China Global Television Network (CGTN) has rehired a former Ofcom board member amid ongoing pressure on the regulator to revoke the state-owned broadcasters UK licence.

Over the past few months, the broadcaster has been found guilty on multiple occasions of breaching impartiality rules and airing forced confessions, and has been forced to register as a foreign agent.

Now in an effort to protect itself from further scrutiny, it has appointed Ofcoms former content board chairman Nick Pollard in an as-yet unnamed role.

Pollard was previously poached by CGTN from Sky News, where he ran the network for a decade, and was charged with heading up the broadcasters newly-opened London office. The exec was hired by CGTN one month after Ofcom opened an investigation over its broadcasting of forced confessions, and would only stay with CGTN for less than a year. His initial resignation was based on concerns over its failure to comply with UK rules on impartiality in regards to its coverage of the Hong Kong protests.

Evidently CGTN has done enough ethically or economically to convince Pollard to rejoin. Neither party commented on the appointment, but the FT reports that he has been advising the broadcaster since May.

The UK has been viewed as key to CGTNs worldwide expansion plans, with London being chosen for its third main office alongside those in Washington and Nairobi. To date, it has hired about 100 journalists to work in London.

While it looks to pick up where it left off with Pollard, CGTN is facing mounting scrutiny from Ofcom, with possible sanctions expected before the end of the year.

The regulator is considering punishments ranging from fines to the withdrawal of its broadcast licence the latter being endorsed by free speech advocates and politicians.

Peter Dahlin, director of human rights group Safeguard Defenders which has submitted a complaint to the regulator said: The best way forward is to revoke their licence to teach them that this is unacceptable. And then of course they can, according to the rules, reapply for a licence after that and restart the process.

UK shadow culture secretary Jo Stevens said: The findings against CGTN are damning and Ofcom have already said they will take action which could go as far as banning the channel from the UK airwaves. Ofcom has an ongoing duty to make sure those that hold a licence to broadcast in this country are fit and proper.

All too often TV channels run by foreign states, such as Russia Today and the Iranian Press TV, which was banned in 2012, have found themselves unable to abide by the broadcasting code. CGTN and other state-backed broadcasters have a history of flagrantly breaching the Ofcom code. While the regulator can and does impose financial penalties, these are less of a deterrent than for other TV channels. There needs to be a review of whether the current sanction regime is sufficient.

Go here to see the original:

CGTN rehires former Ofcom and Sky News head as pressure mounts - Digital TV Europe

It looks like the person behind the massive Twitter hack that happened two weeks ago may have been caught as a Florida teenager has been arrested for the exploit on 30 counts of felony. 17-year-old Graham Clark has been taken into custody in Tampa, Florida.

The huge Twitter hack saw major accounts like Apple, Elon Musk, Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and more compromised and used to spread a bitcoin scam. Notably, it went on for hours as Twitter scrambled to find a way to stop the exploit. Eventually, the platform blocked verified accounts from tweeting.

Today, reported by local News Channel 8 in Tampa, 17-year-old Graham Clark has been accused of the serious hack and arrested with a total of 30 felony charges. Those include organized fraud, communications fraud, fraudulent use of personal information, and more.

Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren filed 30 felony charges against the teen this week for scamming people across America in connection with the Twitter hack that happened on July 15. The charges hes facing include one count of organized fraud, 17 counts of communications fraud, one count of fraudulent use of personal information with over $100,000 or 30 or more victims, 10 counts of fraudulent use of personal information and one count of access to computer or electronic device without authority.

California and Florida along with the FBI, IRS, as well as Secret Service worked to investigate the crimes before making the arrest today.

I want to congratulate our federal law enforcement partners the US Attorneys Office for the Northern District of California, the FBI, the IRS, and the Secret Service as well as the Florida Department of Law enforcement. They worked quickly to investigate and identify the perpetrator of a sophisticated and extensive fraud, State Attorney Warren said in his statement.

Two others have also been charged in the crimes including a 19-year-old from the UK and a 22-year-old from Florida.

According to the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Northern District of California, Clark is one of three people charged for their alleged roles in the Twitter hack. The two other suspects were identified as 22-year-old Nima Fazeli, a.k.a. Rolex, of Orlando and 19-year-old Mason Sheppard, a.k.a. Chaewon, of the United Kingdom.

Twitter also shared an update on its blog about the hack that used an elaborate social engineering approach worked. 130 accounts were attacked with 45 being tweeted from during the exploit and DMs of 36 compromised accounts were accessed.

The social engineering that occurred on July 15, 2020, targeted a small number of employees through a phone spear phishing attack. A successful attack required the attackers to obtain access to both our internal network as well as specific employee credentials that granted them access to our internal support tools. Not all of the employees that were initially targeted had permissions to use account management tools, but the attackers used their credentials to access our internal systems and gain information about our processes. This knowledge then enabled them to target additional employees who did have access to our account support tools. Using the credentials of employees with access to these tools, the attackers targeted 130 Twitter accounts, ultimately Tweeting from 45, accessing the DM inbox of 36, and downloading the Twitter Data of 7.

