Mediaboss Marketing

Democrat-run, legacy mainstream media outlets are increasingly beholden to younger radical progressives, according to journalist, author, and political commentator Amber Athey.

They thought the woke millennials were on their side [and] quickly learned that wokeism does not accept anything but 100 percent fealty, said Athey during an interview with Epoch TVs American Thought Leaders.

Woke millennials want the left-wing organizations to adhere to their version of political correctness and truth. And if they dont, they will even be attacked asbeing racist, transphobic, sexist, etc., said Athey, Washington editor for The Spectator and author of The Snowflakes Revolt: How Woke Millennials Hijacked American Media.

Those who work in mainstream media are overwhelmingly of a wealthy background, are registered Democrats, and believe in far-left causes or have ties to left-wing activism, she stated.

Mainstream media outlets do not want to offend their audience, most of whom subscribe to far-left ideologies, and even run the risk of getting canceled by their own radical staff, Athey said.

In 2020, The New York Times was forced to apologize for running an opinion piece by Sen.Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) that advocated for activating the military to calm the streets during rioting in multiple cities. The op-ed, headlined Send in the Troops, was taken down after the newspapers staff revolted and readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions.

The newspaper issued a statement on June 4, 2020, vowing to expand our fact-checking operation and reduce the number of opinion pieces. To explain how Cottons piece came to be published, they blamed a rushed editorial process for an op-ed that did not meet our standards.

These vocal millennials are the same ones that orchestrate woke mobs in colleges to shut down conservative speakers, fulfill diversity quotas, conduct racial sensitivity training, and diversity requirements for undergraduate courses, said Athey.

The same tactics employed at universities were used to shame the newspaper to cancel Cotton.

While there may be good reporters within any of these outlets, they are restricted by the editors and company policies, which are increasingly dictated by woke ideology, Athey said.

Many media outlets have become more like activists and often dont present both sides of a story.

They actually derogatorily refer to this as both sides-ism and what they mean by that is they think that one side is so irredeemably wrong and actually harmful to the fabric of society, that their views dont deserve air time, said Athey.

Even if the other side is presented, the outlet will have political commentary or guests that color and destroy the argument presented by the opposing view because the woke believe that if you dont do that, then you are guilty of actually perpetuating the harmful ideology of the right, she said.

For the most part, mainstream media does activist journalism, which is investigating a topic with a certain outcome in mind. Athey says this can be acceptable if the outlet is open about being biased and the reporter does not change the findings when the facts contradict their hypothesis about the story.

But what activism journalism shouldnt dowhich is where I think the left goes too faris if theyre investigating something, and they dont like the outcome: they either lie about the results, or they choose not to publicize them, Athey said.

If a news outlet is open about its activism, like MSNBC, it is OK; but when the media claims to be unbiased but clearly has an agenda, such as in the case of CNN, no one trusts them, she said.

Athey says conservatives should not work with left-wing news outlets who are bad faith actors because they distort what conservatives say.

The current mainstream media that dominates American airwaves consists of financial behemoths like The Washington Post, owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos; CNN, owned by Warner Bros. Discovery; The New York Times; and even the Wall Street Journal, which is part of News Corp., said Athey.

All of these news organizations are actually corporations; theyre big businesses, said Athey.

Many of the reporters dont go out to the community to get first-hand news but get a lot of their information directly from Democratic sources, whether that means activists or the DNC, members of Congress, and even left-wing cultural institutions like Big Tech, she added.

This news structure was made particularly clear when media outlets referred to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantiss Parental Rights in Education bill as the Dont Say Gay bill because they were parroting a left-wing activist group that coined the phrase on Twitter, she said.

And all of a sudden, all of the mediain lockstepin their headlines started referring to that as the Dont Say Gay bill.

There really is a sort of echo chamber that exists in the media, because so many of them are not interested in truth theyre interested in ideology and profit, so they kowtow to the woke mob and cancel culture, sheadded.

The mainstream medias role used to be focused on speaking truth to power or holding the government accountable. But when real estate billionaire Donald Trump started campaigning for president, everything changed, Athey said.

