Daily Archives: January 3, 2022

Logan Paul hasnt posted a new YouTube video in over six months. His last two uploads were titled Im Fighting Floyd Mayweather This Week and My Last Words To Floyd Mayweather. Then, silence. If you didnt know better, youd think he died in the ring.

What else but a fatal boxing incident, after all, could have led one of the most famous YouTubers in the world a controversial but charismatic web presence who helped shape the template for modern e-celebrity to leave his 23.2 million subscribers on radio silence for half a year and counting?

Demonetization; being blacklisted; being shadow-banned, says Paul, 26, rattling off the different ways YouTube and other mainstream social networks have alienated him. Its really demotivating when you are yourself, and the platform that youre on because of the advertisers, because of public sentiment, whatever it is no longer wants to support you.

In search of a corner of the internet where he can be his full, unfiltered self, Paul has traded in YouTube for Subify, the company that runs the back-end tech for his boutique fan network the Maverick Club. Part of Subifys pitch is that there are almost no restrictions on what Paul can post in the Maverick Club, or what other celebrities can post through their own Subify-enabled channels.

It really feels like free speech is dead in America right now, because a platform can literally shut you down and take away your microphone, co-founder Zak Folkman said. At Subify, we will literally never do that to a creator unless they are promoting terrorist acts or child pornography.

In an era when social media censorship is a top-of-mind concern for everyone including content creators and members of Congress, its a vision with appeal to some. But its also one that raises a lot of messy, ethically fraught questions as a recent discussion between Paul, Folkman and Subify co-founder Chase Hero showed.

If we had a Nazi on the platform that just wanted to talk about their beliefs, Folkman said at one point during the Zoom call, I personally would have a very hard time telling them Youre not allowed to do that, unless theyre inciting violence.

This, apparently, was news to Paul.

Look, I love your sentiment, he said. But as another creator on the platform, youd be hearing from me.

The real answer is, I think that we just take everything as it comes, Hero said. All these people are gonna have different beliefs ... and giving them a platform to communicate with their people is really all we care about. Right? And obviously, Im kind of with Paul; Id be really hard-pressed about someone whos a Nazi.

Obviously we dont support ..., Folkman said before Paul cut him off, saying it was a terrible example.

Folkman continued: Well take it on a case-by-case basis. But I really cant see too many creators that we wouldnt feel comfortable with supporting their right to freedom of speech.

Paul didnt seem convinced.

Bad example, Folkman said. Bad example.

After the call, the company told The Times that Folkman had misspoken. We absolutely do not allow hate speech of any kind for example no Nazis or anything of that nature, an email statement attributed to Folkman read. We take pride in giving a platform to creators of all kinds.. We believe that everyone is entitled to have their voice and opinions heard.

If Subifys leaders are conflicted about what running a haven for free speech actually entails, theyre not alone. The internet has long been seen as a refuge for untrammeled expression, but as large social media platforms have come to dominate the web, that ideal has run up against concerns about extremism, misinformation and user safety. What moderation steps tech platforms do take have become controversial and highly politicized.

Subify isnt the first tech company to build a brand around the promise of near-absolute free speech, but it does differ from many such apps in its focus on influencers creative freedom rather than Trump-era culture wars.

The simple fact is that no company in its right mind would ever throw its hands up and cede control of its product solely to the users of that product, said Sarah T. Roberts, an associate professor at UCLA and co-founder of its Center for Critical Internet Inquiry.

Because social media companies in America enjoy wide legal immunity to moderate what their users post, Roberts added, this therefore becomes a question of tolerance from a business perspective. Thats why I consider content moderation to be primarily a tool of brand management for firms; the firms themselves have to assess what risk theyre willing to take by having distasteful, abhorrent material on their site.

For Paul, these arent abstract questions. Back when he was primarily known as a YouTuber, that platform demonetized him or took away his ability to make money from his videos after he posted a series of controversial clips in which he tasered dead rats, endorsed the Tide Pod challenge and, most notoriously, filmed a suicide victim in Japans Aokigahara forest.

