Written by Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore | Updated: August 17, 2020 9:14:55 amIt is no secret globally that Facebook has been hauled up by various government bodies for controlling the flow of facts. (Reuters)

In George Orwells 1984, it was a thoughtcrime to actually disagree with the viewpoints established by Big Brother. The latest manifestation of this Orwellian concept is the Left-Congress cabals outrage over a Western media houses hit-job on Facebook, an already Left-Congress-leaning platform. Truth, as in the case of 1984, is a casualty. Merely scratching the surface reveals how this storm in a teacup is merely an exercise to browbeat Facebook for allowing certain opinions to even exist.

It is no secret globally that Facebook has been hauled up by various government bodies for controlling the flow of facts. The Singapore Parliamentary hearings in this context have become rather famous representatives of Facebook were pulled up for their smug attitude. In its parent country, the United States, a Senate hearing had laid bare the hoax of neutrality by cornering Facebook on using the powers of monopoly to censor political speech, particularly conservative viewpoints. In India, too, we have seen examples of Facebook actually filtering out non-Left and non-Congress viewpoints through manufactured labels of fake news. They are even accused of using shadow banning algorithms.

What the Left wants is not control over hate speech but unfettered freedom of hate speech to its ideologically-aligned members. That is why you would hear Mark Zuckerberg quote Kapil Mishra but say nothing on Sonia Gandhi who exhorted people in Delhi to do aar paar ki ladai (prepare for the final battle). There are millions of posts mocking Hindu gods and abusing right-of-centre leaders. But Facebooks advanced algorithms and community standards fail to catch them. However, unsuspecting common people running pro-right-of-centre pages are suspended with no right to appeal.

What the Left wants is not diversity in organisational culture. It wants full compliance. Hence, it does not suffice for them if most hirings in Facebook India come from Left-Congress background. There are examples of current and former Facebook executives with links to the former government and opposition parties, and some of them have been openly critical of the prime minister as well. To accuse them of being pro-BJP is laughable.

Nor does it bother the gatekeepers that the Congress party was caught hand-in-glove with Cambridge Analytica, an infamous big-data-enabled democracy manipulator that has interfered in several countries electoral processes and has used Facebook as its weapon. They actually had the Congress hand symbol in their office but this controversy was silently buried. Imagine the uproar if the same linkage had been found with a BJP members son-in-laws fathers nephews brothers son.

The problem, however, is much larger, and intellectually rooted in the fake post-truth world phenomenon bandied about by a bunch of elitists afraid to lose their power of labelling views as thoughtcrimes. Scared of being shown the mirror of reality, an entire cabal has decided to rally their comrades and undertake hit jobs on those who do not fully comply with their dictums.

Sadly, the real story has been missed in the entire discussion the actual scam by Facebook that has been brushed under the carpet for too long. Funding and validating eminent journalists belonging to the pro-Left cabal and empowering them to become the arbiters of truth on Facebook is the game, whereas anything that goes against their views and opinions is deemed fake. Out-of-job Left-leaning journalists and their views count as gospel truth to the gatekeepers, but the Prime Ministers speech on Independence Day got labelled as fake news. Is it just a coincidence that the battery of Facebook certified eminent fact-checkers havent yet been able to fact-check any of Rahul Gandhis claims?

It is surprising but not shocking to note that Facebook even allowed paid promotion of posts using morphed pictures of PM Modi with a Pakistan flag, whereas pages that allow opposing viewpoints often lose their monetisation for merely stating facts.

After the decline of the grip of mainstream media as the sole arbiter of truth, the battle for narratives has moved to social media. Originally, these were not platforms that the Left-Congress controlled, because there were no gates or gatekeepers. However, since then, a planned campaign has taken over these platforms too.

This latest round of manufactured outrage should be seen as the Lefts internecine warfare to control an already-Congress and Left-leaning platform and punish them for even the most minor of thoughtcrimes allowing alternative viewpoints. This is yet another attempt to regain a monopoly over narratives and disenfranchising alternate versions. Armed with the power of an organised cabal, the gatekeepers believe that they can continue to perpetuate the same one-sided monopoly.

The more social media platforms fall to tendentious voices from the Left and become echo chambers, the more they will lose their credibility. We should all stand up and resist this organised assault by the Left-Congress ecosystem on our fundamental right to exercise our free speech within the boundaries set by Indian law.

