How about Ted Cruz slams Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over censorship at Senate hearing USA TODAY

Despite repeatedcharges of anti-conservative bias from former President Donald Trump and other GOP critics, Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube are not slanted against right-leaning users, a new report out of New York University found.

Like previous research, False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives, concludes thatrather than censoring conservatives, social media platforms amplify their voices.

Republicans, or more broadly conservatives, have been spreading a form of disinformation on how they're treated on social media. They complain theyre censored and suppressed but, not only is there not evidence to support that, what evidence exists actually cuts in the other direction, said Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, which released the report Monday.

Conservatives Twitter purge: Trump allies and Republican lawmakers lost thousands of followers in Twitter purge after Capitol riots

Censorship or conspiracy theory?Trump supporters say Facebook and Twitter censor them but conservatives still rule social

The report lands as a unifying argument is taking shape that major forces in American society big media, big government, big business are muzzling conservatives. That argument intensified after the major social media platforms suspended Trump out of fear he would incite violence following the U.S. Capitol attack.

There is a broad campaign going on from the right to argue that theyre being silenced or cast aside, and that spirit is what is helping to feed the extremism that we are seeing in our country right now, Barrett said. We cant just allow that to be a debating point. Its not legitimate. Its not supported by the facts.

Many groups across the political spectrum feel their opinions and perspectives are under siege whensocial media platforms moderate content, researchers say, but its difficult to make the case that these platforms are biased against any one group since the platforms disclose so little about how they decide what content is allowed and what is not.

Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube are not slanted against right-leaning users, a new report says.(Photo: LIONEL BONAVENTURE, AFP/Getty Images)

For their part, Facebook and Twitter say their platforms strike a balance between promoting free expression and removing hate, abuse and misinformation. They acknowledge making enforcement errors but insist their policies are applied fairly to everyone.

Conservative author Denise McAllister does not see it that way. And shes called on the social media platforms to stop moderating speech altogether.

This is a platform, right? You don't need to act like mama Twitter or mama Facebook. Just let people say what they are going to say, whether its true, false, whatever, she recently told USA TODAY. You have to just trust the people as individuals and not to try to impose power because you are going to do it inconsistently.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg said last week that Facebook would no longer recommend political and civic groups to users and would downplay politics in people's News Feeds.

A recent poll shows that majorities in both parties think political censorship is likely occurring on social media, but that belief is most prevalent on the political right.

Nine in 10 Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party say its at least somewhat likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable, up slightly from 85% in 2018, according to an August report from the Pew Research Center.

CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg appears on a monitor as he testifies remotely during a congressional hearing to discuss reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .(Photo: MICHAEL REYNOLDS, POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

The perception that social media platforms censor conservatives is regularly circulated by Fox News hosts, GOP lawmakers in congressional hearings and online pundits. That, in turn, has intensified GOP calls to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social media companies from legal liability for what their users post and gives platforms immunity when moderating objectionable content.

Bipartisan support to restrain the vast power held by a handful of large corporations grew during the Trump administration and shows no signs of ebbing as Democrats retake the White House.

Social media platforms have been judged harshly by both parties for how they policed content over the past year, from the COVID-19 pandemic to election-related misinformation and disinformation.

Oversight board to review Trump ban: Facebook refers Donald Trump indefinite suspension after Capitol attack to oversight board which could overturn it

YouTube Trump ban:Google extends suspension of former President Trump's channel

Democrats, including Biden, say the social media platforms dont restrict or remove enough harmful content, particularly hate speech, extremism, hoaxes and falsehoods. They have called on companies to play a bigger and more responsible role in curating public debate.

Those on the right say these platforms have too much latitude to restrict and remove content and target conservatives based on their political beliefs.

Those grievances boiled over when Facebook, Twitter and YouTube suspended Trumps accounts, citing the risk that he would use his social media megaphone to incite more violence before the end of his term.