Twitter also detailed how its changed its policies since the attack to better protect users:

Since the attack, weve significantly limited access to our internal tools and systems to ensure ongoing account security while we complete our investigation. As a result, some features (namely, accessing theYour Twitter Datadownload feature) and processes have been impacted. We will be slower to respond to account support needs, reported Tweets, and applications to our developer platform. Were sorry for any delays this causes, but we believe its a necessary precaution as we make durable changes to our processes and tooling as a result of this incident. We will gradually resume our normal response times when were confident its safe to do so. Thank you for your patience as we work through this.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:

Read more:

Mastermind Florida teen behind Twitter hack arrested and facing 30 felony charges - 9to5Mac

In what seems like an instant, Black Lives has become the central issue of our time.

Consider: On May 25, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis. On June 1, demonstrators were cleared from Lafayette Square ahead of Donald Trumps photo-op in front of St. Johns Church, prompting nationwide protests. And on June 10, the statue of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, was toppled from its base in Richmond, Va.

The following day, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a remarkable statement. He apologized for his role in Trumps Lafayette Square visit, and also supported removing the names of Confederate generals from military bases.

Milley called the Civil War an act of treason, and said soldiers of color 43% of todays military must wonder about training on bases named for men who fought for an institution of slavery that may have enslaved one of their ancestors.

Most of Richmonds Confederate monuments have now been removed, in response to the same question: Although it was the Confederate capital, why 155 years after the end of the rebellion are its symbols those of a cause that, as Gen. Ulysses S. Grant wrote, was one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.

Not until a century after this lost cause was invented were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 enacted, putting an end to legalized segregation. But equality of the mind broad acceptance that all citizens should have equal authority and autonomy has seemed as distant as ever, and even receding.

Now, amid a pandemic thats upended societies worldwide in a manner not seen since the Great Depression, we may have reached a point of clarity, where the founding vision of true equality is no longer a mirage.

Young people are leading the way. They are more tolerant, more accepting, and less offended by distinctions of race or gender than any previous generation.

Theres no reason to expect Confederates ever to be put back on their perches, or to be displayed except in museums, where they belong: We shouldnt seek to destroy the past, but learn from it.

Yet the liberation of rethinking often extends well beyond the original object. One thats now roiling institutions across the country has come to Maine which has no Confederate statutes, though before statehood it did have slaves.

The problem is eugenics, the early 20th century movement that advocated selective breeding to, in essence, create better human beings. At the time, it didnt seem remarkable to many people.

Humans have been breeding plants, horses, dogs, and cats for centuries, without many qualms. And anyone who believes that humans do not self select when choosing partners hasnt been consuming romance novels or royal family sitcoms, let alone historical tomes.

Eugenics has, of course, a dark underside. Although advocates were among leading progressives of their day British socialists and American urban reformers the movement became identified with notorious anti-immigrant legislation passed by Congress in the 1920s. It seemed to target the disabled and poor, and its nadir was undoubtedly the Supreme Court decision from Oliver Wendell Holmes counted among our greatest judges in which he pronounced, upholding forced sterilization, that three generations of imbeciles are enough.

The eugenics movement was destroyed by Adolf Hitler, whose ravings about a master race led to World War II as surely as the slave power produced the American Civil War. Yet blaming eugenics for Hitler makes as much sense as blaming Richard Wagners operas; well never listen to Wagner the same way, but no one is currently banning his music.

Eugenicists are being banned. The name of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, is being removed from its Manhattan Health Center.

And last week, the Jackson Laboratory said it was deleting the name of its founder, C.C. Little, from its Bar Harbor conference room, saying eugenics cast a long shadow over his achievements.

Little earlier president of the University of Maine might have appreciated the irony. Jacksons considerable success as Maines leading high-tech employer stems from Littles insights into selective breeding of mice, still at the core of its world-class research capabilities.

Without Margaret Sanger, there would have been no Planned Parenthood. Without C.C. Little, there might not have been a Jackson Lab. Should we remove their names from the institutions they founded?

Historical questions are often vexed. In this case, though, we might venture a distinction.

The Confederacys legacy is, or should be, its absolute rejection. The Sanger and Little legacies are a little more complicated.

Douglas Rooks, a Maine editor, reporter, opinion writer and author for 35 years, has published books about George Mitchell, and the Maine Democratic Party. He welcomes comment at [emailprotected]

View original post here:

The Maine Idea: If Lives Matter, Then Names Matter, Too - Press Herald

When the CEOs of Big Tech testify in Congress on Wednesday, theyll almost certainly be hit with a dubious and regular Republican talking point: censorship of conservative voices on social media.

President Donald Trump and other politicians and pundits on the right love to complain that social media companies censor conservatives. There is no evidence that's true. In fact, conservative news thrives on Facebook. Of Trumps thousands of lies, Twitter had the audacity to lightly fact-check him three times.

During the hearing before the House Antitrust Subcommittee, Apples Tim Cook, Amazons Jeff Bezos, Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, and Googles Sundar Pichai will try to convince lawmakers their corporate behemoths arent monopolies. These companies absolutely need to be interrogated about their unprecedented wealth and power. But, thanks partly to the flow of dark money, Republicans have hijacked the conversation to push the narrative that they are the real victims in all of this.

Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We cant let a more sophisticated version of that....

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020

Mashable spoke to experts about the history, facts, and potential consequences of the GOP's "bias" claims. Heres what you need to know.

