« First...102030...205206207208209...220230240...Last »

Cannabis in the Esports Community – High Times

Posted on by

My name is OpTic HECZ and I had the honor of joining the cannabis industry by way of professional esports and building brands on the internet. Big shout out to my boy Jon Cappetta for inviting me to be a contributor to WEIRDOS and to share reflections from my journey.I know you all will be absolutely shocked to learn that there has always been a vibrant cannabis culture behind the scenes of gaming and esports, so my goal when joining the cannabis industry was to take the lessons I learned building OpTic Gaming and introduce them to a plant I love and traditional cannabis culture I feel naturally connect to.

Esports and cannabis cultures were both born on the edges of society and were still battling stigmas despite growing into multi-billion dollar global industries. While gamers never had to face the War on Drugs, many of us took huge personal risks and made extreme sacrifices to help build esports into what it is today. My wife and family were dangerously supportive when I left my corporate job in early 2009 to focus on becoming a full-time YouTube content creator, and after a year of telling them that this is going to work out, my first check was a hilarious 16 cents from monetizing Call of Duty montage videos. I may not have lived in tent on a hill in Humboldt County, but you better believe that back in June 2013 when we launched the first OpTic House, my wife and I were called crazy when we told our family that we would be moving to her parents basement to allow the players to move in to our current home and make one of the first YouTube content houses a reality.

Despite the risks and labels, cannabis OGs know the important lesson that the diehard esports community learned through our commitment: its what we did and stood for when everyone thought we were weirdos, before all the corporate investors rushed in, that will forever resonate in our respective cultures.

For esports, 6050 Russell Drive showed the world that OpTic Gaming, operating out of a cul-de-sac in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, could have a larger social media presence then all of Chicagos historic sports franchises aside from the great Chicago Bulls (and thats only because they had GOD in uniform during the 90s). That revelation drove many billionaire owners from traditional sports to quickly buy esports teamswe were one of the lucky teams that were paired up with incredible investors, but many other investors came into our industry with as much respect for the culture that made OpTic and esports popular as Chad has for growing and selling good weed.

So I came to cannabis knowing what its like to create something from a place of passion and I have seen firsthand the interests of big money trying to get their piece of something new. In 2017, an ownership group made me an offer I couldnt refuse and I was happy to sell OpTic in hopes of expediting our growth as an elite professional esports franchise. But then things happened, people happened and business happened and I ultimately decided to buy back OpTic in 2020. The journey that led me to buying back OpTic taught me a very important lesson relevant to the cannabis industry today: when you put your heart and soul into something, the authentic relationship that you develop with supporters building that brand can never truly be bought or sold.

As Ive gotten the opportunity to meet creators from across the cannabis industry, the biggest challenge I see facing the traditional culture today isnt the federal regulatory status, or even high taxes, its the digital suppression happening on social, video, and streaming platforms that is preventing cannabis creators from organically growing like they should. Ive experienced firsthand that a dedicated online audience is the most powerful asset you can have, and if cannabis growers, breeders and extractors could distribute their content like OpTic Gaming, then I know customers and fans will have the greatest impact on the future of this industry as opposed to politicians and corporate investors.

To Facebook, Google, Amazon, TikTok: I am incredibly grateful for the opportunities your platforms have given me, and the people around me, but its time to end the digital war on cannabis. Sure, the federal government cant get its act together to provide you rules for managing cannabis regulations today, but conflict with the federal government hasnt stopped you before, and besides, no one will notice if you just start treating cannabis like alcohol on your platforms the cannabis community promises they wont tell the feds!

To OG cannabis operators: esports has taught me that people will support the creators who authentically share their lives, process, and passion. Being the best at what you do isnt good enough anymore, you have to share content. If you have good content and you build a community, there is no amount of money or marketing campaign from a big corporation that can compete with a relationship with your fans. Make no mistake, its an absolute grind to build an audience. I shot, edited, and uploaded a vlog every single day for 2 years and still continue to do so regularly. The ones who do the hard work to build their online audiences can thrive as long as the internet exists. Thats what were all going for, right? Creating brands that are around forever?

To cannabis lovers and fans: make it your mission to support your favorite cannabis creators and brands online and go the extra mile to share their content and push the algorithms against the suppression and shadow banning. We have the ability to make sure traditional cannabis culture flourishes digitally but we all need to work together to ensure the best people are surfaced and that takes effort by the global digital cannabis community.

I want to give a special shout out to the cannabis content creators out there that have overcome all the odds and built massive communities around their video contentcreators like Erick Khan, Dope as Yola and Goblin have battled the algorithms with authentic content and its incredible to think about how their audiences and influence will grow when the digital war on cannabis ends. Yola can literally see on his dashboard showing the revenue he has generated but wont ever receive. End this madness!

I also want to acknowledge a number of cannabis creators who have been digitally incarcerated or deplatformed and were forced to rebuild their audiences in the process, including Adam Ill, StrainCentral and Silenced Hippie. As a cannabis and creator community, we need to do everything we can to help overcome the injustices that have been passed out to good people entertaining audiences about a plant they love. At Pine Park, our YouTube channel will always be a home for creators from across the industry that deserve more digital exposure or a jump start to building their audience. Never hesitate to reach out to me or our team about ways we can work together to ensure that traditional cannabis culture and creators survive and thrive online.

