Mediaboss Marketing

When anti-establishment Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently sat for an interview with ABC News, only for the outlet to cut out his criticisms of the COVID-19 vaccine, it illustrated a little-discussed but overwhelming obstacle any challenger to President Joe Biden will face in 2024.

Those who wish to unseat the incumbent commander-in-chief already face a formidable opponent in the Democratic Party and its myriad partners, including a national security apparatus currently targeting Biden's chief opponent in this election, and that ran interference for Biden in the last one. To win in 2024, Republicans will have to compete under a lax voting system largely of the Democrats' own making, and which they manipulated and exploited to near perfection in 2020.

But Biden's challengers will also be facing a hostile and censorious information regime that transcends Biden and the Democratic Party, under which dissent from Ruling Class orthodoxy will likely be given no hearing, and dissenters given few platformson grounds of protecting "health" and "public safety." Biden's opponents left and right may raise compelling points on any number of critical and contentious issues, but will Americans be permitted to see or hear them?

RFK Jr.'s ABC News interview exemplifies a "soft" version of how this regime will operate.

Anchor Linsey Davis, who interviewed the iconoclastic lawyer, justified ABC News' suppression of his full remarks with a statement that might as well have been written and delivered by Dr. Anthony Fauci himselfnever mind that public health authorities such as he were arguably the most prolific and powerful propagators of mis-, dis-, and mal-information (MDM) regarding virtually every aspect of COVID-19, and that they cajoled social media platforms into censoring many dissenting views as MDM that later became settled science.

Kennedy "made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines," Davis said. "Data shows that the COVID-19 vaccine has prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease." Therefore, ABC News "used our editorial judgment in not including extended portions" of the relevant exchange.

One must wonder, did any public official past or present communicate with ABC News about the RFK Jr. interview and influence the decision to truncate it? I asked that question of a publicity flack for the "ABC News Live" program on which the interview took place; I had not received a response as of publication time.

Of course, no public official need have called any shot because such corporate media entities are simply mouthpieces of our ruling regime. They propagate the regime's favored narratives and suppress the disfavored onesnamely, those that conflict with the regime's power and prerogatives.

The same goes for Big Tech. As has been revealed in gory detail, America has been laboring for several years now under a mass public-private censorship regime whereby federal agencies, often government-linked third-party organizations, and social media and other communications platforms have coordinated and colluded to silence unauthorized views on a raft of issues.

Elon Musk may have removed Twitter in whole or in part from this regimewhich explains in part the furious backlash he has facedbut the regime persists. No implicated federal agency or public official has yet paid any sort of price for engaging in a conspiracy against the First Amendmentand the very kind of election interference the censors used to justify imposing such a regime in the first place.

The most illuminating sources of information on these efforts, including the Louisiana and Missouri v. Biden et al. case and the Twitter Files, are backwards-looking. One imagines that this mass public-private censorship regime would have only grown more pervasive, sophisticated, and stealthy since the 2020 election and its Biden-era expansion during the Chinese coronavirus pandemic.

In part due to the efforts of traditional and social media to stifle dissident voices, many have been relegated to alternative platforms such as Substack and Rumble. The concentration of such contrarians in a small number of spaces, however, creates a risk. To the extent Americans increasingly seek out dissident views in the run-up to the 2024 election, will authorities seek to crush the few digital domains on which dissident voices freely proliferate?

The censorship regime has of course also separately ratcheted up in the form of the chilling, shock-and-awe efforts of law enforcement to pursueand in some instances, prosecuteother Wrongthinkers on often unprecedented grounds. These include everyone from former President Donald Trump to parents critical of their public schools to pious Catholics to Twitter trolls alike.

When the authorities treat dissent as terroristic and criminalize it, we are likely to get less of it.

Recent events further augur poorly for anyone except the ruling regime's choice for the presidency.

The Democratic Party has declared it will be holding no presidential primary debates.