From 2016 to the present, Republicans have seized on anecdotes to claim Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google intentionally moderate content in a way that unfairly impacts conservatives. They have claimed that these companies remove or down-rank (or shadow ban) conservative content and profiles because "elite Silicon Valley" companies are supposedly liberal. GOP senators even had a hearing dedicated to the issue, and Sen. Josh Hawley has introduced legislation that would require companies to prove they are politically neutral.

"[T]he only people who have been in a position to call bullshit on this, the tech companies, are too terrified to say no..."

Tech companies aren't good at defending against these arguments at least without trying to appease right-wingers in the process. They dont want to piss off the people in charge of regulating and taxing them, and would prefer to avoid alienating high-profile users like Trump, and his followers, who drive engagement (and profits). When presented with cases of bias, in some cases, the companies backtracked even when the content did violate some company policies. Giving in just reinforced the idea that bias existed in the first place.

Every one of these things reinforces the next, and at every step of the way, the only people who have been in a position to call bullshit on this, the tech companies, are too terrified to say no, so the story just keeps growing, Berin Szka, the president of the non-profit, non-partisan technology think tank TechFreedom, said.

Proving bias is more complicated than pointing to several instances of someones post or profile being removed, and concluding theres something larger at work. The problem is its difficult to prove a negative.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of FactCheck.org, explained that to truly assess bias, you have to establish a data set (i.e., pieces of content), find comparable content on the left and the right, and then see if they were treated the same. This has to be done multiple times. Jamieson and other scholars have successfully conducted these analyses on print media and cable news, and found there is generally bias on both sides, although not one overwhelming "liberal media" bias.

Doing the same for social media, however, is a different story. There is simply too much data. And these social networks aren't necessarily open to outside researchers poking under the hood. There are privacy concerns, and it could jeopardize company secrets.

From a methodological standpoint, its virtually impossible to do, Jamieson said. You'll never capture the full base of the content in order to start your analysis.

Because of those challenges, Jamieson explained that people claiming bias then move to argument by anecdote," like when Ted Cruz complained about conservative bloggers Diamond & Silk being temporarily banned by Facebook. It made headlines, but one case does not prove that something systemic is at work.

BREAKING: @Twitter & @jack have suspended @DonaldJTrumpJr for posting a viral video of medical doctors talking about Hydroxychloroquine.

Big Tech is the biggest threat to free expression in America today & they're continuing to engage in open election interference - full stop. pic.twitter.com/7dJbauq43O

Andrew Surabian (@Surabees) July 28, 2020

In the absence of actual data, some conservatives have tried to create the appearance of empirical evidence. Politicians point to a 2016 Gizmodo story that showed how Facebook used human moderators not automated systems, as it claimed to populate its trending news tab as evidence of anti-conservative bias (helped by the articles inflammatory headline).

Then last year, the Trump campaign solicited complaints of social media censorship, but that was basically just a way to get voter emails and donations. A Columbia research fellow did his own analysis on high-profile figures banned by Twitter, and found they were mostly Trump supporters. Many of them David Duke and Richard Spencer, just to name two also happened to be white supremacists spreading hate speech.

That's related to another issue: people on the right may in fact experience more content moderation than people on the left because right-leaning ideologies and content overlap with behavior thats not allowed on social networks. For example, Twitter started expanding and enforcing its policies against hate speech, and, surprise, surprise, they applied to Trump's dog-whistle politics. Since Russian trolls successfully manipulated the 2016 election with inflammatory rhetoric and fake news alike, Facebook has been working to de-emphasize conspiracy theories and incendiary content from disreputable sources, which most often comes from right-wing sites like Gateway Pundit.

These people are not entirely wrong when they claim there might be some disparate effect when Facebook changes its algorithm to handle sites that use clickbaity headlines, or post conspiracy theories, or rely on bots to promote their content, Szka said.

Despite these instances of moderation, conservative content the more sensationalist the better actually thrives on social media networks, especially Facebook. Ben Shapiro and Breitbart consistently rank as top voices on Facebook.

Some conservatives have attempted to take internet companies to court. That hasnt worked out so well. In one lawsuit against Google, and another against Twitter and others, federal judges decided in both cases that tech companies arent violating First Amendment rights when they make content moderation decisions, because the First Amendment protects citizens from the government dictating the parameters of their speech, not private companies.

The term liberal media did not arise organically. Since the 1960s, conservative politicians have sought to discredit criticism from the press by calling them unfair or biased. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon accused the press of conducting a witch hunt (sound familiar?) as reporters pursued Watergate. Once Rush Limbaugh hit the airwaves in the 1980s, he argued that the press was not the actual arbiter of the truth he was. Fox News shifted its tone at the time to echo Limbaugh, and the rest is history.

So disgusting to watch Twitters so-called Trending, where sooo many trends are about me, and never a good one. They look for anything they can find, make it as bad as possible, and blow it up, trying to make it trend. Really ridiculous, illegal, and, of course, very unfair!

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2020

Conservatives, who normally would not seek to regulate or dictate the policies of a private company, found a new target in social media and internet companies, too.

"It's an old argument that is being revivified and applied to something that you would not ordinarily call news, Jamieson said. Ordinarily you would expect a conservative to say the platforms are privately owned companies, they can do whatever they want. It is a little odd to hear conservatives argue that a privately owned company should have constraints placed on it."

