YouTubes move to appoint a local representative in Turkey will inevitably lead to an increase in arbitrary censorship and compromise peoples privacy and right of access to information, and could implicate YouTube in human rights violations, said Human Rights Watch, ARTICLE 19 and the Freedom of Expression Association (FD) in a joint statement on Friday.

The statement said YouTubes decision also sets a dangerous precedent that makes it harder for other tech companies to refuse to appoint a local representative in Turkey and more difficult for YouTube and other companies to refuse to appoint local representatives in countries around the world with weak rule of law frameworks and equally problematic legislation that may require it. The rights watchdogs said YouTube should be a partner in efforts to challenge the law and champion the right to free speech, instead of cooperating with this form of state interference with freedom of expression.

The main social media companies quite rightly have so far chosen not to comply with this draconian law, which facilitates censorship, said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. YouTubes decision to comply with the requirement to set up a local representative in the belief that it will be possible to ride out the storm and hold out against a flood of take-down requests is deeply misguided and blinkered to the deplorable climate for free speech in Turkey.

The Turkish parliament approved an amendment to the law on Internet crimes in July. Thebillsets forth progressive sanctions forcing social media platforms with more than 1 million connections a day to appoint a representative in Turkey with whom the Turkish authorities can resolve problems arising from cases of insult, intimidation and violation of privacy.

The bill obligates social media platforms to respond within 48 hours to complaints about violations of personal rights or to judicial orders to remove content. The social network provider that fails to remove offending content within 24 hours after a court ruling will be held responsible for damages incurred by the content.

Until now no other companies have decided to appoint a representative in Turkey despite getting fined for not doing so.

The appointment of a representative in adherence to the law brings with it the obligation to comply with unjustified and politically motivated take-down and content removal requests by the Turkish authorities, the organizations said.

According to the rights watchdogs, YouTubes announcement is deeply troubling and reflects the companys failure to understand the existing threats and violations to freedom of expression in Turkey and how this will facilitate further erosion of that right. Critical expression is routinely censored in Turkey, and far-reaching executive influence over courts means that the judiciary rarely protects free speech.

Turkish authorities make an enormous number take-down and content removal requests in violation of freedom of expression and information. According to research carried out by FDs EngelliWeb initiative, by the end of 2019 Turkey had blocked access to 408,494 websites, 130,000 URLs, 7,000 Twitter accounts, 40,000 tweets, 10,000 YouTube videos and 6,200 pieces of Facebook content.

In the absence of due process and an independent judiciary, including functioning democratic institutions such as the Constitutional Court, it will be impossible for YouTube or any social media platform to protect the rights of users in Turkey as they will become the long arm of the Turkish state, said Yaman Akdeniz, one of the founders of FD.

The joint statement said companies like YouTube have a responsibility to respect human rights and mitigate harm as set out in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

The tech companies should not bow to this pressure or enter into behind-closed-doors agreements with the authorities, said Sarah Clarke, head of Europe and Central Asia at ARTICLE 19. As long as the environment for freedom of expression and the rule of law is this hostile in Turkey, other social media platforms should continue not to comply with the amendments to the Internet law.

ARTICLE 19, Human Rights Watch and FD called on YouTube to reconsider its decision to appoint a local representative, clarify how the company intends to respect the rights to freedom of expression and privacy in Turkey and publish the companys Human Rights Impact Assessment that led to the decision to appoint a representative office in Turkey.

The organizations also urged the Turkish government to repeal the new law, which will negatively affect millions of users of social media platforms in Turkey.

Take a second to support SCF on Patreon!

Related

Go here to read the rest:

YouTubes decision to appoint local representative in Turkey will increase censorship, rights watchdogs say - Stockholm Center for Freedom

One of the defining technology decisions of the Trump administration was its August 2020 ban on TikTokan executive order to which legal challenges are still playing out in the courts. The incoming Biden-Harris administration, however, has indicated its intention to pivot away from Trumps approach on several key technology policies, from the expected appointment of a national cyber director to the reinvigoration of U.S. diplomacy to build tech coalitions abroad. President Biden will need to make policy decisions about software made by companies incorporated in foreign countries, and to what extent that might pose national security risks. There may be a future TikTok policy, in other words, that isnt at all aboutor at least isnt just aboutTikTok.

In April 2020, Republican Rep. Jim Banks introduced legislation in the House of the Representatives that sought to require developers of foreign software to provide warnings before consumers downloaded the products in question. Its highly likely that similar such proposals will enter Congress in the next few years. On the executive branch side, the Biden administration has many decisions ahead on mobile app supply chain security, including whether to keep in place Trumps executive order on TikTok. These questions are also linked to foreign policy: President Biden will need to decide how to handle Indias bans of Chinese software applications, as India will be a key bilateral tech relationship for the United States. And the U.S. government will also have to make choices about cloud-based artificial intelligence (AI) applications served from other countriesthat is, where an organizations AI tools are run on third-party cloud serversin the near future.

In this context, what might a better U.S.policy on the security risks of foreign-made software look like? The Trump administrations TikTok executive order was more of a tactical move against a single tech firm than a fully developed policy. The new administration will now have the opportunity to set out a more fully realized, comprehensive vision for how to tackle this issue.

