Category Archives: Censorship

For governments interested in suppressing information online, the old methods of direct censorship are getting less and less effective.

Over the past month, the Thai government has made escalating attempts to suppress critical information online. In the last week, faced with an embarrassing video of the Thai King, the government ordered Facebook to geoblock over 300 pages on the platform and even threatened to shut Facebook down in the country. This is on top of last month's announcement that the government had banned any online interaction with three individuals: two academics and one journalist, all three of whom are political exiles and prominent critics of the state. And just today, law enforcement representatives described their efforts to target those who simply viewnot even create or sharecontent critical of the monarchy and the government.

The Thai government has several methods at its own disposal to directly block large volumes of content. It could, as it has in the past, pressure ISPs to block websites. It could also hijack domain name queries, making sites harder to access. So why is it negotiating with Facebook instead of just blocking the offending pages itself? And what are Facebooks responsibilities to users when this happens?

The answer is, in part, HTTPS. When HTTPS encrypts your browsing, it doesnt just protect the contents of the communication between your browser and the websites you visit. It also protects the specific pages on those sites, preventing censors from seeing and blocking anything after the slash in a URL. This means that if a sensitive video of the King shows up on a website, government censors cant identify and block only the pages on which it appears. In an HTTPS world that makes such granularized censorship impossible, the governments only direct censorship option is to block the site entirely.

That might still leave the government with tenable censorship options if critical speech and dissenting activity only happened on certain sites, like devoted blogs or message boards. A government could try to get away with blocking such sites wholesale without disrupting users outside a certain targeted political sphere.

But all sorts of user-generated contentfrom calls to revolution to cat picturesare converging on social media websites like Facebook, which members of every political party use and rely on. This brings us to the second part of the answer as to why the government cant censor like it used to: mixed-use social media sites. When content is both HTTPS-encrypted and on a mixed-use social media site like Facebook, it can be too politically expensive to block the whole site. Instead, the only option left is pressuring Facebook to do targeted blocking at the governments request.

Government requests for targeted blocking happen when something is compliant with Facebooks community guidelines, but not with a countrys domestic law. This comes to a head when social media platforms have large user bases in repressive, censorious statesa dynamic that certainly applies in Thailand, where a military dictatorship shares its capital city with a dense population of Facebook power-users and one of the most Instagrammed locations on earth.

In Thailand, the video of the King in question violated the countrys overbroad lese majeste defamation laws against in any way insulting or criticizing the monarchy. So the Thai government requested that Facebook remove italong with hundreds of other pieces of contenton legal grounds, and made an ultimately empty threat to shut down the platform in Thailand if Facebook did not comply.

Facebook did comply and geoblock over 100 URLs for which it received warrants from the Thai government. This may not be surprising; although the government is likely not going to block Facebook entirely, they still have other ways to go after the company, including threatening any in-country staff. Indeed, Facebook put itself in a vulnerable position when it inexplicably opened a Bangkok office during high political tensions after the 2014 military coup.

If companies like Facebook do comply with government demands to remove content, these decisions must be transparent to their users and the general public. Otherwise, Facebook's compliance transforms its role from a victim of censorship, to a company pressured to act as a government censor. The stakes are high, especially in unstable political environments like Thailand. There, the targets of takedown requests can often be journalists, activists, and dissidents, and requests to take down their content or block their pages often serve as an ominous prelude to further action or targeting.

With that in mind, Facebook and other companies responding to government requests must provide the fullest legally permissible notice to users whenever possible. This means timely, informative notifications, on the record, that give users information like what branch of government requested to take down their content, on what legal grounds, and when the request was made.

Facebook seems to be getting better at this, at least in Thailand. When journalist Andrew MacGregor Marshall had content of his geoblocked in January, he did not receive consistent notice. Worse, the page that his readers in Thailand saw when they tried to access his post implied that the block was an error, not a deliberate act of government-mandated removal.

More recently, however, we have been happy to see evidence of Facebook providing more detailed notices to users, like this notice that exiled dissident Dr. Somsak Jeamteerasakul received and then shared online:

In an ideal world, timely and informative user notice can help power the Streisand effect: that is, the dynamic in which attempts to suppress information actually backfire and draw more attention to it than ever before. (And thats certainly whats happening with the video of the King, which has garnered countless international media headlines.) With details, users are in a better position to appeal to Facebook directly as well as draw public attention to government targeting and censorship, ultimately making this kind of censorship a self-defeating exercise for the government.

