Archive for the ‘Media Control’ Category

Akhand Bharat: 50 shades of grey – National Herald

Claims around Akhand Bharat on the World Wide Web suggest that some groups are keen to realise this idea within the next 10-15 years from now, while astrologers on the Web are more circumspect, asserting that Akhand Bharat might come about in the next 20-25 years.

The world wide web is strewn with materials claiming that the the idea of Akhand Bharat is as old as the civilisation spread over the modern-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Burma, Tibet, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. The idea gained momentum with the Hindu nationalists since 1924 and was promoted publicly from 1937. The idea was based on the ultimate vision of a perfectly organised State of Society wherein each individual was to be moulded into an ideal Hindu manhood .

The clamour for Akhand Bharat has recently been joined by the Hindu Mahasabha, Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Shiv Sena, Hindu Sena, and Hindu Jana Jagriti Samiti speaking in tandem. The RSS Chief has in fact set a deadline to realise the idea within the next 15 years. Though the roadmap for accomplishing this objective has not been delineated publicly, the broad strategy has become quite explicit. The RSS chief is reported to have said that nobody can stop Indias march forward. Those trying to impede the countrys march forward will either move away or be removed from the scene, he has been quoted in the media as saying.

Geography: The pre-Partition map of India included present day Pakistan and Bangladesh as parts of British India and thus defines the broad borders of Akhand Bharat. The babble for Akhand Bharat, based on dharma (religion) linked to the Hindutva and Shuddhi invariably includes Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar as well. More often than not, the Akhand Bharat os said to comprise India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. Some, in fact, go on to suggest that whole of South and South-East Asia, having been once integral to Pracheen Bharat, could be included in Akhand Bharat.

Although the Tibetan government in exile operates from India, Tibet has been declared as an autonomous region of China. Would China or the other countries being eyed be willing to cede territory based on good will? But who knows? Favourable constellations of stars, as astrologists are now predicting, may create conditions that become conducive for such a radical transformation.

Akhand Bharat may, thus, consist of at least nine independent sovereign nations i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Maldives.

Contours of Akhand Bharat: Based on available data, Akhand Bharat shall cover an area of 7.13 million square kilometre and will have a population of 1.89 billion and a population density of 265 per Sq.Km. In economic terms, the nominal GDP of the unified entity would add up to US $ 4.166 Trillion with the per capita income of US $ 2,204.

The area of the unified entity would more than double from the present 3.29 million Sq.Km to 7.13 million Sq.Km. The population density, however, would decline from 415 to 265 person per Sq.Km.

Akhand Bharat shall have a population of 1.89 Billion as compared to 1.35 billion at the present (make allowance for an increase over the next 10-20 years). Economically speaking, the nominal GDP of Akhand Bharat would average US$ 4.138 Trillion as compared to Indias present US $ 3.250 Trillion. The per capita income would, however, decline from the present US$ 2,313 to US$ 2,204. Obviously, it may not make a good proposition.

Read more:
Akhand Bharat: 50 shades of grey - National Herald

Musk’s Twitter Buy Is a Chance to Bring Social Media Enforcement Into the Light – Barron’s

About the author: Susan Benesch is founder and director of the Dangerous Speech Project, an independent research team studying rhetoric that inspires mass violence, and she is Faculty Associate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

Elon Musks sudden deal to buy Twitter has his fans elated, and his detractors terrified, by signs that he will throw the platforms rules out the window.

No wonder. Bold, ruthless, and unpredictable, he tweets to his nearly 100 million followers as if there werent any rules. Twitter hasnt called Musk to accountthough the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board have. After he tweeted in August 2018 that he was ready to take Tesla private and had lined up the necessary financing, the SEC sued him, saying it was false. (He settled). And the NLRB demanded in March 2021 that Musk delete a 2018 tweet for union-busting (He did).

Right after his deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion was announced on April 25, Musk retweeted far-right criticism of two of the companys executives, and many of his followers piled on. Vijaya Gadde, Twitters general counsel who is also its chief of content moderation, got a stream of threats and abuse, much of it related to her Indian background.

Musk had broken informal norms of C-suite behavior, it seems. Dick Costolo, who was CEO of Twitter from 2010 to 2015, tweeted at him, Whats going on?Youre making an executive at the company you just bought the target of harassment and threats. But Musk still had not violated any rules of Twitter, which Costolo proudly referred to as the free speech wing of the free speech party a decade ago during his tenure.

