Election Interference Is The New Normal – Forbes

Sept. 29, 2020, stickers to be given to people who have voted (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File)

The U.S. has a long history of interfering in elections abroad

Throughout history, the United States has interfered in the elections of many other countries around the world. At least since the CIA was created in 1947. Whenever exposed for this, our political officials have often argued that we were simply promoting stability or spreading democracy. These types of covert actions by any given country are always in their own self-interest, at least from their point of view. The ends justify the means, depending on your perspective and whether youre on the right side of a movement. The point is, while our historical narrative has painted a picture of Americas hegemony spreading goodness throughout the world, our new narrative involves the U.S. appearing weak enough to be misled and fooled into extremes on one political side or the other through propaganda and misinformation campaigns.

Today we find ourselves in an Orwellian news cycle of constitutional crises that would have been the absurd fodder in dystopian fiction of days past. Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to Congress and witness tampering in the Russia investigation and then had his 40-year prison sentence commuted by Trump, said in an interview with Alex Jones that if Donald Trump loses the election in November he should declare martial law. Since August, Trump has been saying that The only way were going to lose is if the election is rigged. And this is our new normal. While the pandemic and quarantines have led us to accept many new norms in some areas of our lives, the weeks and months following Election Day are bound to force us to confront new norms of election interference in our democratic process.

2016 set all new precedents

After the 2016 election, many Americans learned they were the victims of Russian propaganda and media manipulation. Robert Muellers top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann stated that he believes Russias interference in the 2016 election was more damaging to our democracy than the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was during World War II. Today we continue seeing ongoing misinformation campaigns wreak havoc on the ecosystem of truth. In August of this year, Facebook reported having removed a troll farm posing as African-Americans for Donald Trump and QAnon supporters, as well as hundreds of fake accounts linked to The Epoch Times. On October 1, Reuters revealed that a pro-Trump news site called the Newsroom for American and European Based Citizens (NAEBC) was actually being run by people associated with the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-backed troll farm.

On October 8, it was reported that Facebook had deleted hundreds of fake accounts tied to Turning Point USA and banned U.S. marketing firm Rally Forge, a clear example of how American political strategists and marketers have been emulating the same foreign propaganda techniques we know occurred in 2016.Without a doubt, Russia is helping to amplify false narratives in the U.S. election once again, with arguments in line with Trumps claims over the legitimacy of mail-in voting. There was an Intelligence Bulletin on September 3 from the Department of Homeland Security that states that, "We assess that Russia is likely to continue amplifying criticisms of vote-by-mail and shifting voting processes amidst the COVID-19 pandemic to undermine public trust in the electoral process." Other reports claim that we can also expect China and Iran to contribute to the growing mess of sowing doubt and anger.

Despite all that other countries may be doing to impact our 2020 election, the most successful spreaders of misinformation seem to now be within our own borders. A recent paper by Harvard University found that Fox News and Donald Trumps own campaign were far more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls or Facebook clickbait artists. While Trump has benefited from other countries actions to enrage and polarize our society, he himself has been much more prolific and successful at spreading propaganda, along with Fox News. The Harvard paper goes on to say that, Our findings here suggest that Donald Trump has perfected the art of harnessing mass media to disseminate and at times reinforce his disinformation campaign...

84% of American voters are eligible to vote by mail in the 2020 election, according to a Washington Post analysis. Trump has repeatedly dismissed the validity of mail-in voting despite the U.S. intelligence community insisting that there is no evidence of fraud in mail-in voting. The actions of his new postmaster general have themselves served as deliberate sabotage by maiming that department and slowing it down at every turn.Trump may be right in calling this a rigged election, but not for the reasons he claims. Its being rigged, in part, by changes to the post office to disrupt mail-in ballots while simultaneously claiming that mail-in ballots will be rife with fraud or shouldnt be counted after Election Day, all in order to set the stage for not accepting the results.

Trump will only accept the results if he wins

In March, Trump told Fox & Friends that Democrats want levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, youd never have a Republican elected in this country again. By dismissing the validity of votes counted after Election Day, Trump is setting the stage for not conceding, and admitting that more people having their vote counted would be bad for him. Regarding the likelihood of voter fraud, The Atlantic put it this way, An authoritative report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, calculated the rate of voter fraud in three elections at between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Another investigation, from Justin Levitt at Loyola Law School, turned up 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation out of more than 1 billion votes cast in the United States from 2000 to 2014. Judges in voting-rights cases have made comparable findings of fact.

In June, former Defense Secretary Mattis wrote that, "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people does not even pretend to try." Scientific American endorsed Joe Biden in September, making him their first endorsement in the publications 175 year history. The New England Journal of Medicine, also with a history of being nonpartisan, published an editorial on October 8, saying, Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent.

There is a constant drumbeat of warning signs that Trump may try to not leave office if he loses. With the high likelihood that he will be charged with crimes by the state of New York once he does leave office, Trump has even more reason to use every tool at his disposal to try to retain power.

Normal is whatever happens

The phrase new normal has been thrown around a lot this year, in some ways helping us cope or accept the reality of our daily lives now. New normals of working from home or schooling from home, of mask wearing and distancing and obsessive hand washing. Described by the World Economic Forum, The 'new normal' discourse sanitizes the idea that our present is okay because normal is regular. Normal becomes what we see and hear everyday. According to a Rice University study, the mental health of black men in the U.S. improved during Barack Obamas presidency, showing that our leaders do help uphold standards, or create new ones.

