The Narendra Modi government finally drew the red line yesterday (3 February) on the US tech giant Twitters limits of autonomy as far as its India operations are concerned.

Taking a tough stand against the hate-filled content shared on the microblogging social media platform during the farmer protests, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) sent a five-page notice to Twitter stating that Incitement to genocide is not a freedom of speech. It is a threat to law and order.

The notice referred to '#ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide' hashtag which trended on Twitter last week which the government said was designed to inflame passions, hatred and [was] factually incorrect.

MEITY had passed an interim order on 31 January as a matter of emergency blocking 257 URLs and 1 hashtag under Rule 9(1) of the Information Technology [Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public] Rules, 2009 which are based on section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the IT act).

The latest government notice alleges that Twitter didnt take off the objectionable content from its platform for several hours despite its order and did so only a few minutes before its Advocate appeared before the government committee on 1 February at 3 pm.

All the blocked content was soon unblocked and Twitter declined to abide by the order of the government justifying its action citing newsworthiness and free speech.

The government has now reminded Twitter that it is bound by Indian law.

The notice sent to Twitter clarified that it was an "intermediary" as defined under Section 2[1][w] of the Information Technology Act and it cannot decide the impracticability or disproportionality of the issue at hand as it is bounded by the orders passed by the Central government.

Further, the notice said that Twitter has no constitutional, statutory or any legal basis whatsoever to comment upon the interplay of statutory provisions with constitutional principles or to unilaterally read down the scope of statutory provisions as per its own limited private understanding of the constitutional and statutory laws of India.

Section 69A of the IT act, quoted repeatedly in the government notice, is clear: if the central government considers it "necessary or expedient to direct an intermediary to block for access for public and or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource if the government is satisfied that the same is necessary or expedient in order to prevent incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to public order.

While Twitter may have decided to cock a snook at Indias constitutional law, the law is quite clear.

Section 69(3) of the IT act states that intermediaries which fail to comply with the governments order shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

The limits on free speech put by the IT act are not standalone.

They flow from the constitution whose article 19 clause 2 states that nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) [which gives all citizens right to freedom of speech and expression] shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

While Swarajya in the past has been vocal about the irrationality of many aspects of the above clause which was inserted by the first amendment to the constitution (championed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru), internal rules of a foreign company cannot override those of the constitution irrespective of their merit.

On a lighter note, if Twitter continues down the path it has chosen and leaves the Indian government with no choice but to take penal action against its executives or ban the platform outright for being a nuisance to public order, Modis detractors can always blame Nehru.

What they (or those Indians who like Twitters rules because it's in sync with their political ideology) cannot do is dispute the exclusive right of the Parliament to debate, decide and alter the constitution.

Thats the sole prerogative of the Indian State. Indians alone can and will decide when and how to reform the deficiencies in the constitution. That idea is at the very foundation of our sovereignty. WE THE PEOPLE in the constitution refers to Indians, not Twitter executives aligned with alien ideologies and driven by their narrow political interests.

The Indian State cannot allow Twitter to create a parallel rule of law online colony that Indians must adhere to. Indians are bound by Indian laws framed by those chosen by the citizens of this country.

At the core of the tussle between the government and Twitter is not free speech or the platforms autonomy, its Indias sovereignty. The Indian government has so far not taken Twitter to task for arbitrarily shadow banning and de-platforming people on the Right while allowing a free run to those on the left side of the political spectrum. It had allowed it full autonomy on that front. Its only when Twitter refused to comply with the Indian law and challenged Indias sovereignty that the government has taken a tough stand.

The issue of sovereignty was also the main reason for Indias ban on Tiktok. MEITY had reasoned then that Tiktok and other banned Chinese apps were engaged in activities which is prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order.

At the time, I had argued that just as Chinese apps allowed themselves to become the tools in the hands of Chinese Communist Party, the US tech giants like Twitter were also slowly becoming the tools at the hands of Leftists and setting themselves up for failure.

But Twitter seems to have not learnt any lesson. India cannot allow intervention of foreign ideologies in its local politics because that would be prejudicial to its sovereignty. If Twitter still refuses to back down, it should be ready to face the music in New India.

Link:

It's The Sovereignty, Stupid: Why India Is Right To Draw The Red Line On Twitter's Limits Of Autonomy - Swarajya

A bill banning LGBTIQ+ conversion practices looks set to pass the Victorian Upper House today despite concerns from the Opposition, religious leaders, and health professionals who believe the law may have "unintended consequences".

Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes said the legislation reflected the "overwhelming view" of Victorians and came about because the Government listened to survivors of conversion "therapy".

"We've heard them, we've believed them, and we've got scientific and medical evidence to back up that these practices are incredibly harmful and don't work," she told ABC Radio Melbourne.

The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition bill makes it illegal to try to change or suppress a person's sexual orientation or gender identity in Victoria.

It also gives the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) the power to investigate reports of conversion practices and refer matters to police.

To be considered a change or suppression practice, conduct must meet three criteria:

Assisting a person to express their gender identity and the work of professional health service providers do not amount to suppression practices, according to the bill.

If someone is found to have conducted suppression practices that cause serious injury, they could face criminal charges, including up to 10 years in jail or a fine of almost $10,000.

For less serious offences the VEOHRC can provide education or participate in facilitation.

The bill is expected to pass the Upper House with the support of the Greens' Samantha Ratnam, the Reason Party's Fiona Patten, and the Animal Justice Party's Andy Meddick.

For Mr Meddick, the father of two transgender children, banning suppression practices is deeply personal.

"My wife and I have been told that we are failures," Mr Meddick said.

"That we are evil, that my children are broken and they need to be fixed.

"I just find those sorts of things absolutely abhorrent."

He does not believe the legislation will stop religious ministers explaining the teachings of their faith.

"What it will stop them from doing is berating that person from telling them that there is something wrong with them and from going down a path of trying to correct them," Mr Meddick said.

ABCQueerhas compiled this list of national and state-based support services relevant to LGBTQI+ people, their families and friends.

Nathan Despott is a survivor of 10 years of conversion practices and a steering committee member at the Brave Network, a support group for LGBTIQ+ people of faith.