In subsequent years, Twitter was criticized for allowing vicious harassment and other harmful content to flourish on its platform, and the company began removing more tweets and accounts. Its staff wrote and repeatedly revised rules that prohibit forms of speech including abuse, harassment, and what it calls hateful conduct, though Twitter is still less restrictive than other social media platforms such as Facebook.

Now Musk has suggested that he wants to make Twitter even more unfettered. Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated, he said in a statement when the deal was announced.

Theres nothing to stop him, if he buys the company as planned. But the only thing novel about that is Musk himself. One person can already dictate the rules at the worlds biggest social media company, Meta. Since Mark Zuckerberg controls a majority of the voting shares, he can make and change the rules for Facebook (with nearly three billion users), Instagram, and WhatsApp, at whim.

Its a tremendous amount of power over public discourse in a few unelected hands, and though Musk might tell himself that he would cede power by abolishing the rules, thats wrong. Some peopleMusk, for instancewould have much greater power than others in an online free-for-all. Thats already the case, and the differential would surely grow.

In fact private companies now effectively govern more human communication than any government does, or ever has. (This is true of Facebook alone.) But governments should not make the rules for digital discourse either. Think of how unfairly many governments would do it. Countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and India already leverage domestic laws and takedown requests to censor opposition and minority opinions on social media.

Instead, now that this industry has so much capacity to control and influence the fundamental human activity that is communication, it should be subject to auditing of how it enforces the rules. Enforcementor content moderation as they call it in Silicon Valleyconstitutes sausage-making at social media platforms, and it is now done almost entirely in the dark.

Users (and other members of the public) cant tell where Twitter and other platforms actually draw the line between what they regard as prohibited and permitted speech in categories like abuse, harassment, or hate speech, or whether they enforce their rules equitably.

Outsiders learn the details of enforcement in only a minuscule proportion of the millions of takedown decisions that companies software and moderators make every day. Usually its when theres a public controversy over a specific post. For example when a Norwegian writer posted a famous image of a Vietnamese girl running with napalm burning into her skin in 2016, Facebook removed the post under its rule against nudity. After protests from influential people including Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, Facebook reversed its decision on that photograph. But the company didnt explain how it would draw the line in similar cases. While we recognize that this photo is iconic, its difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others, a Facebook statement said at the time.

There is one small but promising experiment in allowing outsiders to peek into the black box that is enforcement, and even to have some authority over it: the Oversight Board that Facebook created in 2018, to review and if it chooses, to overrule, some of its content moderation decisions. The board has 20 members from many countries where Facebook operates, who review a few dozen cases per year in total. It is not empowered to rewrite rules, nor to audit enforcement at scale, though.

Enforcement auditors would be different. They would examine, vitally, whether the system is fair. For example, are the same sorts of posts taken down at the same rate when put up by members of different groups, say womenand men, or Indians and Pakistanis? We dont know those answers now for Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media platform, since outside researchers dont have access to the information needed to answer such questions. Professional auditors with the necessary technical skills should be given access to the relevant data, under extremely secure, privacy-protecting conditions. They would publish regular reports, again strictly protecting user privacy.

Musk has caused a burst of public and policymaking attention to social media platform rules. Instead of speculating fruitlessly about his next move, we should take the opportunity to require audits of platform rule enforcement. Policing of town squares shouldnt take place in the dark, after all.

Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barrons and MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit commentary proposals and other feedback toideas@barrons.com.

More:
Musk's Twitter Buy Is a Chance to Bring Social Media Enforcement Into the Light - Barron's

Crimping free speech is the wrong way to rein in social media – CalMatters

In summary

Assembly Bill 2408 proposes to punish popular social media platforms for editorial content promotion decisions. But it violates fundamental rights and must not become law.

Adam Sieff is a First Amendment and constitutional litigator, a lecturer in law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, and vice president of the American Constitution Society in Los Angeles.

If California passed a law exposing major newspaper publishers to liability for the selection, arrangement and promotion of articles they print, it would obviously violate the First Amendment. So why are some state lawmakers advancing Assembly Bill 2408, which proposes precisely the same type of unconstitutional penalties for major internet publishers?

The bill is well-intended, and aims to promote the mental and emotional well-being of young people on the internet. But to achieve these worthy ends, AB 2408 proposes to punish popular social media platforms when their editorial content promotion decisions can be shown to cause young audiences to suffer injuries.