An enormous swath of the media, particularly after Trump won the presidency, decided that their job was now to protect democracy, to oppose a dictator, to oppose authoritarianism. It was no coincidence that The Washington Post changed its slogan at that time to Democracy Dies in Darkness, she said.

With the emergence of independent news that didnt toe the narrative, along with Trumps calling out of the media for false reporting on him and his supporters, fact-checking came onto the scene, with legacy outlets critiquing and deciding what was true and what was false.

This only added to this volatile cocktail of left-wing activists joining media outlets, because they were able to use these new rules to push their own ideology, said Athey.

She said there is a huge opportunity for independent news outlets because there is such an appetite among the American people for outlets that are still committed to these traditional journalistic principles like truth and objectivity and seeking to be unbiased.

While the internet opened more opportunities for independent news sources, it has also shown that the Big Tech companies have too much power over what stories are even seen by the publicsuch as the case of Twitter and Facebook trying to squelch the New York Posts Hunter Biden laptop scandal in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election.

Theres a lot of work for conservatives and independent media outlets to do to make sure that their content is getting to the audiences that they want it to reach, Athey said, adding that that will mean getting control of web-hosting services, which the left currently controls.

In order for conservatives to ensure that the news they gather gets out to the public, people have to stand up to the woke mob and be very united in their support for people and publications that get attacked by the left, Athey said.

The left has used that cultural phenomenon as a means of silencing their political opponents, and we as conservatives have to stand up for each other, she said.

The right is fractured in this regard while the mob gets its power from staying mostly in lockstep. Besides building unity against the mob, conservatives have to stop playing the game, she said.

Conservatives need to stop giving interviews to these outlets. They need to stop giving scoops to these outlets. They need to stop treating these outlets as if theyre anything but left-wing propaganda machines, Athey said.

These people despise us, they hate us, and I think we should freeze them out, she said, citing DeSantiss press team. DeSantis does not give interviews to mainstream media outlets because he knows they will spin what he says.

DeSantis only operates with media outlets that are fair to him.

To determine what is true, Athey recommends reading everything and checking the sources the outlet uses for authenticity and accuracywhich does require effort.

People have to be committed to digging more for themselves.

Follow

Jan Jekielek is a senior editor with The Epoch Times and host of the show, "American Thought Leaders." Jans career has spanned academia, media, and international human rights work. In 2009 he joined The Epoch Times full time and has served in a variety of roles, including as website chief editor. He is the producer of the award-winning Holocaust documentary film "Finding Manny."

Follow

Masooma Haq began reporting for The Epoch Times from Pakistan in 2008. She currently covers a variety of topics including U.S. government, culture, and entertainment.

See the rest here:
'Woke Millennials' Taking Control of Mainstream Media: Author Amber Athey

Media under financial and/or editorial control of a government

State media or government media are media outlets that are under financial and/or editorial control of the state or government, directly or indirectly. There are different types of state and government media. State-controlled or state-run media are under editorial control or influence by the state or government.[1][2][3]

There is no undisputed definition of state media or government media. State or government media range from media outlets that are completely under state control to editorially independent public service media outlets.[1] The term "public media" can be used to refer to state or government media and public service broadcasting (PBS). Although there are differences between them. According to the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, state and government media are directly controlled by the state or government; and PBS are not.[4] According to Facebook, state-controlled media are "partially or wholly under the editorial control of a government".[5] Twitter uses the term "state-affiliated media" and defines it as "outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution." At the same time, "state-financed" editorially independent media are not considered "state-affiliated".[6][7]

Its content, according to some sources, is usually more prescriptive, telling the audience what to think, particularly as it is under no pressure to attract high ratings or generate advertising revenue[8] and therefore may cater to the forces in control of the state as opposed to the forces in control of the corporation, as described in the propaganda model of the mass media.In more controlled regions, the state may censor content which it deems illegal, immoral or unfavourable to the government and likewise regulate any programming related to the media; therefore, it is not independent of the governing party.[9] In this type of environment, journalists may be required to be members or affiliated with the ruling party, such as in the Eastern Bloc former Socialist States the Soviet Union, China or North Korea.[8] Within countries that have high levels of government interference in the media, it may use the state press for propaganda purposes:

Additionally, the state-controlled media may only report on legislation after it has already become law to stifle any debate.[10] The media legitimises its presence by emphasising "national unity" against domestic or foreign "aggressors".[11] In more open and competitive contexts, the state may control or fund its own outlet and is in competition with opposition-controlled and/or independent media. The state media usually have less government control in more open societies and can provide more balanced coverage than media outside of state control.[12]

State media outlets usually enjoy increased funding and subsidies compared to private media counterparts, but this can create inefficiency in the state media.[13] However, in the People's Republic of China, where state control of the media is high, levels of funding have been reduced for state outlets, which have forced the Party media to sidestep official restrictions on content or publish "soft" editions, such as weekend editions, to generate income.[14]

Two contrasting theories of state control of the media exist; the public interest or Pigouvian theory states that government ownership is beneficial, whereas the public choice theory suggests that state control undermines economic and political freedoms.

The public interest theory, also referred to as the Pigouvian theory,[15] states that government ownership of media is desirable.[16] Three reasons are offered. Firstly, the dissemination of information is a public good, and to withhold it would be costly even if it is not paid for. Secondly, the cost of the provision and dissemination of information is high, but once costs are incurred, marginal costs for providing the information are low and so are subject to increasing returns.[17] Thirdly, state media ownership can be less biased, more complete and accurate if consumers are ignorant and in addition to private media that would serve the governing classes.[17] However, Pigouvian economists, who advocate regulation and nationalisation, are supportive of free and private media.[18]

The public choice theory asserts that state-owned media would manipulate and distort information in favour of the ruling party and entrench its rule and prevent the public from making informed decisions, which undermines democratic institutions.[17] That would prevent private and independent media, which provide alternate voices allowing individuals to choose politicians, goods, services, etc. without fear from functioning. Additionally, that would inhibit competition among media firms that would ensure that consumers usually acquire unbiased, accurate information.[17] Moreover, this competition is part of a checks-and-balances system of a democracy, known as the Fourth Estate, along with the judiciary, executive and legislature.[17]

Both theories have implications regarding the determinants and consequences of ownership of the media.[19] The public interest theory suggests that more benign governments should have higher levels of control of the media which would in turn increase press freedom as well as economic and political freedoms. Conversely, the public choice theory affirms that the opposite is true - "public spirited", benevolent governments should have less control which would increase these freedoms.[20]

Generally, state ownership of the media is found in poor, autocratic non-democratic countries with highly interventionist governments that have some interest in controlling the flow of information.[21] Countries with "weak" governments do not possess the political will to break up state media monopolies.[22] Media control is also usually consistent with state ownership in the economy.[23]

As of 2002, the press in most of Europe (with the exception of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) is mostly private and free of state control and ownership, along with North and South America (with the exception of Cuba.)[24] The press "role" in the national and societal dynamics of the United States and Australia has virtually always been the responsibility of the private commercial sector since these countries' earliest days.[25] Levels of state ownership are higher in some African countries, the Middle East and some Asian countries (with the exception of Japan, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand where large areas of private press exist.) Full state monopolies exist in Burma (under the military rule) and North Korea.[24]

Issues with state media include complications with press freedom and journalistic objectivity. According to Christopher Walker in the Journal of Democracy, "authoritarian or totalitarian media outlets", such as China's CCTV, Russia's RT, and Venezuela's TeleSUR, take advantage of both domestic and foreign media due to the censorship under regimes in their native countries and the openness of democratic nations to which they broadcast.[26]

Highly Controlled

Moderately Controlled

Lightly Controlled

Relatively Free Press

Free Press

Not classified / No data

"Worse outcomes" are associated with higher levels of state ownership of the media, which would reject Pigouvian theory.[28] The news media are more independent and fewer journalists are arrested, detained or harassed in countries with less state control.[29] Harassment, imprisonment and higher levels of internet censorship occur in countries with high levels of state ownership such as Singapore, Belarus, Myanmar, Ethiopia, the People's Republic of China, Iran, Syria, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.[29][30]Countries with a total state monopoly in the media like North Korea and Laos experience a "Castro effect", where state control is powerful enough that no journalistic harassment is required in order to restrict press freedom.[29] Historically, state media also existed during the Cold War in authoritarian states such as the Soviet Union, East Germany, Republic of China (Taiwan), Poland, Romania, Brazil and Indonesia.