The writer is a former Minister of State of Information and Broadcasting (2018-19) and a BJP MP

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

Read more:

Facebook is in the dock; we need to resist Left-Congress assault on free speech - The Indian Express

A day after introducing laws that would ban journalists from reporting corruption allegations during elections, the State Government has withdrawn the proposal in a spectacular backflip.

Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath proposed changes to the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) Act in state parliament yesterday that would carry a six-month jail term for people who published CCC allegations about political candidates during an election period.

But this morning, Ms D'Ath released a statement announcing the laws would be withdrawn.

"The Government respects the recommendations of the CCC," she said in a statement.

"However, given the limited time for the parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee to consider the law changes the CCC seeks, the CCC Bill introduced yesterday in state parliament is withdrawn."

The proposed laws came under fire from journalists and transparency advocates, who argued the laws would stifle free speech.

But Ms D'Ath argued it would improve the integrity of the state's election process by not allowing the publication of potentially baseless allegations.

Under the failed changes, any complaints made to the CCC would have been shielded from the public until they became a fully fledged investigation.

The only exception would be if the CCC had been notified of the allegations and at least three months had elapsed.

The bill would have also allowed a candidate or the corruption watchdog to seek an injunction to restrain any further publication of allegations during the relevant election period.

Local Government Association of Queensland, which represents 77 councils, said the bill should be amended to protect journalists and then passed to discourage the malicious use of the watchdog.

"The focus of the bill should be on providing a disincentive to those who make baseless complaints to the CCC during election campaigns in order to denigrate their political opponents," chief executive Greg Hallam said.

"The CCC's figures show complaints regularly spike in the months leading up to the council elections.

"[Complaints are] jumping from an average of 12 per month to 27 per month the 12 months leading up to polling day, with just 6 per cent of those allegations substantiated.

"By the time the CCC is able to assess and dismiss the baseless allegations, the damage to the elected members who were the subject of those complaints and the institution of local government has already been done."

Ms D'Ath had argued that any public perception that the CCC was being used to score political points eroded the public's trust in the corruption watchdog.

"The offences contained in this bill are designed to ensure that public debate in an election period is not hijacked by the publication of baseless allegations and complaints that are politically motivated and designed to do nothing more than inflict reputational damage on political opponents," she said.

Shadow attorney-general David Janetzki argued the amendments eroded public transparency and accountability.

"This is another attempt to cover up the Government's appalling integrity record and silence whistleblowers," Mr Janetzki said.

Michelle Rae, from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, said the proposed changes were designed to reduce accountability.

"It's a process of what feels like battening down the hatches in a pre-election period," Ms Rae said.

Go here to see the original:

Queensland Government withdraws bill banning reporting of corruption allegations during elections - ABC News

Queensland has become the first state in Australia to ban conversion therapy practices by healthcare practitioners that seek to change or suppress a persons sexual orientation or gender identity.

The conversion therapy ban was part of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill that passed through the Queensland state parliament on Thursday.

Registered health practitioners, including doctors, nurses and psychologists, and unregistered health practitioners such as counsellors, naturopaths, and social workers, can now face up to 12 months in prison for attempting to use conversion therapy practices on an individual. Or 18 months if that person is a minor.

The bill was passed in the Queensland parliament by 47 votes to 41, with the Liberal National Party voting against the provisions banning conversion therapy practices. Shadow Health Minister Ros Bates said it would turn doctors into criminals.

Queensland Health Minister Steven Miles, who introduced the bill to parliament, said being LGBTIQ is not affliction or disease that requires medical treatment.

No treatment or practice can change a persons sexual attraction or experience of gender, he said.

Survivors of conversion therapy report experiencing deep feelings of shame, alienation and hopelessness. [These] often result in symptoms of depression, anxiety and thoughts of suicide.

Expert bodies around the world strongly oppose the use of conversion therapy. Its time to send a clear message that its unacceptable.

An ideology that treats LGBTIQ people as broken or damaged has no place in our community.

Conversion therapy practices are not evidence based and have been discredited by the medical community. The Australian Psychological Association, Australian Medical Association and World Health Organisation formally oppose conversion therapy and acknowledge that it is harmful and unethical.