Other scandals have found Paul saying he would go gay for a month; using women as a human bicycle; and, in one video, appearing to lasso unsuspecting women.

These days, Paul hasnt entirely abandoned YouTube his podcast Impaulsive has its own channel, with 3.53 million followers, that still updates regularly but he has moved much of his creative output, including his signature autobiographical vlogs, over to Subify.

Youre creating it for an ecosystem of people who really like you, Paul said of the Maverick Club. Its not for the masses to judge or make assessments or make mean comments. As someone who in the past has been polarizing, theres people who dont like me; theres people who do like me. I really love the idea of leaning into people who do like me.

An Oops! All Logan Pauls social network might sound hellish to those who find Pauls patent mix of stunts and self-documentation obnoxious. But super-fans are willing to pay $19.95 a month for access, and Paul is happy to oblige them.

Behind the safety of a paywall, on a platform all his own, Paul said hes able to post a bit more explicit content, a bit more risque content.

Its that 10% of me, he said, that whether for legal reasons, whether for public sentiment, whatever, Im unwilling to show the world.

Subify declined to say how it wouldve handled the suicide forest and rat-tasering videos, instead pointing to adult-related content, conservative and other alternative viewpoints and hunting and firearms content as areas where its more permissive than YouTube.

As Paul was growing disenchanted with mainstream social media, Subify offered him an out. Folkman and Hero, who have a background in e-commerce, had initially built a proto-Subify for personal use: It was so that we could power our own brands, Hero said.

But while hanging out with Paul one day Hero and Pauls manager are longtime friends the YouTuber suggested they open it up more widely.

Hes like, Man, I think this would be really good for a person. What do ya think? Hero recalled. I was like, If youre willing to be that person, wed give it a shot.

The result was the Maverick Club, Subifys first entry into celebrity fan platforms; its now been up and running for about a year and a half, Paul said. (Paul is one of Subifys top creators, but according to a spokesperson, he has no other financial stake in the company.)

In the meantime, Subify expanded its suite of features and began finding new celebrities to work with: rapper Flo Rida, Jackass stuntman Steve-O, NASCAR driver Hailie Deegan. Hero said that tens and tens of thousands of creators have applied to join, and that he and Folkman are constantly vetting, asking questions and then doing our due diligence to filter out poor fits.

Despite Subifys promise of near-absolute free speech, not everyone makes the cut.

Theres a guy who wanted to come in and revive the old bum fights, if you remember that make homeless people fight, Hero said. Were like, Yeah, thats just not gonna work here. I love you to death, but thats just not something that we really condone.

The companys laissez-faire attitude also doesnt extend to its nonfamous subscriber base. Celebrities may get wide latitude to post things they couldnt put up elsewhere, but in the interest of building an environment that the co-founders describe as a safe space and an echo chamber for content creators, their fans are subject to more rigorous scrutiny.

We have moderators, so if we see anybody whos being actively negative or anything like that, its actually a violation of the terms and conditions, Folkman said. Well usually send a warning if its pretty mild, and then from there, if they violate it again, theyll be banned and blacklisted.

Entry into that walled garden isnt free. In exchange for building each client a stand-alone platform with support for multimedia posts, livestreaming, tipping, direct messaging, mobile apps and push notifications, the company which a spokesperson said has been valued by third parties at approximately $100 million takes a cut of everyones earnings. The specific percentage depends on the individual platform size and functionality, the spokesperson said.

As the internet becomes more and more paywalled, its an increasingly popular business model. Startups such as Patreon, Substack, Cameo and Bandcamp now help influencers, artists and other online entrepreneurs mint a buck off of content they might otherwise put out for free. The company Fanfix offers monetization tools similar to Subifys but according to co-founder Simon Pompan adheres to more traditional moderation policies, including not allowing nudity.

