People around the world are turning to an online dating app for coronavirus information from inside Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the mysterious respiratory illness that has ripped through hospitals and supply chains around the world.

The Chinese government's lack of transparency and top-down limiting of communication to the outside world has led to accusations of state-backed censorship of the virus's impact. In the past two months, several citizen journalists and medical professionals have been punished as a result of their attempts to warn the Chinese people and the global citizenry.

Now, people from Manhattan to Bangkok are utilizing a passport feature from the online dating app Tinder to gain access into the daily lives of Chinese citizens on the front lines of the outbreak.

[Click here for complete coronavirus coverage]

Tinder, one of the world's most widely-used dating apps, features an upgraded "Gold" membership, which allows users to move their phone's location to any spot in the world, including cities and areas in China that are known for their lack of ability to communicate with the outside world. Users from outside China are using the feature to ping into Chinese borders and get a better sense of what is really happening in cities that have been quarantined.

A United States-based Twitter account @drethelin announced he was setting his location to Wuhan in late January so he could "get the real scoop on what's going on." Another Twitter user, @philosophyhater, on Feb. 10, tweeted,"I just bought tinder gold and set my location to wuhan."

One person said their friend matched with a doctor, who told her that a couple hundred patients had recovered. The doctor, who used the name Laughing and whose profile picture featured him wearing a face mask, said he worked at Wuhan Union Hospital. He confirmed that young people who get the virus would likely only experience flu-like symptoms.

"Yes Tinder #LoveInTimeOfCorona," tweeted user @bon_plus. "So a friend shared this with me today, she made good use of her Tinder Gold and tried reaching out to people from Wuhan. Luckily, she was able to talk to a doctor based in Wuhan. PICS of their convo!"

Though the World Health Organization has said the coronavirus is not a sexually transmitted disease, the Centers for Disease Controls has warned that transmission of fluids is a leading cause for infection. To ward off the spread, Tinder has instituted a new warning that pops up on the app, instructing users to wash their hands, avoid touching their faces, and maintain social distance in public gatherings.

The coronavirus has killed more than 4,000 people worldwide and infected over 100,000.

Visit link:

'Love in time of' coronavirus: Tinder being used to circumnavigate possible Chinese censorship of outbreak - Washington Examiner

Paul Gardner, University of Glasgow

Chinas political leaders will be hoping that when concerns about the coronavirus eventually start to recede, memories about the states failings early on in the outbreak will also fade. They will be particularly keen for people to forget the anger many felt after the death from COVID-19 of Dr Li Wenliang, the doctor censured for trying to warn colleagues about the outbreak. After Dr Lis death, the phrase We want freedom of speech was even trending on Chinese social media for several hours before the posts were deleted.

Dr Li had told fellow medical professionals about the new virus in a chat group on 30 December. He was accused of rumour-mongering and officials either ignored or played down the risks well into January. If officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier, Dr Li told the New York Times, I think it would have been a lot better. There should be more openness and transparency.

I am currently researching the Chinese party-states efforts to increase legitimacy by controlling the information that reaches its citizens. The lack of openness and transparency in this crucial early phase of the outbreak was partly because officials were gathering for annual meetings of the local Communist Party-run legislatures, when propaganda departments instruct the media not to cover negative stories.

However, the censorship in this period also reflects increasingly tight control over information in China. As Chinese media expert Anne-Marie Brady notes, from the beginning of his presidency, Xi Jinping was clear the media should focus on positive news stories that uphold unity and stability and are encouraging.

The deterioration in the medias limited freedoms under Xi Jinping was underlined by a visit he made to media organisations in 2016, declaring that, All Party media have the surname Party, and demanding loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

There have been a series of good quality investigative reports, notably by the business publication Caixin, since the authorities fully acknowledged the virus. As political scientist Maria Repnikova argues, providing temporary space for the media to report more freely can help the party-state project an image of managed transparency. However, the clampdown has undoubtedly had a significant effect on the medias ability to provide effective investigative reporting, particularly early on in the outbreak.

Online, there have been a succession of measures to limit speech the party deems a threat. These include laws that mean the threat of jail for anyone found guilty of spreading rumours. In an authoritarian regime, stopping rumours limits peoples ability to raise concerns and potentially discover the truth. A point made only too clearly by Dr Lis case.

The party focuses its censorship on problems that might undermine its legitimacy. Part of my ongoing research into information control in China involves an analysis of leaked censorship instructions collected by the US-based China Digital Times. This shows that between 2013 and 2018, over 100 leaked instructions concerned problems about the environment, food safety, health, education, natural disasters and major accidents. The actual number is likely to far exceed this.

For example, after an explosion at a petrochemical factory, media organisations were told to censor negative commentary related to petrochemical projects. And after parents protested about tainted vaccines, the media were instructed that only information provided by official sources could be used on front pages.

State media play a key role in the CCPs efforts to set the agenda online. My research shows that the number of stories featuring problems about the environment and disasters posted by Peoples Daily newspaper on Sina Weibo (Chinas equivalent of Twitter) fell significantly between 2013 and 2018.

Around 4.5% of all People Dailys Weibo posts between 2013 and 2015 were about the environment, but by 2018 had fallen to as low as 1%. Similarly, around 8%-10% of all posts by the newspaper were about disasters and major accidents between 2013 and 2015, but this figure fell to below 4% in the following three years.

The party wants people to focus instead on topics it thinks will enhance its legitimacy. The number of posts by Peoples Daily focusing on nationalism had doubled to 12% of the total by 2018.

As well as investigative reports on the outbreak in parts of the media, some Chinese individuals have also gone to great lengths to communicate information about the virus and conditions in Wuhan. However, the authorities have been steadily silencing significant critical voices and stepping up their efforts to censor other content they deem particularly unhelpful.

The censors do not stop everything, but as the China scholar Margaret E. Roberts suggests, porous censorship can still be very effective. She points out that the Chinese authorities efforts to make it more difficult for people to access critical content that does make it online, while flooding the internet with information the CCP wants them to see, can still be very effective.

When a problem cannot be avoided, my research shows that the propaganda authorities try to control the narrative by ensuring the media focus on the states efforts to tackle the problem. After a landslide at a mine in Tibet, the media were told to cover disaster relief promptly and abundantly. Coverage of such disasters by Peoples Daily focuses on images of heroic rescue workers.

This same propaganda effort is in evidence now. As the China Media Projects David Bandurski notes, media coverage in China is increasingly seeking to portray the Chinese Communist Party as the enabler of miraculous human feats battling the virus.

After Dr Lis death, CCP leaders sought to blame local officials for admonishing him. However, the actions taken against Dr Li were fully consistent with the Partys approach to controlling information under Xi Jinping.

It is impossible to know how many people have died, or might die in future, because people have decided to self-censor, rather than risk punishment for spreading rumours, or because the authorities have sought to avoid information reaching the public. The coronavirus outbreak highlights the risks of a system that puts social stability and ruling party legitimacy above the public interest.

Paul Gardner, PhD Candidate in Chinese Studies and Political Communication, University of Glasgow

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Stay updated with all the insights.Navigate news, 1 email day.Subscribe to Qrius

See the original post here:

Censorship and Propaganda in the Time of the Coronavirus - Qrius

The recent ban on talk show host John Oliver's video criticising the government's CAA move is a glaring example of how censorship on OTT is not the best idea.

The government reignited the conversation of censorship on web-streaming platforms earlier this month when Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Minister Prakash Javadekar met representatives of Netflix, Amazon, Hotstar, Voot, Zee5, ALTBalaji and SonyLIV, among others. Citing an example of OTT censorship in China, where a set of rules govern online platforms, Javadekar related his experience of watching online content with his family at home and thus asked these web streaming giants to regulate their content for the Indian audiences. He also gave these OTT companies to come to agreeable mutual terms and set up a body and put in motion a code of conduct in the next 100 days.

While Javadekar's OTT-watching experience with his family hints at regulating content due to Indian culture and making it 'safe', the big question that looms over, is do we need to censorship on web-streaming platforms when already content on television and in cinema halls is censored rigorously?

The fact that a minister has cited China as an example -- a country where basic websites are banned for political reasons, it is worrisome. The recent ban on talk show host John Oliver's video criticising the government's CAA move is a glaring example of how censorship on OTT is not the best idea.

Indian filmmakers have had issues with the CBFC since ages. The most explosive example in recent times was for 2016's Udta Punjab -- a film on the serious drug issue in the state. Bizarre demands of the CBFC like removing the name of the state and swear words, led to a debate like no other. In the end, the filmmakers prevailed and the Bombay High Court allowed for the film's release with just one cut from 89.

When it comes to OTT, the audience largely changes. However, in recent times, OTT is turning out to be the money maker with series like Sacred Games, Made In Heaven and Mirzapur changing the game. From teens to the young to the middle-aged, there is something for everyone on web platforms. But does that mean we need to put the content under strict regulation and mute swear words?

Kiara Advani, who recently starred in Netflix's Guilty, rightly told Bollywood Life in an interview, "I feel if people want to watch something, they will find a way to watch it. So rather than allowing someone to take a route which we do not want, why not keep it simple and do the rating system. Everyones responsible when they are making something. Web allows you to keep it real and not be restrictive like films which release in theatres."

We have not even started the debate on OTT censorship and Oliver's episode was already banned. Do you think web platforms need to put their foot down or regulate self censorship?

Let us know in the comments section below.

See the original post here:

Should OTT content in India have a censor board to strap creative freedom just like films? - PINKVILLA

Text Size:A- A+

Chinas political leaders will be hoping that when concerns about the coronavirus eventually start to recede, memories about the states failings early on in the outbreak will also fade. They will be particularly keen for people to forget the anger many felt after the death from COVID-19 of Dr Li Wenliang, the doctor censured for trying to warn colleagues about the outbreak. After Dr Lis death, the phrase We want freedom of speech was even trending on Chinese social media for several hours before the posts were deleted.

Dr Li had told fellow medical professionals about the new virus in a chat group on 30 December. He was accused of rumour-mongering and officials either ignored or played down the risks well into January. If officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier, Dr Li told the New York Times, I think it would have been a lot better. There should be more openness and transparency.

I am currently researching the Chinese party-states efforts to increase legitimacy by controlling the information that reaches its citizens. The lack of openness and transparency in this crucial early phase of the outbreak was partly because officials were gathering for annual meetings of the local Communist Party-run legislatures, when propaganda departments instruct the media not to cover negative stories.

However, the censorship in this period also reflects increasingly tight control over information in China. As Chinese media expert Anne-Marie Brady notes, from the beginning of his presidency, Xi Jinping was clear the media should focus on positive news stories that uphold unity and stability and are encouraging.

Also read: Coronavirus infodemic people spreading fake news about disease arrested across Asia

The deterioration in the medias limited freedoms under Xi Jinping was underlined by a visit he made to media organisations in 2016, declaring that, All Party media have the surname Party, and demanding loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

There have been a series of good quality investigative reports, notably by the business publication Caixin, since the authorities fully acknowledged the virus. As political scientist Maria Repnikova argues, providing temporary space for the media to report more freely can help the party-state project an image of managed transparency. However, the clampdown has undoubtedly had a significant effect on the medias ability to provide effective investigative reporting, particularly early on in the outbreak.