See the original post here:

Cannabis in the Esports Community - High Times

The Moral Panic Is Spreading: Think Tank Proposes Banning Teens From Social Media; Texas Rep Promises To Intro Bill – Techdirt

Posted on by

from the yeah,-like-that-will-work dept

It truly is incredible just how much of a moral panic the media and politicians have created around social media. Once again, the actual research is basically inconclusive that social media is bad. If it were truly awful, it should be showing up in the data, but for the most part its not. At all. As weve noted, so much of the blame targeting social media are people completely overreacting to social media shining a light on activity that has basically always been happening, and now rather than dealing with the underlying causes, people want to attack the messenger for revealing the behavior.

Weve also noted that it appears that some people have issues with social media, but for many, many others its quite helpful. But little research has been done to figure out why a small percentage of people have trouble with it. Instead, the media often just hypes up the bad stuff. Weve pointed it out a few times already, but last year, when the WSJ reported on internal research leaked by Frances Haugen, they focused on the report noting that Instagram made teens feel bad about themselves but left out that the research actually showed it made many more feel better about themselves.

It would be good to investigate why some percentage felt worse about themselves, of course, and to see if there were ways to minimize that impact. But the rush to blame all social media as bad for all teenagers is just without a basis.

And yet policy folks are taking this moral panic to new, and even more ridiculous heights. The Texas Public Policy Foundations tech policy fellow, Zach Whiting, has suggested that Texas should ban all social media for teenagers. This makes me wonder if Whiting has, you know, ever actually met a teenager.

Enacting a minor social media ban in Texas is not a novel concept. Two prominent commentators recently wrote articles on asocial media age limitand aban on minors. It is clear our consumer protection laws need to be enhanced to better protect minors online, hold accountable the companies that fail to do so, and punish those who harm or attempt to harm minors online.

A state-driven social media ban on minors is the most effective way to protect kids from the harms of social media. Anything short accepts the premise that social media is not that bad. Itisthat bad.

Ill note that Whiting brags about how he got rid of all his social media accounts, and like the temperance prudes of a century ago, he seems so insecure with himself that he cant just accept that he doesnt want social media himself he needs to take it away from all teens as well.

Of course, there are many problems with the unfathomably stupid idea.

First, as noted above, for the vast majority of teenagers, the evidence seems to suggest that social media is neutral or actually beneficial. Banning it for all kids actually does more harm to many teens.

Second, anyone who has any experience with teenagers at all knows this kind of thing wont work. Already, under federal law (COPPA), most social media websites ban children under the age of 13. And yet, even for kids that young, many websites are useful. So the end result is that parents help their kids lie to get around the blocks, teaching children that lying is okay and not to respect silly, poorly reasoned laws.

Third, the kids themselves will find ways around this. Teens communicate. Its what they do. When I was a kid, it was via notes and telephones, and we even cooked up elaborate codes and tricks to be able to communicate by phone even when our parents didnt want us to. Teenagers want to communicate, and theyll find lots of other ways around these bans. A few years ago, there was an article about how kids who had social media banned in school had basically fashioned a shadow social media system using the chat feature in Google docs.

The point is that kids (teens especially) will find a way to do this. Ban Instagram for them, and you just know that within days someone will have hacked together a way to replicate Instagram without it being Instagram.

This is nonsense prohibition to do what? To stop kids from talking to each other.

Its a silly moral panic, based on nothing by apparently adults own insecurities about teenagers actually being able to communicate.

And of course, Texas politicians were apparently quick to embrace this fundamentally ridiculous idea. State Rep. Jared Patterson is already promising to introduce just such a law, meaning that in Texas, as a teenager you may be forced to give birth to a child but forbidden from posting about it on social media. Land of freedom?

Filed Under: moral panic, social media, teenagers, texas, zach whiting

Read more:

The Moral Panic Is Spreading: Think Tank Proposes Banning Teens From Social Media; Texas Rep Promises To Intro Bill - Techdirt

Overturned: Roe v. Wade And The Conservative Beachhead – Patheos

Posted on by

This is a Guest Post by myfriend and colleague Logan Zeppieri. Loganholds an MA in Philosophy from Talbot School of Theology, a BA inPhilosophy of Science and is a current graduate student in Clinical Psychology. His work includes political andbusiness research, pastoral training, animation, and essay contributions to several publications like theClaremont Institutes, The American Mind.

In response to overturning Roe v. Wade, there have been more nuanced responses than perhaps Oxfords Bodelian library could catalog. But as the social media snow globe begins to settle, there has been one response among certain academic circles which I believe warrants a reconsiderationin-part because it is profoundly correct, in-part because it naturally squares with conservative inclinations, but most importantly because it has the potential to implode our own advances in social policy.

The response goes something like this. First, and of course foremost, overturning Roe v. Wade undid a ruling that was an affront to the fundamental principles of the American republic, found in the doctrine of substantive due process, and a denial of the fundamental laws of human nature, found in the purported constitutional right to kill children. And second, while not at the forefront of the discussion, but illustrative of conservative inclinations towards pessimism, is the admittance that this is merely a legal and not cultural victory. There has been no real change to the hearts and souls of the American people. Children will still be born out of wedlock; abortions will still become legal in many states (perhaps even more aggressively so); and family values will remain under attack from almost every media and academic outlet. There may have been a great legal victory, but there was no cultural victory, and, therefore, no real victory.