Some conservatives are ready to join the fight against internet companies because decades of animosity with the press have entrenched the idea of liberal bias as a problem. Making these accusations also plays well with conservative voters, as does taking CEOs to task for bias in front of Congress.

It plays well when you run in an election, Ashkhen Kazaryan, TechFreedoms director of civil liberties, said. A crucial player in that ecosystem is Sen. Josh Hawley. When he ran for senator, one of his big things was that he 'took on Google.' He was one of the first who proved that its very successful messaging, especially when it comes to conservatives.

Experts say another reason conservatives engage in these arguments is to work the refs. That is, if they accuse the people in charge of moderating content of bias loudly enough, moderators might be disinclined to do so again in the future to avoid looking biased. Conservatives have a huge incentive to keep social media companies from moderating untrue or bigoted posts, since the narratives created by Trump allies such as Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson spread so effectively online and helped Trump and Republicans rise to power.

"Attacking somebody for being biased is effective if you can get them to change their behavior in a way that benefits you, Jamieson said. There's a tactical reason to attack the platforms for bias if you increase the likelihood that they're going to let you get away with things as a result because they're trying so hard not to be biased."

The strategy appears to be working.

Social media platforms have differed in their responses to claims of anti-conservative bias. Twitter has stood by its efforts to introduce conversational health measures, despite complaints about shadow banning, and has been more aggressively going after hate speech and conspiracy theories. It also appended fact-checking or warning labels to three of Trumps recent tweets.

Facebook, on the other hand, declined to act on the same Trump statements. The platform has largely bent over backwards to appease Republican complaints. In 2018, it hired a former Republican senator to do an audit of bias on the site. The report accused non-partisan, neutral fact checkers of liberal bias," and resulted in policy changes that allowed for more graphic anti-abortion ads

It has also appointed an organization affiliated with Tucker Carlsons ultra-right wing website the Daily Caller as a fact checking partner, despite the Daily Callers status as a routine peddler of misinformation. That appointment, and the audit, result in more than just lip service to conservatives: it undermines fact-checkers and the nature of truth and accountability itself.

"When the fact-checking group holds you accountable as a candidate, your voting constituency can say, 'Well I don't believe that, because I don't believe any fact checkers, they're all liberal,'" Jamieson said. So tactically what's the effect of being able to discredit fact-checkers? It minimizes your accountability.

There is a lot at stake for these social media companies. Trump took out his anger at Twitter by, well, tweeting. He also crafted an executive order that asked the Federal Communications Commission to rewrite a portion of the Communications Decency Act, Section 230, that shields social media companies from liability.

Twitter Pulls Trump Campaign Video of President Showing Empathy For Peaceful Protesters https://t.co/5DEIoPHsud They are fighting hard for the Radical Left Democrats. A one sided battle. Illegal. Section 230!

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2020

Section 230 is a cornerstone for the internet that actually protects freedom of speech, because it allows social media companies to host forums or other publishing tools for people without being liable for what users say. Amending Section 230 would not only change the internet, but could open the door for reinterpretations of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment and Section 230 protect free speech in our democracy as we know it, Kazaryan said. Messing with them based on knee-jerk reactions and feelings about how these companies conduct their business could be extremely damaging to democracy.

Jamiesons research has shown that bias, on both sides, is part of human nature. However, these bad faith arguments, made to work the refs, could have consequences that echo far beyond the internet.

Go here to see the original:

Big Tech CEOs will face 'anti-conservative bias' claims at hearing. They're BSand dangerous. - Mashable SE Asia

During this dreadful quarantine time, many people turned to popular micro-video blogging app TikTok for entertainment. From catchy dancy moves to bizarre hacks, the video-blogging app instantly captivated people's attention. So, when President Donald Trump declared that he would be banning the Chinese app, people began to not only critique the President's hasty and somewhat unreasonable decision but also look for alternatives.

TikTok is extremely popular among the Gen-Z demographic. They might be young but they are definitely very tech-savvy demographic. So, as soon as they heard the news of Trump banning TikTok, they began looking for a solution to circumvent the ban. Very soon they found that a Virtual Private Network (VPN) as the answer to their problem.

For those in the dark, a VPN is a private network across a public network and enables users to send and receive data across shared or public networks as if their computing devices were directly connected to the private network. Twitter was abuzz with youngsters discussing VPNs and other alternatives that they can use to still get access to their favorite social media platform and enjoy the catchy and creative content on it.

A user tweeted, "King Covid the 19th thought that TikTok and Gen Z were responsible for the pathetic turnout in Tampa today. Its as if he doesnt know what VPNs are (he probably doesnt). When is someone going to give him two cans and a string and tell him its a new version of Twitter? Tik-Tok."

King Covid the 19th thought that TikTok and Gen Z were responsible for the pathetic turnout in Tampa today. Its as if he doesnt know what VPNs are (he probably doesnt). When is someone going to give him two cans and a string and tell him its a new version of Twitter?Tik-Tok pic.twitter.com/DvLVlRPmFQ

Another user wrote, "Nord & Express VPN is about to make BANK off tik tok kids buying vpns to get around the US tik tok ban."