He said the bill was one of the most thorough he had seen in LGBTIQ+ legislation.

"It is precise and nuanced. It targets harm where it occurs, it does not stop conversations," he said.

Over the past five years the Brave Network estimated it helped more than 300 people who had been subjected to conversion practices, in addition to many more enquiries.

Mr Despott said conversion practices were "a catastrophic problem in Victoria today", and people calling for the bill to be paused was due to it being a challenge to their world view.

"At the heart of all this is profound anxiety because it is so important to conservatives that they are able to hold and celebrate the view that queer people are broken," he said.

Several religious organisations have called for an "urgent pause" on the bill so there can be more consultation.

An open letter published by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) and some Catholic leaders said "at present the bill appears to target people of faith in an unprecedented way, puts limits on ordinary conversations in families, and legislates for what prayer is legal and what prayer is not".

ICV vice-president Adel Salman said they were against harmful conversion practices but were worried the bill will prevent religious ministers from providing one-on-one pastoral care.

"People of faith who are struggling with their sexuality are actually seeking that advice," Mr Salman said.

When asked how many people had come to him, or other faith leaders, for advice on their sexuality or gender identity, Mr Salman said he did not know of anyone specifically.

Some medical professionals, including the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) are also concerned the bill will have "unintended consequences".

RANZCP chair Kerryn Rubin stressed it was "strongly in favour" of the bill but was worried the wording was not specific enough.

"The wording of the bill is so vague that current evidence-based, exploratory-style treatments could be drawn into this and viewed as a conversion practice," Dr Rubin said.

"Often these things don't get clarified until there are test cases.

"My concern is for many practitioners that will mean they don't want to be a test case, so they will say 'look, I'm actually not going to work with this group of people because I am too concerned about the potential ambiguities'."

The Opposition will move amendments to the bill calling for further consultation but are unlikely to gain support.

"The Liberal Nationals strongly believe that coercive [LGBTIQ+] conversion practices are barbaric and have no place in Victoria," said shadow attorney-general Edward O'Donohue.

"Daniel Andrews needs to listen to the many Victorians who support banning gay conversion therapies but have legitimate concerns about the drafting of this bill."

Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes denies the legislation would stop "ordinary conversations" or evidence-based medical treatments, and said the Government had consulted extensively on the bill since October 2019.

While debate rages about whether or not the legislation could have unintended consequences, what is not in question is the damage conversion practices can do to individuals.

Patrick McIvor survived conversion practices and said he "will still be recovering for a really long time".

He was told he would go to hell unless he changed his sexual identity and was referred to a formal program that involved exorcism and prayer.

Mr McIvor said religious leaders "can say all they want" about pastoral care, but the simple fact is "they want to keep changing people because they believe they are broken".

"It is actually a really well thought-out piece of legislation. The reason for some of the loudest voices against the legislation is they know that after it passes they will have to stop," he said.

"It is about time that they did."

Read more:

Here is what we know about Victoria's gay conversion bill - ABC News

Chennai:

The recent discovery of a massive, highly sophisticated hack, almost certainly by Russia, of key U.S. technology companies and government agencies puts the new Biden team in a real quandary: How, when or even whether should they retaliate against Russias president? I have a lot of sympathy with that quandary because Vladimir Putin has become Americas ex-boyfriend from hell. There was a time when Russia formerly the core of the Soviet Union (a country with double the population of the one Putin now rules) was very important to us. It once threatened to conquer all of Europe and spread communism across the globe. That time was the Cold War. That time is long gone. Our most important global rival today is China.

Putin is not very important to us at all. Hes a Moscow mafia don who had his agents try to kill an anti-corruption activist, Aleksei Navalny, by sprinkling a Soviet-era nerve agent, Novichok, in the crotch of his underwear. Im not making that up! Russia once gave the world Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Dostoyevsky, Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. Putins Russia will be remembered for giving the world poisoned underwear. But to distract his people from his corruption and maintain his grip on power, Putin presents himself as the great defender of the Russian Motherland, and its Orthodox Christian culture, from godless, pro-gay Westerners. And to inflate his importance in his own eyes and in the eyes of Russians he keeps stalking us. He meddles in our elections, hacks our companies, while denying it all with a smirk and relishing the notion that so many Americans think he installed Donald Trump as president.

This is a new kind of strategic problem for U.S. planners how to deal with a geopolitical stalker? How do you deal with a Russian leader whos not a superpower but a supertroll, an old suitor who wont accept rejection: Vlad, were just not into you anymore. Were seeing other people, like China. If we could, wed get a court order to keep you 5,000 miles away. To be sure, Putin still controls dangerous nuclear missiles. Im glad that he and President Biden agreed last week to extend the New START nuclear treaty that was about to expire. And, as weve just seen through the far-reaching hack of our companies and government, his cybercapabilities are significant.

But it all masks a country that is actually not very dynamic at all. In the real world, where countries thrive by making stuff that others want to buy, Putins top seven exports are: oil and gas (52 percent); iron; precious metals; machinery and computers (2.1 percent); wood; fertiliser; and cereals. For a country with so much human talent, thats pathetic. Russia today is a Czarist economy with a space station Dr. Zhivago with nuclear missiles and hackers. Scientists who fled Russia have made Israel and Silicon Valley tech superpowers. A rare success is Russias Covid-19 vaccine, but it is difficult to mass produce.

When did you last buy a computer, smartphone or app from a Russian company? A Russian car? A Russian watch? Russian-made commercial aircraft? Id rather take a bus than fly on one. The only Russian exports that appeal to Westerners are caviar, vodka and nesting dolls and were full up on all three. Why is that? Because Putin trusts the stuff that comes up from the ground more than the stuff that might come out of his peoples heads. So, he has built a petro-autocracy that is fuelled by natural resources, not human resources. He then uses the cash to lubricate an engine of corruption that keeps him and his cronies in power, while denying his youth the tools and freedoms to truly realise their full potential.

So, Vlad, you hacked our companies. Tell me, to what end? Youre not going to invade us. Your system of government kleptocracy is obnoxious to your own people, let alone foreigners. We certainly have no interest in invading you. And what are you going to do with all those stolen credit card numbers? A massive Amazon buy? (Ill take eight million diapers, 30 million rolls of toilet paper, and throw in four million pairs of mens underwear.)