Online, there have been a succession of measures to limit speech the party deems a threat. These include laws that mean the threat of jail for anyone found guilty of spreading rumours. In an authoritarian regime, stopping rumours limits peoples ability to raise concerns and potentially discover the truth. A point made only too clearly by Dr Lis case.

The party focuses its censorship on problems that might undermine its legitimacy. Part of my ongoing research into information control in China involves an analysis of leaked censorship instructions collected by the US-based China Digital Times. This shows that between 2013 and 2018, over 100 leaked instructions concerned problems about the environment, food safety, health, education, natural disasters and major accidents. The actual number is likely to far exceed this.

For example, after an explosion at a petrochemical factory, media organisations were told to censor negative commentary related to petrochemical projects. And after parents protested about tainted vaccines, the media were instructed that only information provided by official sources could be used on front pages.

State media play a key role in the CCPs efforts to set the agenda online. My research shows that the number of stories featuring problems about the environment and disasters posted by Peoples Daily newspaper on Sina Weibo (Chinas equivalent of Twitter) fell significantly between 2013 and 2018.

Around 4.5% of all People Dailys Weibo posts between 2013 and 2015 were about the environment, but by 2018 had fallen to as low as 1%. Similarly, around 8%-10% of all posts by the newspaper were about disasters and major accidents between 2013 and 2015, but this figure fell to below 4% in the following three years.

The party wants people to focus instead on topics it thinks will enhance its legitimacy. The number of posts by Peoples Daily focusing on nationalism had doubled to 12% of the total by 2018.

As well as investigative reports on the outbreak in parts of the media, some Chinese individuals have also gone to great lengths to communicate information about the virus and conditions in Wuhan. However, the authorities have been steadily silencing significant critical voices and stepping up their efforts to censor other content they deem particularly unhelpful.

The censors do not stop everything, but as the China scholar Margaret E. Roberts suggests, porous censorship can still be very effective. She points out that the Chinese authorities efforts to make it more difficult for people to access critical content that does make it online, while flooding the internet with information the CCP wants them to see, can still be very effective.

When a problem cannot be avoided, my research shows that the propaganda authorities try to control the narrative by ensuring the media focus on the states efforts to tackle the problem. After a landslide at a mine in Tibet, the media were told to cover disaster relief promptly and abundantly. Coverage of such disasters by Peoples Daily focuses on images of heroic rescue workers.

This same propaganda effort is in evidence now. As the China Media Projects David Bandurski notes, media coverage in China is increasingly seeking to portray the Chinese Communist Party as the enabler of miraculous human feats battling the virus.

After Dr Lis death, CCP leaders sought to blame local officials for admonishing him. However, the actions taken against Dr Li were fully consistent with the Partys approach to controlling information under Xi Jinping.

It is impossible to know how many people have died, or might die in future, because people have decided to self-censor, rather than risk punishment for spreading rumours, or because the authorities have sought to avoid information reaching the public. The coronavirus outbreak highlights the risks of a system that puts social stability and ruling party legitimacy above the public interest.

Paul Gardner, PhD Candidate in Chinese Studies and Political Communication, University of Glasgow

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Also read: Iran cant be trusted to deal with coronavirus

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Continue reading here:

The big coronavirus cover-up: Fighting truth and coronavirus, the China way - ThePrint

Among the grievances of the Maltese during the first years of British domination was press censorship. As early as 1812, due to the efforts of Marquis Mario Testaferrata, a Royal Commission made up of William aCourt, John Burrows and Sir Hildebrand Oakes (the islands Civil Commissioner) was sent to Malta to report about Maltese grievances, but nothing resulted with regard to press liberty.

In 1831, Camillo Sceberras, Giorgio Mitrovich and other Maltese patriots set up the Comitato Generale Maltese whose aim was to petition for administrative reforms. In 1832, a memorial was sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. This memorial was soon to bear fruit.

By 1835, the British government was arriving to the conclusion that there was no real argument in favour of the continuation of censorship at Malta. It was being realised that, if the press were to be regulated by adequate press laws, imperial interests would not be prejudiced and the local Catholic Churchs rights would not be endangered. It was quite natural that any nascent Maltese press laws would be on the British model, but the problem would be to harmonise imperial, religious and rule-of-law exigencies.

Chief Justice of Malta, Sir John Stoddart, drafted two ordinances entitled An Ordinance for establishing the lawful freedom of the press and for guarding against abuses thereof, which incorporated the principle of press liberty with limitations in religious matters and An ordinance for regulating the market, selling and using of printing presses and the printing and publishing newspapers and other like periodicals. However, in July 1835, everything came to a standstill because the matter was to be considered by a Royal Commission which was sent to Malta in 1836.

Meanwhile, in July 1835, Giorgio Mitrovich went personally to London to plead the Maltese cause. Here he published pamphlets calling for the full recognition of the rights of the Maltese. His writings clearly show that the Maltese sought a moderate freedom of the press rather than an absolute freedom that could degenerate into immorality or bring about offences to religious sentiments.

The question of religion was, in fact, one of the greatest headaches to be contended with. Since the advent of British rule over Malta, Protestant bible societies had been trying to distribute bibles in Italian and Maltese among the local populace. This was frustrated by the Catholic clergy who banned the reading of Protestant propaganda. A protest by Bishop Ferdinando Mattei made Governor Sir Thomas Maitland prohibit the use of the printing presses of the American Missionary Society and the Society of English Independents to the detriment of the Catholic religion. However, nothing practical was carried out to enforce this prohibition.

In London, Mitrovich was aided and abetted by various Members of Parliament, especially by William Ewart. Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies, was eventually persuaded to take steps to inquire into the affairs of Malta. In March 1836, Glenelg expressed his wish to administer the affairs in Malta in the free, open, and confiding spirit which is the peculiar excellence of the British constitution, and that consequently the censorship of the press should be abolished and that without delay.

The Acting Lieutenant-Governor, George Cardew, informed Glenelg that the local clergy were against the abolition of censorship because they feared attacks on the Catholic religion; however, he was of the opinion that these high feelings would gradually decrease. Chief Justice Stoddart suggested that religious matters should be left as they were and that only political liberty need be granted because of the difficulties to be faced in determining the religious question.

On March 18, 1836, Bishop Francesco Saverio Caruana requested the governor not to grant freedom of the press in the same measure as it was practised in England because it could result in fatal consequences to the Catholic Church. For the same reason, the Holy See also opposed the freedom of the press in Malta.

Bishop Francesco Saverio Caruana requested the governor not to grant freedom of the press because it could result in fatal consequences to the Catholic Church

Not all Englishmen were in favour of press liberty for Malta. The Duke of Wellington objected on military grounds. He wrote the following in The Times (of London) in 1838: The mania of this Melbourne ministry for the manufacture of commissions has already brought it into trouble, and will bring the noble lords and honourable gentlemen composing it into a great deal more Two gentlemen were sent out as commissioners to Malta, some time in 1836, to examine into all sorts of matters whereto it might be feasible in any manner to attach the name of imputation of abuse There was, so far as yet appears, opportunity enough afforded them on that spot for troublesome and tiresome exertions, but none for extensive or really useful results It is a fortress, a seaport, a great naval arsenal in the Mediterranean The whole island must, from the nature of things, be like a regiment under strict military discipline, otherwise we shall lose our garrison and our harbour.

The duke was referring to the royal commission sent to Malta in 1836, by an order of the King in Council, to inquire into the affairs of the island. One of these affairs was the censorship of the press.

On October 20, 1836, John Austin and George Cornewall Lewis, the two members forming the commission, arrived on the 50-gun frigate HMS Vernon and immediately set themselves to work. The first subject that engaged their attention was precisely the state of the press in Malta. The following includes the salient points of the commissioners report from which only the most important points are being noted. The commissioners considered the following four topics:

I. The legal basis and administration of censorship in Malta: The commissioners, after briefly considering the administration of the press by the British, went on to recount more briefly still the development of the press under the Order of St John and the French. They concluded that a censorship was enforced on the island by these governments monopoly of printing based on an old law enacted by the Order of St John that forbade the setting-up of any business without permission.

They pointed out that the Codice de Rohan of 1784 Book I, c.38, s.15 determined the manner of enforcing it and the officers by whom it was to be enforced. Therefore, according to the commissioners, the legality of the censorship exercised by His Majestys government may be justified by a well-known rule of colonial law, that is, that every institution, existing in a colony at the time of its acquisition by the Crown, continues to exist until it is abolished by His Majesty.

As an argument against censorship, the commission pointed out that the French had abolished censorship and, therefore, when the British remained in Malta after the expulsion of the former, they were not really perpetuating the mentioned rule of colonial law. But they themselves counteracted this argument by stating that the French had spent most of their time defending Valletta and the neighbourhood and did not really establish a regular government while the Maltese insurgent leaders were only concerned with expelling the French from Malta. Moreover, the French did not seem to have done anything inconsistent with censorship.

Moreover, since the King was the supreme legislator and had permitted the exercise of the existing censorship, His Majesty has established it as effectually as if he had created it by an express declaration of his pleasure. They ended this section by declaring that the only safeguard against abuses was the Roman Law relating to libelli famosi, regarded by them to be a very ineffectual restraint on abuses of the liberty of publication.

II. The censorship laws principal inconveniences: The commissioners wrote that these came about both from the government monopoly of printing and from press censorship. The former resulted in high prices and delay in the execution of private work while the latter incurred the hatred of the populace for the government and prevented the diffusion of political knowledge and instructive information.

III. Recommendation to abolish the censorship law and the consideration of objections to the liberty of the press: As substitutes for the censorship then in force, the commissioners suggested either a liberty of printing accompanied by an extension of the present incomplete censorship to printed writings imported into the island or a liberty of printing and publishing, accompanied by a law for preventing its abuses.

The commissioners recommended the latter course and disposed of objections regarding dangerous disclosures concerning the military defences of the island, and attacks on the local and friendly governments, the Catholic Church and on private persons. As part of the law granting press liberty, the commissioners recommended the setting-up of a law of libel to check abuses.

IV. Means to prevent abuses: Together with the legal means to check abuses, the commissioners also made the following recommendations: the abolition of the government printing establishment; the discontinuation of the Malta Government Gazette; the publication of government Acts and notices in newspapers established by private persons; the publication of government Acts and notices which could not be conveniently published in a newspaper; and keeping the government printing materials in case they would be needed in the future.

(To be concluded)

Joseph Grima is retired casual lecturer of history and assistant director of education

Go here to see the original:

The first real liberty of the press in Malta 1839 (Part 1) - Times of Malta

People at the Vive Latino music festival at the Foro Sol in Mexico City, on March 14

ALEJANDRO MELENDEZ/Getty Images

Every week, Future Tense shares articles with four international publishers: Letras Libres in Mexico, the Wire in India, Haykal Media in the United Arab Emirates, and poca in Brazil. As coronavirus news has taken over the globe, we thought it would be a good time to hear from our partners about how the news media are handling the coronavirus in their countries, what trends they are seeing around misinformation and censorship on social media, and more. So on Tuesday, Future Tense editorial director Andrs Martinez; Hamoud Almahmoud, the editor-in-chief of Harvard Business Review Arabia, published by Haykal Media; Vasudevan Mukunth, science editor for the Wire in India; and Emilio Rivaud, senior web editor for Letras Libres in Mexico, went on Slack to discuss the coronavirus and online discussion.