TheInternational Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims considers conversion therapy to be torture and that it causes severe physical and psychological suffering to its victims.

While the conversion therapy ban in formal healthcare settings is a start, survivor groups are concerned the bill does not go far enough because it doesnt cover conversion practices in religious or other settings.

From the perspective and the survivors we are really really concerned because the bill only covers conversion practices in health services, Chris Csabs of SOGICE Survivors toldStar Observer.

The concern is that a vast majority of survivors have gone through conversion practices in a religious or informal setting, Csabs said.

In other parts of Australia, the ACT has just introduced a bill to ban conversion therapy for minors, while the Victorian government has committed to prohibiting conversion therapy practices and has began public consultation.

Read the original post:

Queensland becomes first state to ban conversion therapy practices - Women's Agenda

The Queensland government has passed legislation banning health providers from using so-called conversion therapy on LGBTIQ Queenslanders.

Deputy Premier and Health Minister Steven Miles said the legislation, passed on Thursday afternoon, was the first of its kind in Australia targeting the harmful, deceptive and unethical practices.

No treatment or practice can change a persons sexual attraction or experience of gender, Steven Miles said.

Survivors of conversion therapy report experiencing deep feelings of shame, alienation and hopelessness. [These] often result in symptoms of depression, anxiety and thoughts of suicide.

Expert bodies around the world strongly oppose the use of conversion therapy. Its time to send a clear message that its unacceptable.

An ideology that treats LGBTIQ people as broken or damaged has no place in our community.

The laws ban health service providers from attempting to change or suppress a persons sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill doesnt ban practices related to supporting a person who is undergoing or considering a gender transition.

Providers found using the harmful conversion methods would face penalties of up to 18 months in prison.

The states LNP Opposition voted down the clauses in the legislation banning conversion therapy. Shadow Health Minister Ros Bates said the laws would turn doctors into criminals.

She said health bodies had earlier criticised the draft bill for a lack of clarity around what practices would be banned in relation to gender dysphoria.

Steven Miles told parliament new amendments to the bill removed any doubt about whether evidence-based and other clinically appropriate practices were inadvertently banned.

The laws outlaw techniques or interventions based on the premise that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex is a defect or disorder, he said.

Examples of conversion therapy practices may include using shame or coercion to create aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviours, he said.

Greens MP Michael Berkman supported the Bill, but echoed conversion therapy survivors concerns it doesnt go far enough.

The bill focuses solely on health practitioners, failing to address the fact the bulk of conversion therapy is most likely occurring in informal and religious settings, Berkman said.

The ban on this type of therapy should be extended to religious institutions. Funding for specialised support for survivors should also be prioritised.

Earlier on Thursday, the ACT government introduced its own legislation to ban conversion therapy against minors.

Under the proposed laws, people would face fines of up to $24,000 and 12 months jail for performing a sexuality or gender identity conversion therapy on a child or vulnerable person.

ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr said the legislation would protect young people from coordinated and unregulated programs seeking to change their gender identity or sexuality.

The ACT government wants to send a clear message that [conversion practices] are not tolerated in our society, Barr said.

If you need someone to talk to, help is available from QLife on 1800 184 527 or online at QLife.org.au, Lifeline on 13 11 14, Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or beyondblue on 1300 22 4636.

For the latest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) news in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

Read this article:

Queensland government passes ban on 'conversion therapy' - QNews

If you had told me at the start of this year I would be spending part of my day deciding which Zoom virtual background really speaks to how Im feeling, I certainly wouldnt have believed you.

These are strange times were living in. Call them unprecedented, call them challenging, but its for sure different than any disruption most of us today have seen in our lifetimes.

Watching Covid-19 reshape how business is done is quite incredible. Businesses have always wanted to move fast, but now to survive--they need to. Covid-19 has made any hope of waiting till next week to address a critical issue a thing of the past. It can mean the difference between a thriving business or shutting your doors for good.

Enter Shadow IT.