The truth is, everything worth stealing in America is in plain sight. Its our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, free and fair elections, independent judiciary that upholds elections even if the incumbent loses and our independent F.B.I. But Putin wants none of those (which is probably good, since weve had trouble holding onto them ourselves but thats for another column). So how best for Biden to deal with this geopolitical stalker? Answer: low-cost military deterrence and high-volume diplomacy that puts us solidly behind Navalnys anti-corruption movement. Message to Putin: Our last president was with you. Were instead with your people. Have a nice day. In terms of deterrence, Russia expert Leon Aron, author of Boris Yeltsin: A Revolutionary Life, told me that since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Putin has resorted to militarised patriotism, anti-Americanism and the recovery of the lost glory of the Soviet superpowership to restore loyalty and popularity at home. Aron argued that we should prepare now for a possible Crimea-type attempt to seize and annex areas just across Russias border with significant ethnic Russian populations, most likely in Estonia or Latvia, to reignite Russian patriotic fervour and expose NATO as a paper tiger.

In other words, he added, it might be a good time for Biden to rescind Trumps order to withdraw about one-third of the U.S. troops in Germany and also to reinforce the Baltic NATO members Estonia and Latvia. On anti-corruption, last week I took part in a Zoom call with Vladimir Ashurkov, the head of Navalnys Anti-Corruption Foundation. Ashurkov, speaking from London, shared a letter just sent to Biden, urging him to impose sanctions against 35 individuals in Russia who he claims supply Putins mistresses and their parents, and Putins children, with yachts, apartments and multimillion-dollar-a-year jobs at the companies they control. Our current economic sanctions are too diffuse, Ashurkov said. By banning these 35 from traveling to the West and laundering money there, we would be squeezing the key people who can squeeze Putin.

The reason Navalny is such a threat to Putin the reason Putins court on Tuesday threw him back in jail for about two and a half years is that Navalny is as much a Russian nationalist as Putin is, but he focuses his campaign on Putins massive corruption. In court, Navalny called Putin a little thieving man in his bunker. This is resonating widely in Russia partly because Navalnys foundation recently released a video showing a $1.7 billion Versailles-like palace that it alleges Putin had built for himself on the Black Sea.

The video has been viewed more than 100 million times. Putin denies he is the owner (one of his cronies claims it is his) and called the video boring. I hope the White House tweets out the link twice a day. At the same time, lets not forget that Bidens climate/green energy policy is a huge win-win deterrent for us: Every new gigawatt of U.S. clean energy makes Putins oil and gas less valuable and America healthier. And, finally, there is one last deterrent message Biden could send Putin a reminder that his chump Trump has left town: Vlad, if all the computers in the Kremlin stop working one night and Born in the USA starts blaring through the speakers in Red Square consider it a gentle reminder from the US Cyber Command of what we could do to you if we thought you really mattered.

Friedman is an Opinion Columnist for NYT2020

The New York Times

See the rest here:

ESTRANGED DIPLOMACY: Putin casts his long shadow on the US - DTNext

It was September 2018, while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was testifying before Congress for the first time, when sitting lawmakers had their first confrontation with the wild nature of the online right. Nearly 90 minutes after the hearing began, Laura Loomer, a far-right internet celebrity, stood up from the committee audience. Please help us Mr. President before it is too late, Loomer yelled, selfie stick in hand.

She said something about censoring and then something about shadowbanning, although it was hard to make out the argument.

What is she trying to say? Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) asked, before pretending to lead a live auction, imitating an auctioneers call to drown out Loomers voice and forcing her out the hearing room.

It was a jarring moment, but as Republicans struggle with the rise of QAnon and, more specifically, the bizarre conspiracies spread by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) the moment may have had more to say about the partys future than anyone realized.

Since 2016, the Republican Party has gone from nearly getting into fistfights with conspiracy posters like Alex Jones to sharing offices next door to them on the Capitol grounds. Republicans have dipped in and out of the conservative internet ecosystem, one concentrated with misinformation and conspiracy, at times that were most politically expedient for them and their party. But Greenes new spot in Congress is showing how powerful that ecosystem is and how difficult it will be for the party to shed. For a growing portion of the Republican Party, governance is now secondary to content, and the challenges of holding office arent so different from the hustle of a popular YouTube channel.

While far-right conspiracy theorists trolled Congress in 2018, Greene was building her own facsimile of a following online. That same year, Greene posted to Facebook suggesting that the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, which left 17 people dead, was a false flag operation, a classic falsehood peddled by people like Jones online. It was this post, first reported by Media Matters, paired with a new report from CNN that uncovered messages from Greene supporting the execution of prominent Democrats that forced Republicans to finally address her online history, something broadly known for months.

Greenes first few weeks in Congress have led to more content than compromise. Shes introduced dead-on-arrival articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden and was already suspended from Twitter for violating the platforms rules on election misinformation after posting that some races across the country were falsely called for Biden. Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) announced last week that she would be moving her office farther away from Greene and described an altercation the two had in the hall over masks.

Later that week, Greene put out a video of the incident where she wasnt wearing a mask properly, mirroring the look and behavior of right-wing provocateurs like Loomer or disgraced former Staten Island congressional candidate and YouTube prankster Joey Salads; the camera was shaky, held vertically, and pointed at her face as she talked about her day in Congress.

To Greene, this content and its consequences are their own kind of success something far more valuable than a co-sponsored bill or a spot on a powerful committee. After Democrats called to expel her last week, Greene said she raised over $1.6 million. In a statement Friday, Greene said, I will never back down. I will never give up. Because I am one of you. And I will always represent you. She continued, I knew this day would come, it was only a question of when.

If that sounds like the kind of non-apology youd hear from a teenage YouTuber, its no coincidence. For Greene, governing is posting. Her meteoric rise from Facebook influencer to congressperson is a symptom of the algorithm-based social media feeds of our time. In 2017, Greene first posted about QAnon. Have you guys been following 4chan? Q? Any of that stuff? Greene said in a video. Q is a patriot, we know that for sure. Greene makes increasingly more outlandish claims for the same reason prank YouTubers and their stunts become even more dangerous: the more controversy she generates, the larger her audience becomes.