After being permanently suspended from Twitter, Trump accused the company of banning free speech in cahoots with the Democrats and Radical Left.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/02/01/censorship-conservatives-trump-facebook-twitter-youtube/4316155001/

More:

Do Facebook, Twitter and YouTube censor conservatives? Claims 'not supported by the facts,' new research says - USA TODAY

Claims that conservative voices are being censored online by social media platforms are not backed by evidence andarethemselves a disinformation narrative, according to areport released Monday.

The New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights report concluded that anti-conservative bias claims, boosted by some top Republican lawmakers including former President TrumpDonald Trump Pelosi pushing Newsom to pick Schiff for next California AG: report Palm Beach town attorney says Trump should be able to live at Mar-a-Lago Trump helipad at Mar-a-Lago to soon be demolished MORE, are not based on any tangible evidence.

The claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy large-scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests, the report stated.

Republicans have ramped up accusations that social media companies have an anti-conservative bias after Facebook and Twitter took action to ban Trumps account following the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Twitter says it has permanently banned the former president from its platform, while Facebook is leaving the final decision up to its independent oversight body.

The allegation of censorship has been key in Republicans attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from liability associated with third-party content posted on their sites.

Despite the repeated accusations by Republicans, the report found that by many measures, conservative voices including that of the ex-president, until he was banished from Twitter and Facebook often are dominant in online political debates.

For example, the report highlighted the engagement on Trumps Facebook page compared to now-President Bidens page during the three months leading up to Election Day. Trumpelicited 87 percent of the total 307 million post interactions between the two, compared to Bidens 13 percent.

Additionally, the report noted that Fox News and Breitbart News led the pack in terms of Facebook interactions with posts by media organizations from Jan. 1 through Nov. 3 of last year. Fox News had 448 million interactions and Breitbart had 295 million; the closest behind them was CNN, at 191 million interactions.

With Biden in office, Republicans have continued to push back against Section 230 over the unfounded accusations of anti-conservative biases.

The report recommends the Biden administration work with Congress to update Section 230, rather than pushing for a repeal of the law as Trump sought before leaving office.

The controversial law should be amended so that its liability shield is conditional, based on social media companies acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement, the report stated.

Bidens nominee to serve as the secretary of Commerce, current Rhode Island Gov. Gina RaimondoGina RaimondoOn The Money: Biden commits to ,400 checks, but open to eligibility limits | House approves budget resolution for COVID-19 package | McConnell seeks to inflict political pain on budget votes Hillicon Valley: Federal cyber agency reevaluating role in countering election disinformation | Senate panel advances Biden's Commerce secretary pick | House Armed Services panel establishes new cybersecurity panel GOP warns Biden nominees on hold until after impeachment MORE (D), said last week during a Senate confirmation hearing that the law needs some reform, indicating the administration is open to amending it.

Biden during his presidential campaign said Section 230 should be revoked, but he has largely not detailed plans moving forward.

The report also recommends the Biden administration create a new Digital Regulatory Agency. The agency would be charged with enforcing the responsibilities of a revised Section 230.

Additionally, it recommends the Biden administration pursue a constructive reform agenda for social media, including pressing the companies on improving and enforcing content policies.

As for social media companies, the report recommends the industry provide greater disclosure on content moderation actions, offer users a choice among content moderation algorithms, undertake more vigorous human moderation of influential accounts and release more data for researchers.

Read more:

Conservative claims of online censorship 'a form of disinformation:' study | TheHill - The Hill

Facebook and Twittersuspending former President Donald Trumps accountsin the wake of a mob storming the Capitol raises yet again the issue of the discretion that federal law affords internet platforms to regulate speech and Big Techs monopoly power.

Bigness is not necessarily a problem and can be an asset. Facebook FB, -0.16% is a leader in artificial intelligence research, Google GOOG, +7.40% gave us Android, Amazon AMZN, -2.00% pioneered cloud computing, and Apple AAPL, -0.78% pioneered the modern smartphone.