Simply calling attention to such matters doesnt correct them. Edward Snowdens revelations about government surveillance didnt lead to correcting all the problems he exposed, it just gave us some insight into the new normal of our lack of privacy as Americans and made us all more aware of it. We the people can help decide what we accept as our new normals, and those norms can change as often as our priorities do. In an interview with Anand Giridharadas, Noam Chomsky put it this way, I think if you take a look at the United States in the 1920s, and you asked, Could there ever be a labor movement?, you would've sounded crazy. How could there be? It had been crushed. But it changed. Human life is not predictable. Depends on choices and will, which are unpredictable.

Our new normal, at least for now, includes existential threats to our democracy such as increased election interference. And not just from other countries, but from within our own borders and from our own leaders.

Original post:
Election Interference Is The New Normal - Forbes

Black LinkedIn Is Thriving. Does LinkedIn Have a Problem With That? – The New York Times

Other stars of Black LinkedIn target specific companies. Ms. Joseph, for example, has recently called out Wells Fargo, DoorDash, Microsoft and Google.

There has also been no shortage of criticism of LinkedIn itself. Users are holding the company to a standard it set for itself in June, when Melissa Selcher, the chief marketing and communications officer, wrote an open letter on the platform.

We have a responsibility to use our platform and resources to intentionally address the systemic barriers to economic opportunity, she wrote. We also believe we play a critical role in amplifying Black voices.

Also in June, with Black Lives Matter protests spreading across the country, LinkedIn highlighted Black Voices to Follow and Amplify, a curated list of chief executives, media personalities and other influencers, including the Rev. Bernice King and Karamo Brown from the Netflix show Queer Eye. For the most part, members of the list post content that is general, motivational and safe.

Ms. Joseph and others took to LinkedIn to say the group contained too many establishment names and not enough activists. Where are the Tamika Mallorys of LinkedIn on that list? Ms. Joseph wrote, referring to a co-founder of the 2017 Womens March.

Black voices arent just corporate C-Suite ones, wrote Patricia S. Gatlin, a talent sourcing specialist in Las Vegas. All Black voices need to be heard in this moment, added Scott Taylor, a recruiter in Los Angeles. Not just the ones your team of analysts think we should hear from.

Ms. Leverich, the LinkedIn spokeswoman, said by email: We use a number of factors in our selection, including members who have self-identified as Black, people from a variety of industries and with an interesting perspective to share. Were constantly adding new voices and sorting through requests to join this program.

Read the original post:

Black LinkedIn Is Thriving. Does LinkedIn Have a Problem With That? - The New York Times

Report: Twitter Introduces Limitations Ahead of US Election; Early Result Announcements Marked as Misinformation and More – Niche Gamer

Twitter have announced new rules and limits in the run-up to the 2020 US election; including early result announcements being marked as misinformation.

On October 9th, Twitter Support tweeted and posted on their blog how they would provide additional, significant product and enforcement updates that will increase context and encourage more thoughtful consideration before Tweets are amplified.

Firstly, this included premature claims of a victory in the election being labeled as misinformation, with a link provided to Twitters own official US Election page. Tweets that encourage others to interfere with the election process or the results will be removed.

On the blog, Twitter explains to determine the results of an election in the US, we require either an announcement from state election officials, or a public projection from at least two authoritative, national news outlets that make independent election calls.

In addition, those attempting to retweet a tweet with a misleading information label will be given a prompt directing them to credible information about the topic before they can amplify it.

Twitter will also be adding warnings and further restrictions on tweets that are deemed misleading from accounts owned by US political figures, US-based accounts with 100,000+ followers, or Tweets that obtain significant engagement.They will also temporarily ask people to add their own commentary before amplifying content by prompting Quote Tweets instead of Retweets.

Though this adds some extra friction for those who simply want to Retweet, Twitter explains on their blog, we hope it will encourage everyone to not only consider why they are amplifying a Tweet, but also increase the likelihood that people add their own thoughts, reactions and perspectives to the conversation.

What users see on their timelines during the election will also be affected, as Twitter will prevent liked by and followed by recommendations from people you dont follow from showing up in your timeline and wont send notifications for these Tweets.

These recommendations can be a helpful way for people to see relevant conversations from outside of their network, but we are removing them because we dont believe the Like button provides sufficient, thoughtful consideration prior to amplifying Tweets to people who dont follow the author of the Tweet, or the relevant topic that the Tweet is about. This will likely slow down how quickly Tweets from accounts and topics you dont follow can reach you, which we believe is a worthwhile sacrifice to encourage more thoughtful and explicit amplification.

Further, Trends in the For You tab for US users will only surface with additional context. This is to more quickly let people know why something is trending and also help reduce the potential for misleading information to spread.

Twitter has tried desperately over the years to curb accounts they deem abusive or spreading misinformation; even trying to prevent users from being dunked on- no matter the reason. These have included limiting an abusive tweets visibility, and even changing the default egg avatar due to its alleged association with harassment.

The former- better known as shadow banning- resulted in Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey having to testifyto the US House Energy and Commerce Committee. This was due to allegations of censorship, especially aimed at those with republican beliefs. Twitters terms of service (as of January 2020) effectively wrote shadow banning into their terms [1,2,3].

Back in February of this year, images from an experimental branch of Twitter leaked to the public; wherein tweets could be flagged and marked as harmfully misleading, with labels with the correct information under it. In late May of this year, Twitter also allowed users to control who could reply to their tweets.

On May 28th, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Preventing Online Censorship,after Twitter marked one of his tweets as deceptive. President Trump had expressed concern that mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.