For whatever reason, conservatives always fail to see the importance of cultural symbols and the effects that can ripple through a society from their public destruction. Of course, a SCOTUS ruling will not save us from our sins. Of course, returning the question of abortion back to the states may effect little real change in the hearts and souls of the American people, today. But is this merely a SCOTUS ruling? Is this merely returning a question of abortion back to the states? Ask any sitting Democrat or any radical feminist and the answer will be a resounding, No!

If it is from the House Chamber or from behind the silver screen, Dobbs has been declared an act of war against the radical reimagination of the human condition and the constitution of human rights. Conservatives must see the obvious, if not take the leftists at their word. Dobbs is not merely a SCOTUS ruling or merely returning the question of the abortion back to the states. This ruling overturns a cultural symbol of radical leftwing ideology. So while the profane march against every decent and respectable institution has not been stoppednot even slowed downit has been shown that their march is neither immutable nor inevitable; it has been shown that, even if by a pin prick, leftwing ideology can bleed.

And this is the danger of the undercurrent of conservative pessimism. It has the tendency to inoculate their adherence against real excitement and real joy. This lack-luster self-degradation amidst triumph is something that leftists have failed to enforce upon conservatives for almost fifty years, but which conservatives impose upon themselves almost every day.

For the first time in almost fifty years the Left is now banging on our doors, screaming for our courage to answer the call of every social plight. How will we ensure that a father doesnt abandon the mother? How do we ensure that pregnant women receive the care they need? How will we take care of the children? How will the children in orphanages and foster care be adopted?

Whether by hook or by crook, the left has aligned for us the new constellation of conservative social values, a beachhead into moral reform. The conservative answer: Reinforce a new cultural expectation that sex does not come before marriage. Reinstate the constraints of monogamous marriage. Connect pregnant women to the vast networks of crisis and pregnancy centers. And, especially, begin forcing massive overhauls of our decrepit and dying foster system. Put plainly, let us not allow a crisis of theLeft go to waste and their social indictments fall on deaf ears.

But where must we begin? We must begin where the entire abortion debate started, the only place capable of bearing the burden of such moral regard for human personsthe church, that institution which guides and forms the moral character of our nation. A reformation of the church must begin. We must start by purging the immoral pastorate.

Every priest and every pastor who either bent the knee to Black Lives Matter or raised their first against the protection of the unborn child should be pulled from their pulpits, stripped of their authority, and offered one of two paths forward: to beg for forgiveness from their congregation or be exiled from the church. For those who cannot be held accountable, allowing their congregation to perish beneath the shadow of the pulpit, must be held accountable by those faithful churchesdeclaring the wolves in sheeps clothing illegitimate upon moral grounds, stemming from theological commitments to the equality of all persons by divine right of the created order.

Be courageous, ignore the haters. Leftists influencers will froth at the mouth over taking away womens rights, about introducing a religious theocracy, and that we are threatening the very foundations of democracy. They will use every indecent and immoral accusation from within their own indecent and immoral framework.

But if we took a critical lens to our modern society, who has allowed men to dominate in womens sports, allowed men into womens bathrooms? Who has reintroduced the social inquisition through their own elaborate system of faith-practice, public rites of atonement, shadow-banning, and hate crimes? And who leveraged the administrative state through the entire pandemic to shut down the economy, override the legislatures powers, strip the citizens the right to work, and drown-out the voices of the people and their businesses? They may profess that saving the lives of children and promoting the welfare of the family will destroy society at its core, but when we examine the real and present dangers, Leftism has done far more damage to far more people in a single generation than any child-loving, family- building, faithful Christian has ever done in the history of the West.

The fight against slavery began and was completed in the churchs profession that all have been created equal. And, likewise, the fight against abortion has begun and must be completed in the churchs profession that all have been created equal.

See the original post:

Overturned: Roe v. Wade And The Conservative Beachhead - Patheos

Kazakhstan, Tunisia, and even Russia will have fingers crossed as Rybakina-Jabeur showdown highlights Wimbledon final – The Indian Express

Posted on by

For much of its history, Wimbledon has displayed, and at times taken pride in, its lack of political engagement. The lack of a distinct worldview had become a worldview on its own; its old-time charm and appeal meant to be a distraction from all that is wrong with the world. This is perhaps what made it all the more surprising when the All England Club made its position clear by banning Russian and Belarusian players in the wake of Russias invasion of Ukraine. And come Saturday, they may be put in yet another difficult position.

Kazakhstans Elena Rybakina, who was born in Russia and still resides in Moscow, will take on Tunisias Ons Jabeur in the womens singles summit clash on Saturday. Rybakina is part of a string of players, including the likes of Alexander Bublik and Yulia Putintseva, to have migrated from Russia to Kazakhstan, whose tennis federation offered packages including stipends and access to top training facilities to promising players.