Greene has become the face of the Republican Partys Posters Caucus, where messaging and content reigns supreme over policy. Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) said in a letter to colleagues last week that he would be focusing on communications over legislation as well and for good reason. Cawthorns biggest wins have been tweets or merch drops. Thats simply what his audience expects.

If Republicans have largely remained silent over Greenes bizarre approach to politics, its because they understand the value of Greenes connection with her audience. Its a more extreme version of a game conservative lawmakers have been playing with the online right for years. In an interview with The Verge last year, conservative YouTuber Dave Rubin made a similar observation, saying that lawmakers needed him more than he needed them.

It was Dan Crenshaw who reached out to me. It was the Ted Cruz people who reached out to me. It was Rand Paul people who reached out to me, Rubin told The Verge. They clearly see the seas changing in terms of where people are getting their news, and that they need an opportunity to have their ideas heard.

Political parties have long struggled with their base, and courting media figures has often been a part of it from Walter Winchell to Rush Limbaugh. But the novel dynamics of the internet have made the base more extreme and alienated it from the conventional dynamics of government. While lawmakers focus on stimulus checks and a second Trump impeachment, online channels are talking about pedophilia rings and antifa super-soldiers, creating a bizarre alternate reality with no meaningful connection to the actual functions of Congress. Using open platforms and independent companies, the usual moderating forces like corporate standards departments or advertiser boycotts just arent a factor. For figures like Alex Jones or Laura Loomer, theres simply no reason to reengage with reality.

With Greene, that kind of logic is now part of the Republican House delegation, and its still hard to say how party leaders will respond to this new force. House Democrats are pushing hard to marginalize Greene, pointing to her unhinged and often anti-Semitic statements. While some Senate Republicans like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) condemned Greene, calling her embrace of conspiracy theories a cancer for the Republican party, others have been quiet. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said he would talk to Greene about her social media posts last week, but its not clear when that meeting will take place, as of publication.

Its easy to see why McConnell is scared. This delay from Republicans and McCarthy is only providing Democrats with more ammo for future elections, tying the GOP with QAnon or any other conspiracy they grab on to before November 2022. That shell game might be good for subscriber numbers, but its bad for the GOP and if leaders arent careful, they may end up the party of Alex Jones instead of the party of Marco Rubio.

View original post here:

Marjorie Taylor Greene and the rise of the GOPs Posters Caucus - The Verge

Social media platforms have a moderation problem. Its not a secret and marginalized people have been begging them to do something about it for years. Ham-fisted algorithms have been implemented alongside community reporting options, but its nowhere near enough. The damage has been done.

Forced to reckon with their role in hosting the likes of QAnon conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, and politicians pandering to white supremacist separatists, top social media platformsespecially Twitterhave opted for a scorched-earth policy of mass deletion. Millions of accounts disappeared overnight while Amazon Web Services (AWS), the Apple App Store, and the Google Play Store have clamped down on Parler, the app favored by right-wing extremists for its role in planning the Capitol insurrection.

And now, proponents of the First Amendment are worried.

For a lot of people, the fire that former President, Donald Trump lit under the Communications Decency Act (1996), commonly referred to as Section 230, is burning brighter than ever. Many legal experts, however, believe that the attacks on Section 230 is indicative of a larger attack on the first amendment itself.

Section 230 embodies First Amendment rights in the Digital Age, says Lawrence Walters, a First Amendment attorney and the managing partner at Walters Law Group. The immunities and content moderation rights granted by Section 230 are arguably required by the constitution. However, Section 230 allows online platforms to operate without the constant threat of litigation that would exist if the statute was repealed or changed.

For many sex workers, the handwringing and talk of censorship is nothing new. Sex workers have been waging a silent war against suppression and censorship tactics like moralizing arguments, shadowbanning, algorithmic bias, and intentionally vague Terms of Service for even longer than these platforms have existed.

See Also: Government Shutdown of Top Sex Worker Site Intensifies Fight for Decriminalization

Californias Prop 60, which would have put pornography in the crosshairs of all moralist citizen crusaders, came dangerously close to passing in 2016. The seizure and subsequent closure of Backpage was foreshadowed by the demise of the physical back pages of The Village Voice. In the wake of Twitters mass purge of extremists, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), has seized on this rare display of contrition to further chip away at Section 230 in the courts.

The NCOSE lawsuit seems harmless on its face and no one wants to be seen arguing that protecting children is a bad thing. But it is dangerously short-sighted, much like the legislation that informs it. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers and Fight Online Sex Trafficking Acts (SESTA/FOSTA), passed in April 2018, purported to combat sex trafficking while contributing to a rise in trafficking, increased violence against sex workers, and greater suppression and de-platforming of adult content creators. Further delegitimization and stigmatization is a genuine concern and not just for sex workers.

Sex educators, LGBT+ people, fat/plus-sized people, and Black people have all expressed concerns about the response of Big Tech to attacks on Section 230 and online expression. Certainly, corporations are permitted to establish Terms of Use that align with their own ethics, but the worry is that moderation changes and crackdowns on vaguely defined explicit content are exclusively targeted at the already marginalized.

Both Salty Magazine and Hacking//Hustling have conducted studies on the impacts of increasingly limiting content moderation policies on social media, and both have come to the same conclusion: legislative policy, no matter how well-intentioned, has contributed to the de-platforming and erasure of marginalized voices on social media.

It may feel tedious to rehash what most of us have accepted as true. We know SESTA/FOSTA was a failure. We know that decriminalization is the best way forward. But we havent reached a critical mass of what should be common sense knowledge. The Stop Internet Sexual Exploitation act (SISEA), introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), is more of the same conflation of consensual sex work and already criminalized trafficking of non-consenting adults and minors. And so unfortunately, that historical context is necessary to understand exactly how bleak the future looks.

We havent survived SESTA/FOSTA. The attacks on free expression, which somelike Lorelei Lee (they/them), a sex worker, organizer, and writersay is miscategorized as an attack on the first amendment, have only worsened.