The recent resolution to the Dominion-Fox News litigation could well cause myriad outlets to self-censor on highly debated subjects of political interest, in the run-up to the 2024 electionfrom election integrity to the Russo-Ukrainian War.

In the 2020 presidential election, President Trump faced what Time infamously described as:

a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.

Today, America's ruling elites have perhaps never been so unanimous in their views and single-minded in their readiness, willingness, and ability to impose them on the public on a mass scale.

Anyone who wants to defeat Joe Biden in 2024 should expect to have to overcome information flow "fortification" efforts the likes of which we have never seen before.

Ben Weingarten is editor at large for RealClearInvestigations. He also contributes to The Federalist, the New York Post, The Epoch Times, and other publications. Subscribe to his newsletter at weingarten.substack.com, and follow him on Twitter: @bhweingarten.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Excerpt from:
Biden Challengers Will Have To Beat Censorship Regime in 2024 | Opinion - Newsweek

opinion

Adam Kovacevich| Austin American-Statesman

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, red states including Texas enacted a wave of legislation barring reproductive health care access. Now, as the one-year mark of the Supreme Courts decision nears, Republican state lawmakers are looking to continue their crackdown on reproductive care, this time taking aim at online information, speech and telemedicine.

Once again, the Lone Star State could make national headlines for its groundbreaking restrictions on womens reproductive health.

Texas legislation would force platforms to proactively censor any speech about abortion access or mutual aid funds in order to avoid liability. It would also require Internet providers to block sites that provide information about abortion access anywhere in the U.S. and information on how to order abortion pills by mail which federal law still protects.

And the bill doesnt stop there. As written, HB 2690 could force services to censor direct messages between patients and caregivers on how to obtain safe care. It may also force services to block or censor telemedicine counseling services in which medical professionals advise pregnant people on a variety of reproductive health services, including legal abortions.

Effectively, the bill would keep tens of millions of Texans in the dark about reliable reproductive health information, creating a vacuum to be filled by potentially life-threatening misinformation.

Online searches for information about abortion are most common in states with the strictest abortion laws, and consumers in these states have already become targets for misinformation on the issue. By banning and blocking sites that direct users to real help, Texas bill would leave behind a collection of deceptive fakes, like anti-abortion pregnancy crisis centers that target people in need with phony clinics.

Because the Internet doesnt stop at state lines, Texass HB 2690 would impact access to reproductive health information for Americans across the country. Given the technical and legal burdens imposed by state abortion bans, websites and Internet providers may be forced to block reproductive health information nationwide, rather than state-by-state.

If it were to pass, the fact that HB 2690 will reach beyond state lines may ultimately lead the same court that overturned Roe v. Wade to strike down Texas reproductive health censorship bill.

The First Amendment prohibits lawmakers from barring citizens of another state from disseminating information about an activity that is legal in that state. If a resident in Connecticut wants to blog about how pregnant people can access reproductive care thats legal in Connecticut and under federal law, the U.S. Constitution prohibits Texas from stopping them.

But Texans shouldnt have to wait for the Supreme Court to strike down legislation that was obviously unconstitutional in the first place. Lawmakers should recognize that an abortion-ban-online-censorship bill is a politically toxic non-starter, and move on to tech policy that all voters can get behind, like legislation to crack down on online scams or protect user data.

As we approach the one-year anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson, its critical that Texas voters continue speaking up. The harms of Texas abortion ban have come into clear view, and far-right lawmakers have made it plain they arent finished targeting pregnant people with new restrictions unless voters force them to back off. If the public speaks up, theres still hope that legislation wont become law.

Kovacevich is the founder of a tech industry coalition Chamber of Progress and has worked at the intersection of tech and politics for 20 years, leading public policy at Google and Lime.