Facebook may have a monopoly by providing a substantially differentiated digital bulletin board, but it is a free service, making questionable the economicharm to consumersthesine qua nonof modern antitrust enforcement.

In the advertising market,Google has the largest market share. And it is noteworthy that the Justice Departmentdid not charge Facebookin its suit against Google for manipulating the ad-marketing algorithms.

In this previous column, I argued that the Federal Trade Commission suit against Facebook is wrongheaded. It could be interpreted as an attempt to rein in the company owing to gross data privacy misdeeds going back to theCambridge Analyticaaffairand enablingRussian meddling in the 2016presidential campaign. And for the complaints ofDemocratic and Republican politiciansabout editorial abuses at both Twitter TWTR, +1.07% and Facebook.

Forcing Facebook to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, as the FTC seeks, wont solve the data-mining and privacy problemsthat would require legislation similar to theEuropean Union General Data Regulationthat mandates users be informed, understand and consent to the data collected about them and how it will be used.

Section 230of the Communications Decency Act provides Twitter, Facebook and other internet platforms with expansive legal immunity for the statements and other material that users post. It exempts service providers from civil liability for actions taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. And for providing users with tools to restrict access to such materials.

As a candidatePresident Joe Biden called for revoking those protectionsand permitting the websites to be sued. More generally Democrats would like Twitter, Facebook and others to remove what they view as false information, whereas Republicans believe the two platforms exhibit ananticonservative bias.

All sides appear to miss even bigger problems.

Justice Clarence Thomas argues that lower courts apply Section 230 too expansively. Internet platforms have been found exempt from liability even when they know the content or activity it enables is illegalfor example, child pornography, human trafficking, and terrorism.

With millions of daily posts, it is impossible for Twitter and Facebook to catch everything, but they could be compelledor be held criminally or civilly libelto remove material they know is illegal or facilitates crimes. And for failing to pre-emptively screen material that could incite civil unrest until the full context of an incident is determined and accurately portrayed.

As for political and other speech, Twitter and other platforms have been accused of anticonservative bias in the content they exclude and promote. This is broadly protected, because the First Amendment applies to restrictions that may be applied by government entities, not private actors. And thecourts do not treat internet platforms as public squares where viewpoint discrimination is impermissible.

Absolute neutrality is impossible but the ruminations of politiciansas long as their posts are not illegal and do not incite illegal assembly, destruction of property or violenceshould be left to the intelligence of voters. After all, what is true and not true is often in the eyes of the beholder.

They may be technology wizards, but Jack Dorsey and other internet magnates should not be exercising broad censorship powers.

European officials were shocked by the recent Facebook and Twitter bans on Trump andsuggested such decisions should be left to elected officials to arbitrate.

Importantly, Twitter, Facebook and other social media have become so pervasive that they have become the public squareand legally should be treated as such. Neutral arbitration panelswith equal representation chosen by Republican and Democratic leadersshould oversee editorial decisions to ensure some measure of objectivity.

Its not perfect but if you want perfection you will have to wait for the hereafterSt. Peter wont be facing a primary challenge anytime soon.

PeterMoriciis an economist and emeritus business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist.

Read the rest here:

Facebook and Twitter should not be in the censorship business - MarketWatch

Two social media influencers who managed to make the Hollywood sign read Hollyboob before being arrested on suspicion of trespassing Monday said they did so to challenge censorship on Instagram. One of them, they said, lost millions of followers and part of her livelihood when her accounts were shuttered for nudity.

That their stunt also raised awareness for breast cancer and brought smiles to faces around the world, they said, were bonuses.

Its awesome, said Julia Rose, 27, of L.A., whose Shagmag company brands itself as a modern rival to Playboy. All of it combined together has been really, really great.

Rose previously gained notoriety, along with a friend, for flashing her breasts during the World Series in 2019. For that stunt, she received a lifetime ban from Major League Baseball.

