Mediaboss Marketing

KYIV -- Censorship and a blow to freedom of expression, or a long-overdue move in defense of national security?

President Petro Poroshenko's blanket ban in Ukraine on several Russian Internet services, including leading Russian-language social networks and a popular search engine, has struck a chord -- or a nerve, depending on who you ask.

The ban, based on recommendations of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) put forth in April and issued on May 16 by presidential decree, immediately triggered a wave of criticism from human rights groups and journalists who claimed it was undemocratic.

Meanwhile, many Ukrainians -- particularly from the government and security apparatuses -- heralded it as a long overdue step to combat Russian instruments of information warfare amid a bloody shooting war with Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Specifically, the decree orders Internet service providers (ISPs) to block public access for three years to the Mail.ru group and its social-networking sites, VK (formerly VKontakte) and Odnoklassniki -- the top two in Ukraine.

At least 78 percent of Internet users in Ukraine, or some 20 million people, reportedly had a VK account as of late April. The Mail.Ru group is controlled by Kremlin-friendly oligarch Alisher Usmanov.

The decree also orders a block on the popular Russian search engine Yandex and its various services.

It brings the total of sanctioned physical and legal entities to 468 companies, most of them Russian, and 1,228 individuals in connection with what Poroshenko called via his own VK page Russia's "hybrid warfare" against Ukraine, including its seizure of Crimea in March 2014 and its role in a conflict in the country's east that has killed more than 9,900 people.

In signing the decree, Poroshenko promised to close his own VK page, where he has more than 466,000 followers. (The page was still up at the time of publication.)

Cynical Or Long Overdue?

Blistering criticism of the president's move came fast and hot.

"This is yet another example of the ease with which President Poroshenko unjustifiably tries to control public discourse in Ukraine," said Tanya Cooper, Ukraine researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW). "Poroshenko may try to justify this latest step, but it is a cynical, politically expedient attack on the right to information affecting millions of Ukrainians, and their personal and professional lives."

Some critics drew comparisons to Internet restrictions imposed by China, Iran, and Turkey.

The "Erdoganization of Poroshenko is here" former journalist-turned-lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko tweeted in an ominous reference to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's crackdown on that country's press and academia after a failed coup in July 2016.

Serhiy Petrenko, the former head of Yandex Ukraine, wrote this especially scathing indictment of Poroshenko's decree on his blog: "I'll be brief. Everyone who had a hand in this decree, including the person who signed it, are f***ing idiots."

The decree's supporters were no less enthusiastic, with many, like Ukrainian political consultant Taras Kuzio, saying the move was "long overdue."

"On the territory of Crimea and in the Russian Federation, Roskomnadzor blocked all our information resources, in particular, Free Crimea," Ukrainian political analyst Taras Berezovets wrote on Facebook, referring to a nonprofit project that monitors activities of Russian authorities on the annexed Crimean Peninsula. "Russians constantly write letters demanding to ban materials from our sites to our German [service] providers. So don't be surprised that for me this is a day of personal victory. Vendetta is such a sweet word, I'll tell you."

In justifying the ban, the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) said in a statement that "Russian security agencies are waging a hybrid war against the Ukrainian population, using in their special information operations Internet resources such as VK, Odnoklassniki, Mail.ru, and so on."

Andrei Soldatov, a Russian cybersecurity expert, told RFE/RL that "it is true that VK is extremely intrusive and known to be cooperative with the FSB," a reference to Russia's Federal Security Service and main successor to the KGB. But he argued that most Ukrainian users "cannot pose a security risk" as ordinary citizens "have no access to secrets."

Rather than risk public outrage, Soldatov said, Ukraine could have limited usage of those sites to military and officials with security clearances. Another option, he said without endorsing it, would have been to take a page from Russia's playbook and require the sites to store Ukrainians' personal data on Ukrainian soil.

But How To Ban?

At the time of publication, all of the banned sites were still accessible in Ukraine.

Ukraine had no legal mechanism in place for blocking the Internet resources listed in the ban when Poroshenko signed the decree, according to an SBU statement, leaving it and other law enforcement agencies scrambling to recommend the necessary changes in Ukrainian law.

Mykhaylo Chaplyhya from the Ukrainian Human Rights Ombudsperson's Secretariat told the UNIAN news agency that no website may be blocked in Ukraine without a court order.

Failure to comply with the order may result in fines equal to 100-200 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens, according a statement published on the site of the National Commission for the State Regulation of Communications and Informatics.

Some ISPs, including Ukraine's largest fixed-line operator, Urktelecom, said on May 17 that they had already begun to implement the ban, according to the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.