In an HTTP environment where governments can passively spy on and filter Internet content, individual pages could disappear behind obscure and misleading error messages. Moving to an increasingly HTTPS-secured world means that if social media companies are transparent about the pressure they face, we may gain some visibility into government censorship. However, if they comply without informing creators or readers of blocked content, we could find ourselves in a much worse situation. Without transparency, tech giants could misuse their power not only to silence vulnerable speakers, but also to obscure how that censorship takes placeand who demanded it.

Have you had your content or account removed from a social media platform? At EFF, weve been shining a light on the expanse and breadth of content removal on social media platforms with OnlineCensorship.org, where we and our partners at Visualising Impact collect your stories about content and account deletions. Share your story here.

Read more here:
Online Censorship and User Notification: Lessons from Thailand - EFF

The SABC continues to censor political views that oppose the ruling party. Thats according to ANC veteran Khulu Mbatha, author of the critical new book Unmasked: Why the ANC Failed to Govern.

Mbatha was scheduled to discuss his book on Motsweding FM on Thursday night in an interview set up by his publishers, KMM Review Publishing Company. After not receiving a call from the popular radio station, he contacted his publisher.

It was only on Friday morning that Mbatha learned why the interview was canned. He received a text from his publisher that had been sent from a producer at Motsweding FM.

The producer apologised for the lack of communication and explained what happened: I was advised earlier as I submitted my script to put the interview on hold because of the editorial policy of the SABC. I will be informed further on how to treat the interview moving forward because the content is against the ruling party.

Mbatha, once a special adviser to former president Kgalema Motlanthe, was angry when City Press contacted him on Friday morning.

I am very much disturbed. Censorship is still happening at the SABC. It is the worst form of censorship, he said, just before boarding a flight to the Franschhoek Literary Festival, where he will be talking about his book.

In Unmasked, Mbatha who is one of 101 ANC veterans who have called for a conference to deal with the ANCs crisis delivers a sharp critique of the party. The ANC, he writes, was never truly ready to rule in 1994 and has failed dismally to address the core issue of economic inequality in the country.

Kaizer Kganyago, SABC spokesperson, said the interview was postponed because the station wanted to have time to read the book.

An email was sent to the relevant party in this regard, and it is not true that the reason for postponing the interview was due to the contents of the book which are said against the ruling party. The reasons are clear and there is no mention of the ruling party.

On March 8, the council of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa), acting on the recommendation of the Complaints and Compliance Committee, declared the SABC boards 2016 amendment of its editorial policies to be invalid.

This was after the The SOS Coalition and Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), represented by the Legal Resources Centre, challenged amendments to the SABCs editorial policies over, among other things, the broadcasters refusal to show violent protests.

During former chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoenengs reign at the SABC numerous adverts, commentators and programmes were reportedly canned for presenting views negative to President Jacob Zuma and the ANC.

Icasa found that, in amending its policies, the SABC had failed to consult the public, which is a breach of the SABCs licence conditions and of the Broadcasting Act.

The SABC was forced to revert to its original editorial policies of 2004.

Contacted on Friday, Icasa spokesperson Paseka Maleka said that Mbatha can lodge a formal complaint with Icasa and we shall engage the SABC on the matter.

MMAs William Bird was aghast when told about the SMS.

This is fundamentally outrageous, he said, with all the emphasis on trying to restore credibility at the public broadcaster. Its a flagrant violation of [Mbathas] right to freedom of speech. The board and parliament need to be investigating this as well.

Mbatha said he had contacted Communications Minister Ayanda Dlodlo about what happened with Motsweding FM.

She promised to get back to me, he said.

* This article was updated on May 19 to include the SABC's response to the matter.

See the original post here:
'Censorship is still happening at SABC' - News24

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Facebooks growth is slowing. It needs new markets and new audiences, which is why it is making a big push into foreign countries. However, some of these countries arent happy with the idea of letting their citizens have access to free-speech friendly platforms, and impose conditions on Facebooks operations within their borders.

So, does Zuckerbergs stated commitment to free speech trump the companys need to enter markets controlled by authoritarian, censorious governments? Readers can examine the following five examples, and judge for themselves.