Their conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, is below.

Andrs Martinez: Thanks, everyone for joining today, once yours truly sorted out our respective time zones. Future Tense is fortunate to have publishing partners like you around the globe, and I am eager to compare notes on how we see our various audiences sharing information about the coronavirus, an issue that seems tailor-made to explore all that is positive, and all that is alarming, about the immediacy and ubiquity of online info platforms.

I have been reading The Great Influenza by John Barry, an impressive book about the 1918 pandemic, and I am struck by how in the United States, because the deadly flu coincided with our World War I mobilization, there was no mention of it by federal government, no primetime Woodrow Wilson address, nothing, lest it affect wartime morale. Sometimes crises like these are exploited by governments to advance their own agendas, at other times minimized as in the U.S. 1918 case. Vasudevan, how do you see coronavirus playing in India?

Vasudevan Mukunth: Thus far the government response has been uneven What cases have been identified have been quarantined, but there is no effort to undertake testing for community transmission. The government has been issuing advisories such as inserting a short voice message at the start of every phone call, before it starts ringing, reminding us to wash our hands. But at the same time, just before the outbreak really took off, the government used some far-fetched reasons to suspend access to foreign funds for an important virus research center. The coronavirus outbreak is becoming yet another example of how the country tries to respond to each part of an outbreak instead of developing a cohesive, multisectoral response.

Andrs: Thats really interesting, inserting a short voice message at the start of every phone call. Are public health officials attempting to police the spread of misinformation about the virus on social media in India?

Vasudevan: Well, thats a bit easier said than done thanks to the scale of India. Truth be told, our media is strongly polarized, has been since around 2014. Many right-wing, pro-government news sites have sprung up whose only prerogative seems to be to support the governments viewsand these views include portraying liberals as unpatriotic anti-nationalists. This is a very anti-minority, anti-secular, pro-Hindu government (as the Delhi riots most recently showed). So in this context, there are news sites that are for sure going to play up the governments line on matters like, say, the support for alternative medicinal traditions like Ayurveda and homeopathy to cure COVID-19. In fact, Indias Ministry of AYUSH, whose mandate it is to promote these alternative systems, has been publishing advisories and putting up banners at different places around the country recommending alternative treatments, which have been upheld by news sites that think this is just another point of view instead of something that could harm people.

Misinformation has been part of its political agenda, so when the government is tasked with fighting misinformation to curb the spread of a disease, it becomes a bit of a mess.

Andrs: Alternative treatments do seem to be a rich mine for mischief in situations like this, and its interesting to see how even Facebook is realizing it needs to be more engaged in content moderation on something like this.

Hamoud, when we think of the United Arab Emirates, we think of it as an important global hub, both in terms of Abu Dhabi and Dubai. And, of course, when you think of how the coronavirus spreads, being a hub brings with it its own set of concerns.

Hamoud Almahmoud: The UAE is trying to position itself as a hub to treat the virus. As you may know, the UAE has brought other citizens who were trapped in China to a place called the Humanitarian City, where they can be treated and quarantined. Because of our geography, the Gulf countries have been heavily hit. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are closing doors to many outsiders and shutting down all sorts of public activities, including school.

Vasudevan: The UAEs press isnt exactly free. So has there been any government interference with how UAEs health journalists cover the coronavirus outbreak? Have there been any attempts to, say, make the picture seem rosier than it is? Second, the living conditions of laborers from the Indian subcontinent who went to the Gulf (including the UAE) arent very good, and these laborers often live and work in crammed spaces and/or live in densely packed apartments. These are conditions are somewhat more suited to the spread of an infectious disease. How much awareness is there locally about this as an issue?

Hamoud: Media in the UAE is more of a loyal media. I would say that in general, there isnt much controversy over coverage of the health matter, which is being treated seriously.

Andrs: Emilio, I know that Mexico has experienced one of its most momentous chapters of political activism and mobilization this past week, as women took to the streets, and then struck for a day, to bring attention to sexism and their countrys sad history of violence against women. This is a reminder that something like coronavirus doesnt take place in a vacuum, but overlaps and coincides with other things going on. (Our U.S. presidential election would be another example.) How do you think the governments reaction to the virus, and peoples experience of it as a social media phenomenon, is impacted by the fact that it is taking place at this moment when the country is consumed by other issues?

Emilio Rivaud: Well, the coronavirus is coming at a difficult moment for the government. In January, it started rolling out a health care reform, and it hasnt really run smoothly even without the virus. There have been numerous cases of scarcity of medicines and other scandals that led to protests. So when the first news of the coronavirus came, I think people were predisposed to panic. But the epidemic hasnt really scaled up here (we have seven cases so far) yet. [Editors note: As of Saturday, the number of confirmed cases in Mexico had risen to 41.) So yes, things like the womens march and strike have garnered more attention.

This has allowed for a calm-before-the-storm situation. Too calm, one might think, since both the government and the general public are largely disregarding the importance of preventive measures. [Editors note: This too is beginning to change. On Thursday, Tecnolgico de Monterrey, an important private university, moved to online courses to prevent exposure. And the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, the countrys largest public university, said it would begin to cancel massive events and international travels.]

Andrs: This Poynter story provides some interesting stats and examples of misinformation spreading, including cases from India. What are some of the more interesting or outlandish conspiracy theories you have seen around the virus?

Emilio: Well, we have a soap opera actress/singer called Patricia Navidad, also a famous antivaxer, who has tweeted about the coronavirus being engineered by Big Pharma and the dark elites to make money. You hear these sort of theories every now and then.

Andrs: And to think her last name is Christmas!

Vasudevan: I think the most outlandish theory I have come across is one that the virus may have been engineered. Part of it was based on an academic article preprinted early this year by researchers at the India Institute of Technology Delhi. I think rumors based on this possibility are still in currency in India at the moment. Spring-boarding off your comment about how this disease overlaps and coincides with a bunch of pre-existing political conditionsthe more insidious rumors are the ones combining good hygiene and religious bigotry. Two of them in particular are that the Muslim handshake is less hygienic than the Hindu namaste and that COVID-19 is Gods way of signaling that non-vegetarianism is bad because the virus jumped from animals (bats/civets) to humans.

(And of course theres the usual Hindutva rubbish about how drinking cow urine can get rid of COVID-19.)

Emilio: Interesting. I heard cocaine cured it too.

Vasudevan: Haha!

Andrs: In India, Bloomberg reported that because of social media claims of a link between chickens and the coronavirus, poultry sales have plunged in the country. Wondering if there are other behavioral changes becoming more widespread as a result of these speculations.

(And to be clear, we are not encouraging readers to hedge with cocaine!)

Vasudevan: I think the most noticeable behavioral changes are in terms of stocking up on hand sanitizers and face masks, and trying to avoid crowded places (especially sites of worship).

Emilio: In Mexico we had the H1N1 influenza outbreak in 2009. Back then, Mexico City basically shut down for a few days, and we gathered some habits that now come in handy: waving instead of handshaking, stockpiling sanitizing gel, and, for some people, buying lots of mouth covers (which, as we know, dont really keep you safe from the virus).

In Mexico, we have a strong traditional medicine and also a penchant for self-medication. You see a lot of memes talking about how people will fight off the coronavirus with chicken soup, aspirin, herbal infusions, Vaporub, and other common flu remedies. The thing is people here dont go the doctor unless they are very ill. So one can wonder if this is playing a role in the low number of cases so far detected.

Andrs: I am touching my face as I read this! Are we seeing governments tighten outright censorship, capitalizing on this as an excuse? Hamoud, your roots are in Syria, a country already devastated by years of civil war and strife. Does something like the coronavirus get much attention there, under the circumstances? Or is it exploited by regime?

Hamoud: Yes, its a very intense time for journalists and others on social media, as governments dust off old laws to avoid the spread of what they consider misinformation. This is especially true in countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Theres also a lot of geopolitical finger-pointing, with both of those countries blaming Iran for the pandemic. In terms of Syria, there hasnt been much discussion of the virus yet, but you have to be worried, given how many people go back and forth across a very porous border with Irannot just militants in the fight, but also religious people visiting famous shrines.

Vasudevan: In India, the government hasnt lacked excuses to tighten censorship in the last few years. As you may already know, India is now the title-holder for the longest internet shutdown in history, in Kashmir. Plus since the government introduced the highly controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (unrelated to the outbreak), there have been violence, protests, and censorship across the country on this count alone. So while I personally am not aware of a coronavirus-specific censorship incident, the agents and instruments for overt censorship already exist.

Andrs: Were touching upon what governments do, and how citizens communicate on social media, but I am also curious about your roles in a drama like this, as editors of responsible media outlets. What are you hearing from your readers in terms of what they expect from you on a subject like this, a subject that is both a sweeping global story but also intimate?

Emilio: We have tried to cover the situation form the start, offering solid pieces on virus science and how prepared the country is for it. It really isnt our main topic at the moment. I fear that the situation is going to scale up, but for the moment it is calm. Theres a great deal of reporting, in fact, about the humor being deployed against the virus. Someone made a Coronavirus cumbia, there are countless memes, and people are mostly having a laugh. This is very akin to the Mexican way of being, I think.

Vasudevan: So there are two parts to this response of what were doing as journalists in the face of this challenge. First, were using this as an opportunity to dig deeper into how public health care works in India, what it can do better, etc.For example, we have one story being published about how hospital-acquired infections in India are a big problem. The heightened audience attention on public health allows us to commission more stories like this with more ease than usual, so to speak. (Were almost fully reader-funded, by the way.)

The other part is that the Wire and the Wire Science have maintained a notably anti-establishment stance against the government (the present government is the only government weve operated under; we turn 5 this May) and its tacit endorsement of various self-aggrandizing, pseudoscientific beliefs on matters of public health, infrastructure and socio-economic development. So these adversarial habits, so to speak, are also serving us well now.

Andrs: Hamoud mentioned that some countries are blaming Iran for exporting disease. Reminds me of how some of our members of Congress have been criticized for referring to virus as the Wuhan virus and also of how poor Spain got stuck with the naming rights for the infamous 1918 disease. (Spoiler alert: its actually believed to have started in Kansas.) Are all of you referring to this strictly as the coronavirus or COVID-19 or using different terminology? Have you been struck by other variations used by others?

Vasudevan: I think the most common term in India is actually coronavirus, presumably because many people think this is the name of this virus and not that its a type of a coronavirus. But we (as in the Wire) are switching between novel coronavirus, new coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2. We used to say Wuhan coronavirus as well, but I think after reading the WHOs note about incidents of racism against Chinese nationals as well as how the mention of SARS might give the wrong impression of the viral characteristics of the new coronavirus, Im sticking to new coronavirus.

Andrs: I would love to keep going all afternoon, but I want to be respectful of the fact that it isnt afternoon where some of you are, but late at night, and all of you have publications to publish. But I cant thank you enough for taking the time to reflect on what youve been seeing with this story, and compare notes with us and each other. I hope we do more of these and in days ahead, and that we can continue to look for ways to broaden and deepen our partnership around these issues. Many thanks!