The 23-year-old, who identified as Russian up until 2018, comes into the match with a swarm of support from her former country. Lets congratulate the Royal Family, they will have to congratulate someone from Russia, former Russian tennis player Andrei Chesnokov was quoted as saying by Reuters. Russian-born star storms into Wimbledon final, declared Russia Today, a state-controlled media outlet, after Rybakinas semifinal win over Simona Halep. Shamil Tarpischev, president of the Russian tennis federation, congratulated her and cherished the prospect of our product playing the big final.

In a sport where competitors are not representing their countries or any institution as much as they are representing themselves, Rybakina, who narrowly missed out on a medal for Kazakhstan at the Tokyo Olympics, has asserted she is just revelling in the opportunity to play for a Grand Slam title.

What does it mean for you to feel? Im playing tennis, so for me, Im enjoying my time here. I feel for the players who couldnt come here, but Im just enjoying playing here on the biggest stage, enjoying my time and trying to do my best, she replied when asked if she felt Russian in her heart.

No matter what her stance is, the prospect of handing the prestigious Venus Rosewater Dish to a player Russia has announced to be their own will put Wimbledon in a difficult spot. And perhaps more quietly in the background, her opponents nationality may play just as dominant a role in the narrative of the result.

The minister of happiness

Ons Jabeur has become fondly known in her home country as the Minister of Happiness. The ever-smiling Jabeur is as charismatic on the court as she is seen to be kind off it. After her semifinal win against Germanys Tatjana Maria, once the customary handshakes were done, Jabeur pulled Maria by the hand and brought her to the centre of Centre Court to receive the praise from the crowd that her fairytale run at SW19 deserved. It was a gesture that won tennis fans hearts all over the world.

Last year, Jabeur became the first Arab and first African to crack the top 10 of the world rankings. Following her win on Thursday, she became the first Arab woman since 1968 to reach the final of a Major. Perhaps also due to her nationality, her breakthrough year on tour is now getting the recognition it merits. She has now reached the final of five of her last seven events, and become the World No. 2. In the shadow of Iga Swiatek who is the only player to have won more matches than her in 2022 she was one of the favourites to lift the title at the grass Major this year.

At Centre Court on Saturday, the Tunisian not only has the opportunity to cement her place at the summit of the game, but also to give visibility to a nation and region that few have given before her.

The matchup

Despite the duos nationalities dominating the buildup, the matchup between their contrasting styles could make for an entertaining final. If Rybakina sets the tempo, her timing and power are hard to cope with. But if there is a player who can disrupt her tempo, in the form that she is in, it has to be Jabeur.

On her day, not a single player on the womens tour can match the power of Rybakinas big-hitting game. Her groundstrokes are hit with great force, and if given the time from the baseline, she races into big leads by hitting through her opponent with ease.

Rybakina has, however, struggled with consistency. Her massive game can begin to leak unforced errors when her rhythm is disrupted, which is where Jabeurs versatility and dynamism could come into play. The Tunisians all-court game is largely aided by her movement, which allows her to glide across the grass and construct points at her own pace. It also allows her to put more balls back into court, and create highlight reel-worthy winners from impossible angles.

The match is also a classic case of serve vs return. Rybakinas powerful serve is a force to cope with (51% of her first serves have been unreturned at the event so far). Jabeur, on the other hand, while putting up solid serving numbers herself, has returned in greater volume and with more accuracy than any other player at the Championships.

No matter what the result, Centre Court is set for a highly watchable and perhaps controversial spectacle on Saturday

The rest is here:

Kazakhstan, Tunisia, and even Russia will have fingers crossed as Rybakina-Jabeur showdown highlights Wimbledon final - The Indian Express

Sorry, Texas: Supreme Court blocks law banning censorship on social …

Posted on by

Enlarge / US and Texas flags flying outside the Texas State Capitol building in Austin.

Getty Images | PA Thompson

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Texas law that prohibits social media companies from moderating content based on a user's "viewpoint." The Supreme Court order came about three weeks after the so-called "censorship" law was reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

"The application to vacate stay presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted," the ruling said. "The May 11, 2022 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit staying the district court's preliminary injunction is vacated."

It was a 5-4 decision with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts voting to block the Texas law. Alito wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The ruling says separately that "Justice [Elena] Kagan would deny the application to vacate stay," but Kagan did not join Alito's dissent.

The Supreme Court ruling came in response to an emergency application from tech groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications & Industry Association (CCIA).With the preliminary injunction reinstated, litigation will continue, and Texas cannot enforce the law unless it wins the case. Advertisement

"This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas's social media law," CCIA President Matt Schruers said.

"No online platform, website, or newspaper should be directed by government officials to carry certain speech. This has been a key tenet of our democracy for more than 200 years and the Supreme Court has upheld that," Schruers also said.

The Texas law is labeled as "an act relating to censorship of or certain other interference with digital expression, including expression on social media platforms or through electronic mail messages." The law says a "social media platform may not censor a user" based on the user's "viewpoint" and defines "censor" as "block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression." The Texas attorney general or users can sue social media platforms that violate this ban and win injunctive relief and reimbursement of court costs, the law says.

In addition to being unconstitutional, the Texas law "would have been a disaster for social media users and for public discourse," said John Bergmayer, legal director for consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. "It would have ordered social media platforms to host and distribute horrific and distasteful content, and to turn a blind eye to hate, abuse, and coordinated misinformation campaigns. The main result of these policies would not be to enhance free speech, but to keep people from speaking by driving them away from toxic platforms."

