Daily Archives: February 17, 2022

What is Censorship?Censorship is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the presiding governmental body of a specific country or nation or a private institution. The ideology and methodology of Censorship varies greatly on both domestic and international levels, as well as public and private institutions. Governmental Censorship

Governmental Censorship takes place in the event that the content, subject matter, or intent latent within an individual form of media is considered to exist in contrast with preexisting statutory regulations and legislation. In many cases, the censorship of media will be analogous with corollary laws in existence. For example, in countries or nations in which specific actions or activities are prohibited, media containing that nature of presumed illegal subject matter may be subject to Censorship. However, the mere mention of such subject matter will not always result in censorship; the following methods of classification are typically enacted with regard to a governmentally-instituted statutory Censorship:Censorship within the Public SectorThe public sector is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs by locale the nature of the public sector is defined with regard to the nature of the respective form of media and its adherence to legislation:The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sanctioned by the federal government of the United States in order to regulate the activity taking place in the public setting-based mediaCensorship and IntentWith regard to Censorship, intent is legally defined as the intended result for which one hopes as a result of their participation in the release or authorship of media; typically, proponents for individual censorship will be required to prove that the intent latent within the media in question was enacted knowingly and deliberately in any lack of adherence to legislationCensorship and Privacy

With Regard to censorship, privacy is a state in which an individual is free to act according to their respective discretion with regard to legal or lawful behavior; however, regardless of the private sector, the adherence to legislation and legality is requiredPrivate and Institutional Censorship

Private institutions retain the right to censor media which they may find objectionable; this is due to the fact that the participants in private or independent institutions are defined as willing participants. As a result, upon joining or participating in a private institution, the individuals concede to adhere to applicable regulations:

In many cases, the party responsible for an institutions funding may reserve the right to regulate the censorship of media undertakenThe modernization of censorship laws within the United States, the Federal Government will rarely call for specific, nationalized Censorship unless the content is agreed to be detrimental to the public wellbeing; in contrast, an interest group may choose to censor media that they feel may either deter or contradict their respective ideologies

comments

Read more:
Understanding Censorship - Censorship - LAWS.com

Types of Censorship and Notable Examples

In general, there are four major types of censorship: withholding information, destroying information, altering or using selective information and self-censorship.

Withholding information is a common form of censorship used by many governments throughout history. For many years, the United States government heavily censored information that came out of war zones because the government did not want citizens to turn against the war. The less citizens saw of the war, the more likely they were to believe it was a good thing.

Another common one is the destruction of information, like the book burnings used by the Nazis to physically eliminate information that went against their ideas. The act of trying to erase someone from history has a long precedent as well; ancient Egyptian pharaohs were known to destroy any records of rival pharaohs, even to the point of making their names illegal.

What else? Oh yeah, altering information is a good one. The former dictator of the USSR, Josef Stalin, was known to have photographs altered to remove images of people whom he had executed.

More commonly, altering information comes back to education, rewriting textbooks so that history only shows what you want it to. For many years, American history textbooks ignored the atrocities committed against Native American communities, and Japanese textbooks used to gloss over their brutal invasion of China during WWII.

And of course, there is also self-censorship, when people monitor themselves and stop themselves from giving the entire truth. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps you are afraid that the government will kidnap you for speaking against them, or perhaps you are afraid that you will be fired because a viewpoint is not supported by your employer. Encouraging self-censorship is one of the most effective ways for those in power to keep information quiet.

Regardless of how it's achieved, all censorship is seen as justified by somebody. Political censorship, for example, is used by governments to control the image of the state. For example, during the Cold War, the USSR needed the areas under their control to believe that they were winning and that life in communist Eastern Europe was better than life in the United States or capitalist Western Europe. So, the USSR carefully monitored writers, newspaper editors, television programs and other sources of information to ensure that only positive aspects of communism were depicted, along with the negative aspects of capitalism.

Another frequent source of censorship across history is religious censorship, where information is forbidden because it goes against religious ideas. One famous example of this was the trial and imprisonment of Galileo in 1633 for proposing that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which at the time was seen as heresy.

So, people in power who are afraid of the truth obviously like censorship. That means it must be pretty bad, right? Actually, many forms of censorship are not only accepted but embraced. For example, information regarding national security and military defense are often censored from the public. Many argue that if information on the movements of the United States military, for example, were made public, that an enemy would have an advantage and could launch brutal attacks.