Nord & Express VPN is about to make BANK off tik tok kids buying vpns to get around the US tik tok ban

"Does the Orange Man know that VPNs exist? I can simply just buy a VPN to use it! People are being murdered every day and hes worried about a social media app because the majority of the users dont like him!" expressed an annoyed user. Another user commented, "Banning tiktok will do nothing except force people to get vpns and a bunch of people will fall for the 'free' vpns which are super shady when it comes to selling data and have a litany of other security problems itll literally just make sh*t worse ."

banning tiktok will do nothing except force people to get vpns and a bunch of people will fall for the free vpns which are super shady when it comes to selling data and have a litany of other security problems itll literally just make shit worse

"So lets ban TikTok (he cant) because the zoomers and kpop stans hurt the tangerine terrorists feelings. Do you want really want a revolt against you? Because this is how you get a revolt. #vpns #tiktokban #TrumpIsLosing," joked a fan.

"Figures tr*mp wants to ban TikTok right as my shadow ban appears to be lifted and all my likes and views are back. Luckily there are these things called VPNs that exist so he wont actually ever stop me from using that app," revealed a user.

News of this ban comes after Trump had expressed keenness to ban all Chinese apps owing to ongoing political tension between the two countries surrounding the worldwide pandemic. As of now, Microsoft had been in talks to acquire the US operations of the Chinese-owned app, but Trump's alleged decision to actually ban the app arrived much more recently.

Follow this link:

Welcome to VPN World, will Trump's TikTok ban in the US see a surge in proxy use? - MEAWW

Like I said, there have been more consequential clashes between the Big Tech czars and religious believers, but that one was symbolic.

The key is that faith is part of daily life, for millions of folks. These days, social media software has a massive impact on how people live their lives. Thus, Big Tech is a powerful force in the lives of believers and their families. Thats why Crossroads host Todd Wilken and I talked about this weeks Big Tech Congressional hearings, during this weeks podcast (click here to tune that in).

So what were these hearings all about? Apparently, the answer to that question depended on ones political ties. As I wrote the other day:

Democrats have their own reasons to be concerned about Big Tech, whose clout in the lives of modern Americans make the railroad tycoons of the Gilded Age look like minor-league players. These companies, after all, resemble digital public utilities more than mere Fortune 500 powerhouses.

Meanwhile, you know that at some point Republicans are going to roll out a long list of cases of viewpoint discrimination against cultural, moral, religious and oh yeah political conservatives.

So what happened, when the mainstream press covered the Hill showdown with the glowing digital images of Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, Googles Sundar Pichai, Apples Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos of Amazon and The Washington Post?

All four of those men have a major impact on what is news and what is not news. However, Bezos spending some pocket change, as the richest man in the world did buy the The Washington Post a few years ago.

So lets start with his newspapers coverage, which ran online with this headline: Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google grilled on Capitol Hill over their market power. Heres the overture:

The leaders of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google took a brutal political lashing as Democrats and Republicans confronted the executives for wielding their market power to crush competitors and amass data, customers and sky-high profits.

Therare interrogationplayed out over the course of a nearly six-hour hearing, with lawmakers on the Houses top antitrust subcommittee coming armed withmillions of documents, hundreds of hours of interviews and in some cases the once-private messages of Silicon Valleys elite chiefs. They said it showed some in the tech sector had become too big and powerful, threatening rivals, consumers and, in some cases, even democracy itself.

Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy, said Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.).

The key words there are market and economy.

The entire story focuses on the concerns that Democrats, and many Republicans, have about the impact that the Big Tech superpowers have on their alleged competitors in a free market.

What about their impact on Americas marketplace of ideas? Do the disciples of these men tend to tilt the scales when it comes to deciding who gets to speak, and who doesnt, on their platforms? Isnt that topic half of this story, if one looks at it from the point of view of people who USE these platforms?

Post readers had to go 581 words into this piece to find this digital crust of bread:

Republicans, meanwhile, largely used their time during the hearing to attack some tech companies forengaging in perceived political censorshipagainst conservatives, a charge that the industry vehemently denies.

We all think the free market is great. We think competition is great. We love the fact that these are American companies, said Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. But whats not great is censoring people, censoring conservators and trying to impact elections. And if it doesnt end, there has to be consequences.

Go here to read the rest:

New podcast: What did those Big Tech hearings have to do with religious life in America? - GetReligion

Women march in support of the Istanbul Convention on preventing violence against women, in Istanbul, July 19, 2020. The placard reads in Turkish: 6284 and the Istanbul Convention will be implemented. Omer Kuscu/AP

Why Global Citizens Should Care

Editors note: This story contains details of violence.

Protests across Turkey and a viral social media campaign in recent weeks have highlighted the rise of femicide the murder of a woman because of her gender and domestic violence in the country.

Pinar Gltekin, a 27-year-old Turkish woman, went missing and was found dead on July 21 in the city of Mugla. After Gltekin allegedly rejected her boyfriend Cemal Metin Avcis advances, he strangled her to death, burned her body in an oil barrel, and tried to hide it in the woods. The killing marked the 50th known murder of women in Turkey in 2020 alone and sparked outrage across the country. Womens rights advocates and allies are urging the Turkish government to take action to prevent these deaths.

According to a 2009 study, 42% of Turkish women between the ages of 15 and 60 had suffered some physical or sexual violence by their husbands or partners. In 2019, 474 women were murdered, mostly by partners and relatives.

Gender-based violence is only expected to surge in 2020. Domestic violence and femicide have spiked due to lockdown measures to help stop the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, Suad Abu-Dayyeh, Equality Now's Middle East and North Africa expert, told Global Citizen via email.