1. China

Facebook was banned from China following riots in 2009 inrmqi and revelations that the Xinjiang independence activists behind the riots used the social network to organize. Facebook has been desperate to re-enter Chinas massive market ever since.

Mark Zuckerberghas met with Chinese president Xi Jinpingas well as Chinese propaganda chief Liu Yunshan. The Facebook CEO has even learned Mandarin and delivered speeches (albeit clumsy ones, according to Quartz) in the language during his multiple trips to China. According to reports, Zuckerberg even asked the Chinese president to name his baby during a meeting at the White House, although the president refused.

But Facebook has done more than cosy up to Chinese officials. According to reports, they are also building a censorship tool to block banned news sources in China from users timelines. Several Facebook employees have quit in protest at the development of the tool, which will reportedly give third parties like ISPs and governments the power to suppress posts.

Then again, Facebook is competing with domestic Chinese social networks, which pride themselves on blocking what they call fake news

2. Turkey

Turkey frequently censors its citizens on the internet. During the coup attempt against President Erdogan last year, all social media was blacked out across the country.Just last month, Turkey blocked access to Wikipedia.

Facebook has been working with Turkey to censor Kurdish militia in northern Syria. Although these groups are largely credited with rolling back the frontiers of the Islamic State, they are considered terrorists by Turkey, an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), that has staged attacks inside the country. Turkey is even accused of allowing ISIS fighters to cross its southern border to fight the Kurds.

A document leaked in 2012 revealed even more censorship on behalf of Turkey: according to guidelines on IP blocks and international compliance given to an external Facebook contractor, moderators were told to consider a wide range of Turkey-critical content to be an abuse standards violation. These included attacks on Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, maps of Kurdistan, images depicting the burning of the Turkish flag, and any content related to Abdullah Ocalan, the most influential leader of the Kurdish independence movement.

3. Pakistan

Pakistan, also known astheIslamic Republicof Pakistan, is currently undertaking a massive crackdown against what it describes as social media blasphemy. The state recently sent out a text message to millions of Pakistanis urging them to report their fellow citizens if they suspect them of blasphemous posting, effectively encouraging a citizen-led religious Stasi.

Much of the citizenry will be happy to oblige. Indeed, some Pakistaniswould like to go beyond simply reporting blasphemers:

Pakistan has asked Facebook for help identifying blasphemers on social media even those outside the country, so it can pursue their extradition.Facebook has not denied complying with the request, instead saying thatthe companyreviews all government requests carefully, with the goal of protecting the privacy and rights of our users.'

What is known is that Facebook has dispatched a delegation to Pakistanto address the governments concerns. Moreover,government officials have claimed that the company has helped them remove 85 of blasphemous material on Facebook.This would make Facebook complicit in Pakistans determination to quash religious dissent from its citizens, which includes a potential death penalty for the crime of blasphemy.

4. Russia

The media is determined to find evidence of collusion between President Trump and Russia, but there is considerably more evidence to be found of Facebook doing the bidding of the Russian government, which is frightening the social network by threatening to ban it from the country.

The pressure seems to have paid off in 2014, Facebook blocked a page supporting Alexei Navalny, described by theWashington Postas Putins biggest critic.

5. Germany and the European Union

Not all authoritarian countries are non-western. In response to the migrant crisis and the subsequent crime and terrorism wave sweeping Europe, Germany has taken a keen interest in scrubbing criticism of their catastrophic mass migration policies from social media.German police have even raided homes over alleged Facebook hate speech, and one couple was taken to court and sentenced for criticizing mass migration on the platform.

In September 2015, German chancellor Angela Merkel was overheardasking Mark Zuckerberg if he was working on clamping down against allegedly hateful content on the platform, to which Zuckerberg replied yeah. The German government has also threatened to fine Facebook if it does not clamp down on fake news, while the European Union has threatened non-legislative action if social networks like Facebook and YouTube do not tackle hate speech on their platforms.

Zuckerberg was true to his word. Following his overheard discussion with Merkel, Facebook has signed up to an E.U. pledge to suppress illegal hate speech and use their power to promote counter-narratives. Facebook also launched its own Initiative for Civil Courage Online, a Europe-wide campaign to clamp down on alleged hate speech during the migrant crisis. In just one month alone in September 2016, Facebook deleted over 100,000 posts in Germany for containing hate a figure that was attacked by the German government as too low.