See original here:

Sorry, Texas: Supreme Court blocks law banning censorship on social ...

India Wants Twitter To Participate in Government Censorship – Reason

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Twitter announced that it had filed suit against the Indian government alleging that it interpreted a suite of 2021 laws too broadly when ordering the company to censor dissident users in the country. The lawsuit comes in response to increased pressure from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which in recent weeks has ordered Twitter to block the posts and accounts of dissidents. According to CNN, a source familiar with the suit said that the company will attempt to show that the government's orders "demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate."

The 2021 regulations Twitter is now fighting gave India's government the ability to demand that social media companies block certain posts or accounts in the country. Further, the Indian government has required social media companies to locate their compliance officers within the country so that they can be held criminally liable if the company fails to comply with government orders.

While Twitter has complied with orders, the suit marks a major act of resistance against the Indian government's calls to censor dissident content. In 2021, WhatsApp filed a similar suit, attempting to prevent the government from forcing the company to make all messages "traceable" upon request. That order, according to the company, would "severely undermine the privacy of billions of people who communicate digitally[.]" WhatApp's suit is still ongoing.

Twitter's suit highlights an important issue faced by social media platforms: What to do when local laws demand they participate in politically-motivated censorship? Increasingly, censorious governments are attempting to deputize tech companies to do their dirty work for themforcing companies to censor, block, or even track the whereabouts of government critics. While these companies may have values which marginally attempt to protect free speech, oppressive governments often coerce tech companies into collaborating.

Governments all around the world have enlisted tech companies to carry out local censorship missions. In 2024, the European Union's Digital Services Act will take effect, forcing tech companies to sharply regulate their platforms. The legislation requires companies to take down content deemed as hate speech, or disinformationtwo broad categorizations that can easily morph into broad state censorship. In Germany, hate-speech laws require companies like Twitter to report users to law enforcement. As one Twitter spokesperson said, the law "forces private companies into the role of prosecutors by reporting users to law enforcement even when there is no illegal behaviour."

While the threat of criminal liability for employees (India-based executives found guilty of violating censorship orders could face up to seven years in prison) might prevent companies from outright refusing to comply with censorious regulations, lawsuits like Twitter's are a clear step in the right direction.

However, the future increasingly appears to offer social media companies a choice between participating in government-mandated censorship and surveillance, or ceasing operations entirely in those countries. The first entails participating in considerable injustice, the other could involve reducing their customer base by billions.

Continue reading here:

India Wants Twitter To Participate in Government Censorship - Reason

#MeToo Cases Weather Censorship, Suppression, and Victim-bashing – China Digital Times

Posted on by

On Monday, several activists wore t-shirts emblazoned with the question Where Is Peng Shuai? to a match at Wimbledon in order to raise awareness about the Chinese tennis star. Peng has been absent from international media following her forced disappearance, forced re-appearances, and forced retirement in the wake of a sexual assault allegation against former Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli that she posted last November. Peng won a Grand Slam title at Wimbledon in 2013, but discussion of the injustice against her was unwelcome at the tournament this week. As Emine Sinmaz from The Guardian reported, the activists were confronted by Wimbledon security guards who warned them not to approach anyone at the venue:

Will Hoyles, 39, one of the campaigners, said: We came trying to raise a bit of awareness but Wimbledon have managed to make it worse for themselves by harassing us

They were asking loads of questions about what we were going to do, why we were here, you know, what wed already done etc. And we told them wed just been wandering around and wed spoken to a few people and thats when they seemed to get quite suspicious.

He said that the staff told them they should not approach anyone to talk to them. They said repeatedly the club doesnt like to be political, he added. [Source]

Despite citing political neutrality to justify tamping down the show of support for Peng Shuai, Wimbledon chose to ban 16 athletes from Russia and Belarus in April, in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine and Belarus support for the invasion. A similar controversy occurred in January, when the Australian Open ejected activists attempting to raise awareness about Peng Shuais disappearance, but that organization later reversed its decision under widespread public pressure. The Womens Tennis Association, one of the few major tennis organizations that has followed through on its supportive rhetoric of Peng, has canceled all of its events in China due to her continued absence from public life.

Off the court, other #MeToo cases are slowly making their way through Chinas judicial system. On June 22, a Chinese court sentenced Zhang Guo, a man accused of sexually assaulting a former Alibaba employee, to 18 months in prison. The former employee, surnamed Zhou, alleged that Zhang and her former manager, surnamed Wang, had pressured her into drinking too much alcohol at a client dinner last August and raped her later that night. After Zhou revealed her story on an internal corporate message board, Alibaba fired Wang, but then did an about-face and fired ten other employees for leaking Zhous accusation to the public. Zhou eventually lost her own job as well. This week, in the wake of Zhangs sentencing, Zhou called out inconsistencies in the police statement about the case. Huizhong Wu from the Associated Press reported on Zhous online post criticizing Wangs lenient judicial treatment:

Zhou criticized the official police account for turning her manager from someone who objectively has criminal intention, a rapist with actual criminal intentions, into a good boss caring for his drunk female subordinate.

And as for me? I have become a slut who is falsely accusing the male boss that she was carrying on with, she continued.