Shadow IT isnt a new phenomenon. But the disruption resulting from Covid-19 can cause it to surface within organizations in a big waythe default to action, the need to solve problems faster than ever before, means employees are often looking for their own solutions rather than following a path that may seem a bit more time-consuming. Further, with tens of millions of employees working from home, theres a rightful fear of risk from employees leveraging unsanctioned file-sharing services, video conferencing tools and more, exposing business-critical data to cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

So its no surprise that when faced with the options of (A) waiting for a resource-strapped IT team to carve out time to address one of many challenges faced by the business or (B) using a corporate credit card to pay for a cloud-based solution and not tell them about it, many will pick the latter. Its easy to see whyon the surface, it seems like not only the path of least resistance, but even the right thing to do in todays environment.

The challenges Shadow IT presents are well documented. Its an absolute security disaster waiting to happen (think of all that customer data that could potentially be linked to some SaaS application your IT team is unaware of) and on a practical level, you cant maintain software that isnt managed by the organization.

So naturally, IT organizations tend to limit the ability of individual employees to install their own software or connect certain devices. Which makes sense in theoryhaving complete governance over your technology certainly mitigates any security risks.

But the realities of time and resources work against well-meaning IT teams. Limited bandwidth and a shortage of developers to hire to fill any gaps, means timelines get extended and projects postponed. IT professionals rightfully focus on the most pressing and most impactful initiatives. And on the other side, you have business stakeholders that are trying to move forward, looking for ways to self-serve and find answers to their day-to-day challenges.

Turns out not all Shadow IT is created equally. In fact, some of what has been called Shadow IT in the past is really innovation at the edges of a businessthose dealing with the problems are developing relevant solutions. Its reasonable to think that those doing the work, living the processes, facing the challenges they present, are the ones best suited to figuring out what the solution should be. Shutting this type of thinking down completely can lead to the proverbial baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

We also have a growing digitally native workforceaccording to the most recent available data from Pew Research, more than 40 percent of the workforce are Millennials or Generation Z, more confident with technology and more demanding of solutions that meet their needs exactly, leading to more employees seeking tech solutions.

Instead of completely banning development at the edges of the business, I recommend a slightly different approach: Why not embrace the idea of managed Shadow IT?

As written, it may sound like an oxymoron (you know, like jumbo shrimp). After all, isnt the whole premise behind Shadow IT that it is done in secret, in the shadows, outside of the view of the governing eye of an IT team?

Thats where the managed piece comes inyou empower your people to perfect their own processes and address their challenges while maintaining oversight and clear guardrails in a controlled environment.

Striking that balance of continuous innovation at the edges of a business with strong security and governancethat supposed oxymoroncan be made possible using low-code platforms. The premise is simple: Anyone in an organization is empowered to build and maintain business applications at the speed they need, all within an environment that IT can effectively monitor and govern.

Today, low-code software applications are penetrating more businesses than ever. In fact, analyst firm Gartner projects that low-code will account for more than 65 percent of application development activity by 2024 as companies continue to experience a tech talent shortage.

Its also important to recognize the power of low-code in helping companies stay the digital transformation course under the purview of a robust enterprise-scale platform. A recent study revealed that 71 percent of security professionals reported an increase in security threats or attacks since the start of Covid-19, compounded by the move to full remote work. For IT departments looking to introduce secure tools to encourage collaboration, low-code is an obvious choice.

This is a classic carrot or the stick conundrum. Rather than playing whack-a-mole with every tech tool that pops up, IT should incentivize employees to use a centralized, managed platform to solve their problems cutting down on contraband tools. This way, IT still has a seat at the table, keeping data secure and empowering employees to accelerate innovation.

With the right platform, companies can remove the boundaries between IT and others in the business, empowering employees to become citizen developers, driving innovation and helping businesses react to market needs in real-time.

The main problems with Shadow ITcommunication gaps, lack of security, etc.fall away when you empower employees to solve their own problems using well-governed and secure low-code platforms.

So stop running away from Shadow IT and instead try to manage it. Rethinking Shadow ITs role and embracing the opportunity for innovation across the business, can quickly turn it from your worst nightmare to your competitive advantage.

Jay Jamison, Chief Product & Technology Officer, Quick Base

Here is the original post:

[Managed] Shadow IT: The oxymoron you never knew about - ITProPortal

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (REUTERS) - President Donald Trump's executive order banning China's TikTok could prevent US app stores from offering the popular short-video app and make advertising on the platform illegal, according to a White House document seen by Reuters.