That proposal violates core speech rights, and legislators must not allow it to become law in its current form.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment protects publishers decisions to select, arrange and promote content to audiences as a basic exercise of their editorial control and judgment. The protection applies regardless of the medium of communication publishers use to convey information, whether they run a newspaper, cable network, website or social network. And the court has expressly held that the amendment applies to online speech and content moderation practices.

Critically, the rule prevents California, or any state, from enacting a law that would penalize an internet publisher for exercising its judgment about what kinds of content to publish and promote to its audience, just as it prevents California from enacting a law punishing a newspaper for its decisions about what to print on the front page.

It makes no legal difference that social media platforms often create algorithms to apply their editorial judgments. An algorithm is just a set of pre-programmed editorial rules that reflects value judgments made by real people about the kind of content to display and promote.

To punish a platforms algorithmic promotion of popular content is, as a constitutional matter, no different than punishing CalMatters for recommending stories to particular users based on their browsing and reading history. Nor, ultimately, is it any different from punishing a tabloid magazine for publishing prurient content on its front page.

The fact that AB 2408 endeavors to protect young audiences is also, from a legal perspective, irrelevant. The First Amendment prohibits the imposition of legal penalties that restrict the ideas to which certain audiences may be exposed, and the general exercise of editorial discretion cannot be suppressed solely to protect young people from content or ideas that a government censor considers unsuitable.

While one cannot deny that these are difficult times to be a young person, and few policies are more important than those that advance the health and prospects of future generations, AB 2408 is the wrong remedy. Permitting California to punish social media platforms editorial decisions, as the measure proposes, would equally permit governments to punish newspapers and magazines, as well as authors of choose-your-own-adventure stories, video games and, arguably, any kind of literature if a plaintiff could establish injuries suffered from those authors editorial choices a prospect the Supreme Court rejected in 2011, the last time California attempted to restrict the publication of content to young audiences (in that instance, video games).

There are better ways to achieve AB 2408s goals that are consistent with the First Amendment values that define our open society. Earlier concerns over new forms of unsettling but constitutionally protected media, including comic books, movies, rock music, cable programming and video games, offer instruction.

After courts rejected attempts like AB 2408 to punish the publishers of these different types of content, governments, publishers, schools and civil society groups came together to develop rating systems, parental controls and public information campaigns to allow families to make informed choices about their media consumption.

The constitutionally required solution to concerns over new forms of speech, in other words, is more speech, not less. Californias lawmakers should embrace that approach and reject AB 2408, at least as written today.

Continued here:
Crimping free speech is the wrong way to rein in social media - CalMatters

Media pushes narrative that leaked Roe v. Wade draft could be midterm game-changer – Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The prevailing narrative for months has been that Democrats face an uphill battle to maintain control of the House and Senate in 2022, citing record inflation, President Biden's underwater approval rating, and the historical headwinds against an incumbent president's party in most midterms.

But that changed this week as the leaked draft of a majority opinion that would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court stoked hopes among Democrats they could motivate an unenthusiastic base, with numerous headlines and TV segments also pushing that line.

"The disclosure of a draft majority opinion that indicates the Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade instantly jolted Democrats from a bout of political malaise Monday night and many hope it could change the tide of the midterm elections," reported Politico, the same outlet that reported on the bombshell leak of the Supreme Court's draft opinion.

LATE-NIGHT HOSTS LOCK TOGETHER TO RIP POSSIBLE ROE V. WADE OVERTURNING: WERE F---ED'

"The draft opinion threatens to upend the midterms in unpredictable ways," the Washington Post reported, quoting several Democratic lawmakers and aides pushing the line. "Some Democrats argued overturningRoewould energize the party's base of voters as well as some independent voters who until this point were less enthusiastic than Republicans about turning out to vote this year."

An ex-Senate Republican aide threw cold water on that notion, however, telling the Post it was hard to believe it would still be that galvanizing months from now and supersede voters' economic concerns.

"The Supreme Court may have just fundamentally altered the 2022 election," read a CNN headline Tuesday from political writer Chris Cillizza.

NEW MSNBC HOST GETS DEFENSIVE WHEN REPORTER SUGGESTS SHE MIGHT GIVE JILL BIDEN SOFTBALL INTERVIEW

"The draft opinion from the Supreme Court that would overturn the right to an abortion is a massive story with a myriad of implications for the American public. It also may be exactly what Democrats need to solve their passion problem heading into the 2022 midterm elections," Cillizza wrote, citing some polls showing a third of voters would be "angry" over the court overturning Roe v. Wade.