Shadowbanning, account closures, refusals to serve by platforms that control access to everything from housing listings to financial servicesthis is much more than censorship, this is exclusion from social membership, Lee tells Observer. And it is clear that exclusion happens not based on a statement a person makes on their account, but based on how theyve been profiled, using numerous data points, by platforms that person is trying to access.

Yes, SISEA failed to pass the committee vote, but only because it was indefensible from a constitutional standpoint, according to Walters. The political will to further marginalize and suppress sex workers is pervasive and ever-present. Backpage was dismantled under the guise of protecting trafficking victims, despite Backpages leadership working alongside federal law enforcement to root out traffickers on the site. SESTA/FOSTA passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, despite warnings from sex workers, medical professionals, human rights advocates, and politicians that it would cause undue harm to the victims it purported to serve. Knowing that, it shouldnt surprise anyone that Sen. Merkley fully intends to reintroduce SISEA.

In Lees opinion, the current conversation on Section 230 isnt even the biggest problem. We could probably use some reimagining of how the internet that has come to exist should interact with legal mechanisms and with human rights paradigms, she says, but it is a distraction from the actual outcomes of continued legislative overreach. Its about demonizing, delegitimizing, and stigmatizing people in the sex trades while glorifying empty Congressional actions that actually harm the people they claim to be helping.

While the creators of hashtags like #TraffickingHub and #cancelporn claim to speak for those voices, they contribute to the conflation of consent and victimhood, erasing both in the process and encouraging both practice and policy that pits disenfranchised groups against each other for survival. Walters notes that current legislative efforts like SISEA puts the onus of ethical distribution on performers and independent creators rather than multi-billion dollar corporations like MindGeek, Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet (Google), while doing little to address actual problems with verifying consent.

Online platforms are not in any realistic position to determine whether individuals depicted in erotic media have properly consented to the filming and distribution of the content, Walters says. Laws like FOSTA and SISEA encourage widespread censorship of materials that are protected by the First Amendment. Shutting down online intermediaries will not stop sex trafficking or revenge porn.

To be clear, sex workers are not opposed to more robust protections for trafficking victims or a change in the way that platforms moderate hateful, dangerous content. Sex workers are not opposed to a future where marginalized people are able to exist peacefully online alongside efforts to root out those who prey on vulnerable people. Rather, we would simply like to be considered and included in conversations and legislative planning sessions.

We need to challenge the dominant narratives about people in the sex trades (which includes sex workers, survivors, and sex working survivors), so that both Congress and the general public understand our real needs and stop making gestures that are just symbolic and harmful, Lee says. And we need to ensure that impacted people are comprehensively (not just in a tokenizing or cherry-picked way) involved in creating legislation that impacts them.

The outlook is not completely bleak. If the current socio-political climate is to be believed, changing attitudes about sex work will prevail. Washtenaw County, Michigan, home of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan, has a new prosecutor, Eli Savit, who has announced that he will not prosecute sex workers. Eliza Orlins, a Manhattan District Attorney candidate, has outlined a comprehensive plan for incremental steps towards decriminalization of sex work. In Allegheny County, NY, Lisa Middleman challenged longtime District Attorney, Stephen Zappala, on his history of prosecuting sex workers for possessing cellphones.

Its not just local, either. Former presidential candidate and current New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Yang has announced his support for the full decriminalization of sex work, a pivot from his earlier endorsement of the Nordic model. And Sen. Merkley says that he is not interested in harming sex workers in his quest to protect trafficking victims, but it is difficult to envision an idyllic future when these claims have been made in the past but sex workers continue to be denied a seat at the proverbial table.

Still, while talk represents some progress, its the laws themselves that have to be changed. Sex workers and activists who are paying attention at all are already living in a pretty traumatized state of survival, Lee says. Folks know intimately how lawmakers are capable of harming them.

Go here to see the original:

Sex Workers Are In Increased Danger Due to QAnon and Attacks on Section 230 - Observer

The bill is intended to criminalise gay conversion practices, meaning psychiatrists, counsellors or people of faith who intend to change or suppress a persons sexual orientation or gender identity could face a fine of up to $10,000 and 10 years in prison if their actions caused serious injury.

The gay conversion therapy bill has exposed fissures within Opposition Leader Michael OBriens party room.Credit:Joe Armao

While the majority of shadow cabinet members supported the plan, three MPs who were in the meeting told The Age that Forest Hill MP Neil Angus argued against the decision to support the ban, citing concerns from religious groups. Mr Angus position has support from a handful of upper house colleagues who told colleagues they would cross the floor if they were denied a free vote.

Muslim and Catholic community leaders joined forces to take out newspaper advertisements on Tuesday to express profound concern about the bill.

Unfortunately, this bill doesnt just ban outdated and insidious practices of coercion and harm, which we firmly reject, Islamic Council of Victoria president Mohamed Mohideen says in the advertisement.

This bill also criminalises conversation between children and parents, interferes with sound professional advice, and silences ministers of religion from providing personal attention for individuals freely seeking pastoral care for complex personal situations.

It includes ill-conceived concepts of faith and conversation, vague definitions and scientifically and medically flawed approaches.

The legislative council is scheduled to debate the bill on Thursday. It is expected to pass with the support of the Labor government and crossbench MPs Fiona Patten, Samantha Ratnam and Andy Meddick.

Justice Party MPs Tania Maxwell and Stuart Grimley, as well as Liberal Democrats MPs Tim Quilty and David Limbrick, have revealed in recent days they will oppose the bill.

Opposition Leader Michael OBrien, while publicly insisting on Monday his party harboured only technical concerns about some parts of the bill, has struggled to bridge the gap between his partys most conservative MPs and the rest of the party room.

The problem isnt with banning gay conversion therapy, because I dont know anybody who supports that, he said.

We can get this done. We can get gay conversion therapy banned, which I think everybody supports, but lets do it in a way that doesnt have a whole lot of unintended consequences.

A party room meeting late last year to settle the oppositions stance on gay conversion therapy laws resulted in a decision to withhold a public position, which allowed the bill to pass the lower house.

If a similar position resulted from Tuesdays meeting, it would cause significant tension among MPs who want the party to strongly denounce gay conversion therapy, according to two Liberal MPs who commented on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss internal matters.