In summation, the executive order ascertains that social media is the modernpublic square.As such they would lose their protections from being liable for what users post, if they use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Specifically, this was by clarifying section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act; which offered immunity from liability for social media platforms from what their users posted. Under the executive order, this rescinds the immunity for those who act as publishers by curating user content.

The executive order makes it so the act serves its true purpose- to protect those engaging in Good Samaritan blocking ofharmful content. The executive order was sent to the FCC on July 27th to be filed.

The above factors have lead many to grow concerned with Twitters effect on the 2020 US election, and that Twitter would even go as far as to attempt to prevent or hinder President Trump winning.

Many users had quote retweeted Twitters announcement, accusing them of attempting to manipulate the election [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] via preventing the spread of information, and marking certain truths as misinformation.

In nowdeleted tweets, Yoel Roth, Twitters Head of Site Integrity, claimed that there were ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSEandIm just saying, we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.

One particular theory held by some online proposes that major news outlets (who have also been accused of an anti-Trump and anti-republican bias) will not report the results of the election, should Trump win.

In summation, the US election involves the public casting votes for members of the Electoral College, who in turn cast Electoral Votes (almost always in line with what the majority voted for in their state). While the public vote occurs on the first Tuesday after November 1st (Election Day), the Electoral Vote takes place the first Monday after December 12th.

As such, the election is not decided on Election Day, but rather the Electoral Vote. The aforementioned theory proposes that between Election Day and the Electoral Vote, the democrats will create fraudulent mail-in votes (pretending they were missed or failed to arrive for counting on Election Day) as well as somehow throwing out republican votes in order to to win.

The theory further proposes that major news outlets will not announce the result on Election Night should President Trump win (unlike prior elections). If President Trump later fraudulently lost the election his objections would be supposedly easier to dismiss, as the nation would not accept the standard of the Election Night results being as good as final.

Democrat politicians and major news outlets would then focus on President Trump refusing to accept the results of the election; dismissing accusations of voter fraud by President Trump and his supporters as an excuse or lie to keep him in office.

Some of President Trumps concerns on mail-in votes may have already come to pass. The US Attorneys Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a revised statement on an inquiry into reports of issues with mail-in ballots. They had discovered nine military votes had been discarded, with seven voting for President Trump.

President Trump also retweeted several news stories today, regarding mail-in voter issues. These included a New Jersey postal employee accused of dumping 1,800 pieces of mail (with 99 ballots), and the Franklin County Board of Elections announcing that 49,669 voters in the county received an incorrect ballot. There was also a story on a Carrolton, Texas Mayoral candidate being arrested for voter fraud,

Twitters recent announcement has also prompted criticism that they are acting like a publisher [1, 2], the exact thing the Preventing Online Censorship executive order forbids. At this time of writing, President Trump has not issued any statements regarding Twitters announcement.

This is Niche Culture. In this column, we regularly cover anime, geek culture, and things related to video games. Please leave feedback and let us know if theres something you want us to cover!

Image: Twitter Blog

More here:

Report: Twitter Introduces Limitations Ahead of US Election; Early Result Announcements Marked as Misinformation and More - Niche Gamer

Gagged by the media giants, conservatives must fight via the Net – The Conservative Woman

SMALL c conservatives often think that the mainstream media is against them, and theyre right. The political bias of the BBC has been described ad infinitum here onThe Conservative Womanand documented in detail onNews-watch.

Even Jenni Murray, doyenne ofWomans Hour, has had enough of the BBCfurious, inter alia, at being reprimandedfor her on-air refutation of transgenderism. Sky News, Channel Four and ITV are all equally progressive and politically biased in their news and commentary.

By contrast, the US has Fox,the only conservative-leaning TV station; but the rest NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are all vehemently anti-Trump, however much some make a pretence at neutrality.

Social media is little better initsinherent anti-conservative bias and censorship.TCWrecentlyreportedthe censorship by YouTube of Dr Scott Atlas for daring to challenge the conventional thinking on the Covid-19 pandemic.

Twitter and Facebook are the same. When a group of US doctors made a public call for hydroxychloroquine to be used as a therapy for coronavirus, Facebook closed down anyone posting their video and Twitter banned Donald Trump Junior for 12 hours after he posted it on his account. Yesterday they went into action against President Trump again, Facebook removing a tweet saying it violated its rules on Covid misinformation while Twitter added a public-interest notice saying the tweet broke its rules on COVID-19 misinformation.

Shadow banning of pro-Trump tweeters and right-of-centre supporters is widely accepted as routinely happening.

In addition to blocking content from potential viewers without informing the creator, censorship also often takes more subtle and indirect forms, such as demonetisation (preventing those with the wrong opinions making a living from their content), as described by Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson here.

Yet despite these best efforts, its proved virtually impossible to prevent dissenting views from being heard and available, as subsequently demonstratedby Petersons and Rubins active resistance.

Where they led the way, others have followed.TCWposted a link to the Scott Atlas interviewhere, but you can also see it onBitChute, a video streaming service specifically created in 2017 to avoid YouTubes censorship. And its still available on more mainstream platforms such asApple,TuneinandFacebook.

You may find it a little more difficult to find the US Frontline Doctors press conference about hydroxychloroquine given several months ago, but not much (hereto save you the bother, though the comments have been disabled).

There is no doubtthat the internet has been a boon for anyone wishing to challenge Establishment views. The barriers to entry are low. The only things needed are a decent broadband connection and a smartphone. A few hundred pounds gets you a good microphone, camera and a bit of lighting.

While the tech giants try to muzzle those out of line of received wisdom, the reality is that articles and videos can be circulated with a speed with which Soviet dissidents could only have dreamed of spreading theirsamizdat.