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Follow this link:

How Editors From Mexico, India, and the UAE Are Covering the Coronavirus - Slate

Editors Note: The following collection of articles detail the suspension of The Commentator after it was threatened with censorship by the university administration over its coverage of minyan attendance. This threat followed previous run-ins including a ban on the traditional Purim issue of The Commentator in 1958 between The Commentator and members of the administration particularly Dr. Simeon Gutterman, dean of Yeshiva College, and Rabbi Moshe Tendler, assistant dean of Yeshiva College. Unlike 1958, The Commentator is currently not funded by the student government and thus cannot be censored by the university.

---

Title: From the Archives (March 24, 1958; Volume 23 Issue 11) Ten Students Are Suspended From Dormitory

Author: Commentator Staff

Ten New York City residents have been suspended from the dormitory for one week because of unsatisfactory minyan attendance. Thirty other students, most of them from out of town, received suspended suspensions. This means they will be evicted if their minyan attendance continues to be unsatisfactory.

The suspensions were issued by Rabbi Moshe Klein, dormitory supervisor. He explained that attending minyan two times a week would be considered satisfactory by his office.

When the suspensions were first announced, student leaders proposed that the students involved, instead of being suspended, be compelled to attend seminars on the importance of tfila btsibur.

The proposal was rejected by the administration. However, a seminar is being organized on a voluntary basis to discuss tfila.

The Assistant Dean, Rabbi Kleins immediate superior, told The Commentator he was in accord with the suspension policy. He felt that the religious guidance program this year had been adequate.

Student leaders pointed out that the suspensions were in direct violation of Residence Hall Regulation VIII in the handbook issued by the administration. This regulation states, Repeated failure to attend services renders the student liable to disciplinary action by the student court. The supervisors office, student leaders said, had ignored the court completely in this matter.

--

Title: From the Archives (March 24, 1958; Volume 23 Issue 11) An Editorial: Compulsion

Author: Abraham Shapiro and The Commentator Governing Board of 1957-8

Recently, we have had the occasion to witness the lack of direction of the administrations dormitory policy in a clear light. On Sunday, March 9, about 40 dormitory students were notified to see Rabbi Klein before 4 p.m. Tuesday concerning their imminent suspension from the dormitory. Unsatisfactory minyan attendance was the cause of this suspension, which was to last for one week.

No warning whatsoever preceded the notification, unless one feels that a mimeographed circular, distributed at the beginning of the term, stating that residence in the dormitory is dependent on satisfactory minyan attendance is, sufficient. It must be kept in mind, however, that such circulars have been regularly distributed throughout dormitory history, and since their terms had never been carried out, students had become accustomed to disregarding them. When students about to be evicted pointed out to the dorm administration that they had not been adequately warned, the answer they got was we did not want to make this seem like a threat. Why the administration should be so afraid of verbally warning students after they had already threatened them in mimeographed circulars, which they knew would be disregarded, escapes us. Furthermore, since the one-week suspension simply puts residents on notice that further delinquency of attendance will be followed by permanent eviction, it is as threatening as any verbal warning could have been.

We must also keep in mind that by taking eviction into its own hands the administration has violated an agreement it signed with the Student Resident Court at the beginning of the year giving the Court jurisdiction to decide on suspension of residents. Even if we postulate the premise that the administration occasionally acts upon, that a signed agreement is adhered to only as it suits them, the student should not be told at the time of his suspension that the agreement was abrogated.

Friday, March 14, a small announcement was put on the dorm bulletin board. It read simply: Any student wishing to participate in a seminar to discuss minyan and Tfila Btzibur will please notify Rabbi Klein as soon as possible. This announcement followed an action on his part which pleasantly surprised us. Out of the 40 who got notices, only 10 were actually evicted, the rest receiving suspended suspensions upon presenting him with at least a plausible excuse for their absence from minyan. Of course, if their attendance does not pick up within the next two weeks, they will also be served with an eviction notice.

The administrations contradictory actions cannot but lead one to wonder. Why couldnt the seminar on minyan have been announced previous to the suspension? Doesnt the administration want the suspended residents to know about it? Or is it just another belated, half-hearted attempt at a desperately needed religious guidance program? These questions are now added to the ones we have been asking for years: Does the administration seriously think that a staff of resident assistants just out of college (in fact, some of them are still undergraduates) with no professional training in guidance can assist the troubled resident in the solution of religious problems? What are the aims of religious education to see that the student is forced to go to minyan in his short college stay, and then, with the compulsion removed, never go again? Might it not be much more beneficial if, instead of outward compulsion, professional religious guidance brought about minyan attendance from inner feeling?

We do not claim that religious guidance will solve the minyan problem entirely. Minyan has been a thorn in the side of the dormitory authorities as far back as anyone remembers, and their continued failure to solve this problem is basically due to their treating it as a separate one. When will the administration realize that minyan is only a symptom of a larger problem: the fact that synthesis, as found in Yeshiva University, is synthetic. The student cuts corners wherever he can, simply because it is physically impossible for him to do good work in both departments [religious and secular] and still maintain his balance. The administration itself has defined satisfactory minyan attendance as twice a week, a substantial concession to the thesis that regular attendance will produce students who attend classes in a lethargic, half-asleep half-awake, state.

We urge the administration to go one step further, and to realize attendance requirements must depend on the status of the individual. Some students may very well be able to go more than twice a week, and some may not be able to go even that much. We are confident that an individual approach towards the minyan problem will go far towards making the administration realize that maybe it isnt the problem after all. In fact, an individual approach towards all the problems of the university is the only way we can envisage to resynthesize synthesis. Let the individual student opinions be heard! Let his presence be felt! Let him realize that he is not just another cog in the university machine! Rather, let the university make the student feel that it is aware of his problems, and is not interested only in presenting a facade of meaningless regulations to the outside world.

The university exists for its students, not vice versa.

--

Title: From the Archives (April 2, 1958; Volume 23 Issue 12) An Editorial: Governing Board Suspends Publication

Author: Abraham Shapiro and The Commentator Governing Board of 1957-8

The right of The Commentator to print articles, news stories and editorials on any problems which are not limited to the college has been denied by Dr. Simeon L. Guterman, dean of Yeshiva College and concurred in by Dr. Samuel Belkin, president of the university. A memorandum to this effect printed on page two of this issue specifically denies the right of this newspaper to mention a university problem which has caused much comment and many letters to the editor.

The Governing Board has voted unanimously to suspend publication of The Commentator under this ruling. If the ruling is not rescinded there will be no Commentator.

It is the feeling of the Governing Board that The Commentator is more than just a newspaper put out by a few individuals to print only college affairs. Rather, The Commentator, the only student newspaper in the University above the high school level, represents the student body of the University. College students attend R.I.E.T.S., T.I., or J.S.P. and also live in the dormitory. The board is obligated to print editorials reflecting the viewpoint of student government and also to print the opposing viewpoints expressed by students.

This is the responsibility of our newspaper; it cannot be questioned, nor will we evade it.

Photo Caption: The Commentator archivesPhoto Credit: The Commentator

Read more:

From the Archives: Commentator Suspends Publication After Threat of Censorship - The Commentator

Some students at the State University of New York at Albany (SUNY-Albany) posted a video on Instagram that advertised a "coronavirus" themed party, complete with corona-beer-filled ice buckets and attendees in surgical masks. The video was subsequently deleted.

Tacky and insensitive? Sure. A reason for the administration to intervene? No.

Nevertheless, some other students have demanded that the university punish this "hate crime against Asian students and scholars." Since the coronavirus originated in Asia and has so far mostly affected Asian people, the party is presumed to spread negative stereotypes about Asian people.

The Asian American Alliance at SUNY-Albany also called on the administration to investigate the students who posted the video and make them apologize.

In a statement, the administration described the party as "distasteful and hurtful." The university also announced an investigation, and noted that any students who violated the university's code of conduct will be punished.

But there's nothing to investigate, sanction, or punish. SUNY-Albany is a public university, and as such, its students have the right throw dumb theme parties. Their expression is protected by the First Amendment, and the administration cannot take action against them, even if other students are offended by it.

"The act of hosting a party with a theme is itself expressive, and the First Amendment generally does not permit state actorssuch as public universitiesto make distinctions between whether expression is offensive or inoffensive," wrote Adam Steinbaugh of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "That's why public officials, including those at public universities, cannot ban flag burning,drag shows, culturally appropriativeHalloween costumes, and other expressive events that offend many other students, like an 'ugly women' contest."

Topical theme parties on campuses often offend one group or another. The offended are entitled to feel that way, and to speak up about it. But they aren't supposed to weaponize those feelings through the university's disciplinary process.

See the original post here:

Students Demand Censorship of 'Coronavirus' Theme Party - Reason

As the novel coronavirus continues to spread around the globe, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday accused the governments of China and Iran of censoring information about the outbreaks in their countries and putting the rest of the world at greater risk of its spread.

The top U.S. diplomat's sharp tone towards Beijing was matched by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who told Congress on Tuesday that the world is not getting reliable data out of China on issues like mortality rates.

But President Donald Trump seems to be out of sync with both of his Cabinet members and other top officials, praising Chinese President Xi Jinping and his government's handling of the outbreak even as his own administration's response comes under fire from Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

President Donald Trump and China's President Xi Jinping arrive for a state dinner at the Great Hall of the People, Nov.9, 2017 in Beijing, China.

"Censorship. It can have deadly consequences," Pompeo said Tuesday at the State Department. "Had China permitted its own and foreign journalists and medical personnel to speak and investigate freely, Chinese officials and other nations would have been far better prepared to address the challenge."

The flow of accurate information out of China, he added, is critical to assisting not just the Chinese people, but also "citizens across the world." He called on all governments to "tell the truth about coronavirus and cooperate with international aid organizations."

Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Azar said the administration is also uncertain if the data provided by China on the novel coronavirus outbreak has been full and transparent.

But both of those were at odds with Trump's own remarks just two days ago, praising Xi for "working very, very hard" and "doing a very good job."

"It's a big problem, but President Xi, he's working very hard to solve the problem, and he will solve the problem," Trump told reporters at the White House Sunday.

Trump also showered praise on his own administration's response in the U.S., saying Tuesday in India, "We have very few people with it. ... We're really down to probably 10. Most of the people are outside of danger now."

There have been 57 confirmed cases of the virus in the U.S., with three now released from hospital and no longer thought to be contagious. The majority of those -- 43 of the 57 -- are Americans repatriated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship or Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. Only 14 are individuals that either arrived in the U.S. from China and checked into a hospital or caught the virus in the U.S. from a loved one who had traveled overseas.

But officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned Tuesday that the most recent data suggests another level of virus spread globally, with cases identified in more countries now and another level of virus spread.

People stand on a street behind a barrier to stop others from entering, in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province, Feb. 23, 2020.

"The data over the last week has raised our level of concern," said Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

During his news conference in India, Trump also said the U.S. is "very close to a vaccine."

But his acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told Congress Tuesday the U.S. was at least "months" away from developing one, with other advisers testifying one was still a full year away.