Any delay, even technical, is a ruse to cover up for the actual opposition in the party room. Its a tactic, said one MP.

Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes: These views wont be tolerated in Victoria, and neither will change or suppression practices.Credit:Joe Armao

More than 30 religious leaders from such faiths as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism have written to Premier Daniel Andrews expressing strong and unequivocal opposition to the bill.

Catholic Archbishop Peter Comensoli will lead a religious prayer walk against the proposed laws on Tuesday. He is expected to be joined by Conservative Liberal MP Bernie Finn, who is one of the MPs expected to oppose the bill.

Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes said: LGBT people are not broken and they do not need to be fixed. These views wont be tolerated in Victoria, and neither will change or suppression practices.

We consulted closely with survivors, LGBTIQ+ organisations and religious organisations on the legislation to make sure it is effective in stamping out abhorrent change and suppression practices once and for all.

The new laws strike the right balance between protecting people from the serious harm caused by change or suppression practices, while respecting the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Loading

Writing in an opinion piece for The Age, crossbench MP Andy Meddick, who describes himself as the proud father of two transgender children, argued in support of the criminalisation of gay conversion practices.

My children are perfect. They do not need fixing. Nor do any other children or adults who do not fit an often religiously held belief that gender is binary only, he wrote.

The role of anyone, be they a parent with religious beliefs, an institution, anyone, when someone comes before them and tells them who they are, is to say: I love you, I see you, how can I support you? There is no other answer.

Queensland and the ACT have already outlawed conversion therapy, but the Victorian bill goes further, also targeting prayer-based practices that attempt to change or suppress sexuality or gender identity.

In 2018 a branch of the Victorian Liberal Party linked to conservative federal MP Kevin Andrews, who recently lost a preselection battle for his seat of Menzies, pushed for the party to debate whether the Health Act should be amended so that health practitioners could offer counselling out of same-sex attraction or gender transitioning to patients who request it.

Then state party president Michael Kroger had the motion pulled from the agenda of the partys state conference.

Our Morning Edition newsletter is a curated guide to the most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign uphere.

Annika is state political editor for The Age.

Sumeyya is a state political reporter for The Age.

Michael is a state political reporter for The Age.

More here:

Liberal rift deepens over bill banning gay conversion therapy - The Age

Snowfall predictions were creeping up throughout the day Sunday.

As were getting closer to the event, our confidence has grown that the rain-snow line will stay south enough where we will get some more of those high-end snow totals, said weather service meteorologist Rob Megnia.

The potential for the heaviest snow is looking to be in the Worcester Hills area where we could possibly see 18 inches or more, he said. Closer to the coast is more like 8 to 12 inches.

Walsh declared a snow emergency in the city through Tuesday afternoon with a parking ban set to take effect Monday at noon.

Our Public Works Department will be working around the clock to pre-treat and clean our roads, and I thank them for their hard work, Walsh said in a statement. We are asking residents and businesses to do their part by staying safe, shoveling their sidewalks and walkways, clearing catch basins and the area around fire hydrants, and by offering help to your older neighbors and residents with disabilities.

Boston Public Schools announced Sunday that all buildings will be closed Monday and Tuesday and students will attend classes online with early dismissal. BPS meal sites are open Monday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Governor Charlie Baker has ordered non-emergency executive branch state employees to not report to their workplaces Monday, and he asked residents to avoid going out if they can.

Driving tomorrow will be hazardous due to the high winds and snow in the forecast, so we are asking everyone to stay off the roads, avoid traveling if possible and to use public transportation if they have to go out, Baker said in a statement.

RMV customer service centers will close at noon on Monday. The Steamship Authority warned Sunday that wind gusts could disrupt the service of ferries to Nantucket and Marthas Vineyard.

Forecasters expect hazardous road conditions Monday during the afternoon and evening commute, and a coastal flood watch is also in effect beginning Monday at 1 p.m.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation will impose a ban prohibiting tractor-trailers from traveling on Interstate 90 beginning at 10 a.m. Monday. Connecticut and Rhode Island are also banning travel by tractor-trailers beginning at 5 a.m., according to Jonathan Gulliver, highway administrator for MassDOT.

Massachusetts State Police may also impose a 40 mph speed limit on Interstate 90 between specific interchanges if conditions warrant, the governors office said.

Gulliver said he expects trucks will begin spreading salt on the highways in some areas of the state about 10 a.m., and soon after that the plows will be put to work.

With this kind of intensity, you hit a point where salt cant keep up and you go to the plows, he said. With this storm, I think well go right to the plows really quickly.

The Department of Transportation has approximately 3,900 pieces of state and vendor equipment available for snow and ice operations, the governors office said, including 1,400 plow and spreader combos, 2,100 plows, and 460 front-end loaders.

Those trucks will be out in full force Monday, Gulliver said, and he hopes people will avoid venturing out if they can.

Messy roads arent his only concern. With heavy wind gusts in the forecast, Gulliver said travelers will likely have a hard time seeing whats in front of them as the storm ramps up.

Were really encouraging people who work remotely that [Monday] is a great day to do that, he said. If people have to be on the road, do what you can to be off it by noon. Were concerned about that time frame when things are at full peak with limited visibility and slippery roadways.

The storm reached the mid-Atlantic on Sunday and is expected to drop at least half a foot of snow from Washington D.C. to Maine by Wednesday morning, the weather service said.

Its packing a punch, said weather service meteorologist Kristie Smith. Its affecting a lot of people.

In Massachusetts, the snow is expected to be wet and heavy and could be accompanied by wind gusts of 40 miles an hour in Boston and as high as 60 on the Cape and Islands, forecasters said.

The most snow is likely to fall in the Metrowest area in a band running through Framingham and Wayland up through Middlesex County, according to Smith.

The storm could bring minor coastal flooding and scattered power outages, particularly with higher wind gusts on the Cape, she said.

Although precipitation will almost certainly start as snow in Boston, there is a chance it will turn to rain at some point Monday, depending on the exact track of the storm, Smith said.

Its a tricky system, she said.

The workweek is expected to bring some relief from the weekends bitter cold, which saw temperatures fall to single digits overnight, according to the weather service.

