Two women lay in bed in a tight embrace, one is stroking the other's hair and whispers that she is in love with her.

These intimate scenes wouldn't be out of place in a Hollywood movie, but in Nigeria's film industry, Nollywood, they are near taboo.

But Nigerian filmmaker Uyaiedu Ikpe-Etim says she is tackling the subject head-on in her new film titled "Ife," to create space for queer characters in the country's prolific movie industry.

"Ife'" means love in the Yoruba language, spoken in West Africa, and most prominently in southern Nigeria.

LGBTQ characters are described poorly in Nollywood and are viewed in problematic roles that encourage violence or judgment from viewers, Ikpe-Etim says.

"I'm queer so 'Ife' is dear to my heart. I wanted to represent LGBTQ characters in a different light than how they are shown in past stories, to change how heterosexuals view them," she explained.

Homophobia in Nigeria

The story centers on two women Ife and Adaora and the uncertainty surrounding their relationship. It is created in partnership with Equality hub, an NGO in Nigeria focused on fighting social injustices against sexual minorities.

"They come into problems when they are not certain of the future of their relationship considering that these two women live in Nigeria which is a homophobic country," she said of the storyline.

In the West African nation where homophobia runs rampant,Ikpe-Etim is anadvocate for the country's lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) community.

Homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria. The Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act of 2014 says anyone found guilty of homosexuality faces up to 14 years in prison.

A 2019 survey by The Initiative for Equal Rights (TIERS), a Nigerian human rights organization, found that 75% of people in the country support the continued enforcement of the anti-gay laws.

Censorship of queer films

Ikpe-Etim, 31, says "Ife" has no fixed release date yet but will be out before the end of the year.

What is certain is that it faces an uphill battle with Nigeria's film censors, who have said they may "go after the producers," if they find that the film promotes homosexuality.

Adedayo Thomas, executive director of the NFVCB, told CNN the board will not approve films that promote themes that don't conform with the country's "constitution, morals and traditions."

"We are monitoring the progress of the movie, and if it goes against the law by promoting homosexuality, we will be forced at some point to go after the producer and executive producer," he added.

According to Thomas, Ife was never submitted to the NFVCB before its trailer was released, making it impossible to classify or censor the film.

"We look at the content of the film and we look at the end. For example, in a movie that glorifies fraud, we look at how it ends, did the fraudster meet their waterloo? How the movie ends will determine our censorship. You wouldn't watch your kid to watch a film that glorifies fraud," he told CNN.

"Ife's" producer Pamela Adie says agencies like NFVCB suppress the creativity of filmmakers.

"If there is a demand for films like Ife and if people want it, and the censor's board does not approve then it means they are indirectly stifling the creative powers of filmmakers. To deny a film simply because of queer characters is discrimination," she said.

Stereotyping queer characters

Nollywood has always had a problematic relationship with its queer characters, portraying them as mentally ill, under the influence of witchcraft or troubled.

In Emotional Crack, a 2003 film, one of the lead characters, Camilla falls in love with Crystal, a married woman who suffered domestic abuse from her husband.

Both women kicked off a relationship that eventually ended when Crystal became unsure of remaining in a same-sex relationship.

While the film was one of the country's early introductions into LGBTQ relationships, it repeated damaging stereotypes like branding Camilla as violent, predatory, and suggested that Crystal's lesbianism was as a result of being mistreated by a man.

Similarly, in a 2010 film, "Men in Love," the affair of the lead couple was explained away by a "strong satanic bond."

Adie told CNN that she wants to challenge other filmmakers in Nollywood to create more nuanced queer stories devoid of the usual stereotypes.

"My hope is that Ife shapes things up, and mainstream Nollywood starts to think about stories that portray the reality of LGBT Nigerians," she explained.

The 36-year-old added that "Ife" is one of few films with a focus on lesbians in Nigeria, "a lot of representation has been geared towards gay men," she says.

Outpouring of support

Nigeria is not the only country with strict rules regarding films with strong LGBTQ representation.

In April 2018, Rafiki was banned by Kenya's Film and Classification Board (KFCB) because of its intent to "promote lesbianism," in the East African nation.

Despite the challenges around creating queer centered films in Nigeria, Adie says there has been an outpouring of support for "Ife" from audiences in the country.

"It is something that is groundbreaking. We have received support, from when we released the poster to the trailer. It feels like people didn't know they wanted this kind of content till now."

See the article here:

A Nollywood film about two women in love faces an uphill battle in a country where homophobia is rampant - The Philadelphia Tribune

Poll finds self-censorship on the rise across political groups. A disturbingly high percentage of people polled earlier this month think private political donations should be grounds for getting fired. The number was especially high among respondents under age 30, with 44 percent of the youngest group saying business leaders who donate to Donald Trump should be fired and 27 percent saying the same for execs who give to Joe Biden. Meanwhile, 62 percent of all respondents said they're reluctant to share their political views for fear of offending othersup four points from when the same question was posed in 2017.