The various answers vexed Republican Sen. John Kennedy, who told Wolf his "numbers aren't the same as the CDC's. ... Don't you think you oughta contact them?"

Trump's administration has requested $2.5 billion from Congress for emergency supplemental funds to combat COVID-19, the virus's formal name. That funding would come from a $1.25 billion emergency cash requested from Congress as well as reprogramming existing money, including money Congress allocated to fight Ebola.

Democrats condemned the move as both insufficient to deal with the crisis and a short-sighted effort "to steal funds dedicated to fight Ebola," in the words of Sen. Chuck Schumer, amid the second largest outbreak of that deadly disease still lingering the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks during a briefing at the U.S. Department of State, Feb. 25, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

The request "is indicative of his towering incompetence and further proof that he and his administration arent taking the coronavirus crisis as seriously as they need to be," the Senate Democratic Minority Leader added Monday.

It's not just Democrats, however, who have challenged the administration's response. Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told Azar the administration's "request... is low-balling it possibly, and you can't afford to do that. ... If you low-ball something like this, you'll pay for it later."

Trump's top diplomat for Europe and his State Department also warned that Russia was spreading disinformation about the novel coronavirus outbreak on Saturday. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Philip Reeker and the agency's Global Engagement Center, which combats terrorist propaganda and foreign government disinformation, told AFP news agency that thousands of Russian-linked social media accounts are actively spreading alarm about the outbreak in a coordinated effort, including accusing the U.S. of creating the virus.

Pompeo said nothing about Russia's role Tuesday. But he did attack Iran's government for censorship as well.

"The United States is deeply concerned by information indicating the Iranian regime may have suppressed vital details about the outbreak in that country," he said, noting Iran is second to China in COVID-19 deaths.

Dr. Iraj Harirchi, the head of Iran's counter-coronavirus task force, tested positive for the virus himself, authorities announced Tuesday -- one day after he appeared at a news conference downplaying the danger posed by the outbreak in Iran and opposing a quarantine of Qom, the city with the largest number of infected patients and fatalities in Iran.

More:

Pompeo accuses China and Iran of censoring information about coronavirus outbreaks - ABC News

Apple could be forced to disclose details of censorship requests from China and other nations after two major shareholder groups backed a proposal that would force the tech firm to make new human rights commitments.

The motion, set to be voted on by the companys investors on Wednesday, was prompted by numerous allegations of Apple kowtowing to Beijing and blocking apps from being used by Chinese customers.

If approved by investors, the scheme could have implications beyond China and potentially expose details of tensions between Apple and other jurisdictions. The California-headquartered tech giant has regularly clashed with the US government, including most prominently over requests for iPhones to be unlocked.

The human rights resolution was put forward by campaign group SumOfUs, which cited several concerns about Apples relationship with the Chinese state in its submission to investors.

Apple failed in an attempt to block the vote from taking place. And now the Guardian has learned that the proposal has the support of the influential corporate governance groups ISS and Glass Lewis.

Together these two firms advise the worlds largest institutional investors on how they vote at companys annual meetings, so their backing for the proposal is a coup for SumOfUs.

Ahead of Wednesdays annual meeting, ISS and Glass Lewis have sent reports to their clients, seen by the Guardian, explaining why they should back the proposal.

Glass Lewis said: [W]e believe that it would be prudent for the company to exhibit enhanced transparency around how it respects the right to free expression.

In their reports, both Glass Lewis and ISS highlighted various news reports of Apple making apps unavailable in China.

In 2016, it emerged that Apple had removed its iBooks Store and iTunes Movies services from devices owned by Chinese customers. In 2017, it removed several virtual private network (VPN) apps, which were used by Chinese citizens to bypass state censorship apparatus. And last year the company removed HKMap.Live, a controversial crowdsourced mapping app that was being used by Hong Kong protesters to track police activity.

The SumOfUs proposal would force Apples board to prepare an annual report on the companys policies relating to freedom of expression and access to information. The board would be compelled to state in the report whether they are publicly committed to freedom of expression and access to information.

They would also have to disclose a description of the actions Apple has taken in the past year in response to government or third-party demands that were reasonably likely to limit free expression or access to information.

SumOfUs believes the need to clarify Apples relationship with China is made particularly urgent by public outrage surrounding Beijings treatment of Uighur people sent to internment camps and pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.

Despite backing from ISS and Glass Lewis, SumOfUs still faces an uphill battle to pass the motion because it is opposed by Apples board, which includes the companys chief executive, Tim Cook, and former US vice-president Al Gore.

Apple has issued a statement saying the proposal is unnecessary based on the extensive information that is already publicly provided to our shareholders and users.

The company currently publishes transparency data disclosing the number of government requests it receives by country for customer data and app removal.

For instance, Apple reported that between January and June last year, 288 apps were removed in mainland China for legal or platform violation. Apple stated that the majority of these requests related to pornography, illegal content and gambling.

But in its report to investors, ISS noted that the quantitative approach to the companys transparency report provides little context for the app removal requests from the Chinese government or explanation of the risks that may be involved.

Apple said in its statement that free expression is central to our company and its success but that it is obliged to comply with local laws and to protect the safety of our customers and employees, including by removing apps.

The company said: [W]hile we may disagree with certain decisions at times, we do not believe it would be in the best interests of our users to simply abandon markets, which would leave consumers with fewer choices and fewer privacy protections.

Excerpt from:

Apple may be forced to disclose censorship requests from China - The Guardian

The beautiful thing about the mad reaction to Toby Youngs Free Speech Union (FSU) is that it proves why the union is so necessary. No sooner had Young unveiled his censorship-busting union than the illiberal liberals were out in force to mock it and ridicule it and to insist that, actually, there is no free-speech crisis in the UK. Its a right-wing myth, they claim. There is no widespread censorship. People arent being shipped off to gulags for expressing an opinion. Apparently, the free-speech grift God, I hate the word grift is just a bunch of pale, male and stale blokes pissed off that they can no longer say the N-word or talk openly about womens boobs. Freedom of speech is not under threat, the Young-bashers claim, and anyone who says it is is probably just an Islamophobe, transphobe or some other breed of phobe itching to spout bile with no consequences.

This rank denialism, this blinkered insistence that free speech is not in danger in 21st-century Britain, is exactly why we need the FSU and as broad a discussion as possible about the importance of the liberty to express oneself. Because the fact that so many inhabitants of the chattering-class bubble cant even see that free speech is dying right now confirms how naturalised and uncontroversial the new censorship has become. They dont even see it as censorship. They see it as perfectly normal, and good, in fact, that certain views cannot be expressed in public life or on social media. Thats how cavalier the new war on heretical opinion has become. At least in the past, from Torquemada to the McCarthyites, authoritarians were honest about being censors. Todays self-elected moral guardians of correct opinion are so hubristic, so taken with their own moral rectitude, that they dont even see themselves as enemies of freedom, but rather as decent, unimpeachable maintainers of a natural intellectual order.

Things have come to such a pass that these people will literally seek to censor you in one breath and then express alarm at being called censors in the next breath. Hence the Guardian could publish a piece last week claiming that the idea that there is a culture of censorship in British universities is a right-wing myth while simultaneously defending censorship on campus. In an act of extraordinary moral contortionism, Evan Smith mocked the idea that there is a free-speech crisis at British universities and then, without missing a beat, he defended the policy of No Platform and the creation of safe spaces because the university cannot be a place where racism and fascism as well as sexism, homophobia and transphobia are allowed to be expressed. The Orwellianism is staggering. There is no censorship on campus. Except the censorship I approve of. Which is not really censorship. That is what is being said here. The intellectual dishonesty is almost impressive.

This Orwellian denialism of the existence of censorship by people who actually support and enact censorship cuts to the heart of the free-speech crisis in the UK. The reason the illiberal liberals and woke McCarthyites and Twittermobs dont consider themselves to be censors even as they gleefully agitate for the censorship of feminists, secularists worried about Islamist extremism, and right-wing people opposed to mass immigration is because they have convinced themselves that certain forms of speech are not free speech. That certain beliefs should not be afforded the liberty of expression. You hear it in their telling, baleful mantra that Hate speech is not free speech. And if hate speech is not free speech, but rather some kind of toxin, a pox on public life, then crushing it is not censorship. It is more like an act of public health: cleansing the public realm of diseased thoughts that are liable to harm certain groups. These people see themselves not as censors, but as public-health activists delousing the community of germs spread by evil men and women.

This is why they balk and protest when the words free speech are used against them. They detest the idea that they are enemies of liberty. But of course that is precisely what they are. Just consider that nonsensical chant Hate speech is not free speech. There are two profound moral problems with this idiotic tautology. The first is that, actually, even genuinely hateful speech, including racist gibberish and misogynistic blather, should be free speech. By its very definition freedom of speech should extend to all speech, even speech we detest. And secondly, hate speech has become a slippery, amorphous category that now covers not only foul old nonsense like Holocaust denial, but also trans-sceptical feminism, criticism of Islam, opposition to mass immigration, and so on. Hate speech really means thoughtcrime. It is an utterly ideological category used by the cultural and intellectual elites to demonise and censor ideas, beliefs and moral convictions they disapprove of. The war on hate speech is the new war on heresy, on free-thinking, on minority opinion, on challenging beliefs. It is blatant censorship.

The illiberal liberals conflation of genuine hatred with moral opinion, all of which then gets cynically collapsed under the name of hate speech, was beautifully captured in an exchange on the BBCs Politics Live yesterday. Pushing back against the FSUs Inaya Folarin Iman, Baroness Kennedy arrogantly predicted that the FSU would be embraced by racists people who hate homosexuals, who hate trans people, [and] people who have hostile views towards Islam. Hold on. One of these things is not like the others. What is wrong with having hostile views on Islam? Is hostility towards a powerful world religion now a form of hate speech? Yes, it is. Kennedys conflation of criticism of Islam with racism and homophobia perfectly encapsulated the way in which hate speech is now used to police not only genuinely hateful ideas, but also blasphemy against religious ideas. Even that key freedom human beings fought so hard for the right to mock gods and prophets and religious ideology is now threatened by the censorious ideology of hate speech.

The cynical category of hate speech is openly used to police the parameters of acceptable thought and to punish those who are considered to hold heretical views that the guardians of moral correctness oppose. So not only are critics of Islam denounced as hate speakers so are feminists who question the cult of transgenderism, Christians who disapprove of same-sex marriage, right-wing people who want stricter immigration controls, etc. These are all entirely legitimate political or moral opinions. The branding of them as hate speech and therefore undeserving of the protections of freedom of speech is really a way of calling these views heresy. And of course heretics must be cast out. Feminists, Catholics, critics of Islam hound them off campus, get them off the airwaves, report them to the police for their crimes of hatred. This is an intolerant assault on heresy of the kind that has appeared many times throughout history. Those who say It isnt censorship protest far too much. Deep down they know it is. Deep down they know they are to the 2020s what Joe McCarthy was to the 1950s.