Protesters demanding justice for Gltekin and other murdered women were met with violent crackdowns by police and little commitment from the government to protect women. The demonstrators called on the government to uphold the Istanbul Convention, the first international binding agreement to prevent gender-based violence introduced in 2011, which few countries have enforced.

Women also turned to social media to raise awareness for the growing gender-based violence in Turkey. They relaunched the Challenge Accepted campaign using #kadnaiddetehayr and #istanbulszlemesiyaatr, which roughly translates to Say no to violence against women (kadna iddete hayr) and Enforce the Istanbul Convention (Istanbul szlemesi yaatr).

Related Stories July 8, 2020 Child Marriage Is on the Rise in Turkey as Syrian Refugees Struggle During COVID-19

Originally created in 2016, the campaign started out to increase cancer awareness and has had many iterations since. Turkish women drew from the concept and posted black-and-white photos of themselves online to signify they could be the next to appear in a newspaper as a femicide victim. Women around the world joined in to use the hashtag as a symbol of female empowerment around the world but received some criticism for drowning out Turkish womens voices. The campaign continues to bring more global attention to the issue of femicide in Turkey.

Global Citizen spoke with Nihan Damarli, a volunteer at the Turkey-based Foundation for Women's Solidarity via email about the recent protests, spikes in femicide, and the Challenge Accepted campaign. Read the full interview below.

Global Citizen: The murder of Pinar Gltekin sparked protests across Turkey, but the demonstrations were met with violent crackdowns by police. How did this represent the general treatment of women who stand up against gender-based violence in Turkey?

Damarli: The government in Turkey has increased oppressive and prohibitive policies, especially in the last few years, and wants to prevent opposition groups from coming together and especially being seen on the streets. They aim to silence dissident voices from every segment of society; thus, target the womens movement, being Turkeys most powerful rights-based movement.

Actions such as shutting down some womens organizations via statutory decrees, closing womens centers and shelters, banning of the International Womens Day marches in Istanbul, and tear-gassing protestors were only some of the indicators of this. In this incident, what we saw was that instead of stopping perpetrators and protecting women who have been subjected to violence, the police took action to stop women who are protesting femicides.

Overall, there is a lack of government collaboration with independent womens organizations in policy-making. Especially in the last few years, this lack of political will has turned into systematic steps against gender equality. Crashing the protests against Pnar Gltekins murder did not conflict with this general atmosphere.

Related Stories Nov. 22, 2016 CHIME FOR CHANGE Turkey Withdraws Controversial Child Rape Bill After Protests

Why is femicide on the rise in Turkey?

Unfortunately, each year, more women are murdered by their intimate partners or family members. We do not have the exact numbers since the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Family, Labour, and Social Services do not keep and/or share such statistics.

On the one hand, while women are becoming more and more conscious and want to take control of their own lives, laws to protect women and prevent violence are not effectively implemented. We see that many women who were murdered were killed when they took concrete steps to move away from violent men. In cases of violence, impunity encourages perpetrators.

The government does not show an integrated approach and a political will with regards to the implementation of policies for combating gender-based violence. Instead, political leaders almost legitimize gender-based discrimination and violence via their discriminative and sexist discourses. I believe that all these factors not only prevent the mentality transformation towards gender equality, but they also increase gender-based violence.

#Kadnaiddetehayr and #Istanbulszlemesiyaatr went viral, and quickly picked up steam with women around the world participating in the Challenge Accepted campaign. Some people argued that the connection to violence against women in Turkey was lost when the campaign grew in popularity. What do you think of this campaign as a way to draw attention to gender-based violence in Turkey?

Social media is a medium where content and agenda changes very fast. The campaign has spread very rapidly and even surpassed the borders of Turkey. I think sometimes it might be inevitable to lose some meaning while standing out among a lot of content on social media. There were also a lot of explanatory texts in circulation to remind the context of the campaign.

I think the focus of the campaign and the reason for sharing black-and-white photos are actually very striking and reflect the emotional state of women in Turkey directly. Due to the increasing violence, women now live with the fact that they may be exposed to gender-based violence, and moreover, that they can be killed. However, women no longer accept this fact as their unchangeable fate and try to raise their voices in every environment they can find in these oppressive times.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan posted on Twitter about Pinars murder but has done very little to implement the Istanbul Convention even though Turkey was the first to ratify the treaty. How would you like to see him and the government take a stand against gender-based violence in the country?

Even though womens and LGBTI+ organizations, networks, and platforms have been very effective in the past to push for womens rights, the government is not currently welcoming collaboration and dialogue with independent rights-based organizations. What we, as womens and LGBTI+ organizations that are active in the field of combating gender-based violence, expect from political leaders is not tweets on social media after a woman is murdered, but actual political will to effectively implement protective and preventive policies. The shadow NGO reports of the Istanbul Convention Monitoring Platform (consisting of womens and LGBTI+ organizations) and the GREVIO country evaluation report show exactly what should be done step by step. However, while our advocacy efforts are for the effective implementation of the Istanbul Convention, the government is discussing withdrawal from the convention. We want the government to hear womens voices, and take womens and LGBTI+ organizations words into account while making decisions on womens lives.