And theres a plethora of conservative, Right-wing or free market voices out there. As well asTCWs socially conservative platform, my web favourites (from both sides of the pond) includeArchbishop Cranmer,Breitbart,Ann Coulter,Capx,Comment Central,Quilette,Theodore Dalrymple,Melanie Phillips,Matt Ridley,Mark Steyn,SpikedandHeterodox Academy, with a bit of satire fromThe Babylon Bee.

If I want to listen rather than read, then one can choose fromthinkspot(Jordan Petersons free speech alternative to the mainstream),The Daily Wire,Triggernometry,Gad Saad,Jonathan Pageau,Mayhar Tousi,Matt Christensen,Patrick Coffin,The New Culture Forumor Mark Steyn, again without trying hard to find anything.

TCWreaders will have their own favourites. One doesnt have to agree with everything to find it more informative and intellectually stimulating than anything the traditional media can offer.

The relatively small size of these outlets may make it look like a David and Goliath contest, though that fight didnt end well for the big chap.

The world of online has had plenty of major falls in its short history; if you remember Friends Reunited, Bebo or Myspace, youre already showing your age. And the mainstream media know that, despite their apparently large audiences, theyre struggling to win the online battle with the Right.

In April, theNew York Timeshad toadmitthatconservative commentator Ben Shapiro got 56million total interactions on his Facebook page in the previous 30 days, more than the main pages of ABC News, NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post and NPRcombined. Good news for conservatives on television is Fox Newss record audiences in 2020 for cable news, and also Tucker Carlson attracting arecord audience.

Britainremains a poor relation on both fronts. Alex Belfield, thoughpopular on YouTube, hardly competes with a Ben Shapiro in sophistication or reach.

And, with no broadcast equivalent here to Fox News, the jury is out as to whether Andrew Neilsnew 24-hour news channel GB Newswill provide the type ofRight-wing critiqueandopinionthat ismissing from TV here.

Admittedly, few viewing experiences have brought conservatives more pleasure in recent years than Cathy so youre saying that But Newman making a fool of herself when she interviewed Jordan Peterson wasby accident, not design.

Channel 4 chiefs put the half-hour programme on YouTube because they thought it went well for La Newman, illustrative of how out of touch they were with reality.

Largelyunnoticed were the viewing figures; the interview racked up around three million views in seven days (which would have made it the second most viewed Channel 4 programme that week) and two and a half years later it has over 22million views, the second most viewed video on Channel 4s YouTube channel (first place goes to a weather presenter pronouncing the longest Welsh placename).

Channel 4 News is rather coy about releasing its nightly viewing figures, butadmittedto only 7.4million a month in 2018, which is less than 400,000 a day.

The BBC isnt faring much better. The news that it lost 237,000 licence payers in the year to March 2020 comes after losses in recent years reversing adecade long increasein TV licence numbers to 2016.

Notably, these figures come prior to an inevitable backlash over its risible effort to make The Last Night of the Proms woke and its excuses for Black Lives Matters violence (27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London was the last straw for me).

The outrageous decision tomake over-75s pay for their TV licence is essential for the BBC to combat its declining revenue whilstmaintaining Loony Left initiatives such as 100million on more diversity and eye-watering salaries for many of itsindifferent presenters.

It will only get worse for the BBC. A recentpollfound 28 per cent of the public dontwatch BBC TV at all, 52 per cent think its too politically correct and 65 per cent support abolishing the TV licence. We can onlyhope that BBC stars wont be enjoying their exorbitant salaries forever.

The mainstream media are already exercising their power in the upcoming US Presidential election to hinder pro-Trump voices. So too are the corporates, attempting to stifle his supporters on social media.

Theyve already started; Facebook has restricted access to Tucker Carlsons official page due to repeated sharing of false news. No examples have been provided to support this assertion, as though facts arent needed for Left-wing censorship.

Its not clear that such exercises in manipulation will work; it didnt stop the Brexit vote or Trump being elected in 2016. Though the force of censorship has strengthened in the intervening years, time is running out for the mainstream media.

Their revenues and audiences are declining. Thats why theyll be trying harder than ever to control the message and why, in turn, conservatives will need to keep their antennaetuned, and keep up the fight, using all media available, to transmit their views.

Editors request:We invitereaders to recommendtheir alternativenews sources, especially from readers whohave turned their backs on theBBCand the paywalled newspapers such as the Times and the Telegraph. Which sources do you depend on for your daily news?

See the article here:

Gagged by the media giants, conservatives must fight via the Net - The Conservative Woman

PYETTE: Let’s figure out how to safely get OHL players on the ice, then decide on rules – Mitchell Advocate

Jason Willms and Billy Moskal of the London Knights fight for the puck behind the Oshawa Generals net against Dawson McKinney of the Generals in a game on March 8 at Budweiser Gardens in London. Mike Hensen/The London Free Press

Banning body contact will not save the Ontario Hockey Leagues 2020-21 season.

There are a variety of hurdles that have to be cleared long before the first check is thrown, so it was strange provincial sport minister Lisa MacLeod made that a headline-grabbing condition this week for a re-start of the junior game in early December.

Its clear the league isnt giving an immediate thumbs up on that point, either.

The OHL has been working with and continues to be in communication with various government ministries and public health agencies on our return-to-play plans, it said in a statement Thursday. Conversations are ongoing and a decision has not yet been made in terms of a finalized return to play model.

It makes more sense to get the teenagers on the ice first before bartering about the rules.