The public interest theory claims state ownership of the press enhances civil and political rights; whilst under the public choice theory, it curtails them by suppressing public oversight of the government and facilitating political corruption. High to absolute government control of the media is primarily associated with lower levels of political and civil rights, higher levels of corruption, quality of regulation, security of property and media bias.[30][31] State ownership of the press can compromise election monitoring efforts and obscure the integrity of electoral processes.[32] Independent media sees higher oversight by the media of the government. For example, reporting of corruption increased in Mexico, Ghana and Kenya after restrictions were lifted in the 1990s, but government-controlled media defended officials.[33][34]

It is common for countries with strict control of newspapers to have fewer firms listed per capita on their markets[35] and less developed banking systems.[36] These findings support the public choice theory, which suggests higher levels of state ownership of the press would be detrimental to economic and financial development.[30]

Originally posted here:
State media - Wikipedia

Authored by John Lott Jr via RealClearPolitics.com,

Red flag laws are the top priority of Democrats and gun control advocates.

Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support these measures by margins ranging between2-1and3-1. Congress recently passed legislation providing funding for states that adopted these laws.

But the polling doesnt really gauge whether Americans understand how these laws operate. The surveys generally just ask people if they support laws that allow guns to be temporarily confiscated by a judge from people considered by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.

Respondents might reasonably assume that a normal legal process is being followed, whereby complaints are made and witnesses are cross-examined. With a law that almost always involves fears of suicide, they might presuppose that mental health experts are involved in the process.

To examine this premise, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head,hired McLaughlin & Associates to survey 1,000 general election votersfrom July 21-24, 2022. The survey began by asking people whether they supported red flag laws. It then informed respondents that there are no hearings before an individuals guns are taken away, and that there are no mental health care experts involved in the process.

People initially answered by a two-to-one margin that they support red flag laws (58% to 29%), with the strongest support coming from Democrats, the wealthy, blacks and Hispanics, and people aged 18-29.

However, after being told that there are no court proceedings before an individuals guns are taken away, and that there are no mental health care experts involved in the process, support changed to opposition (29% to 47%). Strong support plummeted from 34% to 14% and strong opposition rose from 18% to 29%.

Finally, people were asked if they prefer involuntary commitment or red flag laws. They were told that involuntary commitment laws provide for evaluations by mental health care experts, that an emergency court hearing takes place before a judges decision, and that a lawyer is provided if the person cant afford one. They are also told that, under such rules, judges have a range of less extreme options, such as mandatory outpatient mental health care and weapon confiscation.

Survey respondents favored involuntary commitment by a 40%-to-33% margin. Only Democrats, the wealthy, blacks, and Asians supported red flag laws as their preferred option.

The shift in position by the strongest supporters of red flag laws when told about the laws is consistent with them being the least well-informed. But that isnt the only evidence of that problem. In April, the CPRC hiredMcLaughlin & Associates to surveywhat people thought the percentage of violent crime committed using guns was. They found that those most strongly supporting gun control dramatically overestimated the percentage of violent crime committed with guns. While the average Democrat estimates that 56.9% of violent crimes involve guns and the typical Republican gave an answer of 37%. (The actual rate is less than 8%.)

We keep being told that there is90+% supportin polls foruniversal background checks on the private transfer of guns. But when these measures have been on the ballot, they havent been slam dunks. In 2016, despite Michael Bloombergsoverwhelming financial backing, ballot initiatives failed in Maine by 4 percentage points and won in Nevada by less than 1%.

The Nevada initiative had$20 millionin funding behind it, amounting to an incredible $35 per vote. Thats three times more than what was spent in opposition. In Maine, the opposition wasoutspent by a factor of 20.And in both states, the media coverage was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the gun control side.

While the Nevada initiative technically eked out a win, it wasnt able to go into effect because it had been inaccuratelysold to voters as not costing taxpayers any money.