And then there's moral censorship. The vast majority of TV networks are not permitted to show excessive violence or nudity, but it's not because somebody's trying to hide the truth from you, it's because somebody is trying to prevent kids from being exposed to things that kids shouldn't see. And then there are issues like child pornography, which we've decided is so immoral that it's actually illegal. Is it wrong of the government or mass media to censor child pornography? These are areas where censorship becomes a fine line where we, as a community, allow information to be suppressed for a sense of greater good.

Now, for some, the Internet is seen as something that should be unlimited, unrestrained and completely uncensored. It is the ultimate portal for sharing information, and we've seen how powerful that can be. The Arab Spring, a series of revolutions in the Arabic-speaking world that toppled entire governments, was sparked by social media. But again, where do we draw the line? Are racism, violence and hate suddenly acceptable just because they are on the Internet? Sometimes we decide that we need more access to information, and sometimes we decide that we need just a few more 'bleeps.'

Censorship is defined as the 'bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep.' Actually, that's just censorship in action. The suppression of information is something that has occurred throughout most of human history in some form or another. Censorship has been used to protect military secrets, hide truth from people to keep them oppressed, prevent ideas that contradicted accepted religious or scientific ideas or even preserve common morals. Censorship can be imposed by someone in power, or it can be a personal choice. A lot of censorship is seen as oppressive, but most societies agree on some level of censorship against immoral and illegal ideas. So, where's the line? 'Bleep.'

When you are finished, you should be able to:

View original post here:
Censorship: Definition, Examples & Issues - Video & Lesson ...

Joe Rogan, a podcast host on Spotify, and his spreading of misinformation surrounding COVID-19 is just one fragment of a difficult discussion in our society: how do we tackle misinformation on the internet?

Misinformation has circulated on the internet since its beginning. People have always been encouraged only to believe information from trusted sources online, as there are many sources that promote false information either to harm people, make a profit or because they are misinformed themselves.

This problem has received mass amounts of attention through the course of the pandemic and has caused a major political divide. Many people have promoted false information, namely anti-vax rhetoric and unproven treatments, which havecost, and will continue to cost, peoples lives.

In the case of Rogan, his most infamous moment during the pandemic washis promotion of ivermectin as a cure for COVID-19. Ivermectin has not been proven to be effective or safe in treating infection, which makes encouraging its use extremely dangerous.

This action has driven massive outrage in both the public and the medical community, who all are calling for an end to Rogans showonSpotify.

Spotify says it will add content advisories to podcast episodes discussing COVID-19 and direct listeners to reliable sources, according to a company press release.. However, many are not satisfied and want the podcaster off the platform entirely.

However, Spotify Chief Executive Daniel Ek said in a memo provided to the New York Times that silencing Rogan is not the answer to the problem and canceling voices is a slippery slope.

It is possible Ek only said this because Rogans podcast is a Spotify exclusive and removing the show would equal a loss in revenue. Nevertheless, it brings up a very important discussion about how to address misinformation online.

Rogan and the COVID-19 misinformation situation is not the first debate surrounding misinformation we have seen. Former President Donald Trumps presidency directly inspired a harsher push for fact-checking public officials and popular media figures.

Since then, topics like climate change and election integrity have faced a huge crackdown on misinformation.

But, there are different ways to combat misinformation. While a lot of iteither gets publicly fact-checked or content advisories are plastered on the post it came from, many advocate for a harsher approach of de-platforming, banning or censoring people who spread misinformation.

I firmly believe it is our civic responsibility and right to call out lies and bring the truth to light. We live in an era where government officials and news media have manipulated the trust of the people; celebrities and other public figures have capitalized off of that reality.

However, I also believe suppressing people from speaking their minds even if rooted in falsehood can be more harmful than productive.

Suppressing speech does not suppress someones thoughts. In other words, banning someone for misinformation will not make them change their beliefs.

This also has an impact on their following. Banning someone for misinformation is not going to help that persons followers realize the truth. Instead, they are going to see it as a personal attack against the person they trust. This will only strengthen their beliefs.

In other words, silencing the leader does not mean their followers are going to disperse. At the end of the day, people will continue to believe what they want to believe. It is often difficult to change that.

Gage Berz, junior computer engineering major, said he believes misinformation is dangerous to the public. However, he believes silencing people is an ineffective strategy to remove misinformation.

People who spread misinformation will continue to do so no matter how many times they get removed, Berz said.