[] She wrote that her former manager had stolen her ID card to get the hotel to make him a key for her room, asking the staff to list him as a fellow traveler. She also said that police had concluded she could not express herself clearly when the front desk called to get her consent for giving him a key.

He voluntarily cancelled his taxi on the app, carried my stolen ID card, went back to the hotel and added himself to my room, sexually violated me, she told the AP, elaborating on her post. All these things show that not only did he intentionally try to rape, but also he committed a criminal act.

A police statement last August said that Wang had the key made with Zhous consent and that he had her ID card, without saying how he had gotten it. [Source]

Two days after Zhang was sentenced to prison, a four-hour public hearing for a sexual assault case involving the leader of another powerful Chinese tech company took place in the U.S. The victim, Liu Jingyao, has accused Liu Qiangdong, the billionaire founder of Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com, of raping her after a dinner and drinks party in 2018. At the time, Liu Jingyao was an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota. The hearing revolved around a motion to add punitive damages against Liu Qiangdong and JD.com, and the official jury trial is scheduled to begin on either September 26 or October 3. In a recent overview of the case published by a WeChat account supportive of womens rights, friends and supporters of Jingyao who attended her hearing shared more details about the trial, and criticized the double standards applied to male and female behavior in sexual assault cases:

In the court of public opinion, victims are on the receiving end of boundless scrutiny and mistrust. Why dont we ask Liu Qiangdong, or the person who organized the event, why a dozen middle-aged men would invite a young twenty-something woman to a drinking party? Why did Liu Qiangdong bring Jingyao to his villa in the first place? Liu Qiangdong is a married man, so why wasnt he more circumspect about his words and behavior? People tend to instinctively come up with excuses to justify the behavior of rich and powerful men. But as a woman, unless you happen to think like a perfectly rational automaton, people will tend to exaggerate the irrational aspects of your behavior. [Chinese]

This week, similar public vilification was heaped on Yu Xiuhua, a woman born with cerebral palsy who has become famous for her poems about love, sexuality, disability, and female identity. In a Weibo post (deleted two hours after it was published on Wednesday), she accused her estranged husband Yang Zhuce of domestic violence, alleging that he physically assaulted her multiple times in the course of their two-month marriage, after she asked him if he was having an affair with another woman. While some of Yus fans were sympathetic or outraged on her behalf, other netizens criticized her for being an attention-seeker, alleged that she had it coming, or made her the target of online bullying and death threats. The author of a WeChat post archived by CDT detailed how women who suffer sexual violence often receive harsher public scrutiny and criticism than their male abusers:

This has become a common practice online. When a woman suffers domestic abuse, the first question people ask is, What did she do [to provoke it]?

In the absence of other evidence, the mind conjures up various and vilifying possibilities:

Did the man find out that their child wasnt his?

Was she mean to her in-laws?

Was she too bad-tempered?

This is particularly true in the case of Yu Xiuhua, a headstrong, high-profile woman with many enemies. Some will find it easy to understand why a man might beat her: theyll say she had it coming, she brought this humiliation on herself, she knew the risks and went into it with her eyes wide open.

Youre old, disabled, and uglywhy would you think such a young man could actually love you?

The heartless domestic abuser has thus far avoided the storm, while Yu Xiuhua, the one who was beaten, finds herself in the eye of the storm, the object of public censure. [Chinese]

Translation by Cindy Carter.

View post:

#MeToo Cases Weather Censorship, Suppression, and Victim-bashing - China Digital Times

Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship – Salon

Posted on by

Facebook and Instagram, both owned by Meta, have begun mass-deleting posts that provide information about accessing abortion pills in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established America's constitutional right to abortion.

Such content removals, first reported by Vice and the Associated Press, occurred immediately after the ruling was handed down. Much of the material in question reportedly contained information about how to obtain abortion pills by mail without breaking state laws.

"DM me if you want to order abortion pills, but want them sent to my address instead of yours," one of the since-deleted posts read, according to the Associated Press.

"I will mail abortion pills to any one of you. Just message me," another user wrote, reports Vice.

Both posts were immediately taken down by the site.

RELATED: Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade with Dobbs decision

The Associated Press tested how long it would take for one of its own reporters' posts to be scrubbed. "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills," they wrote in a post that was taken down within a minute. Further, the account which published the post was reportedly put on a "warning" status for violating the platform's guidelines related to "guns, animals and other regulated goods."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When the reporter substituted the phrase "abortion pills" for "guns" and "weed," their post remained on the site, even though weed distribution is expressly prohibited by federal law and delivering the drug across state borders is likewise a federal crime. Abortion pills, meanwhile, can be legally distributed via mail by certified doctors, as the Associated Press noted.

Most abortion pills consist of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. The first halts the production of a hormone, progesterone, that helps facilitate the early stages of pregnancy. The second drug induces the uterus to empty itself of pregnancy tissue.

Asked about their sudden abortion-related content removal, Meta told the Associated Press that it prohibits users from selling certain firearms, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone affirmed this policy over Twitter, adding that the company has "discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these."