For that to happen, the OHL still has to figure out how to get its players to their respective cities, put them safely into billet homes, navigate a COVID-19 testing policy, develop an economic structure that will prevent franchises from losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, sort out travel for road games, find out if fans can attend games and pray the Canada-U.S. border allows interaction with the three American-based teams.

Those boxes need to be checked in the shadow of the Quebec leagues recent start-up, which already has yielded a startling number of positive COVID-19 tests.

Hopefully, something breaks so that everybodys happy and feels safe, London Knights GM Mark Hunter said. We want to be in a position where the players can play because theyre anxious to start and the clubs want to get going, too.

But its got to be safe and thats the bottom line. Maybe something can break that will allow us to have body checking.

Anybody who has watched an OHL game in the past decade knows fighting rates have fallen off a cliff and hitting has become much more controlled.

One of commissioner David Branchs most celebrated innovations to the game in the past handful of years has been penalizing hits to the head and banning the most dangerous forms of contact.

You can legislate punch-ups out of the sport, but you cant remove contact from it in the name of safety.

The best example comes from the minor hockey ranks, which currently is trying to operate under the conditions MacLeod and the government have set forth in recent months.

You can have three-on-three or four-on-four, but no matter what, theres incidental contact out there, Kevin Gardner, the Jr. Knights vice-president of hockey operations, said. You cant avoid it. One guy is looking north and another is looking south and they run into each other. You can have a kid skating backward and accidentally run into the goalie, so I dont know where they draw the line.

Its a fast game and its about read and react. Theres a loose puck, two guys think they can get it first and theyre both wrong and theres a collision.

Thats a lot of undue pressure on the kids, coaches and refs. They know if there is one false move, the season could be lost.

So, go back up the ladder to the OHL and there is an entertainment component to consider. If a good chunk of fans dont like whats being offered, then the 20 franchises are in a difficult situation.

Its not the same game with no contact, Gardner said. Were just fooling ourselves to say it is. Call it what it is; its like recreational four-on-four play. Its not minor midget AAA or OHL hockey.

Checking is a fundamental part of the elite game. The NHL playoffs again proved it during the past few months.

It doesnt make any sense to jump through all the hoops that need to be passed just to get on the ice and have body contact be the final barrier.

MacLeod could have provided players and fans a small sense of hope this week.

Instead, she only stirred up more frustration and discouragement that this season wont happen for a long time, if at all.

rpyette@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/RyanatLFPress

Read the original:

PYETTE: Let's figure out how to safely get OHL players on the ice, then decide on rules - Mitchell Advocate

WSJ investigation of aggregator that dared include RT scares other members into ditching the network. Democracy at work! – RT

After social media censorship failed to zero out RTs web traffic, an establishment US media outlet has revealed it reached out to sites in the same link-exchange network as RT, spooking them into backing out.

The Wall Street Journal has launched an investigation into a link aggregator that includes RT.com, publishing the names of participants and the network itself in an effort to shame them into kicking the site off, in a hit piece on Wednesday. If this thinly-veiled intimidation is the behavior of a democratic countrys media, one shudders to imagine what an authoritarian nation might have done.

RealClearPolitics a mostly-nonpartisan site that reports poll results and political news is held up as an example, guilty of wrongthink through its association with Mixi.Media, a web-ring that links to headlines from news sites of various political persuasions (including RT) at the bottom of partners webpages. Mixi doesnt show the source of the headlines right away, no matter where they come from, which in the eyes of the Journal proves its up to something nefarious.

The pearl-clutching pseudo-expos made it clear that even unwitting association with RT is beyond the pale in this paranoid day and age. If [readers] see RT, they are going to freak out, Mixi founder Alex Baron is quoted as saying. Asked whether he agrees with RTs politics, he answers in the negative, of course. However, the implication is made that hes a Kremlin agent at heart through his past association with a Russian private equity firm - never mind that hes suing that firm after being fired in 2018. Merely working for a company owned by a Russian executive initiates an irrevocable cootie-transfer.

The Journal doesnt illustrate exactly how they approached the web-ring participants for the piece, but at least five sites were sufficiently intimidated including The Blaze, Newser, and AccuWeather that they fled Mixis network after being asked about the Russian intruder in their midst. Presumably the dialogue went something like Gee, thats a nice news outlet youve got there, sure would be a shame if it got shut down for Russian collusion.

If that sounds like an exaggeration, one need only refer to the New York Times warningthat merely reporting a story RT has covered is actually sowing discord and creating division. As far back as 2016, the Washington Post was accusing US-based, US-run alt-media websites of being Russian useful idiots merely for disdaining to go along with Washingtons neoliberal warmongering agenda, laundering its smears through the anonymous Ukrainian front PropOrNot.

The WSJs dont click that link - there might be Russians in it scare story is just the latest in a long string of efforts to pressure friendly networks into giving RT the cold shoulder. The same outlet bemoaned RTs seeming invincibility to TV censorship back in January 2017 as part of a multi-pronged media blitz ginned up by the US intelligence communitys attempt to implicate RT in meddling in the 2016 election an allegation that has never been remotely substantiated yet has become part of the narrative wallpaper for the American establishment, assumed to be true even in the absence of evidence.

The dubious allegations of hacking the Democratic National Committee were followed by a lengthy screed against programs RT no longer even aired but that was enough for the New York Times and other papers of record to pile on a competitor they didnt know they had, treating the uninspired smear like a smoking gun. Breaking precedent set by other state-owned foreign media, the Justice Department forced RT to register as a foreign agent. The designation was subsequently held up, bizarrely, as proof it was foreign propaganda, as officials insisted it was voluntary, even though the network was threatened with criminal charges if it refused.