Those are a few of the findings in a new national poll conducted by the Cato Institute and YouGov.

When it comes to free expression, the "fears cross partisan lines," writes Cato Director of Polling Emily Ekins. "Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share."

There are some differences of degree. A majority (58 percent) of people who categorized themselves as "very" liberal told pollsters they felt they could express themselves freely, while only 48 percent of "moderate" liberals said the same.

"Political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank," suggests Ekins.

The percentage of respondents who felt they could speak freely was even lower among those who labeled themselves "moderate" (36 percent), "conservative" (23 percent), or "very conservative" (23 percent).

Of course, the poll doesn't tell us how much people's perceptions on this front are true to life and how much they reflect distorted evaluations. Maybe staunch liberals feel they can speak more freely because cultural currents do indeed allow it; maybe they just don't realize when their free expression is offending or alienating people. Maybe it's a little of both, plus a lot of other reasons.

On the conservative side, the strong feeling of having to self-censor is likely somewhat rooted in a media and political culture that thrives on peddling its own marginalization. But there's also statistical evidence that self-identification with conservatism and the Republican Party are on the decline, and no doubt that conservative ideas are sidelined in many elite institutions.

It's also hard to guess what people actually mean about their politics when they describe themselves as stronger or less-strong "liberals" or "conservatives" in an era where these meanings are mutable and often bizarre.

Ekins notes that even strong liberals are less confident in their ability to speak freely in 2020 then they were in 2017: "the share who feel pressured to self-censor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020." At the same time,

The share of moderates who self-censor increased 7 points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a 7-point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).

Self-censorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly two-thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non-religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

Not all self-censorship is bad, of course. There are times and places for restraint. So it's hard to know quite how to interpret the results above.

Alas, another part of the study is much more unambiguously depressing: A large number of people think whether someone is employable ought to be tied to their personal politics.

"Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's campaign," notes Ekins. "Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump's re-election campaign." And:

Support rises among political subgroups. Support increases to 50% of strong liberals who support firing executives who personally donate to Trump. And more than a third (36%) of strong conservatives support firing an executive for donating to Biden's presidential campaign.

Young Americans are also more likely than older Americans to support punishing people at work for personal donations to Trump. Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives if they donate to Trump. This share declines to 22% among those over 55 years olda 20-point difference. An age gap also exists for Biden donors, but is less pronounced. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives who donate to Biden compared to 20% of those over 55a 7-point difference.

Respondents also expressed fear that their own political opinions or donations would cost them a job or a career opportunity. "Younger people are also more concerned than older people, irrespective of political viewpoint," notes Ekins.

Examining all Americans under 65, 37% of those under 30 are worried their political opinions could harm their career trajectories, compared to 30% of 3054 year-olds and 24% of 5564 year-olds. But the age gap is more striking taking into account political views.

A slim majority (51%) of Republicans under 30 fear their views could harm their career prospects compared to 39% of 3044 year-olds, 34% of 4554 year-olds, and 28% of 5564 year-old Republicans.

Democrats reflect a similar but less pronounced pattern. A third (33%) of Democrats under 30 worry they have views that could harm their current and future jobs, compared to 27% of 3054 year-olds, and 19% of 5564 year-old Democrats.

You can find the full surveyconducted July 16, 2020, with a national sample of 2,000 American adultshere. The sections on political donations and self-censorship are here. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.36 percentage points.

A couple of (positive) Portland updates:

Twitter is exploring subscription options.

The Malaysian government is backtracking on making people who post videos to their personal social-media accounts get a license.

A new documentary goes inside Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

More here:

Is Giving to Biden or Trump Grounds for Getting Fired? New Poll Finds a Disturbing Number of People Who Think It Should Be - Reason

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently outlined proposed reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[1] Section 230 has been in place since the early days of the Internet and protects online platforms from liability for certain third-party posts. It has recently become a point of contention between Big Tech and the Trump Administration. Recently, a presidential tweet was labeled with a fact-checking message that described the content as unsubstantiated.[2] The President claimed the label was intended to chill his rights under the First Amendment and subsequently signed the Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, calling for review and clarification of the scope of Section 230. The Executive Order also calls on the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General to engage in rule-making with the Federal Communications Commission to clarify when a tech company could be deemed to be taking part in not taken in good faith.[3] Additionally, the Order encouraged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate unfair or deceptive acts or practices committed by online platforms.

How did this relatively small piece of legislation become the center of a heated debate?