Rose said in an interview with The Times that she first conceptualized Mondays stunt last year after being warned about nudity on her personal and company Instagram accounts, which had about 6 million followers combined.

Rose said she knew she was pushing the boundaries of censorship on those accounts by featuring fellow influencers barely covering up, but she also felt Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, censored accounts unfairly, targeting influencers more than established brands such as Playboy.

Rose knew she couldnt get to the Hollywood sign and alter it alone, so she looked for someone wild enough to help, she said, and landed on friend and fellow influencer Jack Tenney, 26, whose adventure"-focused joogsquad channel on YouTube also touts millions of followers.

Everybody loves a good prank, Tenney said. Its always good to make people laugh and make people smile.

The pair said they attempted to get to the sign multiple times late last year but failed, in part because the two big B tarps they had created to cover the iconic signs W and D were too heavy.

Beginning in late December, Roses personal Instagram account and then her business account were disabled. A Facebook spokeswoman said Tuesday the company did not allow nudity on Instagram and removed Roses accounts for repeatedly breaking those rules.

After the accounts removal, Rose and Tenney decided to try once more to get to the sign and this time with a better plan.

Instead of two tarps, they would only bring one, for the W. Theyd achieve the second B by pulling a much smaller piece of material through the middle of the existing D.

They then got a double stroller to wheel the one tarp up an established trail that takes hikers above the sign, pretending to be husband and wife, Tenney said with a laugh. We just kind of went for it, knowing that we could get caught.

Two of Tenneys friends from Florida came along, as did two of Roses friends. At the top of the mountain, they skirted a fence and climbed down the hill. At the sign, five of them focused on getting the tarp over the W, using ropes to help lift it, and one got the material across the D.

Rose and Tenney estimated they were at the sign for 15 to 20 minutes, and no more than half an hour. They then hiked down the hill to Mulholland Highway, where they expected to be and were arrested, for misdemeanor trespassing. They were released Monday night.

Los Angeles Police Department officials said the group was not charged with vandalism because there was no damage to the sign but that they were breaking the law by trespassing and on terrain that is dangerous.

Mark Panatier, chairman of the Hollywood Sign Trust, which maintains the site in Griffith Park, said Monday that it was unfortunate that such an important icon for the city of L.A. is not being appreciated.

This is an icon thats there for visual reinforcement of the importance of Hollywood, not just for the city of L.A. but to the world, Panatier said. It needs to be upheld; it doesnt need to be demeaned.

Rose and Tenney took a different view. They said they hadnt hurt anyone and had received positive comments from people around the world who thought their efforts were hilarious, or who welcomed the focus on breast cancer.

They said they each would have a court hearing on June 3. Tenney said he hoped the judge took the prank as many on the internet had: as a harmless bit of fun that did some good along the way.

See the rest here:

Mad at Instagram, they decided to make it the 'Hollyboob' sign - Los Angeles Times

The premise of Prano Bailey-Bonds Sundance Midnight selection opener is so strong that its little wonder the film cant quite live up or perhaps down to it: In a Thatchers Britain riven by tabloid-fueled video nasty hysteria, a young woman working for the national censorship board is assessing a horror flick, when it triggers sudden flashbacks to a traumatic, amnesiac episode in her own life. Given the ongoing debates around censorship and its trendier 2020s companion, cancellation and the relationship between screen violence and its real-life counterpart, not to mention the grungy exploitation aesthetic of the no-budget films it references, Censor dangles the prospect of topical, ticklish provocation that will prove offensive to some sensibilities. And offense, in a time of pandemic numbness, is tantalizing in itself: at least youre feeling something.

