Social media sites have come out swinging against a video pushing misleading information about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment which led to Twitter partially suspending Donald Trump Jr.s account.

Conservative media outlet Breitbart first published the contested clip, which features men and women dressed in white lab coats and referring to themselves as Americas Frontline Doctors staging a press conference outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. The individuals make questionable coronavirus claims that have been proven false, such as calling hydroxychloroquine (a drug used to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for decades) a cure for COVID despite a growing body of scientific evidence that has not shown this to be an effective treatment against the virus.

Whats more, one of the so-called doctors identified as Stella Immanuel from Houston claims in the video that you dont need masks, despite plenty of evidence showing that face coverings help slow the spread of the coronavirus. (She has also said that alien DNA is being used in medical treatments, and gynecological problems such as cysts are caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches, the Daily Beast reported.)

Facebook FB, -1.34%, Twitter TWTR, -0.46% and the Alphabet-owned GOOG, -2.00% GOOGL, -1.75% YouTube have been pulling down the video since it began going viral on Monday, but the damage was already done. By late Monday evening, NBC News reporter Brandy Zadrozny tweeted that the Breitbart clip had been viewed 20 million times on Facebook alone, and thats not including versions that have been shared among private accounts.

President Donald Trump even retweeted a few versions of the video on his Twitter account before they were taken down, undermining his own recent calls for Americans to wear masks to help prevent spreading COVID-19. His son Donald Trump Jr. also tweeted the video, which led Twitter to confirming on Tuesday that it was partially suspending his account for 12 hours, meaning he will be unable to send tweets, retweet posts, follow users, or like messages.The company cited its policy that requires the removal of content that may pose a risk to peoples health, including content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information.

Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists accusing the social media giants of censorship and buying into the bogus drug claims led the hashtag #hydroxychloroquineworks to become a top trending Twitter topic on Tuesday morning. Twitter refuted the hashtag somewhat by noting under the topic tab that the drug is not an effective treatment for COVID-19, according to the FDA.

Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration has revoked its emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which Dr. Anthony Fauci repeated on Good Morning America Tuesday morning. The director of the National Institute for Allergy andInfectious Diseases told George Stephanopoulos that, I go along with the FDA: the overwhelming prevailingclinical trials that have lookedat the efficacy ofhydroxychloroquine haveindicated that it is noteffective in coronavirusdisease.

Hydroxychloroquine was touted as a potential miracle drug early in the pandemic. The FDA issued emergency-use authorization for the malaria drug in March to treat COVID-19 patients, and clinicians across China, France and the U.S. began testing it to treat the novel coronavirus. Drug makers such as Bayer AG BAYRY, -0.92% and Novartis AG NVS, -0.70% donated millions of doses to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile.

There was so much excitement, despite scant evidence that it was actually effective against COVID-19, that chloroquine shortages were reported as pharmacies and hospitals stockpiled excessive amounts of the drug something both the American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists strongly opposed in a joint statement.

Read more:Theres scant evidence so far for chloroquine as a COVID-19 drug but theres already a shortage

But reality hasnt lived up to the hype.

Three randomized clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine failed to prove or disprove a beneficial or a harmful effect on COVID-19. These include researchers from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, who reported in the New England Journal of Medicine last month that the drug was no better than a placebo in preventing COVID-19 infections. A Spanish study of more than 2,300 people also found that the drug was not effective for early treatment of mild COVID-19. And the U.K. Recovery trial also ruled out any meaningful mortality benefit from using the drug.

Related:Heres the latest on what we know works and doesnt work in treating coronavirus infections

One by one, the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health dropped the drug from their clinical trials, and the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization. The general consensus in the scientific community is that the drug does not help COVID-19 patients.

Problem is, one study published in Lancet that claimed hydroxychloroquine put COVID-19 patients at a greater risk of death was later retracted, which has helped to fuel skepticism over whether any coronavirus research can be trusted. And false COVID-19 conspiracy theories have spread even as the virus itself has infected at least 16.5 million people and counting worldwide, killing 655,084. In fact, roughly one in three Americans doesnt believe that the coronavirus has killed as many people as has been reported, even as Texas and Arizona officials have requested refrigerated trucks as deceased coronavirus victims began overwhelming hospital morgues.