--

Excerpt from:
Opinion: Reproductive health censorship bill threatens the open internet - Austin American-Statesman

Dont Delete Artsmanifesto is live and seeking signatures. This banner features artwork by Gala Garrido that was removed from Instagram. (image courtesy Dont Delete Art)

Launched in 2020, the artist- and activist-led project Dont Delete Art (DDA) targets social media platforms using suppressive content moderation algorithms that impact the visibility of the worlds most vulnerable creators. Recently, the projects collaborators produced a manifesto calling on artists who use social media to demand change from these platforms now that Internet visibility has largely superseded in-person art experiences.

Social media corporations have become cultural gatekeepers with unprecedented power to determine which artworks can freely circulate and which ones are banned or pushed into the digital margins, DDAs manifesto reads.

In an interview with Hyperallergic, DDAs Editor-at-Large Emma Shapiro detailed the projects goals and spoke about how content moderation polices women-identifying, LGBTQ+, BIPOC, and disabled artists from achieving the same metrics when they use their bodies in their work in a way that pushes the boundaries of what Meta (the company that owns Facebook and Instagram) considers objectionable or explicit content. Shapiro, a Hyperallergic contributor and arts writer who has covered the Free the Nipple movement at length, said that while there are many overlaps between DDA and #FreeTheNipple, censored artwork isnt always body-oriented.

Theres definitely some artists who are voicing certain politics with their artwork who are being hit with certain kinds of suppression based on the text that goes with their artwork, Shapiro noted, specifying that the text-based suppression occurs from both uploaded images as well as what is written in the post captions. Were also seeing that Instagram can and will shadowban people, effectively suppressing them without outright suspending their accounts, Shapiro added.

When a social media user is shadowbanned, their content and account are deemed un-recommendable; therefore, their account information wont show up via Instagrams search function, their posts are suppressed by the algorithm, which decimates the number of impressions and interactions on their content, and their posts are no longer viewable under certain hashtags or Instagrams Explore page. Shadowbanned accounts are also not notified that their content is being restricted, leaving users confused about their metrics and the sudden lack of interaction.

Shadowbanning was originally used to thwart spammers by making their content invisible instead of outright banning them so that they wouldnt feel compelled to find a workaround, but the feature has gone on to impact artists, activists, sex workers, and occasionally regular old netizens.

Despite the fact that Instagrams post guidelines explicitly allow nudity in artwork, many artists report that their body-oriented paintings or sculptures were mis-flagged by the platforms content moderation algorithm. Shapiro herself even experienced a shadowban after posting a photo of a drawing containing a nude body.

Many people can misunderstand our focus on social media censorship as something thats pretty frivolous and like unimportant, Shapiro continued. But the truth of the matter is the landscape of internet regulation is changing really fast, and these companies who have not already created the framework to protect artistic expression and already at-risk artists will be very prone to continue to kick us off platforms.

Shapiro asks us to further consider the implications of Internet censorship against artists beyond visibility. Are these creators being passed over for opportunities? Are galleries whose social media accounts are penalized for posting a specific artists work going to reconsider whom they invest in moving forward to protect their brand? Will partisan politics capitalize on these modes of censorship to continuously encroach on the freedoms of women and trans artists who have a web presence?

Were specifically calling on social media companies to give artists a seat at the table for content moderation guidelines and how these decisions get made, Shapiro explained.

Meta has not yet responded to Hyperallergics request for comment.

Cofounded by Savannah Spirit and Spencer Tunick, and backed by the National Coalition Against Censorship, PEN Americas Artists At Risk Connection, and FreeMuse, DDA offers censorship evasion and account appeal resources for artists as well as an online gallery supported by a promotional newsletter that showcases artist submissions of artwork that was previously flagged, suppressed, or outright removed from social media through content moderation.

So far, the manifesto has over 1,400 individual signatures since its inception in mid-February. Shapiro told Hyperallergic that the next step is to get more institutional support through signatures and awareness from artist residencies, museums, galleries, collectives, and other community-wide companies and organizations who have a stake in the cause, whether they know it or not.