This analysis offers three important considerations for the U.S. executive branch, drawing on lessons from the Trump administrations TikTok ban. First, any policy needs to explicitly define the problem and what it sets out to achieve; simply asserting national security issues is not enough. Second, any policy needs to clearly articulate the alleged risks at play, because foreign software could be entangled with many economic and security issues depending on the specific case. And third, any policy needs to clearly articulate the degree to which a threat actors supposed cost-benefit calculus makes those different risks likely. This is far from a comprehensive list. But failure to address these three considerations in policy design and implementation will only undermine the policys ultimate effectiveness.

Defining the Problem

First, any policy on foreign software security needs to be explicitly clear about scopethat is, what problem the government is trying to solve. Failure to properly scope policies on this front risks confusing the public, worrying industry and obscuring the alleged risks the government is trying to communicate. This undermines the governments objectives on all three fronts, which is why scoping foreign software policies clearly and explicitlyin executive orders, policy memos and communication with the publicis critical.

Trumps approach to TikTok and WeChat provides a lesson in what not to do. Arguably, the TikTok executive order was not even a policy: It was more a tactical-level move against a single tech firm than a broader specification of the problem set and development of solutions. Trump had discussed banning TikTok in July 2020 as retaliation for the Chinese governments handling of the coronavirusso, putting aside that this undermined the alleged national security motives behind the executive order, the order issued on TikTok wasnt completely out of the blue. That said, the order on WeChat that accompanied the so-called TikTok ban was surprising, and its signing only created public confusion. Until then, much of the congressional conversation on Chinese mobile apps had focused on TikTok, and the Trump administration had given no warning that WeChat would be the subject of its actions too. Whats more, even after the executive orders were signed in August, most of the Trump administrations messaging focused just on TikTok, ignoring WeChat. The administration also wrote the WeChat executive order with troublingly and perhaps sloppily broad language that scoped the ban as impacting Tencent Holdingswhich owns WeChat and many other software applicationsand thus concerned gaming and other software industries, though the administration subsequently stated the ban was aimed only at WeChat.

Additionally, the Trump administrations decisions on U.S.-China tech often blurred together trade and national security issues. The Trump administration repeatedly suggested that TikToks business presence in mainland China inherently made the app a cybersecurity threat, without elaborating on why the executive orders focused solely on TikTok and WeChat rather than other software applications from China too. Perhaps the bans were a possible warning shot at Beijing about potential collection of U.S. citizen databut its worth asking if that warning shot even worked given the legal invalidations of the TikTok ban and the blowback even within the United States. Again, the overarching policy behind these tactical decisions was undeveloped. It was unclear if TikTok and WeChat were one-off decisions or the beginning of a series of similar actions.

Going forward, any executive branch policy on foreign software needs to explicitly specify the scope of the cybersecurity concerns at issue. In other words, the executive needs to clearly identify the problem the U.S. government is trying to solve. This will be especially important as the incoming Biden administration contends with cybersecurity risks emanating not just from China but also from Russia, Iran and many other countries. If the White House is concerned about targeted foreign espionage through software systems, for example, those concerns might very well apply to cybersecurity software developed by a firm incorporated in Russiawhich would counsel a U.S. approach not just limited to addressing popular consumer apps made by Chinese firms. If the U.S. is concerned about censorship conducted by foreign-owned platforms, then actions by governments like Tehran would certainly come into the picture. If the problem is a foreign government potentially collecting massive amounts of U.S. citizen data through software, then part of the policy conversation needs to focus on data brokers, toothe large, unregulated companies in the United States that themselves buy up and sell reams of information on U.S. persons to anyone whos buying.

Software is constantly moving and often communicating with computer systems across national borders. Any focus on a particular company or country should come with a clear explanation, even if it seems relatively intuitive, as to why that company or country poses a particularly different or elevated risk compared to other sources of technology.

Clearly Delineate Between Different Alleged Security Risks

The Trump administrations TikTok ban also failed to clearly articulate and distinguish between its alleged national security concerns. Depending on ones perspective, concerns might be raised about TikTok collecting data on U.S. government employees, TikTok collecting data on U.S. persons not employed by the government, TikTok censoring information in China at Beijings behest, TikTok censoring information beyond China at Beijings behest, or disinformation on the TikTok platform. Interpreting the Trump administrations exact concerns was difficult, because White House officials were not clear and explicit about which risks most concerned them. Instead, risks were blurred together, with allegations of Beijing-compelled censorship thrown around alongside claims that Beijing was using the platform to conduct espionage against U.S. persons.

If there was evidence that these practices were already occurring, the administration did not present it. If the administrations argument was merely that such actions could occur, the administration still did not lay out its exact logic. There is a real risk that the Chinese government is ordering, coercing or otherwise compelling technology companies incorporated in its borders to engage in malicious cyber behavior on its behalf worldwide, whether for the purpose of censorship or cyber operations. Beijing quite visibly already exerts that kind of pressure on technology firms in China to repress the internet domestically. Yet to convince the public, industry, allies, partners, and even those within other parts of government and the national security apparatus that a particular piece or source of foreign software is a national security risk, the executive branch cannot overlook the importance of clear messaging. That starts with clearly articulating, and not conflating, the different risks at play.

The spectrum of potential national security risks posed by foreign software is large and depends on what the software does. A mobile app platform with videos and comments, for instance, might collect intimate data on U.S. users while also making decisions about content moderationso in that case, its possible the U.S. government could have concerns about mass data collection, censorship and information manipulation all at once. Or, to take another example, cybersecurity software that runs on enterprise systems and scans internal company databases and files might pose an array of risks related to corporate espionage and nation-state espionagebut this could have nothing to do with concerns about disinformation and content manipulation.