Read more: Hope dims for hydroxychloroquine even as medical study detailing the drugs failure is retracted

Further confusing the publics understanding of the coronavirus, President Trump has supported hydroxychloroquine time and time again, and even took the drug himself for a time to ward off the virus. Rep. Roger Marshall(R.-Ky.) has also touted taking the drug as a preventative measure against COVID-19.

The struggle to contain the spread of misinformation about the coronavirus is the latest struggle Big Tech is facing as Alphabet, Amazon AMZN, -1.67%, Apple AAPL, -1.52% and Facebookface questioning over their business practices on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

It also comes as the Trump administration moves forward in petitioning the Federal Communications Administration to reinterpret Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which says that websites cannot be punished for what other people publish on their sites. The petition complains that social media sites use Section 230 to unfairly censor conservative views.

See the original post:

Why Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are taking down that hydroxychloroquine video and suspending accounts, including Donald Trump Jr., that shared it -...

Twitter reportedly censored one of former NFL quarterback Tim Tebow's Bible-centric videos for promoting "sensitive content."

The Western Journal obtained a screenshot of the reported censorship before the tech giant apparently removed it.

The video which innocuously featured Tebow imploring Christians to hold fast to their faith amid trying times was censored with a banner that read, "The following media includes potentially sensitive content."

In the video, the outspoken Christian athlete stresses the importance of relying on God through difficult times.

He says, "Bible believers, when we look at the Bible, and we see a lot of the heroes, a lot of times they truly were wounded deeply before they were ever used greatly. So maybe you're going through a time in your life where you feel like you've just been wounded greatly. It hasn't been your year, hasn't been your day you just don't feel like this is your time."

Tebow adds, however, that there is growth in the valley.

"This could be your time for learning," he cautions. "This could be your time for growing. This could be your time for adapting. This could be the time that is a test for you, but tomorrow it gets turned into a testimony."

The famed athlete points out that God could very well be preparing those struggling through difficulties for greater disciplines.

"You never know what God is doing with your life," he adds. "You never know what he is preparing you for. So many times in the Bible, when we look at the heroes, there were times in their life where if they stopped, if they quit, if they said, 'No, God, I've had enough' then they would have missed out on the most impactful, most influential times of their life."

"Maybe that is the next step for you," he adds. "Maybe that is tomorrow. Maybe that is next week, maybe that is next year. But when we quit, we will never know what we missed out on. We will never know what's in store for us."

Tebow explains that there should be no fear in uncertainty because of Christians' relationships with Jesus Christ.

"We get to trust an unknown future to a known God, because we know how much he loves us," he explains. "We know what he did for us in sending his son. He gave his best for us."

He concludes the video, Right where you're at, whatever you're doing, whatever you're going through, he loves you. You were enough for his son to die on the cross, that's how much you're loved. Hold onto that in your time of need."

Tebow captioned the video, "This could be your time. That breakthrough could be tomorrow, or it could be next year. But, you have the opportunity to turn however you're being tested into a testimony. So many heroes were wounded deeply before they were used greatly!"

TheBlaze reached out to Twitter for verification of the content warning and clarification as to why it was purportedly placed and subsequently removed.

A Twitter spokesperson tells TheBlaze that the company is looking into the alleged censorship.

The video has been viewed more than 43,000 times at the time of this reporting.

See the article here:

Twitter reportedly censors moving Bible message from Tim Tebow: 'Sensitive content' - TheBlaze

Recent developments related to Hong Kong led to various responses across the globe. Illustrative in this regard, is the EUs attempt to meet Chinas authoritarian influence with democratic resilience. But is the EU doing enough on China?

This was the topic of the Visegrad Insight Transatlantic breakfast discussion, which took place on 21 July 2020.

Speakers at the meeting:

The discussion was moderated by Wojciech Przybylski, Editor-in-Chief at Visegrad Insight.