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

Original post:

A Turkish Women's Rights Activist Explains the Importance of the 'Challenge Accepted' Campaign to Stop Femicide - Global Citizen

There was no mincing of words from the Advertising Association, IPA, ISBA and IAB UK this week: the governments planned crackdown on the commercial freedoms of food and drink brands goes beyond a slap in the face.

They disregard the evidence including the governments own, the IPAs director general Paul Bainsfair says.

The plans are a draconian and unwarranted action that will hammer both news brands and small advertisers at a time they cannot afford any additional challenges, IAB UKs chief executive Jon Mew says.

Misguided, unfounded and totally ineffective, is the view of the AAs Sue Eustace.

An an ill-thought-out policy that cuts across Treasury efforts to support the sector and risks jobs and livelihoods, commented ISBAs director general Phil Smith last week, before the plans were officially announced.

Boris Johnson may well have seen the light while in hospital, battling for his life against Covid-19, and conscious that his weight was slowing down his recovery. But from one angle, it very much looks like the PM has completed his project, begun in 2016, of transitioning the Conservatives from being the party of business to the party of fuck business.

This situation poses a dilemma to the ad industry in terms of its messaging on the effectiveness of advertising. According to the Food and Drink Federation, the combined impact of the various changes proposed by the government would cut just 17 calories a day from the diet of the average child. But if advertising and sales promotions make so little difference, why should brands bother with them in the first place?

The reality which is that marketing is about encouraging consumers to choose premium brands over cheaper alternatives, as much as driving overall consumption is a difficult one to communicate to a naturally (and correctly) sceptical public.

But even if you agree with Katharine Jenner, campaign director at Action on Sugar and Action on Salt who said that for the more responsible companies, this is an opportunity to build back better, making and promoting healthier options its hard to deny that this policy is something of a mess.

For example, Public Health Englands new campaign launched on Monday is the first time the organsiation has addressed adult obesity to this extent. Encouraging overweight adults to improve their health is a widely accepted way to improve outcomes for those who contract coronavirus, an urgent priority. But the rest of the measures seem more concerned with child obesity an important issue, but one where the benefits to society are very long term.

Then theres the fact that the governments comms have flagged up the additional calories people consume from restaurant meals. This feels like it seems some kind of slogan of its own maybe dont eat out to help out?

The perfect is famously the enemy of the good, though, especially at such a challenging time. So do the governments plans have anything to recommend them?

In what can only be described as the ultimate triumph of hope over experience, I actually thought the government might have come up with something better than this tired old strategy. Obesity is a systemic societal issue and it would take bravery, commitment and a willingness to confront historic social injustice for any progress to be made. Rather than take a step on that long, hard road, they've gone for a watershed ad ban instead. It's an insult to the nation's intelligence, it's destructive to the entire free-to-air broadcasting industry and it's based on zero evidence. So no, I can't see any merit in it.

This is an important issue. Its admirable that the government is prioritising reducing obesity levels may it be a proper legacy long after the shadow of Covid-19 subsides. However, it doesnt feel particularly thought-through. Advertising is already heavily regulated and a ban isnt backed up even by the governments own impact study. Instead, the government should tackle the real endemic problems driving obesity in the UK: a slowing down in social mobility, underfunding in community healthcare, and little real education on nutrition from the classroom and into adulthood. But perhaps admitting to these problems doesnt make quite so catchy a headline.

Boris Johnson is embracing his new mantra dont be a fattie in your fifties with gusto. But a blanket watershed HFSS ad ban is a blunt tool previously disparaged as having the impact of giving up half a Smartie a day. With so many of us tipping the scales towards obesity, success will only come through tipping the scales of responsibility onto the voting public. The future is self-managed healthcare and joint decision-making with healthcare professionals, and it starts with us all being willing to be held accountable for our own health for as long as we can. If we want the NHS as our safety net to continue to function, were going to have to change our habits. Carving a huge slice out of commercially funded broadcasters will not be the recipe for success.

So, it's worth saying up front that I'm not necessarily a fan of banning stuff. I like to think that, by and large, people are sensible, and that, given the right information, people can make the right choices. I'm not, however, always convinced that the ad industry is in the same place, particularly when it comes to regulation. Having come into the industry at the (forgive me) fag-end of tobacco advertising, and watched first hand while smart, likeable people spent serious amounts of time and money working out what they could get away with, this all feels very similar. When we shout DON'T BAN IT YOU CAN'T BAN IT IT DOESN'T EVEN WORK ANYWAY, we come across as toddlers having a toy confiscated when perhaps, if we just learned to play with it sensibly in the first place, we wouldn't need to have it taken off us.

I think it will have some effect, but it has to be part of larger health initiatives. We recently launched a sports nutrition bar, Home Run, with the mission of encouraging people to lead well-balanced, healthy lives. For us, "balance" is the most important part of this and we believe that allowing yourself the occasional treat alongside exercise and healthy eating is the best way of maintaining your health and exercise goals. Cracking down on HFSS ads may help reach this balance but encouraging people to be more active in their day-to-day lives will have the biggest impact.

It's critical that any guidance and advice considers the different circumstances of each family and the children within that household. Living active, healthy lifestyles with balanced diets is vitally important to children's wellbeing. Education and support should consider the voices and needs of each family, and be tailored to provide access and encouragement to positive choices. Our motto, giving kids a voice, means that to be able to do this properly, we need to ensure that the kids are healthy and active and loud otherwise were just paying lip service.

