Category Archives: Censorship

Matthew Prince, chief executive officer of Cloudflare, speaks at a 2011 conference in China. Li Yuze/ Xinhua via Zuma

This story originally appeared on ProPublica.

Since its launch in 2013, the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer has quickly become the go-to spot for racists on the internet. Women are whores, blacks are inferior and a shadowy Jewish cabal is organizing a genocide against white people. The site can count among its readers Dylann Roof, the white teenager who slaughtered nine African Americans in Charleston in 2015, and James Jackson, who fatally stabbed an elderly black man with a sword in the streets of New York earlier this year.

Traffic is up lately, too, at white supremacist sites like The Right Stuff, Iron March, American Renaissance and Stormfront, one of the oldest white nationalist sites on the internet.

The operations of such extreme sites are made possible, in part, by an otherwise very mainstream internet companyCloudflare. Based in San Francisco, Cloudflare operates more than 100 data centers spread across the world, serving as a sort of middleman for websitesspeeding up delivery of a site's content and protecting it from several kinds of attacks. Cloudflare says that some 10 percent of web requests flow through its network, and the company's mainstream clients range from the FBI to the dating site OKCupid.

The widespread use of Cloudflare's services by racist groups is not an accident. Cloudflare has said it is not in the business of censoring websites and will not deny its services to even the most offensive purveyors of hate.

"A website is speech. It is not a bomb," Cloudflare's CEO Matthew Prince wrote in a 2013 blog post defending his company's stance. "There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain."

Cloudflare also has an added appeal to sites such as The Daily Stormer. It turns over to the hate sites the personal information of people who criticize their content. For instance, when a reader figures out that Cloudflare is the internet company serving sites like The Daily Stormer, they sometimes write to the company to protest. Cloudflare, per its policy, then relays the name and email address of the person complaining to the hate site, often to the surprise and regret of those complaining.

The widespread use of Cloudflare's services by racist groups is not an accident.

This has led to campaigns of harassment against those writing in to protest the offensive material. People have been threatened and harassed.

ProPublica reached out to a handful of people targeted by The Daily Stormer after they or someone close to them complained to Cloudflare about the site's content. All but three declined to talk on the record, citing fear of further harassment or a desire to not relive it. Most said they had no idea their report would be passed on, though Cloudflare does state on the reporting form that they "will notify the site owner."

"I wasn't aware that my information would be sent on. I suppose I, naively, had an expectation of privacy," said Jennifer Dalton, who had complained that The Daily Stormer was asking its readers to harass Twitter users after the election.

Andrew Anglin, the owner of The Daily Stormer, has been candid about how he feels about people reporting his site for its content.

"We need to make it clear to all of these people that there are consequences for messing with us," Anglin wrote in one online post. "We are not a bunch of babies to be kicked around. We will take revenge. And we will do it now."

ProPublica asked Cloudflare's top lawyer about its policy of sharing information on those who complain about racist sites. The lawyer, Doug Kramer, Cloudflare's general counsel, defended the company's policies by saying it is "base constitutional law that people can face their accusers." Kramer suggested that some of the people attacking Cloudflare's customers had their own questionable motives.

Hate sites such as The Daily Stormer have become a focus of intense interest since the racially divisive 2016 electionhow popular they are, who supports them, how they are financed. Most of their operators supported Donald Trump and helped spread a variety of conspiracy theories aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton. But they clearly have also become a renewed source of concern for law enforcement.

In testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chief Will D. Johnson, chair of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Human and Civil Rights Committee, highlighted the reach and threat of hate on the Internet.

"The internet provides extremists with an unprecedented ability to spread hate and recruit followers," he said. "Individual racists and organized hate groups now have the power to reach a global audience of millions and to communicate among like-minded individuals easily, inexpensively, and anonymously.

"Although hate speech is offensive and hurtful, the First Amendment usually protects such expression," Johnson said. "However, there is a growing trend to use the Internet to intimidate and harass individuals on the basis of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability, or national origin."

A look at Cloudflare's policies and operations sheds some light on how sites promoting incendiary speech and even violent behavior can exist and even thrive.