At the meeting, Miriam Lexmann stressed that six years ago, when the discussion on disinformation and election meddling started within the EU, its scope was fixed to Russia, rather than China. In the Russian case, there was a clear consensus that the conflict is ideological, while China was considered a business agent, without a need to influence the political processes.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in this shift, when China started to influence public opinion across the globe, mostly as a response to the discourse of guilt put on the country. Herein, this operation reveals how China was prepared for such a manoeuvre.

Three examples help to demonstrate its significance: the softening of the EU report on China; the self-censoring of the letter by EU Ambassadors published in Chinese media by the EU Ambassador to China and the omittance of the topic of human rights in the trade and investment debates with the Chinese counterparts.

Monika Richter described the processes that led to the altercation of the EU report on China as a case of political filtering and self-censorship. According to Richter, this case reveals the dynamics of how malign influence works by fostering the process of self-questioning and thus failing to defend true values. The one valid response to this intimidation tactics is not to comply with such demands.

Hence, the pandemic was a wake-up moment for EU, but the Union had a difficult time to put itself in a strong posture against the authoritarian regimes in general.

Peter Kreko, drawing upon a project of monitoring MEPs activities, conducted in partnership with the National Endowment for Democracy and Visegrad Insight among others, stressed that the EP does the most to counter malign influence from the authoritarian regimes. There is an important shift recently, as China appears more in the discussions in the European Parliament.

Importantly, the rising topic regarding China appears to be human rights violations, rather than trade and investment deals.

Recent Visegrad Insight publications on the topic:

Watch the entire discussion here:

View original post here:

Is the EU Doing Enough on China? - Visegrad Insight

For so long, we essentially have believed, as a people, that truth is best found through the exchange of ideas, even contrasting ones. But is it really so anymore? Can it really be, as some might hold, that truth is better found by simply adhering to common beliefs, without allowing another point of view to surface?

Take, for example, a newspaper that publishes a conservative U.S. senators opinion piece about rioters and then apologizes for it and accepts the resignation of its opinion editor because of the staffs opposition to it. Or the university that revokes a deanship over the deans legal representation of Harvey Weinstein in his sexual misconduct cases. Or another university that, because of student opposition, canceled a virtual commencement address by Ivanka TrumpIvana (Ivanka) Marie TrumpWhite House COVID-19 case underscores persistent threat of virus OVERNIGHT ENERGY: EPA effort to boost uranium mining leaves green groups worried about water | DNC climate platform draft calls for net-zero emissions by 2050 | Duckworth introduces safety net bill for coal country Ivanka Trump visits Rocky Mountain park after passage of conservation bill MORE because of her fathers unrelated, controversial reaction to protesters in D.C. streets.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously dissented in Abrams v. United States from the Supreme Courts decision upholding convictions for anti-war leafleting. Holmes opined that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get accepted in the competition of the market later and better known as the marketplace of ideas. Meaning, it is only when a position is directly confronted by oppositional thought that truth will out.

Of course, Holmes spoke in the limited context of governmental silencing of dissenting thought, and therefore addressed the high stakes of a constitutional right in connection with the governments war efforts, no less. Now, those who would limit or not even allow the airing of dissenting or opposing thought when government isnt the would-be silencer seem to ignore, or even reject, Holmess view. That is, his view that truth is best procured by the airing of competing thought as has happened with Confederate Gen.Robert E. Lee, for example, leading to a major revision of how many now think about him.

Heres the broader issue: Dont we best learn the falsity of, or lack of merit in, what Doe tells us only with the opportunity to also listen to Roes point of view? Put otherwise, if Roes point of view cant be found in the market on the shelf alongside Does, we are only able to acquire Does, never coming to know that Roes may be the better product.Or here, the better thought maybe even the objectively truthful thought.

When Pontius Pilate, somewhat mischievously, asked Jesus if he was the King of the Jews,Jesus responded: I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me. Pilate famously retorted, What is truth?