Software is a general term, and the types and degrees of cybersecurity risk posed by different pieces of software can vary greatly. Just as smartphones are not the same as computing hardware in self-driving cars, a weather app is not the same as a virtualization platform used in an industrial plant. Software could be integrated with an array of hardware components but not directly connect back to all those makers: Think of how Apple, not the manufacturers of subcomponents for Apple devices, issues updates for its products. Software could also directly connect back to its maker in potentially untrusted ways, as with Huawei issuing software updates to 5G equipment. It could constantly collect information, such as with the TikTok app itself and it could learn from the information it collects, like how TikTok uses machine learning and how many smartphone voice-control systems collect data on user speech. This varied risk landscape means policymakers must be clear, explicit and specific about the different alleged security risks posed by foreign software.

Give Cost-Benefit Context on Security Risks

Finally, the U.S. government should make clear to the public the costs and benefits that a foreign actor might weigh in using that software to spy. Just because a foreign government might hypothetically collect data via something like a mobile appwhether by directly tapping into specific devices or by turning to the apps corporate owner for data hand-oversdoesnt mean that the app is necessarily an optimal vector for espionage. It might not yield useful data beyond what the government already has, or it might be too costly relative to using other active data collection vectors. Part of the U.S. governments public messaging on cyber risk management should therefore address why that particular vector of data collection would be more attractive than some other vector, or what supplementary data it would provide. In other words, what is the supposed value-add for the foreign government? This could also include consideration of controls offered by the softwares country of originfor example, transparency rules, mandatory reporting for publicly traded companies, or laws that require cooperation with law enforcement or intelligence servicesmuch like the list of trust criteria under development as part of Lawfares Trusted Hardware and Software Working Group.

In the case of the Trump administrations TikTok executive order, for example, there was much discussion by Trump officials about how Beijing could potentially use the app for espionage. But administration officials spoke little about why the Chinese intelligence services would elect to use that vector over others, or what about TikTok made its data a hypothetical value-add from an intelligence perspective.

If the risk concern is about targeted espionage against specific high-value targets, then the cost-benefit conversation needs to be about what data that foreign software provides, and how easily it provides that benefit, relative to other methods of intelligence collection. If the risk concern is about bulk data collection on all the softwares users, then the cost-benefit conversation needs to be about why that data is different from information that is openly available, was stolen via previous data breaches, or is purchasable from a U.S. data broker. That should include discussing what value that data adds to what has already been collected: Is the risk that the foreign government will develop microtargeted profiles on individuals, supplement existing data, or enable better data analytics on preexisting information?

The point again is not that TikToks data couldnt add value, even if it overlapped with what Chinese intelligence services have already collected. Rather, the Trump administration did not clearly articulate Beijings supposed cost-benefit calculus.

Whatever the specific security concern, managing the risks of foreign espionage and data collection through software applications is in part a matter of assessing the potential payoff for the adversary: not just the severity of the potential event, or the actors capabilities, but why that actor might pursue this option at all. Policy messaging about these questions speaks to the governments broader risk calculus and whether the U.S. government is targeting the most urgent areas of concern. For instance, if the only concern about a piece of foreign software is that it collects data on U.S. persons, but it then turns out that data was already publicly available online or heavily overlaps with a foreign intelligence services previous data theft, would limiting that foreign softwares spread really mitigate the problems at hand? The answer might be yes, but these points need to be articulated to the public.

Conclusion

A key part of designing federal policies on software supply chain security is recognizing the globally interconnected and interdependent nature of software development today. Developers working in one country to make software for a firm incorporated in a second may sell their products in a third country and collect data sent to servers in a fourth. Software applications run in one geographic area may talk to many servers located throughout the world, whether a Zoom call or Gmailand the relatively open flow of data across borders has enabled the growth of many different industries, from mobile app gaming to a growing number of open-source machine-learning tools online.

If the U.S. government wants to draw attention to security risks of particular pieces or kinds of foreign software, or software coming from particular foreign sources, then it needs to be specific about why that software is being targeted. Those considerations go beyond the factors identified here. The WeChat executive order, for instance, wasnt just unclear in specifying the national security concerns ostensibly motivating the Trump administration; it also failed to discuss what a ban on WeChat in the United States would mean for the apps many users. Hopefully, greater attention paid to these crucial details will help better inform software security policies in the future.

Read this article:

Building a Better U.S. Approach to TikTok and Beyond - Lawfare

Editor:

With Hunter Bidens admission that he is the subject of a federal criminal investigation, the mainstream media has finally been shamed into reporting on him and the financial entanglements between the Biden family and the Chinese Communist Party.

As vice president, Joe Biden hauled his neer-do-well son Hunter on Air Force Two around the globe like a soiled Turkish towel to be thrown in every murky puddle of cash between Ukraine and China to be wrung out later for personal profit. Only now that the election is over is the media bringing this to the attention of voters. It may have had an impact on how they voted.

When the framers of the Constitution sought to protect free speech, they envisioned abridgment of free speech by the government; they didnt envision self-censorship by the media to advance political objectives. Where do we turn for protection from that?