Mark Zuckerberg is a strong supporter of Angela Merkels refugee policies, and has called on the U.S. to follow their lead.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitterandadd him on Facebook.Email tips and suggestions toabokhari@breitbart.com.

Read the original:
5 Authoritarian Regimes That Shape Facebook's Censorship Policies - Breitbart News

When you were younger, did you ever see a picture of a gory leg or a kid in the playground covered in blood after an unfortunate accident? If so, did you immediately request counselling and medication for your all new post-traumatic stress disorder?

Im in my late twenties now, but when I was a youngun if somebody from your school died naturally, was killed or even committed suicide; you went home and you let it all out this is what he meant to me or well I didnt know him but my friend Johnny did and he was really sick apparently and youd discuss your feelings with your parents and realise that for lack of a better term life goes on.

Adversity, hardship and misfortune breeds strength and attentiveness.

Nowadays, I see disasters and tragedies happen where the first thing people do is run to the counsellor and act as if what has happened is something the world and all of its living things has never faced before. Do we act as if little Billy has seen the death of a human because thats just the way of the world, or do we act like he has seen what nobody should ever see and that this will be the most traumatic sight in the world?

Think about WordswithMeaning!, now this is a website that, if there are tortures happening in the world, itll be the source for the visually shocking evidence. Today, the media tells you that a whole number of horrible things have happened and we just use our own imagination, when our imagination isnt even close to the terrible things that are going on behind the censorship. Watch one of those surgery programs and see how brutal the responsibility of removing or repairing a damaged organ is and then you might be that little bit stronger when somebody is impaled by a speeding truck that continues after leaving the poor victim to fend for his or herself.

Was there a road accident near the school? Call the counsellors. A flood you say? Call the counsellors. Actually, maybe this is why I am a counsellor.

Disasters, deaths and gore are all inevitable. You cant put a pixelated sheet over everything that your kids are exposed to. Yes it will shock them, it will cause distress but by covering their eyes from the cruel reality of life; all youre doing is shielding them and weakening their ability to understand that this world is full of pretty flowers and nasty things.

I have a very vivid memory of touching the cooker about five minutes after my mum said DONT TOUCH, ITS HOT! My mums response was for goodness sake, see, this is why I told you not to touch it. Go run it under the tap

On that day, I learned that heat = pain. Funny how Im almost thirty and I still remember the effect that had on me and how cautious I am about hot objects nowadays.

I am by no means saying you should go burn your children to teach them of lifes misfortune, but if they hurt themselves, let them know its only natural and that its a salutary reminder that they may not be so lucky the next time; cold running water will heal it now, but if you were to be careless again, you may require some serious medical attention.

Im constantly hearing the sad news that another life has been lost to the realms of cyber bullying or similar and yes, suicide is difficult to tackle, but if you put your 13 year old into the war that is life without some knowledge, experience and a sword then chances are theyll be injured within moments.

Sometimes we all have to learn the hard way in order to prepare ourselves for the worst.

We are 100% independent and therefore we have no paid-for-comment financial support from commercial entities or political groups. We strive to be as free as possible. We won't implement paywalls or subscription programs. Your donations are incredibly helpful and help keep us alive. You can donate through PayPal, Patreon or Bitcoin as well as support us by buying TWS merchandise.

Originally posted here:
We Live in a Soft Society Filled With Censorship, Offense, Nanny-State and Weakness - The Whole Story

AAP had said that if an advertisement appears to be communal or obscene, then the government needs to take action against the person as per the law in existence.

In a democracy there cannot be pre-censorship, the Delhi High Court told the AAP government regarding its policy on display of advertisements on auto rickshaws on Thursday.

In a democracy it (pre-censorship) should not be done. What is the need for pre-censorship or prohibition of any political advertisement? How can you do it? A citizen can be political, a justices S Ravindra Bhat and Pratibha M Singh said.

AAPhad said that if an advertisement appears to be communal or obscene, then the government needs to take action against the person as per the law in existence.

The Delhi government, meanwhile, told the court that it is coming out with a new policy regarding display of advertisement on public service vehicles (PSVs) including auto rickshaws in which the prohibition against political ads would be removed. However, they also said that pre-censorship was required to which the court did not agree.

The bench listed the matter for hearing on August 9 giving time to the government to place its policy before the court.