Senate Republicanspassed gun control earlierthis year totake guns off the political agenda for this fall, but part of the compromise entailed providing federal funding to encourage states to adopt red flag laws. Democratscontinueto cite surveys seeming to show that gun control will play a role in Novembers election. Perhaps thats right. Or is this perception more properly understood as an example of their consultants and pollsters not understanding the issues?

Americans keep being told by the media that they overwhelmingly support gun control laws. So why dont the laws get passed? Might it be that the polls are inaccurate and biased? My own survey suggests just that.

Originally posted here:
Media Spin On Gun Control Doesn't Match Voters' Opinions

Android 11 updates how media controls are displayed, making use of theMediaSession and MediaRouter2 APIs to render controls and audio outputinformation.

Media controls in Android 11 are located near the Quick Settings. Sessions frommultiple apps are arranged in a swipeable carousel. The carousel listssessions in this order:

Users can restart previous sessions from the carousel without having to startthe app. When playback begins, the user interacts with the media controls in theusual way.

In order to use this feature, you mustenable Media resumption in the Developer Options settings.

To make your player app appear in the quick setting settings area,you must create a MediaStyle notification with a valid MediaSession token.

To display the brand icon for the media player, useNotificationBuilder.setSmallIcon().

To support playback resumption, apps must implement a MediaBrowserServiceand MediaSession.

The playback resumption feature can be be turned off using the Settings app,under the Sound > Media options. The user can also access Settings bytapping the gear icon that appears after swiping on the expanded carousel.

After the device boots, the system looks for the five most recently used mediaapps, and provides controls that can be used to restart playing from each app.

The system attempts to contact your MediaBrowserService with a connection fromSystemUI. Your app must allow such connections, otherwise it cannot supportplayback resumption.

Connections from SystemUI can be identified and verified using the package namecom.android.systemui and signature. The SystemUI is signed with the platformsignature. An example of how to check against the platform signature can befound in the UAMP app.

In order to support playback resumption, your MediaBrowserService mustimplement these behaviors:

onGetRoot() must return a non-null root quickly. Other complex logic shouldbe handled in onLoadChildren()

WhenonLoadChildren() is called on the root media ID, the result must contain aFLAG_PLAYABLEchild.

MediaBrowserService should return the most recently played media item whenthey receive anEXTRA_RECENTquery. The value returned should be an actual media item rather than genericfunction.

MediaBrowserService must provide an appropriateMediaDescription with a non-emptytitle andsubtitle.It should also set anicon URIor anicon bitmap.

The following code examples illustrate how to implement onGetRoot().

The system retrieves the following information from theMediaSession's MediaMetadata, and displays it when it is available:

In order to support play resumption, your MediaSession must implement aMediaSession callback for onPlay().

The media player shows the elapsed time for the currently playingmedia, along with a seek bar which is mapped to the MediaSessionPlaybackState.

In order for the the seek bar to work correctly, you must implementPlaybackState.Builder#setActions and include ACTION_SEEK_TO. Otherwise theplayer only shows the elapsed time and duration.

To set the player controls, use Notification.Builder#setCustomActions. Onlythe actions indicated withNotification.MediaStyle#setShowsActionsInCompactView willbe displayed in the media player appearing in the collapsed quick settings.

Read the original:
Media Controls | Android Developers

The First Amendment and the freedom of speech and expression it provides has helped make the internet what it is today: a place for diverse communities, support networks, and forums of all stripes to share information and connect people. Individuals and groups exercise their constitutional right to host and moderate sites that offer a common place for people who share a hobby, a religious belief, a political opinion, or a love for a particular kind of music.

Online platforms, from Facebook to your blog, have the right to decide what speech they publish and how they publish it. In that way, online platforms are no different from newspapers or parade organizers.

A federal appeals court in Louisiana, ruling last month in the case Netchoice v. Paxton, dealt a staggering blow to this bedrock principle of free speech online. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld an unconstitutional and disastrous Texas law that creates liability for social media platforms moderation decisions, essentially requiring that they distribute speech they do not want to host. Texas HB 20 restricts large platforms from removing or moderating content based on the viewpoint of the user. The law was created and passed to retaliate against social platforms that allegedly silence conservative viewpoints and ideas, despite there being no evidence that large platforms moderation decisions are biased against conservative viewpoints.