James R. Blair

Spring Township

See the rest here:

Letter: Who will protect America from censorship by media? - The Mercury

The rollout of the coronavirus vaccine has beenaccompanied by the kind of corporate image campaign you typically associate with high-end consumer products, like aHollywood blockbuster orthe new iPhone. It's on the morning shows, being touted on celebrity Twitter accounts, and the news about it is uniformly glowing.

Just the other day, the guy who played Gandalf in "The Lord of the Rings" moviesgot the vaccine, and as on any media tour, the paparazzi were there for the dramatic moment when they stuck the needle in his arm.

"It's a very special day," the Gandalf actor told Reuters. "I feel euphoric. I would have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone. I feel very lucky to have had the vaccination."

A health care worker in Juneau, Alaska, also feelslucky. She got the vaccine two days ago. The woman had no history of allergies, but within minutes she developed a severe anaphylactic reaction to it and then had trouble breathing. She had to spend the night in the emergency room, but according to the doctor who treated her, she was "still enthusiastic that she got the vaccine and the benefits it would give her in the future."

SIR IAN MCKELLAN GETS 'PAINLESS' CORONAVIRUS VACCINE, ENCOURAGES EVERYONE TO DO THE SAMEFOR 'SOCIETY'

How are the rest of us supposed to respond to a marketing campaign like this? Well, nervously. Even if you're strongly supportive of vaccines -- and we are -- even if you recognize how many millions of lives have been saved over the past 50 years by vaccines --and we do -- it all seems a bit much. It's too slick. Better to treat Americans like adults, explain the benefits, be honest about the risks, and let the rest of us decide.

In this country, we control our own bodies. They're always telling us that. But now the rules have changed. On the question of the coronavirus vaccine, our leaders are definitely not pro-choice. Their view is, "Do what you're told and don't complain." No uncomfortable questions. Those aren't just suggestions, they'rerules, and Silicon Valley plans to enforce them.

Twitter hasannounced a new policy to censor any unauthorized inquiry about the vaccine or, as the company put it, "false or misleading narratives aboutCOVID-19 vaccinations." Among other things, Twitter is censoring any claim that this vaccine might be used to"control populations."

ALASKA HEALTH CARE WORKER SUFFERS ADVERSE REACTION AFTER COVID-19 VACCINE

So whatever you do, don't say this is social control. If you do, the richest, most powerful people in the world will act in perfect coordination to shut you down immediately. To repeat: There is no social control going on here, but if you suggest otherwise, Twitterwill censor you.

In addition, Facebook has now decided it must "build demand for vaccination in communities worldwide" by sharing "reassuring information" about getting the vaccine. Mark Zuckerberg was a tech tycoon. Now he's a professional marketer who gets to control the conversation about the product he's selling. Facebook has announced it will squelch "any misinformation" it sees about this vaccine.

None of this inspires confidence. Censorship will not convince a single person to take the coronavirus vaccine. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. If you wanted to roll out a national vaccination campaign, the first thing you would need after the vaccine itself is social trust. People have to believe that the authorities know what they're doing, otherwise they won't participate. Censorship is the enemy of social trust.

Once the population understands that you are holding back critical information, trust evaporates and people become suspicious. They start wondering if the vaccine is as safe and effective as you claim it is. Why do you have to lie about it? Why are you threatening us if we don't take it? If you want people to take your vaccine, they must trust your vaccine, and if you want them to trust it, you have to let them speak freely about it. That has always been true, but authorities have long been slow to grasp it.

FDA ADVISORY PANEL ENDORSES MODERNA VACCINE CANDIDATE

Smallpox was the first contagious disease controlled by a vaccine. It was a horrible disease, and forhundreds of years people were afraid of it, but they were also afraid of the vaccine. Like most vaccines, it could have significant side effects, including death. In the end, the smallpox vaccine turned out to be well worth it. It saved far more people than it hurt. But government officials couldn't be bothered to patiently explain that. So instead, they used force. Sound familiar?

Several American states made the smallpox vaccine mandatory in 1853. The British government did the same thing. The rules were simple: Take the vaccine and shut up. But a man called George Bamford was not on board. He didn't want his kids taking the smallpox vaccine and he had good reason for that: The smallpox vaccine had already killed one of his other children. The matterwent to court, but the courts didn't care. They offered Bamford a choice: Pay a steep fine or go to prison.

Inevitably, many people took George Bamford's side. In the United States and Great Britain, national anti-vaccination leagues formed. Tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest. People like Frederick Douglass supported them. Eventually, the British government ended its forced vaccination policy. The lesson was clear: If you want people to get vaccinated, you need to convince them to get vaccinated and you must do it with reason. Lying and force do not work.

Yet with our current leadership, you sometimes get the impression that lying and force are the whole point. If they can keep ordering you around like you're an animal, if they can censor you when you start asking hard questions, maybe you won't notice how totally incompetent they are.

MSNBC MEDICAL ANALYST: DON'T TRAVEL OR STOP WEARING MASKS UNTIL SUMMER, EVEN AFTER GETTING VACCINE

In this respect, the coronavirus vaccine is not merely a vaccine, it is the source of their power. This week onMSNBC, a noted medical expert called Dr. Vin Gupta explained that the point of the vaccine is not for you toresume your normal, productive, happy, unmasked life. That's what they promised us months ago. That's why so many of us are looking forward to the vaccine. But that's no longer true. They're now telling us that even with a vaccine, onethey're going to make you take, you're going to have to stay home alone with your face covered.