Mr Trump signed an order last week prohibiting transactions with TikTok if its parent ByteDance does not reach a deal to divest it in 45 days. It did not specify the scope of the ban, stating only that the US Department of Commerce would define which transactions would be barred at the end of the 45-day period.

The White House document, sent out to supporters last week, provides insight into the Trump administration's thinking. It shows the US government is considering disrupting key aspects of TikTok's operations and funding, amid concerns over the safety of personal data that the app handles.

"Prohibited transactions may include, for example, agreements to make the TikTok app available on app stores ... purchasing advertising on TikTok, and accepting terms of service to download the TikTok app onto a user device," the document states.

A source familiar with the White House document verified its authenticity. TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some technology industry experts said eliminating TikTok's ability to be offered on Apple Inc and Google owner Alphabet Inc's app stores, which in turn allow it to be downloaded on iPhone and Android smartphones, could cripple the app's growth.

"That kills TikTok in the US," said Dr James Lewis, a cyber security expert with the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "If they want to grow, these rules are a huge obstacle."

He added, though, that the US government may not be able to prevent Americans from downloading TikTok from foreign websites.

Apple and Alphabet did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Following Mr Trump's executive order last week, TikTok told advertisers it would continue to honour planned ad campaigns, refund any that it cannot fulfil, and work with major influencers to migrate to other platforms in the event of a ban.

Some advertisers told Reuters they were drafting contingency plans and considering other apps for their marketing.

It is not clear whether Mr Trump's order will be implemented.

Microsoft Corp has been leading negotiations to acquire the North America, Australia and New Zealand operations of TikTok under the supervision of the Trump administration. A successful deal would make banning transactions with TikTok moot.

The White House document seen by Reuters is not clear on whether the US would implement a similar crackdown on WeChat, the social media app owned by China's Tencent Holdings Ltd that Mr Trump also sought to ban in an executive order on last week.

TikTok, which has said is exploring legal challenges to Mr Trump's order, has 100 million active users in the US, and is especially popular with teenagers. It has said US user data is safely stored in the US and Singapore, and that it would not hand over such information to the Chinese government.

View post:

US ban on TikTok could cut it off from app stores, advertisers: White House document - The Straits Times

Our nation has always defended free speech and the right to express different viewpoints. Until recently, it was fair to assume U.S. internet companies were committed to those same rights. But in the last few years, reports have uncovered a disturbing trend of online platforms censoring conservative speech.

In 2018, for example, Twitter was exposed for shadow banning prominent conservatives on the platform, meaning their profiles were made difficult for users to find. Some of the more well-known figures who were shadow-banned include Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, former Congressman and current White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Donald Trump Jr.

And just days ago, Facebook and Twitter removed posts from President Trumps accounts, while incendiary statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin and Irans Ayatollah remain.

Google has also done its share to frustrate conservatives.

Recently, Google threatened to block the conservative news site The Federalist from receiving ad revenue because they had not removed certain offensive content in their comment section. The comments may indeed have been derogatory and unacceptable, but it is telling that Google singled out a conservative website for special scrutiny. Google has not applied that same standard to other platforms with comment sections including YouTube, which Google happens to own.

Americans recognize tech bias

Googles selective hostility towardThe Federalistrevealed what most Americans already believe: that tech companies are politically biased. According to a 2018 Pew study, seven out of 10 Americans believe social media platforms censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable.

These concerns are all the more weighty given the immense power that these corporations wield in our society. More and more of our daily business is taking place online, and our dependence upon internet firms is only accelerating with the pandemic.

As we near the 2020 election, Americans have real concerns about whether online platforms will treat campaigns on both sides of the aisle fairly and equally. And these concerns are justified. Americans are right to be worried about interference by powerful tech firms that are increasingly out of touch with mainstream political views.

Reforms to protect a diversity of views

Tech companies are able to censor a wide range of content thanks to provisions in the Communications Decency Act. Passed in 1996, this law protects interactive computer services, like Facebook, from being sued for content posted by their users. It also allows these companies to censor content they consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.

I am concerned that platforms have abused the term otherwise objectionable and have used it to suppress content that they simply disagree with or find distasteful. When Congress passed the law in 1996, the intent was to protect companies when they censor obscene or indecent material not political views they do not like. If the abuses continue, this law risks negating the values at the heart of our First Amendment.