OnlyFans is another such competitor. Although its best known for selling amateur and independent pornography, the platform has feinted at ambitions of becoming a more generic content-monetization platform; this summer it briefly moved to ban sexual content, only to reverse course days later.

While Subify allows pornography, too, its co-founders hope to avoid being pigeonholed as an overtly sexual platform.

Ive been recruited to OnlyFans, Paul said. The business model is great. But the platform has this stigma ... I have no interest in being a part of.

Subify has proved to be a suitable alternative. By combining OnlyFans monetization features, YouTubes more flexible branding and a free-speech ethos all its own, the company has helped Paul build his own little internet oasis, free from the censors, haters and trolls who soured him on the open web.

Subify has kidnapped me from YouTube! he exclaimed at one point during the Zoom call.

Its been a great abduction, Hero responded.

Brian Contreras,

Los Angeles Times (TNS)

See the rest here:
Logan Paul is on an elusive quest to build a free-speech platform thats not a cesspool - The Dallas Morning News

To the editor:

You might have missed the story about Jared Schmeck, the self-described patriot who ended his Christmas Eve conversation with President Biden by taunting, Lets Go Brandon.

This followed Mr. Bidens call to Jareds four children to discuss Santa Claus imminent arrival.

Classy guy that Jared. So arent the patriots who display F-Joe Biden flags on T-shirts, barns, overpasses and rooftops anywhere children can see.

They chant their slogan at ball games and NASCAR races. They float their boats in parades featuring Nativity scenes with signage telling President Biden just what he can do to himself. Patriotic hearts burst with pride at the show of Christian family values.

I suppose Lets Go Brandon is an improvement over the usual crass F-bomb fare of the base. Pity anyone whose name is Brandon.

Lets not talk politics. Lets talk old-fashioned decency. Decency is at the heart of the issue here. Let me refresh your memory. Decency: Marked by moral integrity. Conforming to standards of propriety.

Do decent people yell the F-word in unison in public with children in their midst? Do they wear shirts with the same message in public?

Moral integrity: Do decent people admire a man who has been proven over and over again to be an adulterer, a liar, a cheater and a white-collar thief? The nuns who schooled me would charitably describe him as low caliber.

Biden supporters didnt advertise their deeply felt loathing with irreverent public chants embedded with swears.

I dont recall seeing F-Trump banners anywhere or parades with flags insulting him on roads, rivers, highways. I dont recall Biden supporters sporting swear words on their bumper stickers while trying to run the former guys campaign buses off the road. Or obscenely berating his boorish antics where children could see or hear as they rode their bikes.

Im not a fan of everything President Biden does but I admire the man. I recognize he is a decent human being trying to move the country forward. Being decent should be a basic requirement for anyone serving in a public capacity and frankly, its a low bar for such an important position.

The former guy behaved as though the bar doesnt exist.

Barely a handful of Republicans have summoned the courage to stand up for decency.

They are summarily being run out of office by a seething base. Last year, local Republicans made excuses for hate speech in Salisbury by proclaiming the offender had First Amendment rights. They didnt chastise his indecency, they defended it! Why? Hes one of them and he votes.

Democracy doesnt thrive solely on political theory, protocols and beliefs. It relies on human decency and good character to be effective.

Sadly, Jared and other patriots demonstrate how weak the guardrails of democracy have become.

The former guy told thousands of Capitol insurrectionists who maimed and injured scores of police officers, We love you. Youre very special. Such a patriot! Such a decent man!

Its not entirely Jareds fault that hes a patriotic jerk.

MONIQUE GREILICH

Salisbury

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Continued here:
LETTER: A question of decency and free speech - The Daily News of Newburyport

The 2021 press freedom index released recently by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) makes for grim reading.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

The report reveals that 488 journalists were detained in 2021 an increase of 20 per cent compared to the previous year while a total of 46 were killed and 65 held hostage.