And the UK Sunday Times pulled a similar stunt to the WSJs back in 2017, phoning up RTs British advertisers many of whom were spooked by the probing questions into pulling their ads and misrepresenting their vanishing act as motivated by the channels propaganda and fake news.

Efforts to sideline RT have only increased since then, with first YouTube and more recently Facebook and Twitter labeling it as state-run foreign media and burying its content. WSJs report glossed over the obvious follow-on effect from such a move, crowing gleefully that social media traffic to the site dropped 22 percent from 2018 to July and web traffic in general dropped 14 percent.

But until it drops to zero, the US propaganda mill will never be satisfied. Having coasted for decades with a virtual monopoly on viewers eyeballs, its quality declined accordingly, and the rise of the internet saw Americans hungrily lapping up any alternative source of information. When theyre presented with the sight of rioters burning businesses, bibles, or people and told these are peaceful democratic protesters who must be supported, they recoil not because they are propagandized by RT or some other outlet, but because theyre aware theyre being lied to.

With the 2020 election looming on the horizon, social media platforms and news outlets alike are renewing their fatwa against all things Russian. That reliable enemy ensures they will never have to answer for the many holes in their own one-sided coverage, the flagrant falsehoods regularly passed off as gospel, and the unrelenting fear porn that keeps too many Americans glued to their TV set. Heaven forbid they change the channel they might trip over the truth.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

See original here:

WSJ investigation of aggregator that dared include RT scares other members into ditching the network. Democracy at work! - RT

China Micro-Censors The VP Debate In The Most Hamfisted Way – Techdirt

from the no-signal dept

It's common knowledge now that the Chinese government heavily censors the access its population has to the internet and information writ large. It's been a decade since China first proffered that its Great Firewall of China was not actually censorship, but was merely a method for "safeguarding" its citizens. Safeguarding them, it seems, primarily from any international criticism of the Chinese regime itself, which sure seems like it's more about safeguarding the government, rather than the citizens. In the subsequent decade, whatever skin China had to weather criticism further sloughed away such that the government is now not only actively pressuring groups and companies within Chinese borders, but actively attempting to affect its censorship outside those borders as well.

Whatever else we might want to say about Chinese censorship, it most certainly is not subtle. This was on full display when the government essentially pulled the plug on streams for the American Vice Presidential debate precisely during a segment discussing China's actions on COVID-19.

Chinas censors cut off Vice President Mike Pence mid-sentence during the debate with Sen. Kamala Harris when he called out the Chinese Communist Party for its mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic.

As Pence Wednesday night began to criticize Beijings response, saying China is to blame, CNNs feed in China suddenly cut out and the words no signal please stand by appeared over a test pattern.

Again, not subtle. And that's actually kind of important, because if you put yourself in the shoes of a Chinese citizen, it's difficult to imagine that you wouldn't know precisely what is going on here. The real question is whether the transparent censorship in cases such as this is a feature or a bug. If a bug, it doesn't serve Chinese government purposes. It will be clear that the censorship is to mask criticism of the ruling party. If a feature, well, the idea is that China doesn't mind the transparent nature of this exertion of control. It's a muscle flex, in that case.

The question is how long can this authoritarian approach expand before the rubber-band reaches its limits and snaps back on the regime. In an increasingly connected and global world, and with China very much wanting play a lead role on that stage, it's own thin-skin may be a high barrier.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, china, free speech, kamala harris, mike pence, us, vp debate

See the original post here:

China Micro-Censors The VP Debate In The Most Hamfisted Way - Techdirt

Joe Rogan has weighed in on Spotify employees looking to censor JRE – The Industry Observer

Joe Rogan has weighed in on employees of Spotify allegedly pushing to censor episodes of his podcast,Joe Rogan Experience.

On Wednesday, September 16th, Spotify hosted a town hall meeting at which employees raised concern over content in theJRE archive.

A number of employees took umbrage with an episode that featured an interview with Abigail Shrier author ofIrreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. During the episode, Shrier associates transness with autism and explores her theory that YouTube and social media are influencing young people to transition.

Many LGBTQAI+/ally Spotifiers feel unwelcome and alienated because of leaderships response in JRE conversations. What is your message to those employees? one employee raised during the meeting.

When The Joe Rogan Experience first landed on Spotify at the beginning of September, a select few notably controversial episodes were omitted. Episodes that saw Rogan interview Gavin McInnes, Chuck Johnson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Alex Jones the latter whos own podcast was removed from Spotify for hate content.

In a statement, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek expressed that the company had reviewed the episode featuring Abigail Shrier, ultimately deciding against removing it from the platform.

In the case of Joe Rogan, a total of 10 meetings have been held with various groups and individuals to hear their respective concerns, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said. And some of them want Rogan removed because of things hes said in the past.

Others have concerns specifically over a recent episode, Ek continued. And Joe Rogan and the episode in question have been reviewed extensively. The fact that we arent changing our position doesnt mean we arent listening. It just means we made a different judgment call.

The rest is here:

Joe Rogan has weighed in on Spotify employees looking to censor JRE - The Industry Observer

Gaming will be a frontline in China’s censorship drive | Opinion – GamesIndustry.biz

Rob Fahey

Contributing Editor

Friday 9th October 2020

Share this article

On the scale of grand industry scandals, a few short phrases being censored in the in-game chat client of a free-to-play RPG seems like it ought to be in real "storm in a teacup" territory.