Given recent cases of censorship, Congress should revisit the Communications Decency Act and make it clear that companies cannot enjoy special immunity from lawsuits if they censor political speech. Recently the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet convened a hearing to consider this issue.

As chairman of the full Commerce Committee, I intend to pursue this matter thoroughly and evaluate what changes are needed to the law.

Congress needs to ensure the internet remains a free and open forum where diverse political views can be expressed. Doing so can help preserve our great tradition of free speech in the digital age.

See the original post:

Wicker: Time to address online censorship - The Vicksburg Post - Vicksburg Post

We Finally Know the Name of Meghan Markle and Prince Harrys Dog

Naturally, it has a special meaning.

After stepping back from their roles as working royals earlier this year, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, as well as Prince Andrew, have had their social media accounts removed from the official royal family website.

People pointed out that Meghan MarkleandPrince Harry's@SussexRoyal Instagrampage andPrince Andrew'sTwitterandInstagram pages were removed from royal.uk earlier this month.

Meghan and Harry's account, of course, was shut down after they announced they would no longer be senior members of the royal family, and would be splitting their time between North America and the U.K.

"While you may not see us here, the work continues," they wrote in their last post. "Thank you to this community for the support, the inspiration and the shared commitment to the good in the world. We look forward to reconnecting with you soon. Youve been great!"

Prince Andrew, on the other hand, announced he would be stepping back from public duties amid the scandal over his close ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Story continues

It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my familys work and the valuable work going on in the many organizations and charities that I am proud to support," he said in a statement last November. "Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission."

He was later dropped from his patronages, though he has since returned to the spotlight for private functions.

RELATED: Prince Harry Wants to Completely "Redesign" Social Media

As People pointed out, Meghan, Harry,andPrince Andrew all still have bio pages on the royal family's website highlighting their key causes.

See the article here:

Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, and Prince Andrew's Social Media Accounts Were Removed From the Royals' Website - Yahoo Lifestyle

PETALING JAYA (THE STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - A Malaysian is reportedly involved in organ trafficking by luring poverty-stricken victims from around the world to sell their organs, according to a UK newspaper.

The Sun reported that the man had boasted to the UK paper that he had masterminded 45 illicit kidney sales.

The report claimed he began using a Facebook group two years ago to buy and sell kidneys, sourcing potential organ donors from the poor.

"They're all serious. Nobody wants to sell their kidney if there is no financial problem," he allegedly told The Sun in Kuching, Sarawak.

The Sun claimed that the man had boasted to them that he had more than 100 potential kidney sellers and his fees include bribes for a clinic in Manila, the Philippines, to perform the operation.

The 48-year-old father of four, who has no medical experience, was met by The Sun's undercover reporters in Sarawak in which they had pretended to be kidney buyers for a relative in Britain who needed a transplant.

The report said the man initially charged a fee of 55,000 (S$98,500) for supplying the kidney and an additional 65,000 for payment to the clinic but eventually dropped the total fee to 85,000.

The Sun claimed the entire fee is paid directly to the Malaysian.

According to the report, the man said that the rules banning transplant operations between donors and recipients who are not friends or related by blood are sorted out with bribes and forged papers.

"In Manila, cash is king. Money talks," he was quoted as saying.

According to The Sun, the Malaysian was allegedly involved in the illegal trade since 2010.

His operation was then centred in China and he hadasked patients to leave China within two weeks to "dispose of the evidence" even though they were still not completely healed.

However, the report said the man stopped his China operations in 2016 when he heard that kidneys were taken from mostly the Uighur communities who were held in concentration camps.

He then reportedly moved his operations to the Philippines.

He also told The Sun that he was well aware of the risks of this illegal trade.

"I'm doing a risky job dealing with the kidney buyer and seller. When you get caught, it's years in jail," he reportedly said.

Read more:

Malaysian allegedly involved in organ trafficking, says UK paper - The Straits Times

18/10/2018Author: Prominence Global | Business, content marketing, Instagram, LinkedIn, LinkedIn, Marketing, Social Media

If youve noticed your engagement decreasing all of a sudden and your followers are dropping like flies, Im sorry to report, maybe you have become a victim of the dreaded social media shadow ban.