Now, 2,000 years later and often not over the issue of religious creed, we are left with the same question: What is truth? And just as was the case then, we often find an unwillingness by opponents of those who propose to proclaim their truth to even allow what they have to say. Surely not at the extreme penalty of crucifixion, but certainly at the penalty of a censorship that silences their ability to articulate their opinions in the public square - whether that public square is an op-ed page, a speakers podium at a university graduation, or wherever articulate opponents of challenged thinking can drown out the proponents voice, all venues where government isnt the would-be censor and considerations of First Amendment censorship arent directly implicated.

Unquestionably, in advocating against those who would suppress the airing of dissident, unpopular or even traditional views on issues of societal concern, we must be mindful that often its the louder or more charismatic voice that may be most convincing to the masses. He or she may not be speaking anything even approaching truth, but nonetheless is somehow able to present the most persuasive advocacy about it. Do we not allow him or her to speak and the same for a less articulate opponent?

The truth no pun intended is that there often is no objective truth. Rather, truth may be an evolving process regarding an issue in question. Or, as in the case of religion, your truth is and may always be different than mine. As long as the preaching of hate, violence, harmful falsity, criminal syndicalism, or intentional defamation arent implicated, why shouldnt you or I be able to speak publicly about who or what we think God is, or isnt if at all?Why shouldnt we be able to speak in the public square for or against modern issues such as abortion, a two-state solution in the Middle East, the value of wearing a face mask during a pandemic, reparations for African Americans, defunding the police, the death penalty?

There may be those who speak to these and other pivotal issues who dont warrant a listening audience. But not because theyre not allowed to speak, or because their speech is drowned out by unreceptive voices. Members of the public can censor out for themselves voices that they just dont want to hear. Simple answer: Dont listen, or dont attend. Isnt that what we, as free people, believe in indeed, what the Founders intended by the Bill of Rights?

It may be that, empirically, what Holmes said about truth best surfacing in the cauldron of contrasting thought is itself wrong. Maybe truth surfaces only sometimes in that venue. But, even so, do we really want to deprive ourselves of those instances when robust debate does indeed get us to the place of truth?

Those who dont accept Holmess formulation might prefer Justice Louis Brandeiss in Whitney v. California: If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Just consider how much the force of American intellectual thought would have suffered had the voice of Brandeis been drowned out or canceled by naysayers who opposed him simply because he, a Jew, believed in God differently.

Joel Cohen, a former state and federal prosecutor, practices white-collar criminal defense law at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. He is the author of Blindfolds Off: Judges On How They Decide and teaches a class at both Fordham and Cardozo Law Schools in New York based on the book.

Read the original post:

Don't we believe in the 'marketplace of ideas' any longer? | TheHill - The Hill

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a bill that would strip big tech companies of their Section 230 immunity if they use or enable manipulative, behavioral advertising.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act currently protects tech companies from liability for unlawful content that users post on their platforms. But the Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services (BAD ADS) Act, which Hawley announced on Tuesday, would remove that protection for large platforms that use tactics like tracking users past location or creating personal psychological profiles to target them with ads that match their online behavior and history.

Big techs manipulative advertising regime comes with a massive hidden price tag for consumers while providing almost no return to anyone but themselves, Hawley said. From privacy violations to harming children to suppression of speech, the ramifications are very real.

This isnt the first time Hawley has gone after big tech. In June, he introduced a bill that would enable users to sue platforms for selectively censoring political speech.

In August 2019, Hawley also proposed a bill, the Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology (SMART) Act, that would prohibit social media platforms from using infinite scroll or auto refill and engagement-related awards, in an effort to combat excessive use of social media.

Two months before that, Hawley introduced the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which would only grant Section 230 immunity to big tech companies that could show their content moderating practices were not politically biased.

Hawley isnt the only lawmaker critical of Section 230. Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler introduced a bill in June that would remove liability protections for platforms that censor free speech. Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have also indicated that they would support pulling back some of the protections for big tech companies if censorship continues.

Meanwhile, the House Antitrust Subcommittee will hear from the heads of Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple on Wednesday. Conservatives expect the hearing to be an opportunity to discuss growing concerns about censorship by social media platforms.