Initially, at least, Censor teases in that direction. The witty opening segues from snowy, degraded-VHS versions of classic Film4 and BFI logos into a scene that wouldnt look out of place in any one of a hundred 80s horrors. A terrified teenage girl runs through a forest, tortured by filtered lighting effects, strobey editing and a Carpenter-esque score. A hand clicks a clunky remote and the frame freezes, as the two censors placidly watching, Enid (Niamh Algar) and Sanderson (Nicholas Burns) discuss whats to be done with the gorier parts (that we sadly have not been shown). The decapitation is fine because its ridiculous, claims Enid, but the eye-gouging will need to be cut. Sanderson demurs, pompously citing Shakespeare, Homer and Buuel as forbears in ocular assault, but Enid holds her ground. After all, shes already salvaged the tug of war with the intestines and only trimmed the tiniest bit off the end of the genitals.

This archly amusing exchange tells us a lot about Enid, a bookish type whose prim blouses are always done up to the throat and who takes herself and her job which she sees as protecting a vulnerable public very seriously. Which only adds to her dismay when she learns that a killing has occurred recently in exactly the gruesome manner of one of the films she was responsible for sanitizing. Worse, shes been personally identified as the censor involved, and in a painfully plausible early example of misdirected public outrage, tabloid hacks are now encamped outside the office and anonymous callers spew hate into her home phone.

This is promisingly juicy stuff, even though its quickly apparent, from the meticulously beige 80s styling, DP Annika Summersons careful, muted compositions and Enids solitary, mournful characterization, that Bailey-Bond, co-writing the script with Anthony Fletcher, has designs for a more artful, far less creaky movie than the ones Enid watches at work more Berberian Sound Studio than Last House on the Left. And though self-appointed morality wonks like Mary Whitehouse and, of course, Maggie Thatcher drone away on the telly and lurid headlines scream from newspaper stands, soon the background hum of social paranoia the films most original aspect dies back and a more rote genre-horror storyline comes into focus. A shame, when self-righteous, panicky public scapegoating is more compelling and frightening than the mystery of what happened in the woods one day a couple of decades ago.

Enids drab, sexless lifestyle echoing the slasher archetype of the final girl is at least partly due to her terrible guilt at having blanked out the details of a childhood incident in which her sister Nina went missing, never to be seen again. So the censor is self-censoring, on some subconscious level, but who is she protecting this time, and from what?

Her parents decide at long last to have Nina declared dead, which further destabilizes the already fraying young woman. So its hard to say if its real or imagined when she starts to believe that her sister lives on, as an actress (Sophia La Porta) who shows up in the latest trashy offering from local horror maestro Frederick North (perhaps a reference to notorious British serial killer Fred West). Oleaginous producer Doug Smart (played oleaginously by Michael Smiley) might be able to provide some answers.

There are some nice subtle flourishes, as when a projector beam turns red implying the bloodiness of the image indeed Summersons excellent framing and moody color blocking is a sophisticated pleasure throughout. And with Saffron Cullanes precise, subtly heightened 80s costuming, and composer Emilie Levienaise-Farrouchs cleverly referential yet non-derivative score, Censor is a stylish calling card for all involved, one that certainly demonstrates an impressive level of directorial control for a debut filmmaker.

But that control does sometimes feel like constriction: Until the very end, when we finally get a ridiculous decapitation, a nastily Cronenbergian talking wound and a properly deranged nightmare coda (a testament to Mark Towns punchy editing), it doesnt really feel like Bailey-Bond is having as much nasty fun as she could. Its an irony that Censor would probably have passed even Enids moralizing eye without cuts, and that a movie set during the Ban This Sick Filth moment should be neither sick nor filthy enough to run the slightest risk of being banned. Between this and 2015 short Nasty, Bailey-Bond clearly has great affection for the genre, but if a love letter to the cheapie slasher is going to reach its addressee, better it be written in warm, sticky blood.

Read this article:

Censor Review: A Horror-Homage to the Video Nasty That Isnt Quite Nasty Enough - Variety

There is an old, hoary saying among lawyers: Hard cases make bad law. This maxim has been drilled into the heads of law students for generations.