Indeed, it's deeply unlikely that very many of the millions of players of Genshin Impact -- a Breath of the Wild inspired RPG for PC, PS4 and mobile, which is quickly shaping up to be one of the most internationally successful titles to have been developed in mainland China thus far -- will ever really notice that the game does the text equivalent of bleeping them out should they choose to mention places like Taiwan or Hong Kong, or a number of other phrases, some of them surprisingly innocuous. Even among those who do notice, the vast majority will shrug it off; it's not a major imposition for most, and it's not like developer miHoYo seemingly had a choice in the matter given China's censorship rules.

For the specifics of those rules and why this has happened at all, Niko Partners' Daniel Ahmad wrote a succinct thread on Twitter (cited in this previous GamesIndustry.biz story) that's worth reading. Taken in isolation, this is explanation enough -- and will certainly be more than enough to sate the curiosity of almost any gamer who wonders enough about the censored terms to try googling about the whole affair.

What we're seeing here is the thin end of a wedge that's going to become a very serious headache for a lot of games companies in the coming years

However, it's worth stepping back from this single instance of China's censorship creeping into the media and communications of people beyond its borders, and considering the broader context -- because this isn't the first time this kind of issue has popped up, and there's a strong possibility that what we're seeing here is the thin end of a wedge that's going to become a very serious headache for a lot of games companies in the coming years.

Unless you follow developments in Chinese politics and geopolitics relatively closely, the first time something like this appeared on your radar was probably last October -- when Blizzard banned a pro Hearthstone player, Hong Kong resident Ng Wai "blitzchung" Chung, and fired two presenters who had interviewed him on a post-game livestream during which he made remarks supporting democracy in Hong Kong. Blizzard's knee-jerk kowtow to China's censors (jerking your knees and kowtowing at the same time being the gutless executive's version of the childhood challenge of rubbing your belly and patting your head at the same time) earned it an unusually bipartisan rap on the knuckles from the US Senate and House of Representatives, not to mention some noisy protests from the company's own consumers. Tellingly, however, Blizzard only walked back its decision a few steps at best, almost visibly scrambling to find some convoluted form of words that would appease critics outside China without actually annoying China's authorities.

China's authorities seem to have decided that censorship pools once restricted to its own population can be applied internationally

The lesson anyone in authority in China would have taken away from that affair -- and several other individually minor run-ins with western media and gaming companies over various kinds of content or censorship -- is that the size of the Chinese market and the extent of the nation's stakeholdings in overseas firms means that it's now open season on discussions or statements it doesn't like, even outside its borders. Within China, of course, censorship of users' discussions on digital platforms has been standard for years; the government's control, however, mostly stopped at its borders.

As the country's economic and geopolitical conflict with the United States has expanded, however, so too has its desire to control or suppress narratives and discussions overseas. This has resulted in the removal or hiding of statements or symbols with which China's authorities take issue, often from platforms owned or controlled within China (such as WeChat and TikTok, and games like Genshin Impact) but also on platforms which aren't China-based but rely on keeping the authorities there happy for a major part of their revenue and potential growth -- from Activision Blizzard's games through YouTube and Microsoft Bing, all the way up to major international organisations like the WHO.

Genshin Impact is a relatively minor case of Chinese censorship, but the number of examples is steadily growing

A good example of this kind of censorship creeping out beyond China's borders can be found in games, in fact. As Daniel Ahmad noted in his thread on this topic, many Chinese game operators used to run two versions of their games, disabling censorship filters in the one aimed at overseas players. This practice appears to be in decline, with Genshin Impact being just one high-profile example; generally speaking, China's authorities seem to have decided that censorship pools once restricted to its own population are quite handy to apply internationally as well, especially now that some of its major tech companies are doing so well overseas.

As the strain between China and the US increases -- something that's likely to happen regardless of who wins next month's US Presidential election, although a change at the top may at least make the process more predictable -- companies which operate tech or media platforms, like games, in both China and abroad, or which have welcomed large investments from Chinese firms, are going to increasingly find themselves dragged into this fight. Asked to police the speech of their users (and employees) in ways that are going to play increasingly poorly to consumers and governments elsewhere, the value of China's market and investment is going to have to be constantly balanced against the power of the backlash elsewhere.

There's a very real degree of commercial and political pressure being brought slowly to bear on game companies

Absent a pretty major shift in approach from consumers or governments, that's a balance that's not often going to favour anything other than capitulation to China's demands most of the time. The country's authorities have plenty of leverage left in the tank and haven't experienced any real pushback to these moves thus far. Protests against companies complying with censorious demands have been small-scale and relatively muted, and overseas governments certainly haven't shown any stomach for waving around big sticks on this kind of issue.

There has even been a small but vocal counter-backlash movement in some instances, largely based on taking Blizzard's conspicuously awful "we just want people to stop talking about politics and focus on the games" excuse and turning it up to 11. In these people's reality, Chinese censorship is actually good, you see, because it stops terrible people from ruining games by mentioning political things -- when as any fool knows, "games" and "politics" are the opposite of one another and should never be put together.

Of course, games have never existed in a vacuum away from geopolitics and some forms of censorship have been a reality all along. It would be pretty intellectually dishonest to condemn China's growing pernicious influence on in-game content and communications without acknowledging that the whole world has spent decades with its games being quietly tuned and, yes, censored in such a way as to minimise the pearl-clutching of middle America. There's a reason games continue to be vastly more comfortable with an exploding skull than with an exposed nipple, or that anything that lies along America's cultural faultlines -- like the existence of LGBT people, or any kind of nuanced discussion of racism -- is generally avoided or pushed to the fringes of the medium.