Jacob Sommer, a lawyer with extensive experience in internet privacy and security issues, said there is no legal requirement for a company like Cloudflare to regulate the sites on their service, though many internet service providers choose to. It comes down to a company's sense of corporate responsibility, he said.

"There is a growing trend to use the Internet to intimidate and harass individuals on the basis of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability, or national origin."

For the most part, Sommers said, a lot of companies don't want "this stuff" on their networks. He said those companies resist having their networks become "a hive of hate speech."

Jonathan Vick, associate director for investigative technology and cyberhate response at the Anti-Defamation League, agrees. He said that many of the hosts they talk to want to get hate sites off their networks.

"Even the most intransigent of them, when they're given evidence of something really problematic, they do respond," he said.

Cloudflare has raised at least $180 million in venture capital since its inception in 2009, much of it from some of the most prominent venture capital firms and tech companies in the country. The service is what's known as a content delivery network, and offers protection from several cyber threats including "denial of service" attacks, where hundreds of computers make requests to a website at once, overwhelming it and bringing it down.

Company officials have said Cloudflare's core belief is in the free and open nature of the internet. But given its outsize role in protecting a range of websites, Cloudflare has found itself the target of critics.

In 2015, the company came under fire from the hacker collective Anonymous for reportedly allowing ISIS propaganda sites on its network. At the time, Prince, the company's CEO, dismissed the claim as "armchair analysis by kids," and told Fox Business that the company would not knowingly accept money from a terrorist organization.

Kramer, in an interview with ProPublica, reiterated that the company would not accept money from ISIS. But he said that was not for moral or ethical reasons. Rather, he said, Cloudflare did not have dealings with terrorists groups such as ISIS because there are significant and specific laws restricting them from doing so.

In the end, Kramer said, seedy and objectionable sites made up a tiny fraction of the company's clients.

"We've got 6 million customers," he told ProPublica. "It's easy to find these edge cases."

One of the people ProPublica spoke with whose information had been shared with The Daily Stormer's operators said his complaint had been posted on the site, but that he was "not interested in talking about my experience as it's not something I want to revisit." Someone else whose information was posted on the site said that while she did get a few odd emails, she wasn't aware her information had been made public. She followed up to say she was going to abandon her email account now that she knew.

"The entire situation makes me feel uneasy," she said.

Scott Ernest had complained about The Daily Stormer's conduct after Anglin, its owner, had used the site to allegedly harass a woman in the town of Whitefish, Montana. After his complaint, Ernest wound up on the receiving end of about two dozen harassing emails or phone calls.

"Fuck off and die," read one email. "Go away and die," read another. Those commenting on the site speculated on everything from Ernest's hygiene to asking, suggestively, why it appeared in a Facebook post that Ernest had a child at his house.

Ernest said the emails and phone calls he received were not traumatizing, but they were worrying.

"His threats of harassment can turn into violence," he said of Anglin.

Anglin appears quite comfortable with his arrangement with Cloudflare. It doesn't cost him much eitherjust $200 a month, according to public posts on the site.

"[A]ny complaints filed against the site go to Cloudflare, and Cloudflare then sends me an email telling me someone said I was doing something bad and that it is my responsibility to figure out if I am doing that," he wrote in a 2015 post on his site. "Cloudflare does not regulate content, so it is meaningless."

Representatives from Rackspace and GoDaddy, two popular web hosts, said they try to regulate the kinds of sites on their services. For Rackspace, that means drawing the line at hosting white supremacist content or hate speech. For GoDaddy, that means not hosting the sort of abusive publication of personal information that Anglin frequently engages in.

"There is certainly content that, while we respect freedom of speech, we don't want to be associated with it," said Arleen Hess, senior manager of GoDaddy's digital crimes unit.

Both companies also said they would not pass along contact information for people who complain about offensive content to the groups generating it.

Getting booted around from service to service can make it hard to run a hate site, but Cloudflare gives the sites a solid footing.

Amazon Web Services, one of the most popular web hosts and content delivery networks, would not say how they handle abuse complaints beyond pointing to an "acceptable use" policy that restricts objectionable, abusive and harmful content. They also pointed to their abuse form, which says the company will keep your contact information private.