A crowd of people gather outside the Supreme Court, Monday night, May 2, 2022 in Washington following reports of a leaked draft opinion by the court overturning Roe v. Wade. (AP Photo/Anna Johnson)

"There are very few issues that can make a claim to upend or fundamentally alter the trajectory of an election. But overturning Roe may well be one of them," he wrote.

Other headlines included Bloomberg's "Abortion Rights Could Rewire U.S. Midterms," CBS News' "Democrats call for action, Republicans voice support as leaked Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe v. Wade sets stage for 2022 midterms," and The Guardian's "Abortion to become key fight in US midterms after stunning court leak," which reported, "now abortion rights promises to reshape the dynamics of the coming midterm elections."

"Draft abortion decision already begins scrambling the midterms," another NBC News headline said. Another piece from the outlet: "Democrats energized after leaked abortion decision jolts midterms."

"The news and political conversation immediately changed from Ukraine, inflation and Bidens standing, to abortion and what happens in a post-Roe world," NBC News reported.

"Gutting abortion rights might not boost the GOP in the midterms," Vox reported. "Overnight, Midterms Get a White-Hot New Focus: Abortion," read a New York Times headline.

AP REPORTER MOCKS FOUNDING FATHERS OVER POSSIBLE END TO ROE V. WADE: WISH WE HAD SOME FOUNDING MOTHERS

On MSNBC, host Katy Tur railed against the news at the top of her dayside news show Tuesday and asked MSNBC host and former Kamala Harris staffer Symone Sanders if "this animates voters in the midterms."

MSNBC'S THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW REPLACED BY MSNBC PRIME FOUR NIGHTS A WEEK

"This is an animating issue," Sanders said. "It's all women It's any woman. It is any woman or any person who needs this health care Abortion is a constitutional right."

"Is this going to move votes?" CNN's Victor Blackwell asked commentator John Kasich on Tuesday.

The former Ohio Republican governor, who supported Biden in 2020, said he felt it would cost Republicans House seats.

MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace declared much of the Democratic Party's base to be "enraged" and "energized" by the potential decision during a blistering segment Wednesday about Ohio Republican Senate nominee J.D. Vance, and MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle told guest Jennifer Palmieri on Tuesday, "Four days ago, the question was how do you get Democrats energized for the midterms. They clearly are."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump all saw their parties suffer bruising losses in the first midterms of their presidencies. President George W. Bush bucked the trend when Republicans rolled in 2002, although it was while he had high approval in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks; in the 2006 midterms during Bush's second term, Democrats wrested back control of Congress.

Continue reading here:
Media pushes narrative that leaked Roe v. Wade draft could be midterm game-changer - Fox News

Laura Henry and Laura Howells ’20 on Controlling Russia’s Information Space – Bowdoin College

Laura Howells 20

Furthermore, a Russian court has alsobannedFacebook and Instagram, while access to Twitter has been severely restricted, say Henry and Howells, who coauthored a peer-reviewed academic article on the subject in December 2021.

Such efforts by the Russian authorities to stem the free flow of information are being unwittingly assisted by outside actors, we are told. International sanctions, combined with corporate self-sanctioning by technology companies like Apple, Netflix, Spotify, and Microsoft, run the risk of ceding the information space to the Kremlin.

Cutting off Russian users from international platforms makes it easier for the Kremlin to isolate the Russian public from all but its carefully-crafted narratives When it comes to the digital sphere, the article concludes, supporters of Ukraine should instead be seeking smart sanctions that prioritize average Russians ability to access alternative media and services rather than inadvertently making digital authoritarianism even more possible for the Russian government. Read the full article.

As a Fulbright researcher in Estonia, I am studying educational interventions for increasing public resilience against political mis/disinformation. I also collaborate with localscholars in a study to analyze the trajectory of official Russian discourse on the Baltics and Ukraine.I plan to build on these research themes, and more broadly the concept of information politics, in my PhD studies in the Department of Politics at Princeton this fall.

Living in Estonia, especially since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has given me a unique vantage point in the region at a pivotal time. As a formerly Soviet-occupied state which also shares a border with Russia, Estonia has long warned the world of Russias territorial aspirations and manipulative information tactics. Being able to observe Estonias position on these issues firsthand has informed my work immensely and in ways I will cherish for years to come.

Laura Howells 20

Read more:
Laura Henry and Laura Howells '20 on Controlling Russia's Information Space - Bowdoin College