By way of background, Section 230 shields websites from legal liability for posts, including comments, images, and videos, of third-party users. At the time this legislation was passed, the Internet was vastly different from what it is today. In the 90s, as the tech world was beginning to grow, Congress sought to encourage that growth through statutory protections. Section 230 provides websites with immunity for posts left by users, and allows for Good Samaritan protection from civil lawsuits if websites remove or moderate posts that they consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.[4] This way, websites can still clean up posted content without having to worry about being targeted via lawsuits for choosing to police and self-regulate their own domains, so long as they do so in good faith.

Section 230 allows platforms to be available to all users to share, gather, and disseminate information. Websites, especially those with enormous platforms, host millions upon millions of individual posts every single day. Even with dedicated moderators and advanced algorithms in place, it is a huge undertaking to examine every single post to determine whether it is illegal or inappropriate; and even with a robust procedure in place, it is hardly fail-safe. But there is growing concern about who gets the final say about what is considered inappropriate and when it should be revised, removed, or labeled. Section 230 has become a flashpoint and raises complex First Amendment, online safety, and competition considerations.

The Executive Order alone might not seem like it has teeth, unless Congress agrees with the President and passes legislation that repeals or amends Section 230. But the rule-making prompted by the Executive Order could shift interpretation of the law, calling into doubt the wide protections enjoyed by tech companies. Moreover, Attorney General William Barr has been vocal about his concerns regarding Section 230 and its protections, prompting the DOJ to seriously examine the law to propose a way forward.

In February, the DOJ hosted a one-day workshop called Section 230 Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability? inviting both public and private stakeholders to confer about the laws transformation since its enactment to the present day and whether it needs to be modified to account for this new era of Big Tech. The DOJ states that it also met with companies that attended or indicated interest in talking about Section 230, although it is unclear which companies that included.

Last month, following its 10-month review of the law, the DOJ released its recommendations for Section 230 reform.[5] Rather than seek a complete repeal of the legislation, the DOJ identified four key categories where reform should take place in order to realign the scope of Section 230 with the realities of the modern internet.[6] These four areas are (1) Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content, (2) Clarifying Federal Government Enforcement Capabilities to Address Unlawful Content, (3) Promoting Competition, and (4) Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency.[7]

The first category seeks to strip away protection from those who purposely facilitate or solicit unlawful content and allows for civil lawsuits involving child abuse, terrorism, and cyber-stalking to proceed, thus incentivizing websites to be proactive about tracking and removing illegal content. The second category proposes more government intervention through civil enforcement actions. The third category seeks to clarify that companies cannot use Section 230 to protect themselves from antitrust actions where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.[8] Finally, the fourth category is aimed at refining the language of Section 230, including an addition of good faith.

Some argue that Section 230 should be updated to address some of the potential dangers of the growing Internet that were not present in 1996. If this effort gains more traction, many view it as imperative that tech representatives be involved in the conversation because they are the experts in devising the algorithms and training the moderators to track down illegal and harmful content. A companys role and responsibility to police, remove, and/or label content may implicate complex First Amendment concerns. There may not be a one-size-fits-all approach to updating Section 230 to address all posted content in all types of forums. Many will be watching to see whether there will be changes to this law that has helped fuel online growth.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform.%5B2%5D Twitter Safety (Twitter Safety). We added a label to two @realDonaldTrump Tweets about Californias vote-by-mail plans as part of our efforts to enforce our civic integrity policy. We believe those Tweets could confuse voters about what they need to do to receive a ballot and participate in the election process. May 27, 2020, 10:54 p.m. tweet.[3] Exec. Order on Preventing Online Censorship (May 28, 2020), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/.%5B4%5D 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(2)(A).[5] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform.%5B6%5D https://www.justice.gov/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996.%5B7%5D https://www.justice.gov/file/1286331/download.%5B8%5D Id. at p. 4.

Read more:

DOJ Takes a Stance on Section 230 Reform that Could Place Additional Burdens on Online Platforms - JD Supra

It was one of the first protests in Hong Kong after a feared national security law came into effect.

Among a dozen or so lunchtime demonstrators at a luxury mall in the Central business district, a man raised a poster that when viewed from afar read in Chinese, Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.

The government had just banned the slogan, saying it had separatist connotations and so ran afoul of the new security law's prohibition of secessionist acts.

Shortly after, riot police entered the mall, shooing away onlookers. They detained the man, telling him the slogan was banned. But when officers looked at the poster up close, no words could be made out. It merely had circular shapes against a contrasting background. They snapped a few photographs of the poster and let him go.

Since the imposition of the security law which bans secessionist, subversive and terrorist activities, as well as collusion with foreign forces, with penalties of up to life imprisonment anti-government protesters in Hong Kong, and those supporting the movement, have adapted their methods to try to make their voices heard without violating the legislation.

Before the law took effect on June 30, protesters often held up colorful posters plastered with slogans that ranged from condemning the Chinese government to calling for Hong Kongs independence. Since then, they have become creative in obscuring their messages.

