Mediaboss Marketing

While waving his shield metaphor over cost-of-living pressures, Scott Morrison road-tested another method of defence against the media that doubled as an attack.

You get to ask the questions, not say what the answer is, the Prime Minister responded to a press pack peppering him about his fate should Australia put a pack of so-called teal independents in the balance of power.

Scott Morrison said he could answer questions how he liked.Credit:James Brickwood

Morrison side-stepped actually providing an answer to the press in Perth on Friday morning, while simultaneously shaping up against his opponent, who stood in the relative safety of his inner-western Sydney seat of Grayndler, thousands of kilometres away.

The sledge against Anthony Albanese who this week stumbled again in the face of the medias persistent memory tests, and its perceived savagery from quarters of the community was to remind Australians they had a choice to make about who was in control.

When youre prime minister, you dont get an easy day in the office. Every single day is hard, Morrison said staring down the lens of a camera in a West Australian drone-making facility. If Anthony Albanese thinks the campaign is hard, Ive got news for him governments a lot harder.

He had ground to regain after being drowned out by a frustrated group of journalists in a western Sydney sweetshop the day before, after refusing to answer whether he would be campaigning in the seat of Wentworth, a question he ducked artfully throughout the week.

My mum lives in Wentworth, hed said wryly to queries to weed out whether he will be showing his face alongside Liberal moderate Dave Sharma, defending a paper-thin margin against independent Allegra Spender.

The question dogged Morrison throughout the week after the Coalitions broad church showed signs of being stretched too thin over climate action, a tension point manifesting in the Prime Ministers absence so far in certain under-threat metropolitan seats.

During the fourth week of the campaign Morrison visited Parramatta twice, then Corangamite, Dunkley, Chisholm, Boothby, then back to Parramatta, before jetting far west to the electorates of Cowan, Swan and Christian Porters relinquished seat of Pearce.

Read more from the original source:
You get to question, I get to answer: Morrison wants to remind Australia who is in control - Sydney Morning Herald

Writer and political activist Gloria Steinem has fought for women's rights for decades. Jose Luis Magana | AP

Gloria Steinem is in her late 80s now.

She has spent a lifetime fighting for women's rights including their right to control their own reproductive choices.

She had some thoughts when she read the leaked draft opinion, suggesting the Supreme Court may be about to overturn Roe v. Wade.

"It felt both new and angering and ancient," she says.

Gloria Steinem spoke with All Things Considered host Mary Louise Kelly, and here are highlights from their conversation.

The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

On her reaction to the leaked document that suggests the Supreme Court may be about to overturn Roe v. Wade

There have always been efforts to control women's birth-giving. I remember sitting in the Kalahari Desert, talking to women who were showing me the plants that they used for abortifacients and to increase fertility. This is not a new issue. And the very definition of patriarchy is trying to control women and birth-giving.

On how we got here and whether this was the direction she anticipated

I think it's important to connect the ancient to the new, because otherwise we don't understand the strong thread of patriarchy and racism that has been with us and continues to be to be with us.

This affects some states and not others, so it does not affect the whole country. It's completely wrong. As the great Florynce Kennedy used to say: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." But we have to contend with it, and we will.

On equality and the impact of potentially striking down Roe v. Wade

It's a huge impact, potentially, on women because we have to be able to make decisions about our own physical selves. It's a very differential impact on women, depending on what part of the country they're in, what their economic situation is, [and] their race, ethnicity. It affects all women, but not all women equally. But I do note in all the surveys that all women are devoted to making sure we maintain reproductive freedom.

On Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion stating the Constitution makes no mention of abortion

His comment that this is not mentioned in the Constitution is ridiculous since women weren't mentioned in the Constitution. It's quite possible that reproductive freedom would have been up there with freedom of speech if everyone had an equal say. But medical needs should not be distributed geographically. They are way too distributed by class and economics as it is, because we don't have national healthcare as we should. And this makes it far worse for the female half of the population.

On whether her life's work is being stripped down

No, I don't feel my work or the work of all the women and men who care about racial and sex equality has been struck down. It's just that it has a roadblock that is, theoretically, coming from the highest court in the land, but actually will impose hardships unequally. But it will not change the basic fact that we either have decision-making power over our own bodies women and men or there is no democracy.

On whether other laws are threatened by a rollback of Roe v. Wade

The first thing it makes me think about is the racial balance in this country. Because it's also true that the first generation of babies, that is, majority babies of color has already been born. And clearly, we are going to become a majority people of color nation, which will make us more like the rest of the world. And I wonder how much of a part, consciously or unconsciously, racism plays in trying now to suddenly control reproduction. Only they can speak to this, I can't pass judgment on them. But it does seem mysterious that at this juncture when the nation is changing to majority people of color, this suddenly would be coming back.

On the next move for supporters of abortion rights

It's not that we should all make the same move, because some of us might go and support our local Planned Parenthood clinic or any place that supports abortions. However, each of us as an individual, we can wear buttons, we can carry banners. We each probably have a very fervent way of doing it. And I think, you know, it's very important that we state our opinion.

On whether she thought this fight would be ongoing in 2022

Yes, because of the fact that a) we still live in some degree of patriarchy; and b) that women have the unique power of giving birth means that there is likely to be this and other patriarchal efforts to control the bodies of women.

It is much different from my earlier days, when abortion was way more likely to be illegal and way more difficult to find. We have made a lot of progress. And we have made a lot of progress in contraception and the morning after pill and many ways of making sure that we don't need to have abortions. It's not a pleasurable experience. It's not an experience that any woman would choose unless she had to.

On her determination and belief in activists shaping discourse and changing laws

One thing I've learned over time, over and over again, is that politics and deep change and everything we're trying to do is like a tree. And too often we think the tree grows from the top, from Congress. Trees grow from the bottom. So what you and I do every day, what's possible in our community.

I mean, today, we could thank the physicians who are supporting and providing reproductive freedom. We can give money to the elected figures who are supporting this vast majority view. And we can just refuse to be intimidated by the protestations of a losing minority.

Read this article:
Gloria Steinem's calls to protect bodily autonomy live on as Roe faces reversal - Houston Public Media

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

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

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