According to Vick at the ADL, the fact that Cloudflare takes money from Anglin is different from if he'd just used their free service.

"That's a direct relationship," he said. "That raises questions in my mind."

Some companies offering other services vital to success on the web have chosen not to do business with Anglin's The Daily Stormer. Google, PayPal and Coinbase, for instance, have chosen to cut off his accounts rather than support his activities. Getting booted around from service to service can make it hard to run a hate site, but Cloudflare gives the sites a solid footing.

And, by The Daily Stormer's account, advice and assurances. In a post, the site's architect, Andrew Auernheimer, said he had personal relationships with people at Cloudflare, and they had assured him the company would work to protect the site in a variety of waysincluding by not turning over data to European courts. Cloudflare has data centers in European countries such as Germany, which have strict hate speech and privacy laws.

Company officials offered differing responses when asked about Auernheimer's post. Kramer, Cloudflare's general counsel, said he had no knowledge of employee conversations with Auernheimer. Later, in an email, the company said Auernheimer was a well-known hacker, and that as a result at least one senior company official "has chatted with him on occasion and has spoken to him about Cloudflare's position on not censoring the internet."

A former Cloudflare employee, Ryan Lackey, said in an interview that while he doesn't condone a lot of what Auernheimer does, he did on occasion give technical advice as a friend and helped some of the Stormer's issues get resolved.

"I am hardcore libertarian/classical liberal about free speechsomething like Daily Stormer has every right to publish, and it is better for everyone if all ideas are out on the internet to do battle in that sphere," he said.

Vick at the ADL agrees that Anglin has a right to publish, but said people have the right to hold to task the Internet companies that enable him.

"Andrew Anglin has the right to be out there and say what he wants to say. But the people who object to what he has to say have a right to object as well," he said. "You should be able to respond to everybody in the chain."

See the original post:
This Tech Company's Anti-Censorship Stance Is Helping Hate Speech - Mother Jones

Students from the University of Edinburgh have gone on hunger strike to join activists across Europe, in solidarity with the nearly 1,600 Palestinian prisoners who are currently on hunger strike.

Earlier this week students and non-student groups from England, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy announced that they were joining 1,560 Palestinian prisoners who have been on hunger strike for over two weeks.

University of Edinburgh student Daniel Yahia said he was on hunger strike to protest against the treatment of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli authorities and over the universitys unethical investment in corporations that support the Israeli occupation.

Yahia told MEMO that the University of Edinburgh has invested in a number of corporations including Caterpillar that are highly influential in maintaining the apartheid regime.

He raised several complaints against the university, which he accused of supressing pro-Palestinian activism while favouring pro-Israeli groups.

Last April the student union voted for [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] BDS, which was democratically pushed through, despite intimidation from the right and Zionists. A few days later external pressure led the university to reverse this democratic process.

The motion to support BDS was passed on 31 March by 249 votes for and 153 against, with 22 abstentions, giving a majority of 74. The board of trustees of the University of Edinburgh Students Association, however, refused to enforce the BDS policy.

This is only one of the many ways in which the University of Edinburgh discriminates against pro-Palestine activism.

As soon as Palestine is involved, censorship intensifies, he explained, pointing to the cancellation of an event he was organising during Israel Apartheid Week. He told MEMO that on the day of the first Apartheid Week event on 20 March, the Communist Society, of which he is a member, was told that it could not hold the events on campus because the communist society was not affiliated with the Students Association.

Yahia accused the university of making up falsehoods as the society had held numerous events within the university even though it is not a member of the Students Association. He also mentioned that pro-Israeli groups boasted how pressure from above led to the event being cancelled.

Accusations of double standards and discrimination did not end there. Yahia also mentioned a row with the university over membership of the Students Association. He said that the application by the Communist Society to join the student body was declined twice while the Israel Engagement Society was accepted into the union within 48 hours of its application.

A University of Edinburgh spokesperson told MEMO: The University would always be very concerned by any proposed hunger strike, and would urge anyone considering this to consider their own health very carefully and take professional advice about the implications of such a course of action. We believe that the most constructive way for students to raise concerns is through our established representative channels such as the Students Association.