Many of the protesters at the luxury mall held up blank pieces of white paper to protest against Chinas white terror of political repression. Other posters are designed to circumvent bans on slogans. The government has not yet made clear if such forms of expression are illegal.

The law has had a chilling effect on yellow shops that support the protest movement. Many have removed protest artwork and sticky notes bearing words of encouragement from customers, out of fear that they could land them in trouble with the authorities.

Some shop owners, like Tan Wong, have instead put up blank sticky notes to show solidarity with the movement.

We are doing this right now because (the shop) is private property. We are trying to tell Hong Kong people that this is the only thing that we yellow shops can do, said Wong, who runs Kok Kok Chicken, a Korean fried chicken store.

If we do not persist, we would no longer be able to deliver our message to others, he said.

Yu Yee Cafe, a Hong Kong-style diner that serves fast food, has covered its windows with blank sticky notes and even displays an origami figure of Winnie the Pooh, a playful taunt of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Chinese censors briefly banned social media searches for Winnie the Pooh in China after Xis appearance was compared to the cartoon bear.

I wonder if theres still rule of law if sticking a (blank) piece of paper on the wall is illegal, said Eddie Tsui, one of the diners customers. Its just using a different way to express our demands. If you dont allow us to protest that way, well find another way.

The use of blank paper or sticky notes to protest is a changing form of resistance, according to Ma Ngok, an associate professor of politics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

They put up blank notes so that even if the government wants to prosecute them, there is nothing that can be used against them, he said.

Protesters in Hong Kong have also come up with alternative slogans to circumvent the ban on Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.

Some users quote the initials of the romanisation of the eight Chinese characters in the banned slogan - GFHG, SDGM. Others have changed the words entirely to terms that sound similar but mean very different things. One alternative slogan now reads Patronise Hong Kong, Times Square, a reference to a popular shopping mall in the city.

A popular protest anthem, Glory to Hong Kong, has had some of its lyrics changed, with protesters replacing the words with numbers in Cantonese that sound approximately like the lyrics.

The circumventing of bans on slogans is reminiscent of how mainland Chinese internet users come up with creative ways and similar-sounding words to talk about sensitive issues without triggering censorship under the Great Firewall of China, where censors delete posts containing sensitive terms and make such keywords unsearchable on online platforms.

There is a long history of censorship where we know that people will find ways to circumvent the system, no matter how you regulate, said Fu King-wa, associate professor at the University of Hong Kongs journalism school.

Sometimes, censorship can backfire, triggering more people to discuss an issue because they think that if it is censored, then it must be something important, he said.

Read more here:

Hong Kong protesters get creative with signs and slogans to skirt new security law - Euronews

Does the phrase 'Section 230' mean anything to you? Well, if you've ever used the internet it actually does whether you realize it or not. Here's what it is and why it matters.

Section 230 is just 26 words, passed into law in 1996, that protects internet providers and websites from legal liability if someone using their platform or service posts something illegal.

It reads, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It's often considered the single most-important piece of legislation that helped innovate the internet.

The legal protections offered by Sec. 230 have allowed sites like Google, Yelp, YouTube, Facebook and countless others to provide users a place to quickly and easily post their videos, reviews, photos, and other content. It also allows internet service providers to provide cheap and easily-accessible internet.

Without that law, websites and internet service providers could be liable for users actions online, meaning they might otherwise restrict the ability to create and post content without moderation.

Given the sheer size of user-generated websites, the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes, it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users' actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online.

After Twitter flagged several of his tweets for violating company policies, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship that directed his administration to consider reforms to Sec. 230. He specifically mentioned Twitter, selective censorship, and the goal of eliminating political bias.

Tech companies warned the narrowing the Sec. 230s legal protections would stifle innovation online and could permanently alter the way we use the internet.

If the websites were legally responsible for every word, every image, (and) every video their users posted...they might not allow your content, altogether, said Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity professor at the Naval Academy and author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet. The other possibility...would be that platforms want to incur less liability, so they'll just take a hands off approach and allow everything."

Former Vice President and presumptive democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has also suggested revoking the law because he doesnt think sites like Facebook are doing enough to censor false and hateful content.

Yes. Because of Section 230, a judge ruled the Congressman could not sue Twitter over a parody account, Devin Nunes Cow, which now has more than 750,000 followers.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that limit free speech. However, the First Amendment does not pertain to rules created by private businesses.

You can reach out to your member of Congress to voice your opinion. And, your votes in November will help determine the future of Section 230 too.

Jeff Kosseffs book details the origins and impact of Section 230, and the EFF provides Section 230 resources and news on its website.

Sometimes, adults make things more complicated than necessary. NBCLX told this story using children on-camera because its a simple law that needed a simple explanation.