The pursuit of Donald Trump, reminiscent of the mob carrying pitchforks and torches while chasing the monster in Frankenstein, readily comes to mind while following the efforts by virtually all Democratic federal officeholders, a few Republicans, and the major politically liberal news outlets to impeach-and-convict Donald Trump for a second time.

This current impeachment effort is exceedingly unwise, even if Trumps conduct during and after the recent presidential election rightly horrifies all Americans devoted to the tenets of our democracy and to our assumptions about the peaceful transfer of power. One needs to recall that Joseph Biden was decidedly lukewarm, if not outright opposed, to a second impeachment, even though he was the one most directly affected by Trumps effort to reverse Bidens electoral victory. Biden will turn out to be viewed by history as wise, in contrast to House Speaker Nancy Pelosis and now-Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumers pitchfork-and-torch-laden pursuit of the Trump monster.

The story needs no detailed retelling. Anyone who was not comatose during the weeks between the election, the meeting of the electoral college, and the aftermath, knows the tale.

But the profoundly important question remains whether Trump, who stands impeached for a second time by the House vote taken on January 13, 2021, should be convicted when the Senate tries him on the impeachment. (Trumps trial in the Senate is scheduled to begin the week of February 8.)

The Democrats goal in this second impeachment-and-trial is quite clear: To prevent Donald Trump from occupying the White House again. The goal is not, of course, the usual goal of an impeachment to remove an errant public official from office since the American electorate accomplished that this past November. Put more bluntly, those who wish to impeach-and-convict Trump this time around are looking not only to punish our sociopathic ex-president for his conduct while in office, but to prevent the American electorate from ever putting him back into the White House, even if a majority of them would like to see him re-take the presidency.

They are also seeking to punish him for his speech that some claim incited the crowd to attack the Capitol building. These critics are simply wrong. Trumps speech lies within the definition of free speech, rather than unlawful incitement, as the Supreme Court has drawn the distinction in the famous 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio.

The bottom line is that this second impeachment attempt is fundamentally anti-democratic. It is also very foolish, which is likely why President Biden has tried to discourage the move. Biden has stated that, if we were six months out, we should be doing everything to get him out of office. Impeaching him again, trying to invoke the 25th Amendment, whatever it took. But I am focused now on us taking control as president and vice president on the 20th and to get our agenda moving as quickly as we can."

As if the Democrats attack upon democracy were not bad enough, the social media gurus in the private sector are acting in an equally worrisome fashion. While the Democrats seek to weaken the electoral system by barring Trump from subjecting his candidacy to democratic choice, the major actors in the social media world Facebook and Twitter have kept Trump from communicating to the American people on the two social networks with the broadest reach.

Due to Trumps inaccurate posts on election fraud and the sympathetic posts he shared for those who attended the Capitol riots, Facebook and Twitter decided to ban him from their platforms. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg contended that, "the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. While Facebook and Twitter have the right to do what they are doing they are, after all, private companies, even though each arguably has a near-monopoly it is doubtful that they are exercising their near-monopolistic power wisely. (In fact, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed anti-trust lawsuits against Facebook previously for engaging in anti-competitive practices where Facebook acquired, or attempted to, weaker companies before they became serious competitors.)

It is one thing to have defeated Trump at the polls via democratic means, and thereby to force him into luxurious self-exile at his Florida estate. But it is quite another to cut him off from the major avenues of mass communication, through which he otherwise would be expected to make his case for re-election. Trump has often used Twitter to make posts about policy changes, his support and disapproval of certain officials, election fraud, the Capitol riots, and any other events that influenced his presidency. In short, Trump relied on social media to spread his views and maintain his connection with his supporters.

The life of our republic has relied upon the fundamental belief that the Supreme Court has dubbed the free marketplace of ideas - the most trusted, and surely the most peaceful, way of determining truth and of making political decisions via democratic rather than autocratic methods. The current move aiming to remove Donald Trump from this marketplace is not only anti-democratic, but verges on being authoritarian if not totalitarian. At the very least, it is incompatible with liberal democracy and the ban deprives us of knowing what is on the autocrats mind.