The shadow ban is now taking place across the big social media platforms including LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

And if its happened to you, you will know. You will see it and feel it in the content you are putting out therebasically because it will be like crickets.

Nothing.

So have you been shadow banned? Or do you feel like you might be a victim? Let me explain what it is, who it happens to and why.

Its a massive phenomenon at the moment and many people I know and are talking to have been hit by the shadow ban on one platform or another.

Heres whatWikipediahas to say about it:Shadow banning (also called stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting) is the act of blocking a user or their content from an online community such that the user does not realise that they have been banned.

Now we all know how important social media is to our businesses in this day and age. So a shadow ban could be detrimental to your profile and online presence, not to mention the connection, engagement and possible sales we might miss out on because of one.

The bad thing with shadow banning is that you might not even know it has happened to you and you could even believe youve been a good social media poster, abiding by all the rules and simply trying to grow your following.

Thats why its called shadow banning because it done in secret.

This could be completely true, however, you might accidentally be doing some things that warrant the social media platforms shadow ban.

Ok, so lets talk about what a shadow ban is exactly.

What is a shadow ban on social media?

Shadow banning is a mannerin which social media platform stop spam from happening, which is perfectly fine.

Its used to stop spammers, keep feeds clean and their customers happy.

The different platform will have different ideals and elements of whats included as part of a shadow ban but generally its a softer approach to giving you a warning that youre not playing by their rules, rather than just banning you completely.

Facebook has been open with their bans in that past if you have been spammy by messaging too many people or liking too many accounts too quickly.

Sadly, you probably wont know youve been shadow banned, especially if you dont know what it is and are only researching it for the first time now.

You will keep going about your business and posting and its not until you notice your reach has gone down, your likes, comments and shares are also down and youre not getting new followers that youll think what the heck is going on here?!.

Mostly you will find the shadow ban is temporary and not for very long, but some social media sites like Reddit will ban you for good.

Basically in a nutshell, you will become invisible to new prospects and followers, especially in the hashtag feeds. You will still be seen by your current followers, which is why you will still get some engagement.

Who does it happen to?

Anyone! It can happen to you if you are being naughty or nice on social media, meaning if you are playing by the rules if can happen to legit accounts and if you are abusing the platform if can happening to you as well.

Its important to note here that its not a deliberate attempt by the social media platform to stop your posts from being seen and found, its not personal. It is a project they are all working on to make sure they provide the best experience for their users and people looking at your content.

So please dont take it personally. It can be an easy mistake and thats why its important for me to share this information with you.

Are you wondering if its happened to you?

Check your engagement levels, if they are down and you havent been getting as many likes, comments, shares and new followers, theres a good chance its happened.

So theres a very easy test you can do to find out if you have been shadow banned. Ask a few people who dont follow you to see if they can find your account and if they can see your post in the hashtag feed.

What you might have done to get shadow banned. Here are some simple answers.

There are plenty of things you might have done without realising that it was a bad move and now you are shadow banned.

How to make sure it doesnt happen to you

If you are being sensible and doing all the right things, a shadow ban wont affect you and it doesnt have to mean the end of your profile and presence. If you have been shadow banned, now you know what not to do!

The number one rule is to always share good content responsibly.

Another area most people dont look at is the terms and conditions of the social media platforms. It would be a good idea to run your eye over these to see what you are allowed to do. Lets take a look at the things you can do on social media to avoid being shadow banned.

First and foremost, play by the rules.

If you do get shadow banned there are few things you can do.

If you are unsure of the shadow ban and dont want it to happen to you, please reach out. If you particularly want to know if its happened on LinkedIn, I have a live training where I will be going over this and the changes to LinkedIn in more detail on Nov 27th, 2018, from 7pm AEST. Heres your link to join us.<>

There are other ways we can help you too. Here are 4 ways we can help you accelerate your lead generation results:

Its the road map to positioning your profile in the top 5% of the 550 million LinkedIn users currently active Click Here

Its our Facebook community where smart entrepreneurs learn to get more leads and smart ways to scale using LinkedIn Click Here

Every 8 weeks we have a new intake into our 12 week Influencer program Click Here for more details

If youd like to work directly with us to create new marketing opportunities send us a quick message Click here tell us a little about your business and well organise a time for a deeper chat

Read the original post:

How to ensure your content is not being shadow banned on ...