Read this article:

Why Reforms to Section 230 Could Radically Change How You Use the Internet - NBC Southern California

Some players out there give it their all for the love of the sport. Doug Censor Martin is one such player who has been giving it his all for Call of Duty but has had a bad time in the League and has now decided to back out of it for a while.

In his career, Censor has been a part of some major teams, including Team Envy and FaZe. Censor was a substitute for the New York Subliners and was picked by the affiliate team but he was benched once again.

Censor took to Twitter to announce that hed be taking a break from the game. He has stated that hed not play Modern Warfare and would rather wait for the next Call of Duty title to drop.

I will not be playing at the Modern Warfare challengers champs. If you guys dont know I went on Triumph, we got fourth. I was not able to join another team. I was struck on Triumph for another week and a half. I had offers from top 5 teams. I couldnt accept it because I was still on Triumph.

I will be ready day one on the next Call of Duty. And hopefully, this never happens again because this was the worst and most stressful year ever as a Call of Duty competitor. And I know I got it, I know I can play in the top level. I couldnt literally prove it this year. I was forced to sit on the bench the entire year and there is nothing I can do about it.

The player only recently made the happy announcement and was rather very excited to play for his new team. Unfortunately, after the Call of Duty Challengers Circuit, Censor was dropped from the New York Subliners roster. The player even came out openly to say that his performance was underwhelming in that match.

The player is confident in his ability and would be looking forward to making his mark yet again. Tough times ahead for the player but the support from the community and his friends will surely assure his great comeback.

Source: Censor Twitter

Original post:

Call of Duty Pro Announces Break From the Game - Essentially Sports

Parler CEO John Matze on offering a Twitter app alternative which allows users to express free speech and engage in discussions without censorship.

Some users have become frustrated with the most mainstream social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, over alleged conservative censorship, data security issues and other concerns.

They're creating accounts on sites like Gab, 4chan and the newly minted Parler however, it's unclear whether these companies will ever take significant market share away from today'ssocial media giants.

WHO IS PARLER CEO JOHN MATZE?

Some sites, like 4chan,have reputations as gathering places for extremists since the site isloath to censor offensive posts.

Meanwhile, sites like Parler are marketing to conservatives who think that companies like Twitter and Facebook are censoring right-of-center viewpoints.

Parler's homepage. (Screenshot)

"I think they are censoring," Parler CEO John Matze Jr. told FOX Business' "Mornings with Maria." "I don't think they believe they are. I don't know that they would admitthey are, but it is pretty clear that they're behaving like publications. ... They're telling you they're an open community forum for people behaving like publications, choosing what gets to reach its audience, what doesn't."

WHO IS TWITTER CEO JACK DORSEY?

Here are some alternative social media sites trying to grow their platforms or rehab their images:

Imageboard 4chan, a weird and often lewd corner of the internet,was founded by 15-year-old Christopher Poole in 2003. The site allows users to post anonymously on topic boards that range from politics to anime.

WHICH SOCIAL MEDIA SITE HAS THE MOST USERS?

Poole left 4chan and is now a product manager at Google. 4chan has grown to more than22 million monthly visitors worldwide.

Christopher Poole, founder of 4chan, speaks during the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in New York, on Tuesday, May 25, 2010. (Ramin Talaie/Corbis via Getty Images)

4chan has also faced serious criticism for its lack of controls after killers posted gory photos of their victims, including in the case of slain teen Bianca Devins.

Andrew Torba foundedGab.comin 2016,nearly 15 years after 4chan was created, and Gabhas a much smaller user base than 4chan's. Gab's interface is similar to Twitter's, but it is banned by both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store because of its content.

WHAT IS SECTION 230?

Gab insisted it has "zero tolerance" for racism and terrorism after facing backlash when it was revealed that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter had posted anti-Semitic messages on the website.

The site had more than 1.1 million registered users as of April.

In June, alternativesocial mediasite Parler seemedto have sprung up overnight after fed-upconservativesannouncedthey were making accounts because of Twitter's censorship policies.

But the sitehas been around since 2018 and was founded by John Matze Jr. and Jared Thomson. Both studied computer science at the University of Denver.

Conservative pundit Dan Bongino ispushing Parler afterannouncingearlier in June that he had taken an ownership stake in the platform.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Ello now describes itself as a network for "creators" after starting out as an ad-free Facebook alternative in 2014. The site was not user-friendly and therefore unable to retain a solid user base, according to TechCrunch. Its reinvention focuses on connecting artists with partnership opportunities and allowing them to share their work with the wider world.

Ello's homepage. (Screenshot)

The site had about 625,000 artists as of 2017, according to TechCrunch.