Of those detained, 60 were women (33 per cent higher than 2020). As you might expect, it tends to be autocratic regimes with dismal records for freedom of speech and human rights which crop up once again as the worst offenders.

The latest report notes an upturn in repression against journalists in Belarus where opposition politicians and commentators have been targeted in the government crackdown since the August 2020 election as well in Myanmar, where the military coup of February has been followed by a crackdown on free expression.

In China, where the Communist party continues to tighten its grip, and Hong Kong, where the Beijing-backed regime is using the draconian national security law to punish dissidents, it gets ever more perilous to oppose the increasingly authoritarian regime of Xi Jinping.

These findings linking authoritarian governments to human rights abuses are not surprising given the tendency of such governments to use local and global crises such as Covid at present to clamp down on press freedom under the guise of national interest and security.

Bullying, hate speech and censorship

Journalists are facing increasing threats for doing their jobs whether that is physical intimidation, hate speech directed against them or online trolling. Some European countries have used the law to prevent the dissemination of information that political actors see as threatening their hold on power and legitimacy.

Weve seen that in Spain, for example, where parties on both sides of politics have gone out of their way to stigmatise the media and hamper the free flow of information, even banning some journalists from press conferences.

Such practices, which include interference in the daily work of media outlets, as well as implicit and explicit threats to journalists doing their job, are well documented in the 2021 report by the One Free Press Coalition which mapped such acts in a variety of European countries since 2014.

Elsewhere, including in Iran, Syria, Mexico, Sudan and Guatemala, intimidation is creating a climate of fear among media professionals. This prevents the free circulation of information, opinions and ideas. It also allows for the wider circulation of fake news and misinformation.

What is of concern is the risk that such acts of intimidation against journalists and the media can become normalised even in western democracies.

The designation is symbolic but a serious engagement with ending impunity for crimes against journalists can form the basis for a legal framework that can guarantee freedom of expression and access to information and ensure journalists carry out their jobs.

Profession under threat

Throughout history, people practising journalism have faced intimidation and attacks for a variety of reasons, whether it is governments worried about exposure or partisan and private interests worried about their profits.

But what the increasing number of attacks suggests is that journalism is becoming more and more a contested domain and space for struggle over information, ideology and politics.

These attacks violate human rights: both of journalists and the societies they serve which are being deprived of their right to information something that should be at the heart of all free public debate and the democratic process.

They underscore the need for adequate legal protection for journalists that goes beyond rights to communicate and free speech recognised in particularly in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 19 recognises everyones right to freedom of opinion and expression and provides the basis for the function of journalism, conducted by individuals, to be protected independently of broader institutional press or media rights.

In international law, freedom to express opinions and ideas is considered essential at both an individual level, insofar as it contributes to the full development of a person, and also as a foundation stone of democratic society.

International human rights law requires states to respect and protect the lives of all within their jurisdiction from attacks and threats of attacks and to provide an effective remedy where this has not been the case.

But so far there is no international framework dedicated to the protection of journalists from physical attack or ending impunity for crimes against journalists. If journalists are deliberately targeted and threatened while those who attack them go unpunished, the media cannot be free and democracy will continue to be threatened.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

See original here:
2021: a grim year for journalists and free speech in an increasingly turbulent and authoritarian world Professor Dina Matar - The Scotsman

College administrators are now acknowledging they have created environments on their campuses that diminish free expression and choke intellectual liveliness. For years, the game plan was to simply disavow the stifling of free expression on college campuses, while at the same time imposing speech codes, running ideological orientation programs, and hiring faculty and student affairs staffers who all think alike. That denial strategy, however, has become unworkable as alums, prospective students and the public at large signal that the game is up.