And what has been wrought by their rebranding of moral opinion as hatred? A new and vast system of censure, speech control, and intolerance. No free-speech crisis in the UK? This is now a country in which the police will visit you if you question transgenderism on the internet. In which Scottish police have created a database of people who make un-PC jokes online. In which feminist academics who believe in biological sex need security guards on campus. In which nine people a day are arrested for things they say online. In which you can be sacked from your job for taking the piss out of Islam in your own time. In which university after university has a policy outlawing transphobia or Islamophobia, severely limiting the expression of feminist and secuarlist ideas. In which the state, corporations and intolerant mobs the dire troika of the new intolerance enforce increasingly strict rules on what we can and cannot say.

It is essential we dont buy the myth that this new censorship is about protecting minorities. Leaving aside the extraordinary paternalism contained in the idea that minority groups require self-elected moral authoritarians to save them from offence, the far more important truth is that this new censorship is about guarding a new political order from heretical dissent. It is about ringfencing the ideology of multiculturalism, the ideology of genderfluidity and the ideology of political correctness from the pesky questions and barbs of dissenting thinkers. These are the new ideologies of the ruling class. These ideologies increasingly govern social life, the educational sphere, and the workplace. The phoney defenders of minorities are really defending new power structures and ideological orthodoxies from public questioning.

The FSU is a very good thing. We need more individuals and groups who are willing to defend freedom of speech and the rights of heresy. It is worth recalling the wisdom of Robert G Ingersoll, the 19th-century American political orator, Civil War veteran and, in his words, American infidel. He argued that progress is impossible without heresy, without the freedom to blaspheme against religion and to question political power and moral orthodoxy. Heresy is the eternal dawn, the morning star, the glittering herald of the day. Heresy is the last and best thought. It is the perpetual New World, the unknown sea, toward which the brave all sail. It is the eternal horizon of progress. Heresy extends the hospitalities of the brain to a new thought. Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy, a coffin.

Good on Toby Young for widening the space for heresy, for seeking to defend the rights of heretics (today defamed as hate speakers). Because heresy is essential to progress, freedom of speech is essential to democracy, and liberty of thought is essential to the good life. Society always, but always, benefits from the free, unfettered expression of ideas.

Brendan ONeill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan ONeill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Picture by: YouTube.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Visit link:

Why we must win the fight for free speech - Spiked

InfoWars was shown the door at this years CPAC and journalist Owen Shroyer decided to hold court as he was being removed, demanding answers and calling the group hypocrites for censoring his outlets voice.

Online censorship of conservative voices has been a major topic on panels at this years Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Donald Trump Jr. told a crowd on Friday morning at the convention that censorship and bias against conservative voices is probably a top three issue with his fathers base of voters.

Ironically, that very afternoon CPAC took part in some censorship themselves by kicking journalist Owen Shroyer of InfoWars out of the event.

In videos posted to social media by Shroyer, an unidentified representative for CPAC is seen telling him and his crew that they need to go. Before Shroyer can be exited out of the event, he announces to fellow attendees CPAC is kicking InfoWars out, an outlet he claimed was the most popular group"there.

In interviews with several independent journalists, Shroyer explained that InfoWars applied for a booth at CPAC, but was told there wasnt enough room for them. Shroyer ended up paying for a pass himself. He says he was then invited to sit at various booths, but was told by CPAC officials he could not do that, so he complied. He then took to live streaming the event, which he was also told he could not do. He complied. He was then filming interviews with conservatives such as My Pillow founder Mike Lindell, which he was told he could not do unless he was in a specific area of the event. Once there, Shroyer took to filming and giving and getting interviews, and thats when he was told to leave.

As he was being escorted away from the event, Shroyer yelled to attendees around him and complained he followed all the rules and that conservatives were censoring themselves in the age of censorship.

Shroyer has claimed that powerful people in high places made the decision to kick InfoWars out, though he doesnt know exactly who.

Gavin McInnes, a frequent guest on InfoWars and the founder of the controversial right-wing group Proud Boys, was also kicked out of CPAC this year and escorted from the Gaylord Convention Center by security. McInnes told National File CPAC has become p***y central and he was likely kicked out because he was criticizing more mainstream outlets who were let into the convention. He was also given no official explanation though when he was removed.

Founded by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones who has also been posting videos from CPAC InfoWars has become increasingly controversial in recent years. Jones and his outlet were banned from YouTube, Apple and Twitter in 2018, and he was later banned by Facebook the following year.

The removals came after critics accused Jones of pushing dangerous conspiracy theories, like that the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 was staged. Jones has pushed back against the charges and claimed he did not push the said conspiracy theory, and has since maintained several times in interviews that the shooting did in fact happen.

Donald Trump appeared on InfoWars several times before becoming president and earned early support from Jones, who claimed he was in frequent contact with Trump while he was on the campaign trail.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Read more here:

Conservatives censoring themselves in the age of censorship? InfoWars kicked out of CPAC, triggering conference row - RT

Flowers and a portrait of Dr. Li Wenliang is left at his hospital in Wuhan, China. Li, regarded a whistleblower in the coronavirus outbreak, died of the infectious disease on Friday. Getty Images hide caption

Flowers and a portrait of Dr. Li Wenliang is left at his hospital in Wuhan, China. Li, regarded a whistleblower in the coronavirus outbreak, died of the infectious disease on Friday.

For the last two weeks, Eden Chen had been glued to her WeChat. A resident of the Chinese coastal city of Wenzhou, Chen and her family had been told to stay indoors, sending only one member out every other day to buy groceries. WeChat, the ubiquitous social media app in China, became an indispensable channel for checking up on relatives, exchanging information about quarantine measures and even getting on a waiting list to order now-scarce face masks.

Then on Wednesday evening, Chen's WeChat account along with thousands of others over the coming hours was suddenly sealed off. Chen, who exclusively uses WeChat to communicate with people, lost contact with hundreds of friends and relatives.

"Is writing a few sentences about the lack of face masks now enough to get one's account suspended?" said Chen. "I do not do anything to disrupt the country." She also said she "sent around some official notices and state media stories regarding the [coronavirus] epidemic."

China's state censors have clamped down this week on digital items related to the outbreak of a new coronavirus, removing local news reports that expose the dire circumstances in the city of Wuhan, epicenter of the outbreak, and scrubbing social media platforms of posts from Wuhan residents who say they are ill and desperate for medical care and supplies.

Those restrictions were put to the test on Friday after the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the eight whistleblowers reprimanded by police for warning others about a mysterious pneumonialike disease in December. Less than 90 minutes after his death on Friday morning, the hashtag "I want freedom of speech" was trending on Weibo, a popular Chinese blogging site, with nearly 2 million posts. The posts were gone by sunrise.

This chokehold on information, now six weeks after the first public reports of a pneumonialike illness surfaced on Dec. 30, heralds a new stage in the Chinese state's response to the new coronavirus.

"We are also seeing these restrictions being accompanied by intensified propaganda," says Maria Repnikova, a global communications professor at Georgia State University. "The message being: We get that this is a grave problem, and we are fixing it."

First, for nearly four weeks, the municipal government officials in Wuhan worked to hide the severity of the disease. Then, when scientific disclosures made it untenable to downplay the crisis, regional authorities began placing quarantines unprecedented in scale and intensity over large swaths of the country.

Now, China is working to reestablish control over the narrative by shutting down individual social media accounts and reigning in aggressive local coverage of initial government missteps that may have contributed to the spread of the coronavirus beyond the city of Wuhan.

As of Friday, there were more than 31,000 confirmed cases and 630 deaths in China alone, though because of limited diagnostic and treatment capacity in Wuhan, some doctors believe that the number of cases is likely higher.

Stage 1: Suppress information

Paramilitary policemen guard the outside of the closed Hankou railway station in Wuhan, China. Feature China/Barcroft Media via Getty Images hide caption

On Christmas Day, Dr. Lu Xiaohong, the director of gastroenterology at Wuhan Municipal Hospital, received alarming news: Several medical staff at two hospitals in the city had been infected with an unknown type of pneumonia. "That suggested the contagiousness of this virus was very strong," Lu later told the state-run China Youth Daily. It also suggested the mysterious virus could be transmitted between humans.

Lu was not the only one who noticed something amiss. Five days later, at least two doctors independently of each other began quietly warning other medical staff about several patients exhibiting pneumonialike symptoms after having visited the same seafood and live animal market in Wuhan.

One of those doctors was Xie Linka, an oncologist at Wuhan Union Hospital. Her colleagues in the hospital's respiratory unit had taken in "many patients" exhibiting an unknown pneumonia. "Be sure to wear masks and ventilate areas," she posted in a group on WeChat, the Chinese messaging app.

Li, an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central University, also warned a group of about 150 alumni in a WeChat group that "seven SARS patients," all connected to a local seafood market, were being quarantined at his hospital. He believed that they were exhibiting a related coronavirus that had swept through parts of Asia and other countries starting in 2002 but was effectively quashed, with no new cases since 2004.

Reprisal came swiftly. Eight medical staff, including Li and Xie, were summoned by public security officers two days later and reprimanded for "disseminating rumors," according to an evening TV news report. (Public opinion would later reverse the official position, with the state's chief epidemiologist subsequently declaring the eight worthy of "utmost respect.")

On Dec. 31, Wuhan's city health commission had already put out a statement, acknowledging 27 cases of unknown pneumonia but said there was no evidence of human transmission of the disease. "The disease is preventable and controllable," it reassured residents. But the suspected origin of the virus Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market would be closed and cleaned, just in case.

The turning point came on Jan. 20 when Dr. Zhong Nanshan, a senior health official who had helped expose the government's cover-up during SARS, revealed on state television that the new coronavirus is capable of human-to-human transmission a full three weeks after Lu, the gastroenterologist, had heard as much from her colleagues.

On the same day, China's top leader Xi Jinping broke his silence. "It is of utmost importance to prevent and control the disease outbreak," the state news agency quoted him as saying. Three days later, authorities made the most drastic decision of all to contain the viral spread: Wuhan, a city of 11 million, would be sealed off from the rest of the country.

Stage 2: Lock it down

The decision by Wuhan authorities to shut down outbound transports came in the early hours of Jan. 23. With only hours to spare before all trains and planes were prohibited from departing, residents with cars rushed to highways. Those who didn't own cars and wanted to leave turned to carpooling services but at 10 times the usual fare.

By late afternoon, officials began sealing off highways leaving Wuhan as well.

A senior party official from Hubei province referred to the citywide lockdown as a "wartime measure" and called on local cadres of minor officials to closely monitor residents for any early symptoms of the new virus.

Although sealing off Wuhan may have slowed the spread of the outbreak, it did not contain it. Before the quarantine, 5 million people were able to hastily leave the city, Mayor Zhou Xianwang later admitted.

Cities outside the official quarantine zone have adopted their own drastic measures to limit movement. Remote villages have bottled in their residents in an effort to stop the virus from entering their communities. Other villages have torn up roads or built hasty barricades to keep migrant workers out. Various cities in coastal Zhejiang province now only allow one person per household to leave for groceries every two days.

As the number of cases, particularly in the city of Wuhan, continue to climb, authorities are turning to even more extreme measures. On Thursday, a top Chinese official urged local officials and residents in Wuhan to report anyone they see with symptoms and to send loved ones with symptoms to new, mass quarantine centers.