A lot of people thought we died and went away and the whole time weve been cultivating a really niche and creative community thats gotten more focused as Ive been able to enact my vision," CEO Todd Berger told TechCrunch.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Read this article:

What alternative social media sites are there? - Fox Business

If you ever want to find out who is in charge, you need to find out what you arent allowed to criticize. Or, in the case of China, find out what words they end up removing so the extremely sensitive politicians running the eastern nation into the ground dont get their delicate feelings hurt.

It was recently revealed thatPaper Mario: The Origami King has bizarre phrases censored out in the Chinese release that is removing the fundamentals driving idea behind Paper Mario, and to a greater extent, theMario franchise as a whole.

The two words that have been revealed thus far to be removed from the Chinese edition are human rights and freedom, as Toad requests the help from the derring-do plumber to release the citizens of the world from a sudden oppressive dictatorship that is pushed by The Origami King.

The irony is rich enough to taste.

In multiple releases ofPaper Mario: The Origami King, Toad states Toads have rights, Toads want freedom.

In the Chinese release, Toad states Toads want peaceful lives.

Here, we have the scenes in 4 languages.

In Japanese and English it clearly says "Toads have rights, Toads want freedom."In both Chinese version, it says "Toads want peaceful lives."

We may want to have more context behind the scene. But we clearly see the differences here. pic.twitter.com/kljHBjgm30

ShawTim (@ShawTim) July 24, 2020

An interesting look at the overall ideal that is guiding China at the moment, where freedom and personal rights are expected to be exchanged for the citizens to live in what the Chinese government presumes to be peace.

Well bypass the low-hanging fruit of China running slave camps and committing genocide against hundreds of thousands indigenous peoples while forcing them to work in labor camps that multiple corporations allegedly directly benefit from, and instead focus on the amount of power that China is rapidly gaining over video games and media as a whole.

InTotal War: Three Kingdoms, a title by Creative Assembly that focuses on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms which was a fourteenth century novel by Luo Guanzhong which focuses on the Han Dynasty and China being ripped apart as three kingdoms vie for power, multiple phrases were censored out by Creative Assembly; a move that many note smells of the Chinese government directly controlling what is allowed.

Devotion was a Taiwanese psychological-horror title that was almost impeccable in delivery and performance; then China found out that it referenced the amusing Chinese President Xi Jinping as Winnie the Pooh, and Steam quickly removed the title a mere seven days after it was released to critical acclaim.

Steam themselves, while the darling of the PC gaming industry, have shown themselves to be more than complicit in censoring works coming from Hong Kong developers that paint Chinas political corruption and acts against humanity in a negative light; while they continue to publish titles that depict children in sexual situations.

Blizzard has also been in hot water with the Blitzchung controversy; a Hong Kong resident won aHearthstone tournament and offered a message of solidarity to the Hong Kong protestors; he was quickly removed from professional play and his winnings were not going to be delivered until internet outcry proved to be a formidable force.

The underlying issue it that we have a massive number of companies that directly influence the gaming industry, and theyre all more than eager to kowtow for Chinas absurd requests, as though removing the possibility to name a land Tibet inThree Kingdoms means that Tibet doesnt exist, or that rephrasing Toads plea for help means that Chinese citizens wont have a deeply-rooted fundamental desire for freedom.

Without any of the companies willing to take a stand against the censorship that China is levying, while Tencent wraps its arms around an ever-increasing number of developers, this is only the beginning. Its becoming an out of control issue that is white-washing severe social issues, all to the tune of a few extra dollars for the corporations complicit in the censorship. Seeing all of these brave acts of solidarity as these studios attempt to side with the BLM, while clearly positing that no one matters except for profits, leaves a poor taste in the mouth.

Original post:

Paper Mario: The Origami King Censors The Words Human Rights And Freedom... - Happy Gamer

As it rounds the corner toward next months milestone 300th issue, Heavy Metal magazine for decades the go-to destination for some of fans edgiest and wildest comic book rides closed ranks at Comic-Con@Home to take a look at how the seminal magazine will carry the torch in the years to come.

Coming together for a birds-eye view of the magazines place in a changing world, CEO Matthew Medney emceed an online chat with partner, publisher, and creative chief David Erwin, along with Dylan Sprouse (Sun Eater), George C. Romero (The Rise, Cold Dead War), Brendan Columbus (Savage Circus), and Dan Fogler (Fishkill, Brooklyn Gladiator, Moon Lake) all for a deep talk that veered hilariously between big-picture issues like censorship and the magazines punk-rock soul; and silly diversions (like Columbus fascination with man-eating giraffes).

First things first: everyone in the Heavy Metal family planted their flag as die-hard lovers of artistic freedom and following their creative impulses to the ends of the Earth even as the larger creative world, in Erwins word, grows more vanilla and risk-averse. Were the Ben & Jerrys, he joked, noting that his background with big-budget DC productions like Christopher Nolans Batman movies taught him the value of system-bucking artists, toiling away on far less bankable comic book ideas.