Elle Reynolds is an intern at the Federalist, and a senior at Patrick Henry College studying government and journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Read the original post:

New Bill Would Punish Tech Companies That Use Behavioral Ads To Collect Your Information - The Federalist

ISTANBUL: A proposed law that Turkey says will make social media companies more accountable to local regulations will rather increase censorship and accelerate a trend of authorities silencing dissent, critics including a UN body said this week.The Turkish parliament was to begin debate on Tuesday on the bill that is backed by President Tayyip Erdogans ruling AK Party, which has a majority with an allied nationalist party. It is expected to pass this week.As an overwhelming majority of the countrys mainstream media has come under government control over the last decade, Turks have taken to social media and smaller online news outlets for critical voices and independent news.Turks are already heavily policed on social media and many have been charged with insulting Erdogan or his ministers, or criticism related to foreign military incursions and the handling of the coronavirus pandemic.The law would require foreign social media sites to appoint Turkish-based representatives to address authorities concerns over content and includes deadlines for its removal.Companies could face fines, blocked advertisements or have bandwidth slashed by up to 90%, essentially blocking access.Social media is a lifeline... to access news, so this law signals a new dark era of online censorship, said Tom Porteous, Human Rights Watch deputy program director. It would damage free speech in Turkey where an autocracy is being constructed by silencing media and all critical voices, he added.Presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said the bill would not lead to censorship but would establish commercial and legal ties with platforms.What is a crime in the real world is also crime in the digital world, he said on CNN Turk, adding that these included terrorism propaganda, insults and violation of personal rights.Turkey was second globally in Twitter-related court orders in the first six months of 2019, according to the company, and it had the highest number of other legal demands from Twitter.Erdogan has repeatedly criticized social media and said a rise of immoral acts online in recent years was due to lack of regulations.A spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said the draft law would give the state powerful tools for asserting even more control over the media landscape.It would further undermine the right of people in Turkey to freedom of expression, to obtain information and to participate in public and political life, said spokeswoman Liz Throsell.

View original post here:

Lebanese PM urges caution amid heightened border tensions with Israel - Arab News

China censoredLeague of Legendssplash arts by editing their original artworks and some champion's skins. ARedditpost revealed that some skins and splash arts in the Wild Rift had been edited in China to lessen the seductive graphics of each skin.

(Photo : Screenshot from Twitter post of @PixelButts)League of Legends Splash Arts Censored in China: Who's Responsible, Riot or Tencent?

Also Read: League of Legends Spirit Blossom Festival's New Champion: Best Champs to Use to Rank Up Solo Queue This Season

According toMillenium's previous report, sexy aesthetic champions and characters' skins, are nothing new in the popular 5v5 strategic game. Some of the lady characters are wearing fewer clothes, display a sexy visual. If you're a fan of this awesome game, always check LoL's update on TechTimes. Also, check how Tyler1 experience how OP nerfed Aphelios is.

Also Read:[VIDEO] League of Legends: Tyler1 Left Saying 'OK' After Seeing Nerf Aphelios Fight in 1v5

It was explained that the game has been present in China. However, the government still decided to censor certain splash arts of Wild Rift. The edited images were first posted by a Twitter user under the name of "PixelButts."

"Also yes the Wild Rift splash art is censored," captioned the Twitter user.

"Many are tweaked slightly but a few have more significant changes such as janna and jinx is hard to see, but theres now bandages under their top," added PixelButts.

He said that although he is generally against censorship, sometimes there's nothing he can do with the edited champs.

It is common for some Asian countries to censor content that they find inappropriate. On theLeague of Legends Pacific Servers(PCS), Evelynn's original outfit was changed to lessen the character's skin exposure.

(Photo : Screenshot from Twitter post of @PixelButts)League of Legends Splash Arts Censored in China: Who's Responsible, Riot or Tencent?

China's action is comparable to this since Chinese authorities censored some of the Wild Rift's champion splash art. Some of the changes are just minimal. For example, Jinx got a strip of fabric on her chest as censorship.