GUPTA: Just because you get vaccinated with that second dose does not mean you should be participating in things like traveling in the middle of an out-of-control pandemic or that you're liberated from masks. Everything still applies until all of us get the two-dose regimen ... Don't let your guard down just because you got vaccinated.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

To be clear, most Americans support vaccines. The track record for vaccines is better than for any other part of medicine. It's the basis of modern medicine. But it's people like Guptawho discredit vaccines, not the conspiracy theories. People like him create conspiracy theories because they're so clearly lying.

"Don't let your guard down"?What does that mean, exactly? States like Texas and Florida have let their guard down, relatively speaking. Those states allow people to eat in restaurants and see their families, and they still have fewer coronavirus deaths than New York State, a place where it's a crime to live a normal life. Texas and Florida have more people than New York does and a whole lot more freedom, yet New York has seen more people die from COVID-19.Explain that one.

This article is adapted from Tucker Carlson's opening monologue on the Dec. 17, 2020 edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Read the original post:

Tucker Carlson: Public confidence in the coronavirus vaccine won't be achieved by Big Tech censorship - Fox News

The City University of New York (CUNY) committee has passed a resolution that rebuked the censorship of a virtual event a few months ago that featured a documented Palestinian terrorist.

The resolution that the CUNY Professional Staff Congress (PSC) International Committee passed last week that bemoaned the video-conferencing platform Zoom, Facebook and YouTube removing a Sept. 23 event being promoted and live-streamed, respectively, on their platform called Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice, & Resistance: A conversation with Leila Khaled.

Khaled played a critical role in two airplane hijackings as a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), aU.S.-designatedterrorist organization. The Israeli Shin Betconsidersher part of the Jordanian command of the PFLP.

The resolution stated that social-media censorship went against the principle of academic freedom. In addition to the aforementioned platforms, the measure also blamed what it called a pressure campaign organized by the Anti-Defamation League, the Lawfare Project, StandWithUs and other groups.

In a statement, the Lawfare Project stated that this resolution was passed so that CUNY PSC could set up a committee and begin fundraising against our efforts to keep terrorists and Jew-hatred off campuses. In doing so, this fringe union has declared war on the Jewish community.

The post CUNY passes resolution rebuking censorship of virtual event with terrorist appeared first on JNS.org.

Continue reading here:

CUNY passes resolution rebuking censorship of virtual event with terrorist - Cleveland Jewish News

TheCDT Censorship Digestis a monthly round-up of censored speech,propaganda developments, and rights defense in China, compiled and written by CDT Chinese editors. We have selected, translated, and adapted relevant and interesting portions of the digest for our English readers, and encourage you to read the full digest as originally posted at CDT Chinese.

In a 2018 interview, Historian Yu Yingshi noted that the capitalism conceived by Deng Xiaoping was nothing like the economic system long popular in the West. Dengs was a capitalism under complete control of the Party, roughly along the following model: The CCP becomes a huge capitalist collective, and all important companies are all so-called state enterprises. In fact, they are controlled by Party committees, and so should be called Party enterprises. Western commentators call Dengs model state capitalism, but this is inaccuratethey call it that because Westerners couldnt imagine something as strange as Party capitalism.

Under Party capitalism, it isnt hard to understand the experiences that private entrepreneurs in China had this November. In his interview, Mr. Yu pointed out that in addition to Party enterprises, there are also private ventures or public-private partnershipsbut, in this capitalism, these are also directly under Party control. Occasionally, when an entrepreneur doesnt listen to the Party, repercussions follow. In such a system, not only entrepreneurs, but all who question the Party, may have to pay a price. However, Mr. Yu also pointed out in the interview: from a historical point of view, no regime that relies on violence can maintain power for long.

After spending four years in prison for his work chronicling protest across China, in June of this yearon the day after his 43rd birthdayLu Yuyu was released. Once free, he learned that since his arrest the space for dissent in China had almost completely disappeared. However, Lu decided not to be silent, and published a detailed account of his time in prison (translated in full by CDT). As November began, at China Change Cao Yaxue reminded readers of Lus story, ending on a quote perennially relevant in Xis China:

Im not a hero,he said. Nor am I one of those whove chosen to stay in China in order to continue the struggle. I worked on Not News because I liked it; I didnt leave China because as someone at the bottom rung of society, I didnt get the opportunity. I didnt capitulate because of the price I would pay for it. I want to live with dignity. [Source] [Chinese]

Through yet another month, the detention of rights lawyer Xu Zhiyong continued. After she issued a statement of support for Xu on his 100th day of hisdetention in late September, his girlfriendLi Qiaochu in November reflected on her 120 days under residential surveillance in a designated location earlier this year:

I was completely deprived, all who appeared in front of me did so to rebuke me, threaten me, or to educate me. This disciplinary system gives itself absolute power, and exercises that power to the maxim. It deprives people of vitality. It attempts to turn those that it supervises into obedient machines who live just to be interrogated constantly. [Chinese]

On November 26, Li tweeted that police had summoned her to a meeting.

Also in November, it was revealed that citizen journalist Zhang Zhan had been formally charged with picking quarrels and provoking trouble, and is looking at a likely five-year prison sentence. The former lawyer has been in detention since May, and is the fourth citizen journalist to be arrested for covering the coronavirus.