This is what I think makes Heavy Metal exciting, he explained bringing in these different personalities and taking risks and taking chances.

Not everything needs to be for everyone, Medney agreed. That idea thats kind of infected our society, that everything should be palatable for everyone, is kind of as dangerous as misinformation.

Heavy Metal was born in an era of immense social and artistic ferment, and thats exactly what Romero who said he tried for years to get his famous, zombie film-pioneering father to work with the magazine back when horror and sci-fi didnt often cross paths said he values about being a part of it.

Growing up, Romerosaid, the magazine inspired him with its willingness to go against the cultural grain and engage all kinds of artistic visions. It was an opportunity for writers to put characters into world views that everybody, kids and grown ups, could identify with, he said. By putting messaging into characters that I think we looked to almost as role models growing up, one way or another, it formed our ability as a generation to have what our parents mightve called'dangerous' thoughts

What could be more dangerous than ravenous giraffes? Everyone roasted Columbus for the insane sights that await readers of Savage Circus when HM Issue #300 arrives next month. But Columbus confessed he wasnt trying to challenge prevailing values when he came up with the idea nope; he simply wanted to have a comic where crazy, zany stuff would be the rule, rather than the exception.

I wanted to see people get torn apart by animals, he joked. Thats the why. When I opened a comic book as a kid, it was to see the things [adults didnt want you to see] so I made Savage Circus a throwback to sort of the emotional stories of the 80s for fans of all the hard-edged violence and pulpy humor the eras creators playfully engaged.

Fogler said thats the idea he was going for with Moon Lake, the Hitchcock on acid 2010 graphic novel anthology that put the current Walking Dead star on comic book fans radar. Moon Lake is an homage to everything I was not supposed to see as a kid; everything I stayed up late to watch, he said, adding that Heavy Metals 300th issue marks an important testimony to the unfettered artistic spirit.

History is repeating itself man; it feels like the 60s all over again, and Heavy Metal was birthed out of that, he reflected. What a perfect voice. [The magazine] is not going to censor us and theres so much censoring going on right now.

Featuring an English-language debut of a Moebius short story, with work from Medney, Erwin, Sprouse, Columbus, Richard Corben, Liberatore, Vaughan Bode, Stephanie Phillips, Justin Jordan, Blake Northcott, and more, Issue #300 of Heavy Metal is set to arrive on Aug. 19.

Click here for SYFY WIRE's full coverage of Comic-Con@Home 2020.

Read the original here:

Zombies, censorship, & killer giraffes: Heavy Metal reflects on making it to issue #300 - SYFY WIRE

Theresa Mays online harms agenda made a comeback this week. A new select-committee report tries to capitalise on widespread fear of the coronavirus in order to advance this censorious programme, which was not expected to be implemented until 2023. A barely noticed Ofcom report released last week is even more concerning. It lays out how parts of this controversial online-harms project are to be snuck into UK law indefinitely via an EU directive in just a few weeks time.

How we got here is important. And it demonstrates exactly why we were right to vote to leave the anti-democratic EU and why our illiberal elite was so in favour of it the EU allows politicians to implement their often unpopular agendas without public scrutiny.

The Online Harms Bill was unveiled by Therea May’s Conservative government in April last year in a panicked flurry after 14-year-old Molly Russell tragically killed herself after viewing online images of self-harm. The rushed proposals included a duty of care on tech firms and a regulator with the power to issue heavy fines to platforms which do not censor sufficiently. Initially, these harms included trolling and disinformation. The definition of harm was kept deliberately vague and expansive so that it could include new threats as they emerge. The dangers of these proposals for internet freedom have been pointed out before on spiked. And there is still a very real danger of mass censorship and the end of an open internet.

Julian Knight MP, chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Select Committee, which is behind the recent demands, insisted on Tuesday that the government get on with the world-leading legislation on social media that weve long been promised. His latest report discusses much more than self-harm videos. It calls for censorious action on anti-5G and anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, bigoted attacks on Asians linked to the virus, and, of course, Russian bots.

The report was, conveniently, released on the same day the Intelligence and Security Committee published its long-awaited report into Russian interference in British democracy. The calls for mass censorship were placed in a context of alleged attacks by the Kremlin. According to Knight, the proliferation of dangerous claims about Covid-19 has been unstoppable and without due weight of the law, social-media companies have no incentive to silence people.

Mays government published the initial Online Harms White Paper the month before I broke the news that it was to delay the unenforceable Internet Age Verification System (or Porn Block Law, as we called it at the tabloids). The age-verification policy was officially abandoned a few months later. Perhaps mistakenly, some of us had hoped this would lead Boris Johnson to take a more liberal approach than his authoritarian predecessor and that he would drop the online-harms agenda outright. But then, in October, culture secretary Nicky Morgan told parliament that online-harms legislation would, in fact, be pursued because of the failure of the porn-block law.