"There must be no deserters during a state of war. Those that do will be nailed to the pillar of shame for all of history," Vice Premier Sun Chunlan warned in an article in the party's flagship newspaper after visiting Hubei province. "Be selfless, and race against time. We must go all out to solve the problem of inaccurate, inadequate implementation."

Stage 3: Control the narrative

Within the quarantine zone, people have been confined to their apartments or new mass quarantine wards. But online, information began to proliferate.

Muckraking Chinese journalists have been publishing interviews with doctors with damning details that sometimes contradict official accounts. One piece, since deleted by censors, alleges the official tally of infected patients is far lower than the true scale of the outbreak, citing several Wuhan doctors.

To counteract the critical coverage of the Wuhan quarantine, the Communist Party's publicity department dispatched over 300 reporters from state media agencies to Wuhan and Hubei province earlier this week.

Not long after, authorities began turning to a more familiar tool for narrative control: censorship.

Government cyberspace regulators mandated in a notice on Wednesday that the country's biggest Internet companies, including Tencent, Baidu and ByteDance, "conduct special supervision" on epidemic-related news. Soon after, social media platforms, including WeChat, began suspending accounts found to have spread "sensitive information or illegal content," according to screenshots of sealed accounts. Tencent did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

"I think what this act is telling us is that the discussions online are entering into the zone of perceived sensitivity for the state," says Repnikova of Georgia State University. While earlier, uninhibited reporting provided valuable public knowledge about the outbreak, "it's evident that more supplies and more diagnostic equipment are needed. The benefit of allowing more social media critique is also getting slimmer."

One of the thousands of WeChat accounts suspended this week belonged to Triv Wen, a Beijing municipal engineer. His apparent offense: sharing an article that accused the Wuhan Red Cross of withholding much-needed supplies like masks from hospitals. (Earlier this week, the Hubei government fired the vice president of the provincial Red Cross for "malpractice and dereliction of duty.")

"All I hope is that the people have the right to hold the government accountable rather than to be managed," Wen told NPR, whose parents are both card-carrying members of the Communist Party. "From the bottom of my heart, I want everything to become better and speech to be more open and transparent."

In one of his last interviews before his death, with independent Chinese media outlet Caixin, Li said helping the public learn about the truth was far more important to him than getting justice for himself: "A healthy society should not have only one kind of voice."

See the rest here:

Critics Say China Has Suppressed And Censored Information In Coronavirus Outbreak - NPR

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has called out Google-owned YouTube after it blacklisted a clip of him speaking on the Senate floor, an act of censorship he calls chilling and disturbing. Google censored Paul because he read out the name of the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.

Politico reported the story as new, even though Breitbart News first revealed that YouTube was blocking clips of the Senator mentioning Ciaramellas name last week.

In a statement, Sen. Paul said:

It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure speech. Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people. This is dangerous and politically biased. Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistleblower, nor do I know the whistleblowers identity.

A spokeswoman for YouTube, Ivy Choi, defended the companys censorship of Sen. Paul in a comment, describing Ciaramella as the whistleblower:

Videos, comments, and other forms of content that mention the leaked whistleblowers name violate YouTubes Community Guidelines and will be removed from YouTube. Weve removed hundreds of videos and over ten thousand comments that contained the name. Video uploaders have the option to edit their videos to exclude the name and reupload.

As Breitbart News reported last week, Sen. Paul made his comments on the floor of the Senate after Chief Justice John Roberts refused to allow his question to be read during the impeachment trial. In his speech, Sen. Paul said:

Manager Schiff and Counsel for the President, are you aware that house intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House proceedings?

Explaining his argument further in a subsequent CNN segment, Sen. Paul said I think its very important that we know if there was a concerted government plot to bring the president down by a lot of employees.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

Link:

Rand Paul Blasts YouTube over Censorship of Speech on Senate Floor - Breitbart

Newspaper groups fear the governments proposals to crack down on damaging social media content could inadvertently result in censorship of their own websites.

The Daily Mail is among the outlets that have warned about the governments proposals to ask Ofcom to ensure British websites do their best to reduce online content that is legal but harmful to society.

The newspaper ran a prominent comment piece on Thursday arguing that the new law may lead to state censorship, suggesting the rules could result in its popular sister website MailOnline being regulated and forced to react to concerns over harmful content.

As a result industry lobby groups, which have long campaigned for regulation of Facebook and Google, are asking the government to formally commit to a specific opt-out from the online harms law for news publishers. This raises the prospect that a small group of traditional news outlets will be specifically exempted from rules applied to almost every other major website.

Under the proposals announced on Wednesday, British websites that publish user-generated material including online comments will be required to produce a code of conduct setting out which material they will allow on their sites. Ofcom will check whether they are living up to their own stated standards.

The other scenario feared by mainstream publishers is that, if the likes of Facebook feel obliged to take down content that is legal but considered harmful to society, social networks could start blocking links to disturbing news stories.

Ofcom could ultimately end up in the position of looking at whether a social network should have removed a link to a particular mainstream article for being harmful.

Resolving the issue will be one of the first challenges for the newly appointed culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, amid signs that Downing Street is concerned about coverage suggesting the new rules could impact on the freedom of the press.

Ministers have repeatedly promised that there will be an exemption for news publishers but on Thursday the News Media Association (NMA), the group which represents almost all traditional British newspaper publishers, including the Guardian, said it was seeking an explicit exemption on the face of any legislation for news media publishers and their journalism which underpins our democracy.

The organisation insisted that the legislation should be designed to crack down on online harms propagated by the tech giants, arguing newspapers were already responsible for what they publish in the courts and through voluntary systems of press regulation.

The government has long insisted they would provide some opt-out but it is unclear how this would be implemented. If the government chose to exempt only members of the News Media Association in the law then it could end up with a two-tier system. This could see traditional news outlets given a legal opt-out from the legislation while non-NMA members such as digital-only sites Vice, HuffPost and BuzzFeed News ending up being caught by the obligation.

A government spokesperson pointed to the commitment by former culture secretary Jeremy Wright to ensure that news organisations were not caught by the new law.

Read more:

Newspapers fear new social media rules will lead to wider censorship - The Guardian

Transgender users have complained about having their posts removed from popular social media platform, TikTok.

Videos, including some members of the community discussing their lives, were taken down and others complained of having the sound removed.

TikTok defended its actions, stating that some posts were deleted for breaking guidelines on smoking and nudity, but could not explain why others were removed.

'Sending a negative message to young transgender people'

LGBT charity Stonewall said this action by the social media giant sent a negative message to young transgender people who use the platform to express themselves.

In a statement, the short form video platform said, "TikTok is an inclusive space for positive and creative expression. We categorically do not remove any content on the basis of expression of gender identity.

"We have a vibrant and diverse community on TikTok: there are nearly two billion views of content under #trans and over 2.1 billion views of content under #lgbtq.

"We are proud to be a platform for positive and creative expression for our diverse community of users."

Content Removed

Reice Hodges, 35, told the BBC she had several videos removed, including one where she challenged instances of bullying. She claims TikTok deleted these posts before removing the abusive comments she received.

"It makes me mad when my content is removed. There are some videos that I spend hours making and to have one of those videos removed really discourages me," said Hodges.

"There are countless amounts of teenagers and adults who have reached out to me and thanked me for putting myself out there to be seen.

"To block something that can bring awareness to the trans community, when we already have so much hate and disgust coming toward us - where else are we supposed to go?"

Other users complained that their videos showing their transition in photographs were removed, although they were later able to repost them.

This is the latest in a series of controversies to affect TikTok in recent months. In December, the apps moderators acknowledged videos made by disabled users were prevented from going viral, due to a policy it said was designed to reduce the amount of cyber bullying on its platform.

Read this article:

Transgender users have accused TikTok of censorship - here's why - Derry Journal

Barred from speaking at a public university over her refusal to sign a pledge of allegiance to Israel, journalist Abby Martin is now suing the state of Georgia, arguing its anti-BDS legislation sets fire to the First Amendment.

Slated to give a keynote talk at a media literacy conference at Georgia Southern University later this month, Martin was asked to sign what amounts to a loyalty oath to the State of Israel, mandated under a 2016 Georgia law barring the government from hiring contractors who boycott Israeli products or associate with the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Martin told RT she was shocked when she saw what she was asked to sign.

I was not anticipating this whatsoever, she said. I was aware of the issue Ive talked about how over two dozen states have employed this measure for independent contractors but I just never connected the two.

Declining to sign the pledge, explaining that pro-Palestine activism is central to her work, the university swiftly called off Martins talk. When her colleagues came to her defense, the entire event was shut down, a move she says is emblematic of the state of academic freedom in the United States at large, where similar laws have been passed in 28 states.

I think thats really interesting, because theres essentially no discussion on left-wing speakers like myself discussing issues like Palestine, which are literally being blocked on the state level, Martin said, calling the censorship a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Its not only about the right to boycott and the right to participate in peaceful political action, its also about the right to just have free speech, especially on college campuses.

With right-of-center organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Heritage Foundation pushing free speech acts on college campuses across the country to protect conservative speakers, Martin said the anti-BDS lawsare clearly hypocritical, wielded to blot out certain viewpoints and control the public narrative around Israel.

Theres a stark hypocrisy going on when it really isnt about free speech at all, she said.

When you look at these laws... to protect certain kinds of speech and block out other kinds of speech, its really about what kind of speech you want and what kind of speech you dont want.

Shut out of Georgia Southern University solely due to her political views, Martin filed a lawsuit against the state on Monday, insisting her First Amendment rights were being trampled in the decision to cancel her talk. The former RT host said shes confident about the case, hoping it will mean that no independent contractors will have to forfeit their civil liberties and constitutional rights in order to just work in the state.

These are laws that should never have been passed in the first place. This is the fault of state legislatures that have passed these laws in direct violation of the US Constitution.

There is hope for the suit. Last April, a Texas judge blocked the state government from enforcing a similar anti-BDS law, ruling it an impermissible content- and viewpoint-based restriction on protected expression, which sought to manipulate the debate [around Israel] through coercion rather than persuasion.

Martin faces an uphill battle, however, with many forces arrayed against her cause in the US and beyond. With the Israeli prime ministers office admitting in a tweet this week that Tel Aviv has promoted [anti-BDS] laws in most US states, overturning the legislation could mean competing with a powerful foreign lobby, in addition to fighting it out in the courts.

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media wont tell you.

Read the original here:

Anti-BDS laws are meant to censor & control speech, journalist Abby Martin tells RT after suing Georgia govt over cancelled talk - RT

PKR president Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim speaks during the Regional Conference on Peaceful Co-existence in Shah Alam February 12, 2020. Picture by Miera Zulyana

SHAH ALAM, Feb 12 PKR president Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has urged respective parties to be tolerant when it came to concerns of art censorship in the country.

We need to be more tolerant, Anwar said when met by reporters today after officiating the Regional Conference on Peaceful Coexistence held at the Grand Bluewave Hotel here.

He was responding to several instances which took place recently including four artworks by contemporary artist Ahmad Fuad Osman that were removed from the National Art Gallery (NAG) following complaints from the gallerys board members.

The NAG has since responded in a statement defending its decision to remove the four paintings citing its right to curate according to what it deems to be suitable for patrons and that it also followed standard operating procedures.