It was hearing a PIL by filed by some auto unions against the then Delhi governments August 2014 policy on display of advertisements on PSVs, particularly the bar on political ads and the provision allowing pre-censorship.

The high court had in 2015 reserved its verdict in the matter, but had taken it up again last year as it wanted to know whether the government on its own would address the issues raised by the petitioners. However, since July 2016, the Delhi government had been seeking more time on each date for placing its revised advertisement policy before the court.

Earlier in September 2014, the high court in an order had raised three questions - whether political advertisements should be allowed on PSVs, the need for pre-censorship, and whether ads ought to be allowed only for vehicles having GPS and GPRS systems.

In June 2013, the then Delhi government had banned advertisements on PSVs after auto rickshaws started sporting AAP posters in the run-up to Delhi assembly elections. Thereafter, the high court had stayed the ban.

In May 2014, the city government had informed the court that it was in the process of finalising the general guidelines for allowing advertisements on PSVs and was awaiting approval of the Lt Governor.

On August 1, 2014, the government had placed before the court its latest guidelines for display of advertisements on PSVs, as per which ads containing political, ethnic, religious or sectarian text would not be permitted.

The policy also stated that advertisements cannot be displayed without prior approval of municipal bodies and would be allowed only for vehicles which have installed GPS/GPRS systems and was challenged in the PIL.

See the article here:
There cannot be pre-censorship in a democracy: Delhi HC - Hindustan Times

Hassan Rouhani does the rounds at the Tehran book fair.

Human rights watchdogs repeatedly shame Iran as one of the worlds worst offenders against freedom of expression, a harsh censor with little compunction about cracking down on critics with direct methods such as prior restraint and violent means of repression. But Iran, like other states around the world, is increasingly using other, more unorthodox ways of controlling speech what might be called indirect censorship.

Instead of the classic methods of removing content wholesale or blocking access to it, indirect censorship methods make producing or accessing undesirable ideas and information costly, technically difficult or legally risky. They often do so via unrelated laws, or by bypassing weak or nonexistent protective regulations. Deployed by both governments and private actors, these methods often dont fall under conventional definitions of censorship, and are therefore often not condemned as such.

The Iranian government is using indirect censorship partly out of geopolitical necessity. Tehran clearly wants to improve relations with the West, but the countrys domestic human rights situation is a major obstacle and its attitudes to freedom of speech are a particular sticking point. Since the government is hardly inclined to fundamentally change its ways, it has come up with a typically neoliberal solution: to transfer responsibility for enforcing censorship to the private sector.

In a speech at Tehrans 2016 International Book Fair, president Hassan Rouhani proposed that the ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance hand its job of censoring books and cultural products to an association of writers and publishers. His government promoted this idea as an initiative to relax book censorship, and it was broadly accepted as such by the Western media. But because there are few clear regulations regarding censorship and a huge range of sensitive subjects, it would more likely have the opposite effect.

The plan is currently in its pilot stage, and if it becomes operational, the government will free itself from direct responsibility for book censorship. It would be left to publishers and writers themselves to enforce vague red lines, including upon themselves, lest they fall foul of a judiciary capable of seizing books after publication and inflicting paralysing financial damage.

This would inculcate a conservative culture of self-censorship, with writers and publishers desperate to avoid unbearable financial or legal consequences taking an even more cautious and strict approach than the government itself.

Using unrelated laws to put pressure on media and to silence the dissidents is a typical method of indirect censorship. In Iran, defamation and insult lawsuits are an effective instrument with which to punish critics, and have a powerful and chilling effect on the media. And the way defamation laws are currently interpreted by the court means they can easily be used to restrict freedom of expression.

The Iranian legal system hosts two major approaches to dealing with defamation cases. The first, dominant until the Islamic Penal Code was introduced in 1983, considers that when someone attributes a specific crime to someone else, the accusations must be adjudicated by a court, and that if the accused is acquitted and considers themselves defamed, they may take their defamer to court in turn.

The other approach, which began to take hold in 1983, also allows someone claiming defamation to take their alleged defamer to court, but puts the burden of proof on the accuser. This violates the principle of presumption of innocence, and it puts particular pressure on investigative journalists who rely on anonymous or secret sources.

Worse still, according to an additional clause in the Islamic Penal Codes article 697, allegedly defamatory statements can be punishable even when they are proven justified and true. This provision makes a useful pretext to crack down on any whistleblower or investigative journalist who reveals defensible evidence of the governments corruption to the public.