Chinas entrepreneurs are either committing a crime, or theyre on the road to commit a crime. This sentiment was expressed widely by Chinese netizens in online discussions about the difficult situation facing some of the nations high-profile entrepreneurs in November.

A notable example is that of Sun Dawu, a billionaire agricultural entrepreneur and outspoken political commentator who was arrested with over 20 family members and colleagueson November 10. Long praised by liberal intellectuals for his outside-the-box thinking about lending and poverty alleviation, Sun is no stranger to controversy and falling afoul of Party authorities. The words that late Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo wrote about Sun in 2003 still ring true today:

Authorities are discovering that peasant entrepreneurs like Sun Dawu are becoming more common, and especially the entrepreneurial conscience of Sun Dawu to despise money for power transactions and the courage to speak out. He has the economic resources and organizational capabilities, and also the perspective of fighting for farmers rights and aiding them in getting out of poverty. He calls for political reforms from the perspective of constitutional democracy, which poses a huge challenge to the current political system, and may make Sun a new type of political leader. So, it is necessary for authorities to use vague laws to bring him to heel, making Sun Dawu and his Dawu Group into victims of a country ruled by evil laws. [Chinese]

Online, an article signed by Lao Hou commented:

Unsurprisingly, the handling of Dawu Group began with the takeover of its hospital and school. This method of punishment fully explains that in the eyes of the local government the problem with Dawu Group isnt a criminal or an economic problem, but a political problem.

Dawu Group flaunts that it doesnt engage in bribery, meaning it never interacts or colludes with the government in private. Its involvement with social services has moved deeply into government jurisdiction, especially education, healthcare, and elderly carethe pillar industries of the regimewhich theyve turned into welfare projects. This undermines industrial policies, and also raises suspicion of a grassroots overtaking of the government. [Source]

In short, Lao Hou continues, Acting as a child of the Party is the only way for Dawu Group, just as its the only way for all private firms.

Another entrepreneur who this November was very publicly forced to be a child of the Party was Ant Groups Jack Ma. Xi Jinping reportedly personally decided to shut down the firms IPOwhich would have been the worlds largest offering to dateafter the entrepreneur gave a speech criticizing regulators in October.

Other private entrepreneurs deserve attention this November, including Li Huaiqing, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for subversion and other charges. Prior to his 2018 arrest and the freezing of his and his familys assets, the Chongqing native was the owner of a pawn company. He was arrested suddenly in January 2018 for alleged gang activity, then months later accused of fraud, subversion, and blackmail over writings and recordings he shared on social media.

[]

In early November, a week after the violent public death of the Tibetan woman Lhamo, womens rights activists mourned the domestic abuse victim. An essay by feminist activists Xiao Meili and Zhu Xixi explained that they launched this campaign for Lhamo not only in hopes that everyone will remember her, but also to remind ourselves that we have zero tolerance for domestic violence and the bullying of victims. Even more, we hope that the public sector and everyone in law enforcement will forever remember Lhamo, will remember that domestic violence isnt a domestic matter. Stop inaction! Punish Inaction!

However, before Lhamos tragedy had even concluded, shockingly lenient sentencing for the brutal torture and death of another young woman outraged the country in November. Fang Yangyang, a young Shandong woman, had been arranged to marry a man in 2016. Fang, who had reportedly been diagnosed with a mild mental condition, was beaten and detained by her husband and parents-in-law for years. She died last year highly malnourished. In January, a Yucheng, Shandong court found the three torturers guilty of abuse. The husbands sentence was suspended allowing him to walk that day. Marriage being an institution based on childhood, and Fangs inability to deliver a childpotentially due to her highly malnourished and distressed statewere deemed relevant.

In late November, Xiao Meili announced another campaign, initiating a petition to the Yucheng Court demanding a new fair trial, and zero tolerance for domestic violence. Violation among the most vulnerable groups is a stain on civilized society. Lets pledge to remember tragedies like those of Lhamo and Fang Yangyan, and hope those in power also wont forget them.

[]

As totalitarianism comes to define a system, those living in that system will discover that resistance has become a part of daily life. One such act of resistance that has come to define the era for Chinese netizens is scaling the wall, a daily occurrence for many with increasingly sharp penalties. In a CDT Guide in November, CDT Chinese editors looked back over recent years to show the steady criminalization of accessing information in China.

Denunciation and reporting peers is another feature that has come to define the era, as November readily showed. On American Thanksgiving, a dormitory manager at Harbin Institute of Technology was reported for handing out chocolate on the Western holiday, landing her in the middle of a firestorm. On WeChat, @ used the story to reflect on the trend:

That students conduct, if over-interpreted, is that of a closed and narrow-minded person with their eyes wide who is constantly differentiating between enemy and friend, constantly cutting, until in the end the good points in U.S.-China relations are less and less. Boycott Christmas because of Religious factors, boycott Valentines Day because it touches upon passion between men and women, boycott Thanksgiving because its Western. In the end, theres less and less left to boycott, and the act of resisting is less and less meaningful. Resistance becomes merely a habit of thoughtand thinking too continues to shrink. It is this that worries people. The most precious thing a young person can have is a kind and open heart, rather than eyes wide scanning for enemies. [Chinese]

On November 4, historian Shen Zhihua gave a lecture, which was also streamed live online, on the rise and fall of the Soviet model of socialism. An hour into the lecture, the stream was suddenly cut, reportedly due to malicious reportstip-offs, presumably from students, that the content challenged Party orthodoxy.