Other champs were just changed, including Zed, who had additional designs on his armor, and Ahri, who received more decorations for her outfit. However, some champs had major changes. Janna's costume received additional fabric to cover her tummy, as well as Miss Fortune. Shyvanna's design was changed, as well as her dragon.

Some users defended China's action, saying that "making people have less revealing clothes is not censorship." And there are also some saying that it is censorship since the changes were based on Chinese regulations.

To keep you updated withLeague of Legendsnews this season, such as the upcoming new heroes, keep your tabs open on TechTimes.

Visit our website at https://www.techtimes.com/

Also Read: League of Legends Cinematic: Riot's Anime Short Reveals Yone, Yasuo's Demonic Brother: A Playstyle Guide

This article is owned by TechTimes,

Written by:Giuliano de Leon.

2018 TECHTIMES.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.

Read more:

China Censors League of Legends Champs Because of Seductive Visual Graphics; Here are the Edited Skins - Tech Times

NEW YORK (AP) So youve probably read a lot about cancel culture. Or know about a new poll that shows a plurality of Americans disapproving of it. Or you may have heard about a letter in Harpers Magazine condemning censorship and intolerance.

But can you say exactly what cancel culture is? Some takes:

It seems like a buzzword that creates more confusion than clarity, says the author and journalist George Packer, who went on to call it a mechanism where a chorus of voices, amplified on social media, tries to silence a point of view that they find offensive by trying to damage or destroy the reputation of the person who has given offense.

I dont think its real. But there are reasonable people who believe in it, says the author, educator and sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom. From my perspective, accountability has always existed. But some people are being held accountable in ways that are new to them. We didnt talk about cancel culture when someone was charged with a crime and had to stay in jail because they couldnt afford the bail.

Cancel culture tacitly attempts to disable the ability of a person with whom you disagree to ever again be taken seriously as a writer/editor/speaker/activist/intellectual, or in the extreme, to be hired or employed in their field of work, says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, the author, activist and founding editor of Ms. magazine.

It means different things to different people, says Ben Wizner, director of the ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

In tweets, online letters, opinion pieces and books, conservatives, centrists and liberals continue to denounce what they call growing intolerance for opposing viewpoints and the needless ruining of lives and careers. A Politico/Morning Consult poll released last week shows 44% of Americans disapprove of it, 32% approve and the remaining 24% had no opinion or didnt know what it was.

For some, cancel culture is the coming of the thought police. For others, it contains important chances to be heard that didnt exist before.

Recent examples of unpopular cancellations include the owner of a chain of food stores in Minneapolis whose business faced eviction and calls for boycotts because of racist social media posts by his then-teenage daughter, and a data analyst fired by the progressive firm Civis Analytics after he tweeted a study finding that nonviolent protests increase support for Democratic candidates and violent protests decrease it. Civis Analytics has denied he was fired for the tweet.

These incidents damage the lives of innocent people without achieving any noble purpose, Yascha Mounk wrote in The Atlantic last month. Mounk himself has been criticized for alleging that an astonishing number of academics and journalists proudly proclaim that it is time to abandon values like due process and free speech.

Debates can be circular and confusing, with those objecting to intolerance sometimes openly uncomfortable with those who dont share their views. A few weeks ago, more than 100 artists and thinkers endorsed a letter co-written by Packer and published by Harpers. It warned against a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.

The letter drew signatories from many backgrounds and political points of view, ranging from the far-left Noam Chomsky to the conservative David Frum, and was a starting point for contradiction.

The writer and trans activist Jennifer Finney Boylan, who signed the letter, quickly disowned it because she did not know who else had attached their names. Although endorsers included Salman Rushdie, who in 1989 was forced into hiding over death threats from Iranian Islamic leaders because of his novel The Satanic Verses, numerous online critics dismissed the letter as a product of elitists who knew nothing about censorship.

One of the organizers of the letter, the writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, later announced on Twitter that he had thrown a guest out of his home over criticisms of letter-supporter Bari Weiss, the New York Times columnist who recently quit over what she called a Twitter-driven culture of political correctness. Another endorser, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, threatened legal action against a British news site that suggested she was transphobic after referring to controversial tweets that she has written in recent months.