A notorious case of this sort kicked off recently when the Iranian website Memari News published a set of official reports by the General Inspection Office that indicated that the Tehran Municipality had illegally transferred properties to a number of its high-ranking officers. Memaris editor-in-chief, Yashar Soltani, was soon arrested and charged with defamation and gathering classified information with the intent to harm national security.

Even though the General Inspection Office confirmed the credibility of the documents and that the municipality was involved in the illegal transfer of public properties, Soltani remains on bail with his case open, and still stands accused of harbouring a hidden political agenda.

For now, the Iranian government is still using the same harsh methods of direct censorship for which it has long been known blocking critical websites, for instance, or arresting government critics. But as it increasingly turns to more indirect methods, it is doing a better job of evading the scrutiny of the human rights watchdogs whove justifiably criticised it for so long.

Read the rest here:
Iran is using indirect censorship methods to avoid international criticism - The Conversation UK

More foreign censorship is coming to American social media companies. Back in January, Facebook hinted it would be at least partially receptive to the government of Thailand's desire to be free from criticism. Fortunately, the Thailand government has been slightly more rational than, say, Austria's by not demanding offending content be removed everywhere. So far, it seems amenable to Facebook just preventing Thailand's citizens from seeing anything deemed insulting to their rulers (dead or alive).

The problem right now (at least in the minds of Thailand government officials) is that Facebook isn't making with the targeted censorship quickly enough.

The social media giant has been given until next Tuesday to remove more than 130 items from pages viewable in Thailand.

Facebook says it does consider requests from governments to block material, and will comply if it breaks local laws.

The "or else" part of the government's threat seems to be nonexistent at this point, although it probably involves cutting off citizens' access to Facebook entirely. The Thai government insists Facebook has been mostly cooperative, but is dragging its feet on the 100+ posts it has declared illegal under the country's "don't badmouth your authoritarian leaders" law.

It's disappointing to see Facebook agree, even partially, to act as a proxy censor for Thailand's government. While it's generally a good idea for social media companies to be somewhat responsive to local rules and regulations, there's very little to be gained by being an errand boy for a regime where insulting kings results in secret trials and 15-year jail sentences.

It must be noted that Facebook isn't the only US tech company working with the Thailand government to ensure its top officials remain unoffended. Google has also participated in proxy censorship. Last year, it reported it had complied with 85% of requests made under Thailand's lese majeste laws, although it did not explain whether this was location-based blocking or complete removal of the literally-offending posts.

Any form of tolerance for this only encourages further abuse. The country's cybersecurity laws are already being abused by the government, which has declared that merely communicating with foreign critics online violates the Computer Crime Act. Censors' requests for inches quickly stretch into miles. If either of these companies tries to reel in some of the censorious slack they've given Thailand's government, it will most likely be greeted with a complete blockade or ban of their services and sites. If that's going to be the inevitable result, why bother humoring these requests at all?

Visit link:
Thailand Demands More Proxy Censorship From Facebook - Techdirt

This picture taken on March 21, 2013 shows two young woman typing on their smartphones at a shopping mall in Bangkok. NICOLAS ASFOURIAFP/Getty Images

Facebook is still up and running in Thailand despite being given a Tuesday deadline to block content deemed insulting to the monarchy by the countrys ruling junta.

Telecom authorities threatened to shut down the social media site if it did not comply with a request to censor 131 items viewed as violating the kingdoms draconian lse-majest law , Reuters reports.

The legislation is ostensibly meant to protect the royal family from being defamed, but in practice is often used to suppress dissent. Violations are punishable with up to 15 years in prison, and complaints can be made by anyone, against anyone, with no statute of limitations.

More than 100 people have been arrested on lse-majest charges since Thailands military seized power in a 2014 coup, according to rights groups.

Read More: The Draconian Legal Weapon Being Used to Silence Thai Dissent

Facebook does sometimes remove content at the request of governments if it is found to be in violation of local laws, as outlined in the companys community standards guidelines.

The junta has shut down the social networking site in the past; users were outraged by a temporary shutdown shortly after the military seized power. It has also recently tightened its already strong grip on the Internet, blocking thousands of websites and passing new cyber-security laws that legal experts say are susceptible to abuse.