We want to see the support from the major voices of the art community for this very specific and powerful concern that we have before we present this to social media platforms and demand a seat at the table, Shapiro concluded.

See the original post here:
On Social Media, Art Censorship Is Alive and Well - Hyperallergic

In 2014, journalist and novelist Yuriy Lukanov was reporting from Kramatorsk, Ukraine. He remembers trying to open a bottle of red wine with friends that they bought from the only store open in the deserted city. They couldnt find a corkscrew and ended up using a cleaning rod to push the cork into the bottle and enjoy the wine. To him, this was more than an inconvenience. It is a metaphor for how disruptive war can be.

Lukanov told this story during a presentation he gave hosted by the Love School of Business and Vitaliy Strohush, Elon professor of economics. Lukanov emphasized the dangers of a censored press in Russia and the role novels can play in honest and creative storytelling.

Elon sophomore Hunter Siegel was in the audience and said the wine and cork story resonated with him.

I think it showed humanity, and one of the main points is that not everything can be wrapped up in a report. That there is a human aspect underneath it all something that is very easy to forget, Siegel said.

Siegel is a political science and international global studies double major. He tries to listen to as many speakers as he can because he likes learning outside the classroom.

It puts all of this abstract knowledge that many people at Elon have and is taught in many political science and international and global studies classes into its proper life context, Siegel said.

While Lukanov thought it would be unprofessional for him to print this story in the newspaper, he thought it was a small window into a bigger issue how little habits were altered by the war. Lukanov said thats why he decided to write fiction and finds that it allows for more creativity, inclusion and expression. Lukanovs visit to campus is a part of his book tour for his new novel, Reporter Volkovsky.

During his presentation, Lukanov tried to bring context to the current war in Ukraine. He said its rooted in the annexation of Crimea in 2014 where Russia successfully took the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. It was then Lukanov noticed the influence of Russian censorship in the media when Russia used propaganda to paint a false picture of Ukraine.

They are attacking free journalism. They are destroying freedom of speech. They are destroying opportunity to receive truthful information, Lukanov said.

This incident prompted him to write his first book, The Press: How Russia Destroyed Media Freedom in the Press. He wants people to notice the censorship as he did.

You have a right to listen what whomever you want, but usually, Russians lie. Listen, other nations Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Georgians, Maldovians, and so on, and other nations who were a part of the Soviet Union and Russians describe them as miserable nations. But in fact, many of them have cultural, which is much deeper than Russian culture, Lukanov said.

Lukanov also said the misinformation he sees in Ukraine now is more aggressive than what he saw when he first entered the field of journalism.

I would say when I [am] watching their television it is absolutely stupid now, Lukanov said. It's absolutely stupid, not flexible, absolutely brutal.

Yet, he said Ukrainians are getting better at recognizing it as propaganda, so Russias agenda isnt as effective as it once was. Still, Lukanov said Ukranians must fight against it as best they can.

Elon junior Taylor Barbadora is a journalism major and came to hear Lukanov speak as a part of her JOU 3100: Reporting for the Public Good class. She said she was surprised to learn how much censorship there is in Russia.

It was sad to hear but really interesting to see the difference and hear how it is, Barbadora said. I was trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who lives in Russia and is going through that and things being fed to you so strategically is really hard to think about.

Censorship and propaganda are two ways to control the narrative, according to Lukanov, but the other way Russia is doing it is by going after journalists directly. In the last 31 years, 82 journalists have died in Russia according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. At least 38 of them were murdered.

Lukanov said he would like to see Putin punished for these murders and other crimes, but he thinks it is only possible if the rest of the international community can be united behind that goal. He said Russias ambitions must be stopped.

Their high mission is to renew the Soviet empire, Lukanov said. I think the democratic world should provide, should continue to provide, sanctions against Russians to make them give up their nuclear weapons and so on and so on.