"Work will be carried out in stages and, according to specialists' preliminary estimate, will take several days, up to a week," Interfax quoted Urktelecom as saying.

If or when access to the targeted sites ceases, experts say it will be easy to skirt the block, as virtual private networks (VPNs) are readily available in Ukraine.

Not skipping a beat, VK sent Ukrainian users a message late on May 16 with a link to instructions on how to use such tools to circumvent the block.

"We love our Ukrainian users and want you to always stay in touch with friends and family," the company said.

Continue reading here:
Public Sharply Divided Over Ukraine's Ban On Russian Social Networks - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

A number of documents and manuals used to train Facebooks moderators have been exposed in an investigative report by The Guardian, revealing the type of content users are and arent allowed to post on the social networking site.

That includes taking some controversial stances. For instance, its allegedly Facebook policy to allow the livestreaming of video of people attempting self-harm, only removing the video once theres no longer an opportunity to help the person unless [the videos] are newsworthy.

Another example is in relation to violent language, which Facebook only deems as against the rules if the specificity of language makes it seem like its no longer simply an expression of emotion but a transition to a plot or design. General statements like lets beat up fat kids (a direct quote) can remain on the site, whereas someones request for a presidential assassination would be removed.

The Guardian report is part of a series the site is calling Facebook Files a combination of articles that discuss the guidelines in depth, and also provide samples of the original moderation documents themselves. The guidelines cover a huge range of specific topics, ranging from the showing of animal cruelty to non-sexual child abuse, and detail how Facebook feels each should be addressed.

Facebook already has around 4,500 content moderators whose sole job it is to wade through reports from users of disturbing or inappropriate content, and the company has said it plans to hire another 3,000 to help deal with the massive workload. While this army of screening staff deal with these reports, they apparently dont touch any of the content when it first gets posted that job is instead relegated to automated systems and checks.

These issues are obviously ethically complex, and for many people it will be irksome to see these topics discussed through the lens of corporate interest, no matter how reasonable the policy surrounding each problem may be.

Go here to see the original:
Banned on Facebook: how the social network tackles controversial topics - TechRadar

Instagram has been rated the most damaging social media platform for young peoples mental health in a new study out of the U.K.

After Instagram, the next low-scoring platform was Snapchat, followed by Facebook, Twitter and then YouTube, which was ranked the healthiest network for youth mental health and wellbeing.

The research, conducted by the Royal Society for Public Health and the Young Health Movement and published on Friday, surveyed 1,479 people in the U.K. between the ages of 14 and 24 in early 2017.

The participants were asked to rate the impacts of the five social media platforms on different aspects of their wellbeing such as, sleep, depression, self-identity, body image, loneliness, bullying, anxiety and fear of missing out (or FOMO as its often called).

According to the findings, Instagram was given low scores in seven categories for its effect on young peoples body image, sleep, bullying, anxiety, depression, loneliness and FOMO.

The photo-sharing networking site was rated highly for its promotion of self-expression, self-identity and emotional support, however.

The most positively-viewed service, YouTube, scored poorly for its impact on the respondents sleep, but did well in nine other categories including emotional support, depression, loneliness, self-expression and awareness of other peoples health experience.

The papers authors point to past studies that have raised concerns about the detrimental effects of social media on developing minds to justify the importance for this kind of research.

The way young people communicate and share with each other has changed, the study states. With social media being such a new phenomenon, the exact effect it is having on the mental health, emotional wellbeing and physiology of young people is currently unclear.

According to the study, 91 per cent of the surveys participants use the internet for social networking and that social media has been called more addictive than cigarettes.

The researchers also point to increasing rates of anxiety and depression in youth (up by 70 per cent in the past 25 years) and how networking sites have been linked to it.

Call for action:

The two health organizations involved in the study also called for a number measures to protect young users from the potentially harmful effects of social media.

Some of the demands include:

- Pop-up warning messages to alert users of their heavy usage

- Including a watermark to identify photos that have been digitally manipulated

- More education in schools on the effects of social media

- Creation of social media platforms to identify users who may be suffering from mental health problems and directing them to support resources

- More research into the impact of social media on young peoples mental health

See the rest here:
Instagram ranked worst for youth mental health: study - CTV News

The president of Ukraine banned four of the nations most popular websites Monday with a new round of sanctions targeting Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea and subsequent aggression.

President Petro Poroshenko issued a decree Monday evening broadening anti-Russian sanctions and expanding Kievs blacklist to 468 companies and 1,228 people, including Mail.ru, the Moscow-based firm in control of Ukraines two most popular social networks, VK and Odnoklassniki, as well as Yandex, a Russian-owned search engine, in addition to several major Russian television channels and banks.