November 8 is Journalists Day in China, a holiday officially established by the Party and government in 2000. Between January 1 and November 30, 2020, about 200,000 journalists passed their Xi Jinping thought exams. China was in 2020 declared the worlds greatest jailor of journalists by the Committee to Protect Journalists for the second year in a row.

[]

See original here:

CDT Censorship Digest, November 2020: Forced to Be a Child of the Party - China Digital Times

Al Drago, Getty

On Thursday, amid a flurry of tweets and retweets, President Donald Trump stated his intent to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), saying that doing so will make China very unhappy.

Trump has repeatedly railed against the bill, insisting in particular that his desired reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act be made part of it, on the grounds that it creates a serious threat to our National Security. Not to mention the renaming of military installations named for Confederate military leaders.

On Thursday he reiterated his objections, and changed his threats to a vow to veto the veto-proof bill, in a tweet that included a retweet of a Daily Caller article about Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Graham was featured for remarks in an interview with Sean Hannity on Wednesday during which the Senator said that theres two threats to conservatism: mass mail-in voting unverified and social media companies unregulated, unable to be sued when they take down the content of conservatives.

The NDAA is a funding authorization bill. The $740 billion bill was passed by Congress last week, with veto-proof margins in both the House and the Senate. The bill was delayed by opponents, particularly Sen. Rand Paul, in an effort to push it back far enough that Congress could run out of time to override the veto before the end of the legislative session.

Congressional leaders have said they will cut their holiday short to deal with the veto should that become necessary. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), outgoing senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters last week, We would be rightly and fairly criticized when we cant come back to deal with military pay.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:

Trump Vows Veto of of Veto-Proof Military Spending Bill Over Tech Censorship of Conservatives - Mediaite

Many in the U.S. have spent 2020 debating the problems of content moderation on social media platforms, misinformation and disinformation, and the perceived censorship of political views. But globally, this issue has been in the spotlight for a decade.

This year is the tenth anniversary ofwhat became known as the"Arab Spring", inwhich activists and citizens across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) used social media to document the conditions in which they lived, to push for political change and social justice, and to draw the world's attention to their movement. For many, it was the first time they had seen howthe Internetcould have a role to play in pushing forhuman rights across the world. Emerging social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all basked in the reflected glory of press coverage that centered their part in the protests: often to the exclusion of those who were actually on the streets. The years afterthe uprisings failed to live up to the optimism of the time. Offline, the authoritarian backlash against the democratic protests has meant that many of those who fought for justice a decade ago, are still fighting now. And rather than help that fight, the platform policies and content moderation procedures of the tech giants now too often led to the silencing and erasure of critical voices from across the region. Arbitrary and non-transparent account suspension and removal of political and dissenting speech has become so frequent and systematic in the area that it cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents or the result of transitory errors in automated decision-making.

Along with dozens of other organizations, today EFF has signed an open letter to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube demanding the companies stop silencing critical voices in the MENA region. The letter asks for several concrete measures toensure that users across the region are treated fairly and are able to express themselves freely:

Content moderation policies are not only critical to ensuring robust political debate. They are key to expanding and protecting human rights. Ten years out from those powerful protests, it's clear that authoritarian and repressive regimes will do everything in their power to stop free and open expression. Platforms have an obligation to note and act on the effects content moderation has on oppressed communities, in MENA and elsewhere.

In 2012, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and Founder of Facebook, wrote

By giving people the power to share, we are starting to see people make their voices heard on a different scale from what has historically been possible. These voices will increase in number and volume. They cannot be ignored. Over time, we expect governments will become more responsive to issues and concerns raised directly by all their people rather than through intermediaries controlled by a select few.

Instead, governments around the world have chosen authoritarianism, and platforms have contributed totherepression. It's time for that to end.

Read the full letter demanding that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube stop silencing critical voices from the Middle East and North Africa, reproduced below.

17 December 2020

Ten years ago today, 26-year old Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest over injustice and state marginalization, igniting mass uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and other countries across the Middle East and North Africa.

As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Arab Spring, we, the undersigned activists, journalists, and human rights organizations, have come together to voice our frustration and dismay at how platform policies and content moderation procedures all too often lead to the silencing and erasure of critical voices from marginalized and oppressed communities across the Middle East and North Africa.

The Arab Spring is historic for many reasons, and one of its outstanding legacies is how activists and citizens have used social media to push for political change and social justice, cementing the internet as an essential enabler of human rights in the digital age.

Social media companies boast of the role they play in connecting people. As Mark Zuckerberg famously wrote in his 2012 Founders Letter:

By giving people the power to share, we are starting to see people make their voices heard on a different scale from what has historically been possible. These voices will increase in number and volume. They cannot be ignored. Over time, we expect governments will become more responsive to issues and concerns raised directly by all their people rather than through intermediaries controlled by a select few.

Zuckerbergs prediction was wrong. Instead, more governments around the world have chosen authoritarianism, and platforms have contributed to their repression by making deals with oppressive heads of state; opening doors to dictators; and censoring key activists, journalists, and other changemakers throughout the Middle East and North Africa, sometimes at the behest of other governments:

Examples such as these are far too numerous, and they contribute to the widely shared perception among activists and users in MENA and the Global South that these platforms do not care about them, and often fail to protect human rights defenders when concerns are raised.