See the article here:
Elon University hosts Ukrainian novelist who writes about Russian ... - Elon News Network

The Walt Disney Company filed suit on Wednesday in federal court against Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Related

The suit comes almost exactly a year after DeSantis firstlashed out atthe entertainment giantfor pausing political donations and criticizing the governors since-enacted controversial bill dubbedDont Say Gay by opponents thatbans teaching sexual orientation or gender identity to certain students. Disney claims that DeSantis weaponized Floridas government by revoking its long-held special tax status immediately after it came out against the governors policy.

Maybe hes for free speech as long as its speech he likes.

Though First Amendment retaliation suits are notoriously difficult to prove in court, lawyers said that Disney may have an unusually strong case.

I find it hard to see how you can argue that youre for free speech when you punish a corporation for their political views or youre banning books, said Catherine Cameron, a professor who teaches media law at Stetson University College of Law in Florida. Maybe hes for free speech as long as its speech he likes.

The case and the wider flap over Disneys stance on the Dont Say Gay law makes for a reversal of roles in a raging national debate about the First Amendment and government overreach in suppressing free speech. Following a raft of reporting, far-right Republicans have made the weaponization of government against speech a central political talking point in their culture war.

In January, for instance, congressional Republicans amplified rhetoric about government suppression of speech by launching the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Now, one of the countrys top Republican officials and a potential contender in the 2024 presidential election is being accused of reacting to constitutionally protected speech with retaliation.

Jim Lussier, an attorney based in Orlando, said, DeSantis is consciously ignoring the U.S. Supreme Courts position, at Florida taxpayer expense.

Taryn Fenske, DeSantiss communications director, objected to the suit. We are unaware of any legal right that a company has to operate its own government or maintain special privileges not held by other businesses in the state, Fenske said in a statement. This lawsuit is yet another unfortunate example of their hope to undermine the will of the Florida voters and operate outside the bounds of the law.

While corporations are not entitled to benefits or privileges, the retaliation claim hinges on whether the benefits were revoked because of First Amendment-protected speech. If hes gone after them for a political viewpoint, that is certainly not what free speech advocates would advocate for, Cameron said. Thats sort of the textbook definition of government censorship.

Though retaliation cases can be hard to win, DeSantis and others have made clear public statements about the motivation and timing behind the decision to revoke the companys special tax status, said Tom Julin, a First Amendment lawyer based in Miami.

The governor has been quite explicit in making it clear that he is retaliating against Disney based upon its speech, he said. When you look at the chronological timeline of when this action was first contemplated by the governor, by the legislature, and by the governing body, its pretty clear some would say crystal clear that the action was not simply in reaction to a concern that Disney had been given too much control, but was a direct response to Disneys criticism of the government.

Related

Whats more, Julin said, the judge assigned to the case, Mark Walker, has previously gone after DeSantiss suppression of First Amendment law, so Disney has a good chance of getting a favorable result.

The First Amendment doesnt only apply to individuals or politicians, said Bobby Block, executive director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation. Corporations also have a right to freely express themselves on matters of public policy and politics without fear of reprisal from the government. On the face of it, the Disney case looks very compelling. But we will have to see what the courts decide.

DeSantis and his legal team would have to provide a compelling interest for why the state would want to suppress Disneys right to free speech, said Cameron, the law professor. A compelling interest in the eyes of the court would include significant issues of health, safety, or issues of national security.

If somehow the court was willing to buy that DeSantis and the Florida administration had a compelling interest to punish Disney in effect for their viewpoint, that would really change the law, she said. I dont really know what the compelling interest would be. I guess well have to see what argues.

Its a risky move because the government can always retaliate further if the lawsuit is not successful, or even if it is successful, Julin said. Someone like Governor DeSantis is likely going to be offended that a lawsuit was filed.

More:
Gov. Ron DeSantis Taken to Court by Disney Over Censorship - The Intercept