[ Reuters ]

Read more:
Thailand: Facebook Censorship Deadline Passes | Time.com - TIME

Certain stealthy spacetime curiosities might be less hidden than thought, potentially exposing themselves to observers in some curved universes.

These oddities, known as singularities, are points in space where the standard laws of physics break down. Found at the centers of black holes, singularities are generally expected to be hidden from view, shielding the universe from their problematic properties. Now, scientists report in the May 5 Physical Review Letters that a singularity could be revealed in a hypothetical, saddle-shaped universe.

Previously, scientists found that singularities might not be concealed in hypothetical universes with more than three spatial dimensions. The new result marks the first time the possibility of such a naked singularity has been demonstrated in a three-dimensional universe. Thats extremely important, says physicist Gary Horowitz of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Horowitz, who was not involved with the new study, has conducted previous research that implied that a naked singularity could probably appear in such saddle-shaped universes.

In Einsteins theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity, spacetime itself can be curved (SN: 10/17/15, p. 16). Massive objects such as stars bend the fabric of space, causing planets to orbit around them. A singularity occurs when the warping is so extreme that the equations of general relativity become nonsensical as occurs in the center of a black hole. But black holes singularities are hidden by an event horizon, which encompasses a region around the singularity from which light cant escape. The cosmic censorship conjecture, put forth in 1969 by mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose, proposes that all singularities will be similarly cloaked.

According to general relativity, hypothetical universes can take on various shapes. The known universe is nearly flat on large scales, meaning that the rules of standard textbook geometry apply and light travels in a straight line. But in universes that are curved, those rules go out the window. To demonstrate the violation of cosmic censorship, the researchers started with a curved geometry known as anti-de Sitter space, which is warped such that a light beam sent out into space will eventually return to the spot it came from. The researchers deformed the boundaries of this curved spacetime and observed that a region formed in which the curvature increased over time to arbitrarily large values, producing a naked singularity.

I was very surprised, says physicist Jorge Santos of the University of Cambridge, a coauthor of the study. I always thought that gravity would somehow find a way to maintain cosmic censorship.

Scientists have previously shown that cosmic censorship could be violated if a universes conditions were precisely arranged to conspire to produce a naked singularity. But the researchers new result is more general. There's nothing finely tuned or unnatural about their starting point, says physicist Ruth Gregory of Durham University in England. That, she says, is really interesting.

But, Horowitz notes, there is a caveat. Because the violation occurs in a curved universe, not a flat one, the result is not yet a completely convincing counterexample to the original idea.

Despite the reliance on a curved universe, the result does have broader implications. Thats because gravity in anti-de Sitter space is thought to have connections to other theories. The physics of gravity in anti-de Sitter space seems to parallel that of some types of particle physics theories, set in fewer dimensions. So cosmic censorship violation in this realm could have consequences for seemingly unrelated ideas.

Read the original post:
Naked singularity might evade cosmic censor - Science News

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

Thailand's internet has become increasingly censored in recent years, and now the country is threatening Facebook.

The social media giant has been ordered by Thai authorities to remove all posts deemed illegal in the country by next Tuesday, failing which legal action will be taken, reports Bangkok Post. The order came from Thailand's National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (DE).

The popular social networking platform was requested by the Thai Internet Service Provider Association (TISPA) to block 600 pages last Thursday, of which 309 are blacklisted by the Criminal Court. While TISPA noted yesterday that most of these pages have been removed, 131 remain accessible in the country.

The move comes as part of the country's tightening grip on cyberspace. Thailand has been ramping up control of content posted online and began a new campaign last month to clamp down on websites with content it considers undesirable.

Freedom House noted the country has been restricting freedom on the internet over the last few years and highlighted its net status as "Not Free" in 2016, eventually prompting censorship concerns. In December last year, Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha shrugged off the concerns, saying this is meant to fight "those who violate the law."

Facebook is perhaps Thailand's most popular social networking platform -- a Thai artist engraved its logo onto a statue dedicated to the country's late king last month, only to have had to remove it following protests from the ground.

Thai authorities did not immediately respond to CNET's request for comments.

Facebook declined to comment.

Special Reports: CNET's in-depth features in one place.

Technically Literate: Original works of short fiction with unique perspectives on tech, exclusively on CNET.

View post:
Facebook gets legal threats from Thailand over e-censorship - CNET