The only speech these powerful people seem to care about is their own, the author and feminist Jessica Valenti wrote in response to the Harpers letter. (Cancel culture ) is certainly not about free speech: After all, an arrested journalist is never referred to as canceled, nor is a woman who has been frozen out of an industry after complaining about sexual harassment. Canceled is a label we all understand to mean a powerful person whos been held to account.

Cancel culture is hard to define, in part because there is nothing confined about it no single cause, no single ideology, no single fate for those allegedly canceled.

Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, convicted sex offenders, are in prison. Former television personality Charlie Rose has been unemployable since allegations of sexual abuse and harassment were published in 2017-18. Oscar winner Kevin Spacey has made no films since he faced allegations of harassment and assault and saw his performance in All the Money in the World replaced by Christopher Plummers.

Others are only partially canceled. Woody Allen, accused by daughter Dylan Farrow of molesting her when she was 7, was dropped by Amazon, his U.S. film distributor, but continues to release movies overseas. His memoir was canceled by Hachette Book Group, but soon acquired by Skyhorse Publishing, which also has a deal with the previously canceled Garrison Keillor. Sirius XM announced last week that the late Michael Jackson, who seemed to face posthumous cancellation after the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland presented extensive allegations that he sexually abused boys, would have a channel dedicated to his music.

Cancellation in one subculture can lead to elevation in others. Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has not played an NFL game since 2016 and has been condemned by President Donald Trump and many others on the right after he began kneeling during the National Anthem to protest a country that oppresses black people and people of color. But he has appeared in Nike advertisements, been honored by the ACLU and Amnesty International and reached an agreement with the Walt Disney Co. for a series about his life.

You can say the NFL canceled Colin Kaepernick as a quarterback and that he was resurrected as a cultural hero, says Julius Bailey, an associate professor of philosophy at Wittenberg University who writes about Kaepernick in his book Racism, Hypocrisy and Bad Faith.

In politics, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, remains in his job 1 1/2 years after acknowledging he appeared in a racist yearbook picture while in college. Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, resigned after multiple women alleged he had sexually harassed them, but Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of Virginia defied orders to quit after two women accused him of sexual assault.

Sometimes even multiple allegations of sexual assault, countless racist remarks and the disparagement of wounded military veterans arent enough to induce cancellation. Trump, a Republican, has labeled cancel culture far-left fascism and the very definition of totalitarianism while so far proving immune to it.

Politicians can ride this out because they were hired by the public. And if the public is willing to go along, then they can sometimes survive things perhaps they shouldnt survive, Packer says.

I think you can say that Trumps rhetoric has had a boomerang effect on the rest of our society, says PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, who addresses free expression in her book Dare to Speak, which comes out next week. People on the left feel that he can get away with anything, so they do all they can to contain it elsewhere.

See original here:

Everywhere and nowhere: The many layers of 'cancel culture' - Associated Press

OpinionImage courtesy of HBO.

You may have seen plenty of advertising lately for the fairly new streaming service, HBO Max, one of many streaming services flooding the market as television companies adapt to stream rather than broadcast.

Recently, HBO Max has taken some moves in censoring or altering the content in their library, the two most notable would be taking down Gone With the Wind and, strangely enough, giving the Looney Tunes character Yosemite Sam a scythe instead of his classic revolvers and rifle.

The first choice has its merits with re-educating people that racial stereotyping is wrong in this age where almost everyone is aware of that. A similar practice to this, (without removing, of course) was in the descriptions of older Disney Plus films, where there is a warning describing outdated cultural depictions into films such as Dumbo or Peter Pan for obvious reasons of racial stereotyping in their films.

HBO Max put the film back onto their service, with two videos that extend this beyond what Disney Plus did, having two videos alongside it to describe how the film brushes past issues of slavery. One could more so call it a thought-check before you watch the movie, then censorship. Everyone in this modern age can agree that slavery was wrong, and that the aspects of fantasizing that such an ugly detail of the civil war is wrong, so why would there be videos pouring into that detail? Does watching it without that context immediately make the viewer a victim of propaganda, or the streaming service racist?