Acknowledgement that some colleges lack true commitment to free expression, backhanded as it was, came in a report released late in the fall semester by the Academic Leaders Task Force on Campus Free Expression, an initiative of the Bipartisan Policy Center. The report was entitled, Campus Free Expression: A New Roadmap. That such a report had to be generated is an admission that free expression principles had drifted away at many colleges and universities. There would be no need for a new roadmap if college leaders knew their current location and found it suitable.

The report is a good faith effort, on one level, to address a difficult topic. It acknowledges the importance of free expression in higher education and notes the need for viewpoint diversity on campus. Clearly, a good deal of discussion and deliberation went into the report.

The report, however, is long on bureaucratese and short on specific fixes.

It doesnt address how college administrations allowed free expression principles to dissipate over the last 30 years. It fails to identify the campus influences that led the descent of colleges into ideological gulags that lack viewpoint diversity and where certain voices are often stifled.

A key shortcoming is the reports interest in balancing campus free expression with ongoing initiatives for diversity, equity and inclusion. A university cant claim allegiance to free expression and then say but The report cautiously treads onto the minefield of DEI: There are no simple answers or strategies addressing the perceived tension that pits academic freedom and freedom of expression against diversity, equity, and inclusion.

There should be no tension between a free expression commitment and diversity measures. Noted free expression philosopher, Frederick Schauer wrote that free expression is a fundamental principle of human dignity. It doesnt need to be hedged against other priorities. Schauer notes that free expression actually promotes inclusion by empowering the widest range of voices. Further, Schauer pointed out that the harms of suppressing free speech outweigh the occasional adverse effects of open discussion. But robust campus debate wont happen in an environment where students and faculty are constantly worried about violating a speech code.

The alarm about campus free speech deterioration has been sounded over the years by organizations such as the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), as well as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). FIREs President, Greg Lukianoff, explained the state of affairs in a recent essay, pointing out the number of colleges that impose restrictive speech codes and the alarming increase of colleges punishing professors for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. He writes, American higher education has become too expensive, too illiberal and too conformist. A report by FIRE last fall indicated that over 80 percent of college students nationwide say they self-censor on their own campuses.

Conformity is bound to happen in environments where everybody is expected to think alike and where those who dont are chilled from speaking. This is dangerous and antithetical to everything colleges once stood for. As the noted sociopolitical observer Walter Lippmann wrote a century ago, Where all think alike, no one thinks very much. It appears that thinking alike is not only the effect of a stifled culture, it is the intent.

ACTAs President Michael Poliakoff wrote in an email to membership that there is an alumni revolution brewing nationally of alums who expect their alma maters to protect free expression. He encouraged alums to mobilize for change at their colleges and to make gifts contingent on these changes.

Reestablishing an environment for intellectual liveliness and free expression in higher education will be difficult and, at times, painful. It will take more than reports and policy tweaks, as Princeton Professor of Politics Keith Whittington wrote in the Fordham Law Review, Ultimately, realizing free speech principles on college campuses is a matter of culture as much as it is a matter of policy.

Changing culture takes time, but time is now of the essence.

Nearly a generation of college students has graduated into the world not understanding how free expression empowers them and the society at large. A polarized nation reflects that lack of understanding.

Jeffrey McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter@Prof_McCall.

Here is the original post:
Admitting it the first step? College administrators acknowledge free expression deficiency | TheHill - The Hill

2021 was a year of speech free speech, hate speech, funny speech and a year of silence. I grew up during Indias Mile sur mera tumhara era. My grandparents were all too familiar with the horrors of Partition and they often spoke of the riots that followed about neighbours who told on each other to rioters and about identifying family members in piles of bodies. They talked of divide and rule, an insidious British policy that was meant to keep us fighting among ourselves so that we would not pay attention to the poor state of affairs in which we were living. They recounted how years of poisoning the minds of people against each other had exploded as a bomb, the shrapnel of which flew around us for years and the wounds from which took decades to heal.