After a low of 7 degrees in Boston Sunday morning, temperatures increased into the 20s in the afternoon, forecasters said. Mondays temperatures are expected to climb into the 30s.

The impending storm may bode well for an early spring, at least if groundhogs are to be believed.

Groundhog Day predictions will be coming Tuesday morning, and cloudy days when groundhogs cast no shadow traditionally prophesy a shorter winter.

But Renata Pomponi, who oversees Massachusetts official groundhog at Mass Audubon Drumlin Farm in Lincoln, said it could easily go either way this year when Ms. G goes live on Facebook at 10 a.m.

One of the things we New Englanders love about nature in our region is the unpredictability of the weather, and this year will be no exception, she said.

Enough sun can sometimes peek through the clouds to cast a shadow, so it is always an up-to-the-minute situation as to what her prediction will be.

Lucas Phillips can be reached at lucas.phillips@globe.com. Nick Stoico can be reached at nick.stoico@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @NickStoico.

View original post here:

Walsh declares snow emergency ahead of storm that could drop more than a foot on Boston - The Boston Globe

In Europe, life is finally getting tougher for Hezbollah. For decades the group has used the continent to stage and fund its terror attacks, and last year they started to face proper scrutiny in Europes capitals. In 2020 alone, Austria, The Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, Serbia and Slovenia all designated Hezbollah as a terror organization, banning the group from using their financial institutions and from setting foot in their respective jurisdictions.

These designations and actions are totally deserved. Hezbollah has left pools of blood across Europe, and across the globe, so few outside Tehran, Pyongyang and Beirut will kick up any stink about this effort to blacklist them.

In a year when Hezbollahs guns and bombs were thankfully quiet in Europe, it might seem strange that so many countries suddenly banned Hezbollah. Why Now?

Good question. So, lets dig a bit deeper. These designations ultimately stem from years of thoughtful and incremental work towards banning Hezbollah from Europe. And one man in particular has been doing this leg-work, pushing, persuading and making the case. That man is Tsvetan Tsvetanov.

A former Deputy Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Tsvetanov knows firsthand the terror Hezbollah can export. You will remember that in 2012 a man boarded a bus full of Israeli tourists near Burgas, Bulgaria and detonated a bomb killing the Bulgarian bus driver and five Israeli tourists. The blast injured 35 more.

Serving as Bulgarias Interior Minister at the time, Tsvetanov was tasked with investigating the attack. Working through Europol, Tsvetanovs probe quickly revealed that Hezbollah, without any shadow of doubt, was behind the bombing. The culprit known, Tsvetanov then led a campaign urging all countries to recognise, without equivocation, that Hezbollah murdered those six civilians on European soil. The ultimate goal of this campaign was to convince the European Union to label Hezbollah as a foreign terror organization, which would subject the group to the same punishments it now faces in the countries that banned it last year.

Early on, Tsvetanovs campaign gained traction. In the US the then-White House Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan supported Tsvetanovs push, as did 111 members of Congress who in a bipartisan letter thanked Tsvetanov personally for his leadership on the matter. But the EU was, well, less enthusiastic.

Some EU member states, perhaps, feared retribution for acknowledging the truth. Others, maybe, feared retaliation from one of Hezbollahs allies, and perennial EU thorn in the side, Russia. But in the end, despite Tsvetanovs best efforts, Brussels only designated as a terrorist group Hezbollahs military wing, leaving Hezbollahs political leadership, which funds and organizes its militants, untainted.

Tsvetanov presented Brussels with a moral test, and the political leadership there, at the time, failed. While more than eight years have passed since the bombing, Tsvetanovs fight against Hezbollah, in many ways, is just beginning and the fruits of his labor starting to ripen.

During his time in government, Tsvetanov learned the value of transatlantic partnership and the importance of Israels security in a world where so many nefarious forces instead focus on finding creative ways to threaten that country and its citizens. Now, Tsvetanov is tackling those challenges in the Bulgarian government through his newly formed political party, Republicans for Bulgaria, whose platform calls for tighter bonds with the EU, U.S. and Israel, and urges Sofia to resist sham partnerships with a belligerent Russia and China. Outside of Parliament, Tsvetanov Chairs the Euro-Atlantic Security Center (EASC) in Sofia, a non-governmental organization that works toward the same goals.

It is from these twin perches that Tsvetanov has successfully pushed for more countries to ban the group that brought terror to his country. And now with a change of Leadership in Washington, Tsvetanov is in even better situation to take on Hezbollah.

Remember that The Burgas attack occurring during the Obama administration. Tsvetanov has managed since then to forge many close relationships with officials who have returned to high-ranking positions in the U.S. government. Unlike some European politicians, Washingtons political leadership is not afflicted by the fear of Hezbollah, having designated them a terror group way back in 1997.

Like any government, the EU in 2021 will be forced to react to events beyond its control. But what Tsvetanovs years of work have shown is that Hezbollah is a deadly problem that can be confronted pre-emptively.

Washingtons renewed transatlantic focus coupled with the growing anti-Hezbollah sentiment across central and eastern Europe must be built upon in Brussels while pre-emption is still an option.

With the golden opportunity presented by the Biden administrations stated aim to re-engage with its European allies, now is exactly the right time for Tsvetanovs seeds, planted back in 2012, to come into full bloom. Brussels, we are waiting.

Alex Benjamin is the director of EIPA, a multi-disciplined pro-Israel advocacy Group based in Brussels, with offices in Paris and Berlin.He is also the Director of Public Affairs for EJA: European Jewish Association, a Brussels based NGO which represents and acts on behalf of Jewish communities across the EU and wider European continent, at the heart of the European Institutions and at bilateral level with Member States.

Read more:

A Terror Fighter We Don't Know, But Should - The Times of Israel

International trade secretary Liz Truss said she will ask to become a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on Monday.

Negotiations are expected to start this spring, according to the government, which said that UK trade with the group was worth 111bn last year.

Ms Truss, who is due to face questions about the move on BBC and Sky News on Sunday morning, made the announcement on the anniversary of the UK's formal departure from the EU.