RELATED: Facebook bans Trump for two years, as social media giant changes controversial moderation rules

Just after the mass-deletions were flagged, the Intercept reported that Meta had secretly designated Jane's Revenge, an abortion rights group, as a terrorist organization. The classification reportedly stems from an act of vandalism the group led against an anti-abortion group in May, which "consisted of a small fire and graffiti denouncing the group's anti-abortion stance." According to The Intercept, Jane's Revenge has been put on "Tier 1" status speech restrictions, on par with drug cartels and mass murderers.

"This designation is difficult to square with Meta's placement of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters in Tier 3, which is subject to far fewer restrictions, despite their role organizing and participating in the January 6 Capitol attack," Mary Pat Dwyer, academic program director of Georgetown Law School's Institute for Technology Law and Policy, told the Intercept. "And while it's possible Meta has moved those groups into Tier 1 more recently, that only highlights the lack of transparency into when and how these decisions, which have a huge impact on people's abilities to discuss current events and important political issues, are made."

Historically, the vast majority of abortion-related violence has been carried out by anti-abortion groups against pro-choice doctors and clinics, as the Intercept noted. This trend, according to Axios, has continued into the present day, with "assaults directed at abortion clinic staff and patients" having "increased 128% last year over 2020." Despite this, only two names associated with anti-abortion violence reportedly appear on Meta's list of Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, which was obtained by the Intercept last October.

RELATED: Facebook is killing democracy with its personality profiling data

Despite Facebook's apparent effort to crack down on abortion access and abortion rights advocacy, Meta has told its staff that it would cover travel expenses for employees who have to go out of state for an abortion, according to CNBC.

See the article here:

Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship - Salon

Draft Amendment to the IT Rules 2021 Smacks of Censorship – NewsClick

Posted on by

The proposed Grievance Appellate Committee will lead to bias and violation of the principles of natural justice.

On June 6, the Union Government proposedamendmentsto theInformation Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021(IT Rules). As per the press release by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, these amendments are proposed to steer through the challenges and gaps that exist in the IT Rules.

The IT Rules of 2021 were brought in to bring a slew of reforms by replacing theInformation Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. It imposed various compliance regulations on social media intermediaries, from appointing a Grievance Redressal Officer to tracing the first originator of information as and when required by a judicial authority or by any competent authority defined in Rule 2(d) of theInformation Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for interception, monitoring and decryption of information) Rules, 2009.

It drew various criticisms from experts and social media intermediaries. Theyreasonedthat the rules would break the end-to-end encryption system since it mandated finding the first originator of a text. Also, the Ethics Code establishes anOversight Committee, which consists of a majority of persons from the executive branch of the State. This is problematic since the Executive will now play the role of the Judiciary, which can lead to arbitrariness and favouritism in the decision-making process.

The IT Rules of 2021 drew various criticisms from experts and social media intermediaries. They reasoned that the rules would break the end-to-end encryption system, since it mandated finding the first originator of a text. Also, the Ethics Code establishes an Oversight Committee, which consists of a majority of persons from the executive branch of the State.

Also read:SC refuses to pass effective order in Centres petition to transfer to apex court challenges to IT rules in high courts

It requires the setting up of an additional committee (a Grievance Appellate Committee) which will review the appeal against the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. Rule 3(3) of the proposed amendment states that the chairperson and members of the committee shall be appointed by the Union Government. This aspect of the proposal is problematic on the ground that it would lead to arbitrariness in the decision-making process of the committee, and may also lead to favouritism. The committee will act as the final arbiter on the complaints made against any content that is present on Intermediaries and having a body that is filled with people appointed by the Executive branch can lead to bias in the order and violation of the principles of natural justice.

Rule 3(2) requires the intermediaries to respect the constitutional rights of the citizens. This is an unprecedented move by the Government since this is essentially akin to enforcing fundamental rights against private entities. This may lead to a flurry of petitions against intermediaries in the already overburdened courts of India.

The Rules establishing the Union Government as the final arbiter in complaints against content on social media and OTT platforms directly or indirectly goes against the ethos of our Constitution.

The establishment of the Grievance Appellate Committee by the government is on similar lines as the three-tierGrievance Redressal Mechanismwhich was proposed in the IT Rules of 2021, beforebeing stayedby the Bombay High Court last year. The third or the final tier in the above-mentioned mechanism was an inter-ministerial committee consisting of people majorly from the executive branch. There were alsoconcerns flaggedregarding the government being the final arbiter in deciding the validity of the content on social media or on over-the-top platforms.

The Draft proposals also reduce the time given to the Grievance Officer to act on the complaints made by users. In certain circumstances, it requires that the Grievance Officer must address the complaint within 72 hours of the receipt of the complaint. The stayed relevant provision of the IT Rules of 2021 currently provide 15 days to act on the complaints made to the Grievance Officer.

Also read:Social media, content moderation and free speech: A tussle

The IT Rules, 2021 are already underchallengebefore the Supreme Court in various petitions. These Rules invited flak from critics and observers on various grounds. As discussed above, some of their provisions were partially stayed by the Bombay High Court; theKeralaandMadrashigh courts, too, had stayed any coercive action by the Union Government under these Rules last year.

The Rules establishing the Union Government as the final arbiter in complaints against content on social media and OTT platforms directly or indirectly goes against the ethos of our Constitution. It goes directly against thefundamental right to free speech, since any opinion (or majority of them) which will be critical of the Government might be taken down by the committee appointed by the government. This will essentially make the government a judge in its own case. It is akin to the violation of one of the principles of natural justice:Nemo judex in causa sua.