Tech industry groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) challenged the law in court. EFF filed amicus briefs in the district, federal appeals, and Supreme Court arguing that while internet users are sometimes justifiably frustrated by social media platforms content moderation decisions, they nevertheless are best served when the First Amendment protects those decisions. That First Amendment right helps the internet grow and provide diverse forums for speech.

After a district court preliminarily blocked the law, Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which found that HB 20 doesnt violate platforms First Amendment rights. The court ruled that services do not have a constitutional right to engage in content moderationinstead, the court called platforms moderation and curation of content on their sites censorship. Large platforms that want to moderate user speech in violation of HB 20 have an armada of attorneys to defend them in court, the Fifth Circuit said. The law allows individuals and the state attorney general to sue platforms over content moderation and get reimbursed for their attorneys fees if they win.

This is an extraordinarily dangerous turn for internet freedom, and the right of people with diverse opinionsthat may be unpopular or aggravating to othersto speak freely online. The Fifth Circuits ruling is deeply problematic on many levels, including its failure to recognize how Congress, in enacting 47 U.S.C. 230, has already preempted state censorship laws like HB 20. This post, however, focuses on the terrible implications that the ruling has for online speech.

The logic of the Fifth Circuits ruling has damaging implications for every service hosting user-generated speech, not just the largest platforms like Facebook and YouTube. While HB 20 only applies to platforms with more than 50 million users, the courts holding that the First Amendment does not protect online content moderation can easily be applied beyond them. In the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, this unprecedented scaling back of free speech endangers smaller, less powerful, and less wealthy services. Many small and medium sized online services, described in our amicus briefs against HB 20, moderate content to serve particular communities, topics, or viewpoints.

The effects cannot be overstatedHB 20 and laws like it will destroy many online communities that rely on moderation and curation and cannot afford to fight the onslaught of lawsuits that the Fifth Circuit invites. Platforms and users may not want to see certain kinds of content and speech that is legal but still offensive or irrelevant to them. Rejecting such content or even deprioritizing it in a feed would come with a ruinously high price tag.

For example, the Fifth Circuits holding could allow laws that require sites supporting people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome to post comments from people who dont believe this ailment is a real disease. Sites promoting open carry gun rights that disallow comments critical of gun rights would violate such laws. A site dedicated to remembering locals whose families were affected by the Holocaust could be forced to allow comments by Holocaust deniers. Platforms unable to withstand an attack of harassing comments from trolls could be forced offline altogether.

The Fifth Circuits decision allows concerns about private censorship to serve as the basis for government control of speech. Whatever your political views, we hope you recognize the danger of the Fifth Circuits decision, because it fundamentally alters our ability to decide for ourselves the types of speech and views we want to see and associate with, including our right to exclude others or ourselves from speech we dont like. Community-led and diverse forums dedicated to particular topics and for particular people with specific viewswhich is nearly all forumsare now potentially under the thumb of the state, which could force them to serve its interests by calling the removal of opposing views censorship.

Theres something for everyone on the internet, and thats how it should be. Of course, its true that moderation decisions by large platforms can silence legitimate speech and stifle debate online. But as EFF has repeatedly argued, the way to address the concentration of a handful of large services is by reducing their power and giving consumers more choices. This includes renewed antitrust reforms, allowing interoperability, and taking other steps to increase competition between services.

These efforts would allow people who dont like the viewpoints expressed on one site to move to another and keep their social networks, while increasing the number of platforms that host speech that reflects their views and interests.

Unfortunately, the Fifth Circuits decision is likely to result in fewer sites for users to choose from and will likely do very little to alter or diminish the dominance of the platforms. This is because, as the Fifth Circuit observes, the largest services have immense legal resources to fight the lawsuits permitted by HB 20. They will survive, while other smaller sites targeted by new laws similar to HB 20 will not.

Government should not have the power to tell websites what opinions they must host, and we hope to that the Supreme Court will strike down this disastrous law and reject the Fifth Circuits dangerous logic that undermines the First Amendment rights of online services and their users.

Read the original:
Court's Decision Upholding Disastrous Texas Social Media Law Puts The State, Rather Than Internet Users, in Control of Everyone's Speech Online - EFF