But holding up this kind of commercially-driven self-censorship to match the whims of the US market alongside government-ordered filtering of media and communications is a false equivalence. We cannot and should not pretend that "if we don't make this regressive creative decision, we'll risk selling poorly in America" is remotely the same thing, morally, as "if we don't follow this censorship order, we'll probably have our Chinese joint venture shut down".

So yes, the Genshin Impact scandal really is a storm in a teacup. Something as (arguably) minor and (certainly) dumb as Taiwan and Hong Kong being added to a game's naughty word filter isn't really anything game consumers are going to worry about in the long term, given that it doesn't impact the game, is easily circumvented, and well, why are you discussing politics in a game chat channel anyway -- or so the logic will go. Put enough stormy tea-cups together, though, and a pattern starts to swirl out of them.

This wedge is still thin, but it's been sliding in for a long time, and far away from the ground reality of a censored game chat channel there's a very real degree of commercial and political pressure being brought slowly to bear on game companies and other firms with influence over culture and media around the world. I'm not sure we'll ever see Genshin Impact's chat censorship as a watershed, but be certain that it's a little taste of a sour flavour we're all going to get very used to in the coming years.

Read the original:

Gaming will be a frontline in China's censorship drive | Opinion - GamesIndustry.biz

Reassessing censorship The Campus – The Campus

The word censorship is laden with negative connotations, bringing to mind dystopian threats to the right to freedom of speech and expression. Allowing censorship in a society can absolutely open up a can of worms that may lead to injustice or even be a form of injustice in itself. Still, I would resist the idea that censorship is inherently unacceptable. In fact, I would argue that more censorship in American society could be beneficial to our social and political world.

Although the word censorship sounds and often is scary, there are a variety of different forms of censorship that already exist in our society, permeating our lives without impinging upon our personal freedoms. A prime example would be the precedent set by the Schenck v. United States Supreme Court decision, which ruled that the First Amendment is not applicable to incendiary language which could lead to actual danger, panic or harm. The classic example of such a statement is yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Another sense in which we already accept censorship is the restriction of the use of slurs over time. Of course, this restriction exists largely on a personal basis, and there are many people who still weaponize problematic terms as a means of oppression. Still, recent years have brought about a greater social stigma for using slurs, which does act as a deterrent to many. Because it is now possible to face consequences ranging from losing your employment or scholarships to being relentlessly harassed on social media, using offensive language is not a protected freedom; thus, it is censorship.

Just because telling people to not use slurs is a form of censorship does not mean that we should all be free to use offensive language in fact, my point is the antithesis of that sentiment. I mean to articulate that this limitation is a restriction of freedom of speech, but not a restriction of freedom of people. Rather, by restricting use of slurs, the people to whom the words refer can enjoy greater freedom. Thus, in this instance, censorship is beneficial.

A parallel argument could be made for the censoring of the expression of the rhetoric which underlies slurs. Any writing or speech that is definitively racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or otherwise intolerant to particular identities must be handled very carefully. Although understanding hateful discourse is a necessary part of overcoming or combatting it, the act of interpreting written or spoken information is inherently subjective, and there is no way to ensure that people can be trusted to understand a given text fully. Think about it: there are people who read J. D. Salingers The Catcher in the Rye and thought Holden Caulfield was a cool guy, someone to admire rather than someone to try to avoid becoming, effectively missing the point of the entire novel.

Exposure to information can help harmful ideas take root in a persons mind, even if the piece itself aims to be critical of the harms presented. Socrates made a similar argument in his critique of writing as a whole: because writing is open to interpretation, it cannot refuse to be read, or answer to questions or concerns of the reader. For this reason, he argued that some people should not read certain things, as it runs the risk of dilution or bastardization of ideas.

As crazy as it might sound, I am with Socrates on this one. For example, I think it is dangerous for a high school teacher to disperse racist texts to a classroom of students for the purpose of acknowledging the role of racism in literary history. The students, whether they desire to be hateful or may simply subconsciously adopt detrimental ideals, now have in their minds a model for expressing hateful rhetoric. Of course, some level of critical analysis can mitigate this potential harm; still, this is risky business, considering that literary interpretation is difficult and cannot be a baseline expectation in a classroom setting.

Because the circulation of oppressive ideologies through language has and will continue to contribute to the perpetuation of hatred, we need to prioritize and provide a platform for historically marginalized voices. This cannot happen without first deplatforming the voices of those who have historically have done the marginalizing. I would personally support the idea of banning old white men, for example, from publishing novels until racial and sexual discrimination are not so prevalent in our society.

This proposal is controversial, and I imagine you might object that surely there are some old white men who have written important novels that either werent racist and sexist or could be taught responsibly. I reply simply that they have had all of history to speak freely; censoring them could allow for other voices to be present in the public collective consciousness. Of course, there are individuals who dont fit all dimensions of that identity who produce harmful content. J.K. Rowling, a white female transphobe, is a perfect example of this. Still, by restricting the right to publish writing of old white men, we could at least prevent the perpetuation of rhetoric which is oppressive along all those identity axes J. K. Rowling can still produce hateful writing, but at the very least, it wont be as sexist as that which a man might create.

Censorship is always a slippery slope, but that does not mean that it is always bad. The question of who or what should be censored is nuanced and never going to be universally agreed upon. It still stands that we already do accept certain forms of censorship, yet paradoxically believe that we have a right to freedom of speech. I, for one, dont see an issue with restricting the freedom of speech of people who have had literal centuries to express themselves, especially in the name of making our society an environment that can be conducive to positive social change. Let marginalized identities speak and write freely, and perhaps our world will come to let this formative influence shape society into something better for all.

Here is the original post:

Reassessing censorship The Campus - The Campus