Against this backdrop, bringing this amendment which is reminiscent of the stayed Rules, is an unfortunate step by the government. The proposed draft amendments could lead to censorship by the government. Content posted on social media platforms at times includes criticism of the establishment, which might not be very pleasing for the elected government. This amendment provides the government with the authority to adjudicate complaints made against the decision of the Grievance Officer, which is open to misuse. The Government has to make amendments to the present mechanism, where the independence in decision-making is in absentia.

Also read:Explained: Bombay High Court order partially stay new IT rules on plea by The Leaflet

In India, the Supreme Court acts as thesentinel qui viveby protecting our fundamental rights. It is imperative that the Supreme Court, which is entrusted with the quintessential duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, intervenes and protects the fundamental rights of the citizens.

Aarya Parihar is an undergraduate student of law at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.

Read more:

Draft Amendment to the IT Rules 2021 Smacks of Censorship - NewsClick

State control of publications on the Internet in Armenia – JAMnews

Posted on by

State control of publications on the Internet

Armenian Prosecutor General Artur Davtyan suggested that the government introduce state control over information published on the Internet and, if necessary, force the removal of any publications. The Prosecutor General actually made a proposal to introduce censorship in the network. As an example, he referred to the experience of Roskomnadzor.

The initiative of the Prosecutor Generals Office has not yet been formalized in the form of a draft law. But if this regulation is adopted, it will apply not only to the media, but also to users who publish a post on Facebook.

Human rights activists and media experts reacted negatively to the proposal of the Prosecutor General. They warn that if a structure is created to control information on the web, it could become a tool that restricts freedom of speech, a ministry of censorship.

The government has not yet commented on the proposal of the prosecutors office, and there are no comments on the critical remarks made by the experts.

From the message published by the Prosecutor Generals Office, it turns out that Artur Davtyan proposed to the government

At the same time, it is emphasized that control should be combined with a guarantee of the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

The prosecutors office also reports that it has conducted a study in the field of protecting the non-property interests of the state, which showed:

The prosecutors office said that in the absence of such control, information resources continue to freely distribute such content, distorting and abusing the democratic principle of freedom of speech.

The experience of Russia is also cited as an example, where the Prosecutor General or his deputies, in the event that information about suicide methods or drug trafficking is discovered, submit a demand to Roskomnadzor to immediately delete this information and restrict access to the relevant Internet resources.

Armenian experts believe that the goal of the Prosecutor Generals proposal is not to prevent suicide and drug sales among minors, but to control media and social media.

The experts were alarmed not only by the prosecutors proposal itself but also by the reference to the experience of the Russian Roskomnadzor.

In fact, Roskomnadzor has become a body that exercises open censorship in some cases necessary for the state. And the reference to it does not give grounds to think about anything positive, said Shushan Doydoyan, head of the Freedom of Information Center.

According to her, this creates the ground for prompt intervention, so that government agencies, if necessary, can immediately take measures and actions on the Internet. According to her, this is fraught with serious consequences.

Shushan Doydoyan agrees with the presence of numerous problems in the content published on the Internet, but believes that their resolution is not the job of the prosecutors office.

It would be good if the prosecutors office did not take on functions reminiscent of the Russian Roskomnadzor. This is in the interests of everyone, first of all, in the interests of our democracy.

Boris Navasardyan regarded the proposal of the Prosecutor General as an attempt to restrict freedom of speech. He says that the initiative has no serious justification. And the expert does not consider it a coincidence that the statement of the prosecutors office was preceded by high-level Armenian-Russian contacts.

Now, when he leaves his post [the term of office of Prosecutor General Artur Davtyan expires on September 15] and receives a medal, he is doing his duty. At the same time, he will not be obliged to complete this initiative, Boris Navasardyan emphasized.

On April 19, as part of an official visit to Russia, Nikol Pashinyan and Vladimir Putin signed a statement that refers to the use of modern information and communication technologies to commit illegal and harmful actions, interfere in the internal affairs of states and undermine their sovereignty. The document enshrines an agreement to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the field of international information security.

Recently, by decree of the President of Russia, Prosecutor General Artur Davtyan was awarded a medal.

The expert considers the initiative of the prosecutors office a proposal to introduce censorship on the Internet, an attempt to create a ministry of censorship. He says that he does not understand why the structure has only now discovered that there is an Internet where, for example, people can swear or sell drugs.

If we follow the path of Russia, then first the fight against drugs and calls for suicide will be banned on the Internet. And one fine day we will find that the state is engaged in blocking, and, moreover, mainly of posts of a political nature.

In his article published on the Media.am website, Samvel Martirosyan emphasized that it would not be possible to fight drug selling in this way, but it would be possible to block political dissent, closing websites for every unauthorized sneeze.

Under the guise of this fight against windmills, huge amounts of money for Armenia will be written off. Because if you decide to do a quality job, this implies serious costs at the level of the Internet infrastructure. Not to mention the fact that they will feed the hungry army of censors at the expense of the taxes we pay, the expert believes.

Excerpt from:

State control of publications on the Internet in Armenia - JAMnews


« First...102030...205206207208209...220230240...Last »