While de-platforming may seemingly fix the issue by removing the misinformation from platforms, it creates minority groups on other fringe areas of the internet which will grow silently, he said. Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist, was de-platformedon almost all social media platforms, but, even with that removal, he still has his own site pulling in millions of views.

In a way, this is akin to the dark web. People who like to share illegal content did not stop doing so just because the internet does not allow it. Instead, they find other ways to spread their ideas.

People who spread false information will only do the same. They may not go to the extreme and post on the dark web, but they will migrate to obscure parts of the internet where the crackdown on misinformation is not nearly as enforced.

Freshman psychology major Loki Hogmansaid he believes censorship rarely works as intended.

Like Berz, Hogman said silencing people will only make that person angrier. The act will encourage them to continue spreading false information, only elsewhere.

Misinformation is really hard to combat because hooking peoples attention with fabricated stories to make someone sound correct will and has always happened with humans, he said. The main tool against misinformation is teaching people how to identify it, so they can stay away and move on to something reliable.

The idea of teaching people how to identify misinformation brings up a very good point: sometimes, in order to reaffirm what is right, we have to be able to see what is wrong.

A key point in anyargument is not only saying why you are right but also saying why the other side is wrong and disproving them with the evidence you have. Removing all false information and only letting people access correct information completely dilutes that concept.

Letting people have access to information, even if it is incorrect, allows people to criticize and disprove said information. I think that can be more influential in getting people to change their viewpoints because you are disproving something rather than removing it entirely.

Because at the end of the day, stopping false information entirely is an incredibly unrealistic expectation. All that we can do is recognize misinformation and call it out when we notice it.

Continue reading here:
OPINION: Censorship not a solution to misinformation The Daily Evergreen - The Daily Evergreen

A screenshot of a comment made by Chinese American freestyle skier Eileen (Ailing) Gu was recently censored on the Chinese social media app Weibo for mentioning the availability of VPNs to bypass the countrys Instagram ban.

The ironic turn of events came after an Instagram user commented on one of Gus posts on Feb. 4, questioning the "special treatment" the athlete seemed to be receiving in a country where the platform is otherwise banned, reported Protocol.

Why can you use Instagram and millions of Chinese people from mainland cannot, the comment read. Why you got [sic] such special treatment as a Chinese citizen. Thats not fair, can you speak up for those millions of Chinese who dont have internet freedom[?]

In her reply, the 18-year-old Olympian suggested, [A]nyone can download a VPN, adding that it is literally free on the App Store.

In addition to blocking access to several international social media apps throughout the country, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp, the Chinese government has also barred internet users from using VPNs as a workaround for the Great Firewall, the countrys internet regulation system, according to the New York Times.

The Chinese government asked Apple to remove all VPN software from its App Store in 2017,Taiwan News reported. Googles Play Store has also been banned from China for many years now, and the only people who can use the program are state-run firms and government agencies.

While some users were reportedly impressed by Gus dedication to defend the motherland, others were quick to criticize the gold medalist for what they perceived as her privileged obliviousness.

Literally, Im not anyone. Literally, its illegal for me to use a VPN. Literally, its not f*cking free at all, one Weibo user wrote, HuffPost reported

After a screenshot of Gus Instagram comment was shared on Feb. 7 in a Weibo post that garnered nearly 4,000 shares and 1,000 comments, the screenshot of her comment was replaced with a blank placeholder image the day after.

Story continues

South African YouTuber Winston Sterzel and Chinese dissident artist Badiucao also criticized Gu on Twitter, with Sterzel likening her comment to a Marie Antoinette moment.

Gu previously crashed Weibo after winning an Olympic gold medal at the womens big air freestyle skiing competition for China on Feb. 8. Her win has pushed the San Francisco-born athlete into the spotlight and earned praise from Chinese social media users and local government.

Featured Image via NBC Sports (left), @Eileen_gu_ (right)

Enjoy this content? Read more from NextShark!

Reckless Driver Mocks Asian American Woman With Racist Insults on Instagram, Loses Her Job

12-Year-Old Fashion Designer Sews Masks for Doctors and Nurses Fighting COVID-19

Meet Japan's first esports team comprised entirely of elders

New Ad Slams Trump's Use of 'Anti-Asian' Names for COVID-19

See the original post here:
Eileen Gus comment advocating VPN workaround for Chinese internet censorship is in turn censored - Yahoo News