UK shoppers spend more buying food on promotion than any other European country, but the advertising ban on HFSS foods and proposed BOGOF ban misses key facts. The IPM believes that alternative, clearly more challenging options have been overlooked, such as government support in making fruit and veg a cheaper option or subsiding early-stage education around healthy living. Twenty-three per cent of reception age children are overweight or obese, and by year six this rises to 34%, so attention on the trajectory set in early years would, arguably, be a more worthwhile focus, rather than penalising an industry already on its knees.

View post:

Is there any merit in the government's new crackdown on HFSS ads? - Campaign US

Masked pilgrims arrived Thursday at Mount Arafat, a desert hill near Islam's holiest site, to pray and repent on the most important day of the hajj, the annual pilgrimage in Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

The global coronavirus pandemic has cast a shadow over every aspect of this year's pilgrimage, which last year drew 2.5 million Muslims from across the world to Mount Arafat, where the Prophet Muhammad delivered his final sermon nearly 1,400 years ago.

Only a very limited number of pilgrims were allowed to take part in the hajj amid numerous restrictions to limit the potential spread of the coronavirus.

The Saudi government has not released a final figure on the number of hajj pilgrims this year, but has said anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 would be taking part. All of this year's pilgrims are either residents or citizens of Saudi Arabia.

In past years, a sea of pilgrims dressed in white terrycloth garments would start to gather at Mount Arafat, or hill of mercy as it's known, before dawn and remain there until nightfall, spending the day in deep contemplation and worship.

International media were not allowed to cover the hajj from Mecca as was customary in past years. Instead, state-run Saudi TV has carried a live broadcast of some parts of the hajj, including Thursday's arrival of pilgrims to Namira Mosque in Arafat where a sermon will be delivered.

See the original post here:

Parts of Northern England banned from meeting others indoors after spike - Telegraph.co.uk

People from different households in Greater Manchester, parts of East Lancashire and parts of West Yorkshire are banned from meeting each other indoors from midnight tonight as part of immediate action to keep people safe, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock tweeted a list of the areas in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and East Lancashire where households are now banned from meeting each other indoors from midnight tonight.

He tweeted: "We're constantly looking at the latest data on the spread of coronavirus, and unfortunately we've seen an increasing rate of transmission in parts of Northern England.

"We've been working with local leaders across the region, and today I chaired a meeting of the Local Action Gold Committee. Based on the data, we decided that in Greater Manchester, parts of West Yorkshire & East Lancashire we need to take immediate action to keep people safe.

"The spread is largely due to households meeting and not abiding to social distancing. So from midnight tonight, people from different households will not be allowed to meet each other indoors in these areas.

"We take this action with a heavy heart, but we can see increasing rates of covid across Europe and are determined to do whatever is neccessary to keep people safe."

Speaking to the media, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said: "We're constantly vigilant and we've been looking at the data and unfortunately we've seen across parts of Northern England an increase in the number of cases of coronavirus.

"So today I held a meeting of the Government's Gold Committee and working with local leaders including for instance Andy Burnham the mayor of Greater Manchester, we've decided that we need to action across Greater Manchester, East Lancashire and parts of West Yorkshire.

"So from midnight tonight (Friday) we are banning households meeting up indoors."

Matt Hancock said "households gathering and not abiding by the social distancing rules" was a reason for the stricter rules.

He told the media: "We take this action with a heavy heart but unfortunately it's necessary because we've seen that households meeting up and a lack of social distancing is one of the causes of this rising rate of coronavirus and we'll do whatever is necessary to keep the country safe."

Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, said: "Over recent days, there has been a marked change in the picture across Greater Manchester with regard to the spread of Covid-19.

"We have gone from a falling rate of cases in nearly all of our boroughs last week to a rising rate in nine out of 10 affecting communities across a much wider geography. In Rochdale, the one borough where cases have fallen, they are still too high.

"We have always said that we will remain vigilant and be ready to respond quickly should the need arise. In line with that approach, I have agreed with the Health Secretary that it is right to act on the precautionary principle and introduce modest measures now to bring down the rate of new infections.

"I ask all Greater Manchester residents - young and old alike - to protect each other by observing these new requirements. They will be reviewed weekly; meaning the more we stick to them, the quicker they will be removed.

"This is a place which prides itself on looking out for each other. We now need to be true to that by not acting selfishly and keeping the health of others in mind at all times."

MP for Oldham, in Greater Manchester, and shadow transport minister Jim McMahon said there needs to be more clarity over what the Government is doing to support those in areas affected by new lockdown restrictions.

He tweeted: "On the face of it, for Oldham borough residents this is the same restriction announced already this week, replicated in further areas.

"As well as publishing a list, I'm sure all of us would welcome the Government adding what more they will do to support us, jobs and our economy."

First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon said the decision to ban households in Greater Manchester, East Lancashire and West Yorkshire from meeting indoors is the "right" one.

She tweeted: "The UK government is right to act quickly if they think the situation warrants it.

"But this is a sharp reminder that the threat of this virus is still very real. Please abide by the all #FACTS advice and stay safe."

The rest is here:

Coronavirus lockdown tightened in Greater Manchester and parts of north | ITV News - ITV News