We place great value on free-speech, tolerance and mutual respect of people, no matter what their ethnic, religious or racial status. We welcome and promote discussion of current affairs, which sometimes involves highly contentious matters, and, as part of that, we recognise the right of students to freedom of expression and protest, providing any protests are safe, law-abiding and peaceful and debate is conducted within a framework of dignity and respect.

Excerpt from:
Increased censorship when Palestine is mentioned, says British hunger striker - Middle East Monitor

Censorship tactics have become more complex, posing new challenges for journalists and non-journalists alike, a new report finds.

In its annual "Attacks on the Press"report, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has documented a range of censorship cases from around the world and revealed a new world of media repression.

"[Censorship] is definitely becoming more sophisticated and complex and is occurring at a variety of levels," CPJ's Advocacy Director Courtney Radsch told IPS.

CPJ's Executive Director described these new strategies as "repression 2.0" in the report, stating; "Repression 2.0 is an update on the worst old-style tactics, from state censorship to the imprisonment of critics, with new information technologies including smartphones and social media producing a softening around the edges."

At the end of 2016, there were almost 260 journalists in jail, the most CPJ has ever documented.

Turkey is the world's leading jailer of journalists with over 145 imprisoned journalists, more than China, Egypt, and Iran combined.

The country's media crackdown deepened following the July 15, 2016 coup attempt and the subsequent imposition of a state of emergency which the Turkish government allegedly used to shut down over 50 newspapers, 30 TV channels, and three news agencies.

The government also reportedly used anti-terror laws to imprison journalists, including the chief editor of Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet Can Dndar who was sentenced to six years in prison on charges of disclosing state secrets, espionage, and aiding a terrorist group. Most recently, life sentences are being sought for 30 people with ties to Zaman newspaper, which is associated with Muslim cleric Fethullah Glen whom the government accuses of organising the coup attempt. The newspaper has since been under government control.

In Kenya, authorities are increasingly using a new mechanism to control the media: money.

"As revenues drain away from traditional media due to the inroads of digital technologies, the use of financial-induced self-censorship, or 'fiscing', can also ensure that journalists are more 'reasonable' in their reporting," said journalist Alan Rusbridger in the report.

"Murder is messy. Money is tidy," he continues.

However, the control of information is not unique to developing countries, said Rasch.

In the US, President Donald Trump has raised anti-media hostility to levels "previously unseen on a national scale," said journalist Alan Huffman in the report.

President Trump has consistently described some media organizations as "fake news," most recently reiterating the claim that media fabricate stories during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). "They have no sources, they just make them up when there are none," he told attendees.

Trump's rhetoric often emboldened his supporters who would boo journalists. Huffman described one case in the report where a Trump supporter wore a T-shirt that suggested the use of lynching, stating: "Rope. Tree. Journalist. SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED."

The president has also restricted and even denied access for reporters perceived as unfriendly, including those from Buzzfeed, the Huffington Post, and the Washington Post, and has threatened to change libel laws to make it easier to sue journalists and news agencies.

In one chapter, Christian Amanpour noted the similarities in such "poisonous" trends in the US and around the world.

"The same dynamic has infected powerful segments of the American media, as it has in Egypt, Turkey, and Russia, where journalists have been pushed into political partisan corners, delegitimized, and accused of being enemies of the state. Journalism itself has become weaponized. We cannot allow that to happen," she stated.

In Ecuador, the government has allegedly used social media as a way to suppress journalists.

After tweeting that Ecuador's former Vice-President Lenin Moreno had not paid income taxes, journalist Bernardo Abad's twitter account had been blocked for violating its terms of service. By the end of the week, nine accounts had been temporarily suspended after also tweeting about Moreno's taxes.

Radsch told IPS that with the internet and social media, there are now "more outlets for repression and threats."

China has taken this to the next level, making plans to link journalists' online posts to their finances.

Under the country's proposed social credit plan, journalists who write or speak critically of the government could face personal financial consequences including decreased credit score or a denied loan. Such censorship goes beyond the business as usual tactics of shutting down reporters' social media accounts to affecting journalists' daily activities.

Rasch highlighted the need to advocate for an open internet and the rights of journalists.

"[We must] remember the importance of the press that continues to help us make sense of all the information that we are bombarded with all the time," she told IPS.