The Department for International Trade said joining the CPTPP would cut tariffs on food, drink and cars and improve access to the markets of its members, such as Mexico, New Zealand and Vietnam.

Other benefits are said to include easier travel between partnership countries and cheaper visas.

Ms Truss said joining the pact would "create enormous opportunities for UK businesses that simply weren't there as part of the EU".

Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday

Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday

She added: It will mean lower tariffs for car manufacturers and whisky producers, and better access for our brilliant services providers, delivering quality jobs and greater prosperity for people here at home."

Boris Johnson said applying to join the CPTPP "demonstrates our ambition to do business on the best terms with our friends and partners all over the world and be an enthusiastic champion of global free trade".

Businesses welcomed the plans, with the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) saying it would help firms "thrive and succeed more than ever".

Confederation of British Industry president Lord Bilimoria said: "Membership of the bloc has the potential to deliver new opportunities for UK business across different sectors."

However shadow international trade secretary Emily Thornberry questioned why the UK had left the EU trade bloc "only to rush into joining another one on the other side of the world without any meaningful public consultation at all".

She added: Like any other trade agreement, the advantages of joining the CPTPP will have to be assessed once we see the terms on offer.

Sue Davies, the head of consumer protection and food policy at Which?, said ministers must ensure joining CPTPP "will bring clear consumer benefits" and does not dilute standards.

"It is important that consumer interests are at the centre of government trade policy as the success of future agreements will be judged on what they deliver for millions of ordinary people in their everyday lives, not just the export opportunities they provide," she added.

Additional reporting by Press Association

The rest is here:

UK to apply to join trade pact with Australia, Canada and Japan - The Independent

It needed a mob to storm the US capitol before former US president Donald Trump, whose online and offline lies had incited the attack, was finally banned by social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. This was after four arduous years of the President repeatedly breaching their community guidelines.

Yet, just over the other side of the political fence, many women around the world particularly women of colour along with LBGTQ+ communities, continue to be shadow-banned (blocked) and have their posts deleted especially those containing nudity.

Where does this hypocrisy originate? Who writes these policies? How do the social media giants monitor and enforce their policies? And what do they mean for society and those most vulnerable both on (and off) these platforms?

Social media platforms have long been governed by community guidelines which dictate behaviour on the platform. Trumps Twitter ban and the removal of the microblogging and networking platform Parler from application stores were due to the content inciting violence as laid out in the community guidelines of Twitter, and Amazon.

Read more

Twitters hateful conduct policy bans hateful or threatening content against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. These guidelines and overall governance structures are crucial for platforms that host billions of diverse users around the globe.

A long-standing and contentious example is the banning of female nipples from Facebook and its Instagram affiliate as they require users to post photos and videos that are appropriate for a diverse audience under which they view nudity as inappropriate.

This policy has been widely challenged and criticised because the label of inappropriateness seems only to apply to female nudity. As a response, the platform had to amend their policies in 2014 to allow photos of mastectomy scars and breastfeeding mothers.

But as of now, photographers, models and Instagram users are still barred from showing pictures of nipples, along with the consistent and ongoing shadow banning of sex workers.

In short, social media platforms censor users all the time.

But the enforcement of these guidelines and policies is woefully inconsistent. In 2018 Facebook, for example, was blamed by the United Nations for facilitating the spread of the hate speech that it said incited violence against the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar.

And Trump isnt the only political figure who has been allowed to use social media platforms to incite violence others include Brazils President Jair Bolsonaro and Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte.

Read more

Part of the problem is the lack of diversity and dissenting voices within the tech industry, highlighted recently by the controversy over the apparent forced exit of Timnit Gebru, the former co-leader of Googles AI Ethics research team.

How can these platforms design inclusive ethical and considerate guidelines when only certain people are brought to the table? Why do some groups face more aggressive content policing than others?

Our research in Digital Ethics from the Faculty of Engineering and IT and the Centre for AI and Digital Ethics (CAIDE) has shown there is a significant lack of diversity amongst authors in computer science and its various subfields.

The research, which is has been made available for the ACM Conference in Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) to be held online March 3-10, found that, based on a statistical analysis of female-sounding and gender-neutral names against published articles in computer science via the Microsoft Academic database, women were significantly under-represented.

In a direct male to female comparison, the study found that publications featuring men outnumbered those featuring women by 5:1. This disproportion may be worse than the already well-known under-representation of women in these fields previous research has suggested that women account for 26 per cent of IT professionals worldwide.

The research argues that the field of computer science (and by extension, the tech industry) should be actively working to ensure greater representation of women and other minority groups in computer science publications, if they are to uphold the diversity and inclusion standards outlined by professional organisations.

Read more

The research draws on care ethics (CE), which questions traditional masculine moral and ethical approaches and assumptions that historically have been rarely questioned.

For example, traditional thinking will view moral decisions as being made by people who are independent, unattached, self-sufficient, unemotional, and rationalistic, but this is far from the reality. It downplays the role of biases, prejudices and self-interest that inevitably affect human relationships and interaction.

It means that in order for tech to be more inclusive, the industry must be more diverse not just in terms of people but in how it is structured and who has input into the decisions that are made women, people of colour, and all marginalised groups must be represented in the field of computer science, and therefore throughout companies, research and platform design.

If women and marginalised groups are included by design, governance and community guidelines will likely reflect an inclusive group, as well as be policed in a fair and consistent way. We can expect that diverse voices will be better placed to critically examine, react and prevent the inconsistency that we are seeing from playing out.

The bans and censoring of womens bodies on Twitter and Facebook are an example of these flow-on effects. For example, women had to fight to display breast feeding pictures because the male-dominated industry viewed breasts as being primarily pornographic, instead of being mothering and nurturing.

The reality is that so long as we have social media platforms we must have community guidelines, and somehow in a world that seems to grow more fractious everyday we must find ways to design guidelines which encourage unity and harmony, not hate.

And these guidelines must be consistent for all actors not one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else.

Gabby Bush is CAIDE project officer and Mariam Nadeem is a CAIDE intern.

Banner: Supporters of then President Donald Trump storming the US Capitol building, Jan. 6, 2021. Getty Images

See original here:

Trump, nipples and the hypocrisy of the social media giants - Pursuit