In the refugee colony of Mumbai where they ended up, they promised themselves they would never live in a world where we dehumanised one another. The British might have forsaken us, but we would not forsake each other, they insisted. They would never passively watch their country burn. Never again. In the India they chose to live in, we constantly flooded into every neighbourhood house with vessels full of food to celebrate festivals, offer condolences, and watch out for each other in need.

They were both generous in their laughter and I would wonder how they managed to smile, after all they had endured. My grandmother would ruffle my hair and say a laugh doesnt have a religion Adu, a laugh is the sign of your survival, a sign that no matter what, you are here. She was a staunch vegetarian, who was well known for whipping up excellent mutton at a moments notice. My grandfather was the man who always carried that extra hanky to wipe an errant nose, to lend someone to cover their head when they entered a gurdwara or to hold a heap of one-rupee coins to give away as Eidi. I think of them every time I turn on the news these days.

2021 ended in what is now being called the Haridwar hate assembly, a conference by Hindu extremists, that featured multiple calls to take up arms against Muslims. Just a week before that, churches were attacked and vandalised when Christmas was being celebrated. In the same week, Hindu groups shouted slogans to prevent Muslims from offering namaz in Gurgaon. Another, now viral, video shows Hindu children taking oaths to take up arms in the name of religion. And this was only in December 2021. All the rhetoric of India becoming a superpower and trillion-dollar economy has mutated into a vicious call for Hindu Rashtra. The bogeyman that is being fed to us now is that Hindu khatre mein hain (Hindus are in danger). A slow drip of poisonous lies about demographic change, historical lies spread through WhatsApp messages and dubious online pages, is being pumped into our veins.

This is the modern divide-and-rule, the distract-and-rule. So that while fuel prices and unemployment skyrocket, our borders are breached by China, and our international relations and rankings on multiple fronts take a hit, we are distracted by reporting our neighbours to the rioters. This time, we dont even have the British to pin the blame on.

Today, religious majoritarian aggression has become so commonplace that it all blends into one large mass of hate when you open your newspapers, put on your TVs, or look at your phone screens. I can afford to have my eyes glaze over: I am, after all, an upper-caste Hindu woman. I can luxuriate in shock and sentimentality, while Muslim and Christian boys and girls around me grow up far too quickly in a world actively hostile to them. I am privileged enough to not be directly affected.

It did not affect me directly when Munawar Farooqui, a stand-up comedian, spent a month in jail over completely unfounded charges, and had several of his shows cancelled after Hindu groups insisted that his jokes were offensive to them. I have seen Munawar backstage at comedy clubs. He has an unguarded smile, and a life that has seen the ups and downs of growing up a Muslim man in India today. He tells his story with a sparkle in his eyes, a cheeky grin and home-grown wisdom, to hoards of audience members of every religion that adore him. There is no violence there, no calls to jingoistic nationalism, no fear-mongering, just laughs, which have no religion and are the sign of our endurance.

But the thing about 2021 that has me terrified is not words, but the silence. The silence of our elected leaders who have not said one word to condemn the hate speech and the riots, the silent acquiescence of our police forces as they lathi-charge people who demand action against hate, instead of the ones who spread it. The rapidly spreading poison in our veins of hatred, suspicion and bigotry that makes no noise, but hardens our bodies into bombs that will explode one day, the shrapnel of which will fly in the air around us, and the wounds of which will take decades to heal.

Our silence and privileges will not protect us. Shrapnel does not ask your religion before it pierces you. They say that we turn into our parents, but I fear that our generation will have no choice but to live the lives of our grandparents. We cannot forsake each other. My wish for 2022, ironically, is more speech speeches that bring us together instead of ripping us apart, words of love, words of justice, words of peace and, perhaps most importantly, words of laughter and endurance.

This column first appeared in the print edition on January 1, 2022 under the title The year of noise, speech and silence. Mittal is a stand-up comedian, actor and writer

Read more:
Deafening silence in a year of hate speech - The Indian Express