my arms folded, getting ready to jab the off button on my remote the moment anything remotely offensive occurred, I found myself actually enjoying them. Knowing that the man who made them shares my views on free speech and how dangerous it is gave me a new found appreciation of his work. I cannot say that I found his films particularly amusing because humor tends to be something that happens to other people. I did however find myself chuckling at the delicious absurdity of a man who recently called for censorship now appearing on my television screen as a Kazakh journalist encouraging his audience to laugh at the idea that people in Kazakhstan have sex their sisters.

Watching Cohen mercilessly stereotype a character from a little-known country with the knowledge that his entire reason for portraying his most well-known character in this way was to draw attention to the fact that people often stereotype people from little-known countries completely blew my mind. This is Inception-level satire, and his dedication to keeping up this ruse for the best part of two decades has to be admired.

Anyway, now that the man who played Borat has endorsed online regulation and censorship, hopefully more people will get on board with this idea and maybe one day, hate speech on the internet will be a thing of the past. I have to say, his throw the Jew down the well song was delightfully entertaining, Ive been humming it to myself all day!

Read the rest here:
When a comedian is pro-censorship, I start finding them funny - The Spectator USA

Female pole dancers, fitness instructors and sex workers who use Instagram have started changing their gender to male on the app. The widespread deception is in response to a sexist policy the tech giant introduced earlier this year.

In April, Instagram began hiding photos and videos that it considers to be vaguely inappropriate without explaining what specific kind of content that includes or alerting affected users. Such posts are algorithmically blocked from being featured in the Facebook-owned websites public Explore and hashtag pages, which help grow peoples accounts by giving them broader exposure.

This kind of covert censorship, known as shadow banning, has disproportionately affected women and members of marginalized communities, including those whose livelihoods depend on Instagram leaving many urgently seeking ways to restore their visibility on the platform.

Many of us within the pole dancing community rely on Instagram to thrive, said Michelle, an Australian pole dance performer, teacher and studio owner who, like other women quoted in this story, asked to be identified by her first name only for privacy reasons. We use [Instagram] to share training videos, connect with new people and, for lots of us, to grow our businesses.

In late October, having already watched her contents engagement steadily decline for months, Michelle decided to change her profile to male. Shed seen research suggesting Instagrams algorithm is biased against women, and felt like she had nothing to lose.

Within three days of switching, she said, things went back to normal: Through Instagrams analytics tool, she found that her posts have been getting far more likes and views, indicating that Instagram has been displaying them to a wider audience again.

Its ridiculous that we have to resort to trying this kind of thing, she said.

Instagram/everybodyvisible

Though strictly experimental, the gender-swapping tactic has started to take off among shadow-banned women due to recent promotion from anti-censorship activism pages such as @everybodyvisible. Like Michelle, several other women have reported positive changes to their contents performance since pretending to be men a change many have made reluctantly.

Its really upsetting and ridiculous that women are having to change their gender [on Instagram] to avoid being censored, said Carolina, a founding member of @everybodyvisible who researches online content moderation as part of her doctoral studies in London.

The supportive community I found through Instagram is what gives me and so many others confidence, added Carolina, who is also a pole dancer. But now, with Instagram choosing whos appropriate and whos not, its hard to feel welcome there.

In a statement to HuffPost, a Facebook spokesperson denied that Instagram is biased against women.

Gender information from profiles has no impact on content we filter from hashtags or the Explore page, the spokesperson said. We want to make sure the content we recommend to people on Instagram is safe and appropriate for everyone. Ensuring women feel heard is an essential part of that effort.

But the platform has previously admitted to restricting content from pole dancers in particular.

Over the summer, pole dancers around the world noticed that posts containing popular hashtags such as #PoleFitness, #PoleTrick and #FemaleFitness (but notably, not #MaleFitness) seemed to be shadow banned on Instagram. At first, Instagram reportedly denied that this was happening, but after a petition addressing the matter went viral, the company acknowledged that it had in fact been hiding pole dancers content and apologized for doing so.

Instagram/eizabeth_bfit

Instagram users attempting to play by the rules and simply understand what theyre allowed to post on the platform without being shadow banned wont find many answers so perhaps its not surprising that theyre are trying to game the system.

Unlike Instagrams policy for posts containing nudity that are subject to removal which include depictions of sexual intercourse, genitals, close-ups of fully-nude buttocks and female nipples the platforms policy for borderline content that is subject to demotion is nebulous and obscurely worded. Instagram has refused to define what it means by inappropriate imagery; the sole example included in its guidelines is sexually suggestive material.

The only public indication of what Instagram might consider to be sexually suggestive is tucked into its parent companys advertising policy pages, which prohibit adult content but go into greater detail about what that covers. There, Facebook features several photos to illustrate to advertisers what it means by the terms sexually suggestive, sexually provocative, implied nudity and sexual in nature.

FacebookFacebook's ad policies may offer some insight into what Instagram considers to be "sexually suggestive" content.

Nearly all of the photos feature women, including one model whos leaning forward in a low-cut shirt and another whos eating a banana.

Instagram also offers a bit more detail when rejecting advertisers. Upon turning down an ad from Michelles company featuring pole dancing students in shorts and crop tops, it sent her a notification explaining the ad was unacceptable because it showed excessive skin despite the fact that the sport requires skin-on-pole contact for grip.

That Instagram has the power to arbitrarily decide whose content can be visible on its massive platform should be concerning to everyone not just the women who are currently being shadow banned, said Carolina from @everybodyvisible.

Social media giants including Instagram have a monopoly over our data and online interactions, she said. Freedom of expression is at stake here. Users really do not have a voice we have to cope with their policies, and unfortunately for us, everything that even slightly involves sex scares the shit out of Instagram.

Sex workers who spoke to HuffPost described a crackdown on their Instagram posts following the passage of FOSTA-SESTA in 2018. The law makes it illegal to assist, facilitate or support sex trafficking, and removes platforms immunity from liability under the Communications Decency Act for user content that does any of those things. In its wake, big tech has made sweeping changes to how it polices sexual content including changes to algorithms.

Last November, months after FOSTA-SESTA had been signed into law, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg noted that his companys artificial intelligence systems proactively flag 96% of posts containing nudity that get removed. He was applauding the systems efficiency, but experts have concerns about over-reliance on algorithms for content moderation due to the human bias thats often coded into them.

Earlier this year, feminist publication Salty crowd-sourced data from Instagram users to understand how different groups are policed on the platform. Among Saltys findings, which represent some of the limited research into this issue, the data suggested that Instagram is more likely to reject ads from women than men.

The patriarchy is written into the algorithms, a Salty spokesperson said. Instagram needs to be actively working to see and hear [women and marginalized groups]. ... Unless theyre inviting us to have a seat at the table, then were going to be written out of the code.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

Here is the original post:
Women Are Pretending To Be Men On Instagram To Avoid Sexist Censorship - HuffPost