The challenges of hybrid war demand adequate responses, Mr. Poroshenko said in a statement Monday. Massive Russian cyber attacks across the world particularly the interference in the French election campaign show it is time to act differently and more decisively.

Russia used cyber warfare trying to influence the results of elections across Europe and in the U.S., Mr. Poroshenko added during a Monday night television address, IB Times reported. We expect that they will try to do the same thing to Ukraine.

The sanctions took effect immediately and quickly earned condemnation and cries of censorship from affected entities and open internet advocates as well as ridicule from Russian President Vladimir Putins administration in Moscow.

We have always steered clear of politics, said VK, which claims about 16 million social network users in Ukraine alone. We believe that in its very essence, the internet has no borders.

Supposedly this is because Russia is making money from our users and we are at war. But, excuse me, these are sanctions against the citizens themselves, opined Oksana Romaniouk, Reporters Without Borderss Ukrainian representative.

Dmitry Peskov, Mr. Putins spokesperson, called the sanctions short-sighted and warned Russia had not forgotten about the principle of reciprocity. Russias Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, called the sanctions a manifestation of politically motivated censorship, not withstanding its own repressive internet restrictions.

Other targets of Ukraines latest sanctions include Russias leading cybersecurity firm, Kaspersky Labs, in addition to several banks and television stations, including Rossiya Segodnya, RBC, VGTRK and TNT, among others.

Moscow annexed Crimea from Kiev in 2014 after Ukraines pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown from office and replaced by Mr. Poroshenko. Pro-Russian separatists purportedly backed by Moscow instigated a civil war in eastern Ukraine later that year, the likes of which has claimed at least 10,000 lives in the last three years.

Visit link:
Ukraine blocks social networking sites with new sanctions against Russia - Washington Times

Instagram has been ranked as the worst social networking app when it comes to its impact on young people's mental health, according to a new survey published by the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) in the UK.

The #StatusofMind survey asked 1479 young people, aged 14 to 24, to score popular social media platforms on issues such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, bullying and body image.

The photo-sharing app, which has over 700 million users worldwide, appeared to be more detrimental to young people's mental health when compared to Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Chief executive of the RSPH, Shirley Cramer, said social media sites pose a real and immediate threat to the health of young people.

"Social media has been described as more addictive than cigarettes and alcohol, and is now so entrenched in the lives of young people that it is no longer possible to ignore it when talking about young people's mental health issues", Ms Cramer told The Telegraph.

"It's interesting to see Instagram and Snapchat ranking as the worst for mental health and wellbeing - both platforms are very image-focused and it appears they may be driving feelings of inadequacy and anxiety in young people.

"The platforms that are supposed to help young people connect with each other may actually be fuelling a mental health crisis", Ms Cramer said.

The report offers an insight into the possible link between mental illness and heavy social media use.

"Instagram easily makes girls and women feel as if their bodies aren't good enough as people add filters and edit their pictures in order for them to look 'perfect'", an anonymous female respondent said in the report.

"This [social media] resulted in me not eating properly and losing a lot of weight and becoming very depressed, I finally recovered which was hard for myself to be bullied online again in year 8. Overall I would say social media has caused me many issues and has caused me to be depressed many times", another respondent said.

The report also identified the length of time that people are engaging with social media platforms as the greatest cause for concern.

"Seeing friends constantly on holiday or enjoying nights out can make young people feel like they are missing out while others enjoy life", it notes.

"These feelings can promote a 'compare and despair' attitude in young people.

"Individuals may view heavily photo-shopped, edited or staged photographs and videos and compare them to their seemingly mundane lives".

Young people who spend more than two hours per day connecting on social networking sites are more likely to suffer from increased levels of psychological distress, depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, according to the report.

However, it isn't all bad news; social media platforms can also promote a sense of community and provide emotional support for at-risk youth.

"I have anxiety and on many occasions I have found videos that put how I feel into words and explain it, and this benefits me a lot making me feel more confident", an anonymous respondent said.

Despite the criticisms levelled at Instagram by a host of respondents in the survey, the app was found to have a positive effect on self-expression and self-identity.

However YouTube was the only social media platform found to have an overall positive impact on young people's mental health.

In an effort to counter the negative impacts of heavy social media, experts listed a series of checks and measures designed to bolster mental health, including:

The impact of five social media sites were evaluated in the following order:

Continue reading here:
'Fuelling a mental health crisis': Instagram worst social network for young people's mental health - The Sydney Morning Herald