Arbitrary and non-transparent account suspension and removal of political and dissenting speech has become so frequent and systematic that they cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents or the result of transitory errors in automated decision-making.

While Facebook and Twitter can be swift in responding to public outcry from activists or private advocacy by human rights organizations (particularly in the United States and Europe), in most cases responses to advocates in the MENA region leave much to be desired. End-users are frequently not informed of which rule they violated, and are not provided a means to appeal to a human moderator.

Remedy and redress should not be a privilege reserved for those who have access to power or can make their voices heard. The status quo cannot continue.

The MENA region has one of the worlds worst records on freedom of expression, and social media remains critical for helping people connect, organize, and document human rights violations and abuses.

We urge you to not be complicit in censorship and erasure of oppressed communities narratives and histories, and we ask you to implement the following measures to ensure that users across the region are treated fairly and are able to express themselves freely:

Signed,

Access NowArabic Network for Human Rights Information ANHRIArticle 19Association for Progressive Communications APCAssociation Tunisienne de Prvention PositiveAvaaz Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)The Computational Propaganda ProjectDaaarb News websiteEgyptian Initiative for Personal RightsElectronic Frontier FoundationEuro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor Global VoicesGulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)Hossam el-Hamalawy, journalist and member of the Egyptian Revolutionary Socialists OrganizationHumena for Human Rights and Civic Engagement IFEXIlam- Media Center For Arab Palestinians In IsraelImpACT International for Human Rights PoliciesInitiative Mawjoudin pour lgalitIraqi Network for Social Media - INSMnetworkI WATCH Organisation (Transparency International Tunisia)Khaled Elbalshy - Daaarb website - Editor in ChiefMahmoud Ghazayel, IndependentMarlena Wisniak, European Center for Not-for-Profit LawMasaar Technology and Law CommunityMichael Karanicolas, Wikimedia/Yale Law School Initiative on Intermediaries and InformationMohamed Suliman, Internet activistMy.Kali magazine Middle East and North AfricaPalestine Digital Rights Coalition (PDRC) The Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy Pen IraqQuds News NetworkRanking Digital Rights Rima Sghaier, Independent Sada Social CenterSkyline International for Human RightsSMEXSyrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP)TaraazTemi Lasade-Anderson, Digital ActionWITNESSVigilance Association for Democracy and the Civic State Tunisia7amleh The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media

More here:

A Decade After the Arab Spring, Platforms Have Turned Their Backs on Critical Voices in the Middle East and North Africa - EFF

A horror game called Devotion was set to release on CD Projekt Reds digital storefront GOG. However, the plan had to be cancelled due to Chinese censorship. In fear of facing retribution from the Chinese government, GOG cancelled its plans to host the game on its storefront as the game had some controversial content.

Reuters

Players in the game found content that referred to Xi Jinping, the president of China, as a Winnie-the-Pooh moron. Its no news that the Chinese president and the CCP are quite sensitive to the cartoon bear as any images of the bear have been banned on Chinese social media. Winnie the pooh has been used as a comparison by memers which has been notoriously referenced by other personalities such as John Oliver and recent movies like Christopher Robin.

The game has been produced by Taiwanese developer Red Candle Games who have been at the centre of censorship controversy ever since the game was released. This is not the first time the Chinese Government has flexed its blanket power to dictate censorship in games, movies and other forms of popular media. PUBG Mobile, the popular battle-royale game made by the Chinese company Tencent Games was also found censoring what people could say in the game as well.

Share America

Apps like TikTok have also blocked accounts of users in the past who have previously made content that talks about Chinas controversial detention camps.

Last year, Activision Blizzard banned a Hong Kong-based player from a professional tournament known as Blitzchung for his statement during a post-match interview, Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time. Tencent Holdings was the real reason behind Ng being stripped of his winnings and being banned from competing as the company owns 10% of Activision Blizzard.

In the case of Devotion, it seems like GOG and other platforms do not want to sell the game to avoid backlash from the Chinese government. Both storefronts operate in China and in order to appease the Chinese government and maintain their presence in a major market, companies often avoid taking risks with controversial games. The simplest solution to this problem is not selling the game in the Chinese region, however GOG chose to remove it from the worldwide store altogether. Heres how the world reacted to GOGs decision to give in to Chinese censorship:

Photo: Red Candle Games (Main Image)

Link:

China Bullied Yet Another Company To Remove A Game From Its Store And Heres How The World Reacted - MensXP.com

Editor:

With Hunter Bidens admission that he is the subject of a federal criminal investigation, the mainstream media has finally been shamed into reporting on him and the financial entanglements between the Biden family and the Chinese Communist Party.

As vice president, Joe Biden hauled his neer-do-well son Hunter on Air Force Two around the globe like a soiled Turkish towel to be thrown in every murky puddle of cash between Ukraine and China to be wrung out later for personal profit. Only now that the election is over is the media bringing this to the attention of voters. It may have had an impact on how they voted.

When the framers of the Constitution sought to protect free speech, they envisioned abridgment of free speech by the government; they didnt envision self-censorship by the media to advance political objectives. Where do we turn for protection from that?

James R. Blair

Spring Township

See the article here:

Letter: Who will protect America from censorship by media? - Reading Eagle