Meanwhile, Damian Collins, one of the agendas loudest proponents, was ousted as chairman of the DCMS Committee in favour of Julian Knight, shortly after Boriss re-election.

Now that Collins will no longer play a role in overseeing any official arbiter of truth online as some have framed the online-harms agenda he has recently set up an unofficial arbiter of truth. He is the founder of an independent, expert fact-checking service for coronavirus called Infotagion. Lord Puttnam, the chair of the Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee, who made similar calls to rush through the online-harms agenda in June, is another founder. Infotagion answers questions like, Is the Illuminati behind the coronavirus? and Is the Covid-19 lockdown intended to create a police state? with answers such as, FALSE: DO NOT SHARE Lockdown measures are to reduce social contact to slow the spread of Covid-19. Collins and Co clearly do not have much faith in the intelligence of the electorate.

So who do they want to put in charge of regulating social media? The DCMS committee has given some hint in a previous report on fake news. It called on the government to use Ofcoms broadcast-regulation powers, including rules relating to accuracy and impartiality as a basis for setting standards for online content. In other words, they want our tweets, posts and YouTube videos to be controlled and mediated in a similar way to Sky News and the BBC.

And it looks like they are going to get their way. Ofcom revealed last week that it is pushing ahead with plans to regulate all UK-based video-sharing platforms. It will introduce interim measures, based on the Online Harms White Paper, to ensure the UK complies with the little-known EU-wide Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Ofcom put out a Call For Evidence on 16 July to help it finalise guidance, in which it described how it will enforce appropriate measures to protect young people from potentially harmful content and all users from illegal content and incitement to hatred and violence.

In other words, a form of the online-harms agenda pertaining to video at least has been foisted on the UK via the EU. Despite Brexit. And it will be enforced in autumn by Ofcom, just as censorious hardliners like Collins and the DCMS committee have demanded. Ofcom was chosen to do this because, according to last weeks report, the government concluded that the Online Harms White Paper process would not be completed in time before the EUs transposition deadline of autumn 2020 and before the UK fully leaves the Brexit transition period.

Outrageously, the directive will be made law in the UK in just a few weeks, with no serious parliamentary or public debate. And it will remain law after the transition period ends a few months later because all EU regulations will automatically be brought into domestic law. Ofcom adds that it will continue to work with EU bodies, which the UK will have no influence over, to enforce it and protect children from hate and content which could impair their moral development whatever that means.

Ofcom is completely unsuitable for this job. Social media is more like a town-hall meeting than a television broadcast. Normal people speaking online and in videos should not be regulated like broadcasters (which are already overregulated). And they should certainly not have to apologise or face punishment when they are wrong or one-sided.

One journalist covering the report suggested that the recent Darren Grimes interview with David Starkey, which contained a racist remark, would be the type of content which could be reported and even censored by Ofcom. However, that particular exchange was shown on YouTube and because YouTube is owned by Google and headquartered in Ireland, the video would, in fact, be regulated by an Irish body. Bizarrely, content made in Britain for a British audience could be censored by another EU state according to this interpretation of EU law. The platforms likely to come under UK jurisdiction are Twitch, TikTok, LiveLeak, Imgur, Vimeo and Snapchat, according to Ofcom.

Its hard to know what to make of this complex web of control and restriction. But self-harm videos are already dealt with by existing laws. And contrary to claims made by Knight and the DCMS committee, there is already too much censorship of online commentary about the Covid virus of everyone from journalists to scientists. Rather than a regulated internet, a free and open internet is needed more than ever. Rebel voices are essential in science. They are even more valuable in this era of mass conformism and should not be silenced because they go against the grain of establishment orthodoxy.

Unfortunately, the censors are winning. Social media and video platforms abandoned the principles of free speech some time ago, when they started deleting speech they considered hateful. Now, during the pandemic, they appear to have fully abandoned the principles of open inquiry and scientific method, too. They now routinely delete things they label misleading, removing the right to be wrong and presupposing that moderators know more than scientists who happen to be in a minority. The European Commission has unsurprisingly been pushing this agenda, meeting with the tech firms behind closed doors and forcing them to sign a new code of conduct and a pledge to remove fake news.

After Brexit, it should be, finally, time for our parliament and our people to have a say about what legislation and rules should govern our internet. Boris Johnson should repeal the EU version of the online-harms agenda and abandon the plan to implement the May governments proposals. After an initial backlash to those last year, the government insisted it would not force the blocking or deletion of legal content. It also gave some vague assurances to protect free speech. We must keep the pressure on and make sure this latest coup doesnt go unopposed.

Liam Deacon is the Brexit Partys former head of press.

Picture by: Getty.

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

Read the original:

We need to take back control of the internet - Spiked