Something that does not make sense to methough, is the exclusion of guns in the new Looney Tunes animation, exclusive to HBO Max. This could turn into a debate on media and mental health, or if violence is good to have on television, but it feels like this was more of a precautionary decision for backlash. Considering the issue of gun violence within the U.S., I would not be surprised if this kicked off the decision to axe cartoony lead-spitters. No one cares about the guns in Fortnite or any movie that Dwayne Johnson is in, so what gives? Feel free to give your input in the comments.

Image courtesy of HBO

Read more from the original source:

HBO Max and Their Strange Streak of Censorship - Kirkwood Community College

According to YouTube itself, as many as 6.1 million videos have been deleted from the platform since the start of this year alone, mostly coinciding with an unprecedented wave of online censorship launched at the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

YouTube is not alone in this, as other major social networks started strictly policing speech of users in order to allow only information about the disease favored by governments and the World Health Organization (WHO), from whom most governments get their cues.

Things deteriorated even further when racial and social unrest hit the US later in the year, causing a surge in online cancel culture and grandstanding by big brands, who demanded even more censorship, this time of hate speech.

As things began to go from bad to worse, traditional corporate media didnt seem to mind very much at all. Now, however, some of them are looking at the price that the ramping up of censorship.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

But still, the likes of the Washington Post dont seem to care much about ordinary users entrusting their speech and data to social media giants: the concern is focused on what removal of such massive quantities of content, and the process by which this is done, cold end up doing to some activists and NGOs (at least, ones they like). And they argue in favor of deleted data to be publicly unavailable but retained for study.

Theres the example of the Syrian Archive, which is said to be dedicated to collecting information about human rights abuses in Syria and other countries. The group says that they and others are getting caught in the censorship dragnet that is supposed to be removing misinformation, as well as opposition voiced by users who disagree with the way these crises are being handled.

Its not exactly news, but tech giants overreliance on automated, machine learning-powered algorithms to get the job done is not working well. These algorithms are still effectively basic and really bad with understanding context, therefore resulting in unintended censorship.

The author of the report seems to think that more involvement from human moderators would fix the problem (and also, that they had to be sent home during the epidemic and were for that reason working less than usual?) However, its amply clear that moderators come with a set of their own problems, unique to humans: such as bias. So, maybe the answer is to pump the brakes on rampant censorship and not rely so heavily on either machines or moderators?

That, of course, is not an idea the Washington Post is willing to entertain. Instead, the Covid and civil upheaval era censorship is viewed as fully justified if only it could somehow bypass the Syrian Archive and other activists and journalists in war-torn regions.

But it isnt, since Facebooks moderation is apparently poor at telling apart documented war crimes and atrocities from users posting such content to promote it. However, Facebook says that in cases when accounts are deleted for this type of offense, they are also restored.

Syria-focused activists are not having a great time on YouTube either this year, saying that the number of deleted uploads has doubled. For its part, YouTube cited its infamous policy of allowing users to issue counter takedown notices, and claimed that human reviewers actually deal with this (not a statement many creators who have been burned in the process, without ever receiving even an explanation of what it was they had done wrong, would necessarily agree with.)

The Syrian Archive and more that 40 other groups have pleaded with social media giants not to permanently delete content related to human rights activism, and that data on content removed during the pandemic will be invaluable to those working in public health, human rights, science and academia.

Others are worried about YouTubes lack of transparency that leads to guesswork as to the overall extent of automated moderations effect on legitimate content.

The argument in favor of preserving data instead of deleting it was heard in April and boils down to keeping this data for future research into how online information can affect health outcomes and to evaluate the consequences of specific moderation practices like using heavy automation.

Another request from a letter sent to giant social networks was to be transparent about the way content is removed, how successful any appeals are, and the like. The signatories acknowledge privacy implications of long data retention and making it only available to a select group of researchers but add that the need for immediate preservation is urgent.

Read more from the original source:

Social media censorship is hindering investigations, researchers say - Reclaim The Net