It would be healthier for American democracy, and for our political system, as well as for avoiding dangerous social and political unrest, for cooler heads to prevail. Trump should be acquitted at his upcoming impeachment trial, and Twitter and Facebook should re-think the burdens that their censorship of Donald Trump casts upon the concept of democratic engagement in the free marketplace of ideas.

See the original post here:

Bad Precedents: Impeachment For The Exercise Of Free Speech, And Censorship By Social Media - wgbh.org

NEW YORK, Jan. 28, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via InvestorWire BIGtoken today announces its placement in an editorial published by NetworkNewsWire ("NNW"), one of 50+ trusted brands within the InvestorBrandNetwork (IBN), a multifaceted financial news and publishing company for private and public entities.

To view the full publication, Censorship and Data: The Stakes and Consequences Are Getting Serious, please visit: https://nnw.fm/yzWoa

A recent Pew Research article pinpointed major concerns with social media platforms. Americans have complicated feelings about their relationship with big technology companies, the article observes. While they have appreciated theimpact of technologyover recent decades and rely on these companies products to communicate,shopandget news, many have alsogrown criticalof the industry. The article goes on to report that a Pew Research Center survey found that roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults say it is very (37%) or somewhat (36%) likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable. Just 25% believe this is not likely the case.

The events of the last few weeks have made that article appear almost prophetic as issues of censorship and privacy have gained additional prominence on the world stage. A number of private and public companies are working to resolve these issues, with many of those companies relying on blockchain to provide their services.Leading the pack is BIGtoken, the first consumer-managed data marketplace where people can own and earn from their data. The opportunity ahead has such potential that parent company SRAX Inc. (NASDAQ: SRAX) is spinning out BIGtoken into a separate publicly traded company and has entered into a definitive share exchange agreement with Force Protection Video Equipment Corp. (OTC: FPVD). The separation of BIGtoken provides shareholders a pure play in the consumer-managed data sector.

About BIGtoken

BIGtoken(R) is a consumer data management and distribution system. BIG is the first consumer-managed data marketplace where people can own and earn from their data. Through a transparent platform and consumer reward system, BIG offers consumers choice, transparency, and compensation for their data. Participating consumers earn rewards, and developers are able to build pro-consumer online experiences on top of the BIG platform. The system also provides advertisers and media companies access to transparent, verified consumer data to better reach and serve audiences. For more information on BIGtoken, visit http://www.BIGtoken.com.

About SRAXSRAX (NASDAQ: SRAX) is a financial technology company that unlocks data and insights for publicly traded companies. Through its premier investor intelligence and communications platform,Sequire, companies can track their investors behaviors and trends and use those insights to engage current and potential investors across marketing channels. For more information on SRAX, visit http://www.SRAX.com.

NOTE TO INVESTORS:The latest news and updates relating to SRAX are available in the companys newsroom athttp://nnw.fm/SRAX.

About NetworkNewsWire

NetworkNewsWire (NNW) is an information service that provides (1) access to our news aggregation and syndication servers, (2)NetworkNewsBreaksthat summarize corporate news and information, (3) enhanced press release services, (4) social media distribution and optimization services, and (5) a full array of corporate communication solutions. As a multifaceted financial news and content distribution company with an extensive team of contributing journalists and writers, NNW is uniquely positioned to best serve private and public companies that desire to reach a wide audience of investors, consumers, journalists and the general public. NNW has an ever-growing distribution network of more than 5,000 key syndication outlets across the country. By cutting through the overload of information in todays market, NNW brings its clients unparalleled visibility, recognition and brand awareness.

NNW is where news, content and information converge.

To receive SMS text alerts from NetworkNewsWire, text STOCKS to 77948 (U.S. Mobile Phones Only).

For more information please visithttps://www.NetworkNewsWire.com.

Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the NetworkNewsWire website, applicable to all content provided by NNW wherever published or re-published:http://NNW.fm/Disclaimer

NetworkNewsWire (NNW)New York, New Yorkwww.NetworkNewsWire.com212.418.1217 OfficeEditor@NetworkNewsWire.com

NetworkNewsWire is part of theInvestorBrandNetwork

Follow this link:

BIGtoken Focused on Top Consumer Concerns: Censorship and Data - GlobeNewswire

It is hard to think of a recent horror filmor a film of any genre, reallyin which the main character is tasked with a job as original and ingenious as Enid Baines, the protagonist of Prano Bailey-Bonds riveting Censor. She is, yes, the titular censor. It is 1980s England, the time of video nasties that drew parental consternation and tabloid outrage. These were the low-budget, ultra-violent VHS cassettes that earned their own category in the collective consciousness. Not all were UK productionsI Spit On Your Grave and Abel Ferraras Driller Killer made the list. In Censor, however, the nasties are homegrown, in more ways than one.

Given the climate, the job of a censor is a tricky one. As Censor begins, a quiet, by-the-book young woman, Enid (Niamh Algar), watches a rather typical, fuzzy-screened entry with a colleague. This one features a girl on the run from a killerand some choice commentary from Enid: The decapitation is ridiculous Its the gouging thats too realistic Some things should be left to the imagination. Her colleague does not seem too perturbed, but Enid treats their task much more seriously: We cant afford to make mistakes. Is Enids thought-process fueled by morality, or by the knowledge that they, the censors, are being watched just like the filmmakers? After all, following a long day of work, Enid is greeted on her television by conservative politicians shouting, These violent films are ruining societys moral fabric.

Bailey-Bond, who co-wrote the film with Anthony Fletcher, nicely illustrates the grimness of this time period. Margaret Thatcher barks on TV, the tunnels Enid passes through each day are gray and foreboding, and the tube is home to arguments and stares. It is no wonder that viewers got off on the idea of films that caused upset and controversy. It is also no wonder that censors like Enid come under fire when a murderer dubbed the Amnesiac Killer was said to be influenced by a film she and her colleagues passedwith edits, but still. Suddenly, Enids name is on the news and she is targeted by prank callers.

Meanwhile, Enid struggles with an even greater darkness. As a child, her sister disappeared following a game in the woods. For decades, she was a missing person, but now Enids parents are prepared to call her deceased. Yet for Enid, the disappearance is full of mystery. Her own memories are spotty, and when she sees a specific reference to the disappearance in a new film, she begins to crumble. How could this filmmaker have known what happened that day? Is the actress in the film actually Enids sister? These questions become Enids obsession, and Censors second half explores her search for answers and descent into well, youll see.

The closer to the truth Enid comes, the looser Censors hold on the narrative becomes. Yet we are drawn to Enids story even as it descends into a predictable denouement. A key reason for this is the performance of star Algar. The Irish actress is utterly mesmerizing onscreen complex, worried, coldly intelligent but also deeply wounded. Its a star-making performance, to be sure. Just as commendable is the direction of Prano Bailey-Bond, who has crafted a horror film that disturbs but is also emotionally engaging. She also crafts the finest smashed-TV-as-metaphor since the opening credits of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me.

Censor is a genuinely impressive debut feature for Bailey-Bond, a horror film with allusions to everything from The Ring to Berberian Sound Studio and Lost Highway. Above all else, though, it has the character of Enid, and the performance of Algar. It works as both a quasi-tribute to the video nasties of the 1980s and a commentary on the foolishness of blaming art for the actions of its admirers. Censor shows that paranoid delusions can target anyoneeven those tasked with being the publics moral barometer. Its a bold point of view, and an exhilarating film.

Censor premiered at Sundance Film Festival.

Go here to read the rest:

Sundance Review: Censor is a Riveting Horror Feature of Paranoid Delusions - The Film Stage