Criticisms were also hurled at rock group Drama Band over its performance at the Anugerah Juara Lagu 34 award show which parodied several scandals from Malay entertainment and politics.

Drama Band has since apologised for a performance that lampooned former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.

Visit link:

Be more tolerant, Anwar tells Malaysians over art censorship - Malay Mail

Masked police officers and a health professional stand at a screening checkpoint on a highway toll ... [+] station on the outskirts of Shanghai, China, on Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2020. Photographer: Qilai Shen/Bloomberg

Chinas government is now ramping up efforts to punish locals for spreading rumors and harshly criticizing the government about the fast spreading coronavirus.

As death tolls rise and new cases level-off due to a new way of counting infected persons, Chinese leadership is now working overtime on two fronts: fighting the Wuhan virus outbreak on one; convincing people to that the economy is nearing all- system-go.

Beijing decided this week to clamp down on virus rumors being spread via social media and messaging apps like WeChat, the South China Morning Post reported this evening in Hong Kong.

According to the daily, a set of guidelines was issued on Monday by Chinas judicial and law enforcement agencies where they named 10 categories of new criminal charges to brought against people deemed jeopardizing disease control, undermining social stability by spreading fear about the disease, and criticizing the Communist Partys handling of the novel coronavirus, officially named Covid-19 by the World Health Organization on Tuesday.

Parents and relatives of Pakistani students studying in Wuhan protest to demand their government ... [+] evacuate family members from China. Scenes like this has the WHO worried people will become anti-China. (Photo by AAMIR QURESHI/AFP via Getty Images)

Senior officials from the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice said the measures were needed to cope with the crisis.

Some 1,117 people have died, mostly all of them in the Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak. China has confirmed over 45,000 cases.

China: Investors Ignoring The Noise

For the past two weeks, investors were waiting for the virus to surpass the SARS death toll of 775. Once breached, people wanted to see the number of new cases falling before declaring a bottom. That breach occurred over the weekend, but the number of new cases keeps rising, with no end in sight. The base case scenario sees a decline in new cases at some point between February 14 and the end of March.

This week, authorities in China said they would only list a new case if the person was proven to be infected with the virus rather than having checked in for displaying symptoms.

Markets in China have been boosted by the central bank over the last five days, and by news that companies were back to business in provinces other than Hubei.

President Xi Jinping has since been seen donning a surgical mask in Beijing, warning that the virus was very serious and advising everyone to remain vigilant. There are quarantine orders and travel restrictions still in place nationwide.

Xisaid today that progress was being made in bringingthe outbreakunder control and that the focus now should be on returning to work.

Getting the economic engines firing again is imperative. Although information out of China is not easy to come by, there is a sense that people there have been afraid about sharing their concerns on social media. Now that risk is real, with criminal implications for doing so if too critical of the government.

WeChat users will have to get more creative. Or just stop talking about it altogether. Those who cheer the success of the government are likely to be viewed skeptically now that Beijing has essentially put a gag order on covid-19.

For the market, those who believe Chinas coronavirus numbers are the same as those who trust Chinas GDP numbers. Those who dont trust Chinas GDP numbers, dont trust the coronavirus numbers either.

China investors are obviously in the trust camp and have been there all week. Once again, China is beating the S&P 500.

Over the last five days, the Xtrackers China A-Shares ETF (green) has outperformed the MSCI China ... [+] and the S&P 500 (blue) despite an ever-increasing death toll caused by Covid-19.

Storm Not Over

Hong Kong surpassed Singapore on Wednesday as the No. 2 hot spot for the virus off mainland China. Borders with the mainland have been sealed. Singapore also banned flights from China.

Covid-19 is a still being called a virus of unknown origin. The general consensus is that it came from bats and infected humans either through a bat bite, or via human consumption. Another idea is that the virus escaped a research lab in Wuhan. China has been silent on its origins, and is now silencing any chit-chat about it on mainland social media.

If the outbreak is not contained, Beijings clamp-down on allowing people to discuss it beyond the parameters of the official view could further test the patience of the Chinese. Such a situation would risk putting Chinas otherwise stable social structure into unchartered territory.

Combatting this virus means everything to Beijing, and this could be another reason why the market is willing to stay invested despite daily forecasts for lower growth in China.

Virologists are still trying to find a way to combat the disease. To do so, they need to know more about its origin.

On Wednesday, New Scientist magazine reported that the virus came from bats.

From the virology evidence available to date, the virus is almost certainly from a species of bat, says Andrew Cunningham of the Zoological Society of London.

On Wednesday, Chinas Ministry of Finance announced it would allow local governments to sell $122 of new debt issuance to raise money from the market, instead of the government. China bond prices have been in decline all week, suggesting either a risk-on move with bonds selling in favor of equities, or fears that the outbreak is going to hurt numerous companies more than the government is letting on.

Says Brendan Ahern, CIO of KraneShares, a China ETF fund in New York, We are not out of the coronavirus storm yet.

More here:

China Ramps Up Censorship On Coronavirus As Critics Risk Criminal Charges - Forbes

Last Thursday, with the coronavirus death toll hurtling past 500 and no sign of new infections slowing down, Mr. Yan decided he wanted to share his anger at the governments botched response to the outbreak.

So the 36-year-old data scientist, who lives in Washington, D.C., posted links to a series of articles critical of Chinese President Xi Jinping to a WeChat group with about 22 other people.

At first, everything appeared to be normal, but then Yan realized that his friends in China were not seeing any of his posts. Only the two other U.S.-based group members and one in the Philippines had seen what he posted.

I have never received any notice from WeChat about being blocked. And thus there is no way for me to appeal. I have sent messages to WeChat Help but there hasn't been any responses, said Yan, who is a green card holder living in the U.S. Technically, they did not cover my mouth but covered my friends and relatives' ears when I speak.

Yans case is not isolated. VICE News spoke to dozens of WeChat users in the U.S. and Canada, as well as some users in the U.K., France, Spain, Australia, Germany, and Malaysia, who reported identical problems with their accounts as they tried to share information with their family and friends in China.

The restrictions prevent international users from sending information to contacts in China, and in some cases they have also had their accounts suspended or blocked completely and accused of spreading malicious rumors. In many cases, the censorship means their only communication link to people inside China has been cut off completely.

For decades China has sought to strictly control what people can say and see online by tightly regulating any company that operates in China. But as Chinese companies have gone global, so has Chinas ability to censor communications outside of the mainland.

READ: China arrested a whistleblower who shot viral video of coronavirus corpses in Wuhan

WeChat is a unit of Tencent, one of Chinas largest tech companies, which also happens to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Now users in the U.S. are calling for Congress to intervene.

I came to the U.S. for freedom. I thought I escaped from the threat of the Communist Party. But I'm wrong.

Tencent is the evil helper of a totalitarian government that suppresses freedom of speech and democracy, one WeChat user who lives in Philadelphia and wanted to remain anonymous due to fears of retribution, told VICE News. They delete or block your posts if they think it promotes democracy and challenges the government. It violates my civil rights as a U.S. citizen. I came to the U.S. for freedom. I thought I escaped from the threat of the Communist Party. But I'm wrong, I still live in terror because Tencent is monitoring my WeChat and may report me to the Chinese authorities.

Tencent did not respond to specific questions about its censorship of international users, but sent an emailed statement saying it was committed to providing a secure and open platform for all its users.

While we continue to adhere to this commitment, communications on these platforms are subject to the relevant laws and regulations that apply to the respective platforms on which such communications are being carried out, the statement said.

As a Chinese company, Tencent is obligated to comply with strict government regulations on what content is allowed to be published on its platform, and it invests heavily in both automated systems for content filtering and human curation. That includes undercover community leaders who monitor group chats and report any questionable behavior.

While users in China are used to this type of monitoring, U.S. residents are unaccustomed to having their communication subject to Chinese censorship.

READ: The Chinese doctor who tried to warn the world about coronavirus has died

But thats exactly whats happening according to WeChat users VICE News spoke in North Carolina, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Houston, Pennsylvania, Atlanta, and Indiana, as well as many in Canadian cities like Toronto and Ottawa.

As a U.S. citizen, in the land of freedom, I am still under communist control, a WeChat user who called herself Xianzi and who lives in Edison, New Jersey, said.

All those who spoke to VICE News told similar stories of having their accounts silently restricted without any notification. It is likely many other people have had similar restrictions put in place, but have yet to notice it.

The problem with non-transparent/silent censorship is that you never know your messages are censored unless you check with the receivers, which is something that we as users do not usually do, Lotus Ruan, a researcher on internet censorship with the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab, told VICE News.

Tencent operates two versions of its app. The Chinese version (known as Weixin) offers a much greater variety of features everything from calling a cab to applying for a divorce than the international version, which is comparable to WhatsApp.

In China WeChat has close to a billion users who spend an estimated one-third of all their time online using the app. Because practically everyone in the country uses it, it is one of the only ways that Chinese people around the world can keep in contact with their family and friends back home.

Chinese people heavily depend on WeChat, not only for day-to-day chatting, but often for business and reaching out to clients and so on, as well as payments and other financial tools. Losing WeChat is often just unacceptable for many people, and the Chinese government knows that, a Chinese national currently working for Google in California who called himself Benjamin and who recently had his WeChat account suspended, told VICE News.

VICE News has reviewed multiple screenshots showing how messages posted outside of China did not appear for members of a group inside Chinas all-powerful internet censorship apparatus, known as the Great Firewall yet there was no indication or notification that such filtering was taking place.

READ: China Is erasing tributes to coronavirus whistleblower doctor Li Wenliang

But the restrictions are not uniform. Some people report that they can continue to post content in one-on-one chats with Chinese users over WeChat, while others say that feature is also now blocked.

Others report they can send links and pictures, but not messages. More have had their accounts suspended for periods of between one and 30 days. Some groups have been blocked entirely, with warning messages telling them they have been reported for violating WeChats policies.

My family also lives in terror and beg me not to say anything that's challenging or criticizing the Chinese government.

In one case, two account holders who shared a message sent from VICE News to groups they were members of had their group chat feature disabled.

Tencent censors content based on a mysterious collection of keywords, Ruan said, but points out that during times of heightened tensions, the censors widen their restrictions.

Our past research shows that WeChat censors not only content deemed critical to the government but also a wide range of content during critical times, probably as a way to play safe and avoid official reprimands, Ruan said. The platforms sometimes censor even neutral references to official ideologies and government policies. In practice, it means that even if users are genuinely discussing or commending government policies, their messages can still get censored.

The lack of transparency has left many WeChat users confused and frustrated, especially as they worry that their actions may put their families in danger.

My family also lives in terror and beg me not to say anything that's challenging or criticizing the Chinese government, one U.S.-based user told VICE News on the condition of anonymity over fears their family in China would be targeted. Their worries are valid because I know the Communist Party can do anything they want and I will get myself or my relatives in trouble.

Cover: A spectator wears a mouthguard and holds her smartphone in her hand at a table tennis tournament in Germany. (Photo: Swen Pfrtner/picture alliance via Getty Images)

See the article here:

Heres How China Is Silencing Coronavirus Critics in the U.S. - VICE