She also recommended journalists adopt secure communication practices in order to maintain their privacy and their sources' privacy.

Most importantly, journalists must stand strong and commit to fact-based reporting.

"This is the best and most important way to fight back against the new censorship," said Simon.

"Journalists cannot allow themselves to feel demoralized. They need to pursue their calling and to seek the truth with integrity, honestly believe that the setbacks, while real, are temporary," he concluded.

Here is the original post:
On World Press Freedom Day, Censorship and Repression Reported Globally - Truth-Out

Inside Higher Ed

Kansas community college student reporters allege censorship Inside Higher Ed Hutchinson Community College student journalists say they are being squelched. The journalism professor who advises the paper has been suspended. By. Jeremy Bauer-Wolf. May 4, 2017. Comments. Alan Montgomery. A journalism adviser at a Kansas ... and more »

Read the original here:
Kansas community college student reporters allege censorship - Inside Higher Ed

The 33 journalists and media workers murdered in the Americas during 2016 represent an increase in censorship and corruption in the countries of the Americas, according to the annual report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

The annual report, documents trends and critical events, including advances, restrictions and violations of freedom of expression in the Americas. In 2016, a critical year for democracy in the region, it looks at violence against journalists, capacity for social protest, use of criminal law to restrict expression, stigmatizing statements against journalists, and freedom of expression in the context of the internet.

Journalists were killed in Mexico, Brazil, Honduras, Guatemala, the United States, El Salvador, Peru and Venezuela in 2016. Most of the murdered journalists investigated political corruption or were leaders in their local communities. As a result, a high rate of impunity continues to affect many countries in the region, according to the study.

For the fourth consecutive year, the Office of the Special Rapporteur recorded an increase in the number of journalists and communicators killed. According to the organization, there were 27 murders of journalists in 2015, 25 in 2014, and 18 in 2013.

Even though it seems clear that these murders of journalists are directly related to the exercise of their profession, it is difficult to confirm this link in all cases due to the high level of impunity in the punishment of these crimes, the organization said.

The report - the nineteenth of the IACHR since 1997 - has three major chapters on current topics: Standards for a Free, Open and Inclusive Internet; Silenced Zones: Highly Dangerous Areas for the Exercise of Freedom of Expression; and National Case Law on Freedom of Expression.

In the report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur also emphasized the application of criminal laws to prosecute those who have published some information that offends public officials as an obstacle to freedom of expression.

The Office of the Special Rapporteur continued to follow up on the government's numerous sanctions against the media in Ecuador. This was a consequence of the application of the Organic Law of Communications, a law incompatible with international standards regarding the right to freedom of expression, the organization said.

Other obstacles to freedom of expression identified in the IACHR report are the use of stigmatizing statements against journalists and media by state authorities, and the use of direct and indirect censorship mechanisms to condition the free flow of information.

In the chapter about silenced zones, the report highlights three emblematic cases in the region: one from Tamaulipas (Mexico), Mazatenango (Guatemala) and the Paraguayan border.

These places are characterized by a sustained increase in violence against journalists, both at the level of criminal organizations and by government entities and officials, and by a high level of impunity.

In Mexico, despite the implementation of federal measures and mechanisms to protect journalists, the country remains the most dangerous in the region to practice journalism. Some peripheral regions of the country face the most serious risks.

For example, the report points to Tamaulipas as the place where violence against journalists originated in Mexico. Since the 2000s, drug cartels have launched attacks on the media and journalists. This has generated a situation of structural violence, impunity and self-censorship of the press in the state.

Despite this, the government of Tamaulipas does not have specialized agencies on crimes against freedom of expression, the Rapporteur said.

Other obstacles to exercising the right to freedom of expression in many countries of the region are the state restrictions imposed on the exercise of this right. Also, excessive use of force by police officers during social protests is an affront to this right.

Through the Rapporteurship, the IACHR has recommended to the member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) that they design regulatory frameworks that protect and allow the exercise of social protest. It also proposed that they adopt special measures to protect journalists who cover situations of high social conflict, so that they are not arrested, assaulted nor have their rights violated.

The Office of the Special Rapporteur noted in its report multiple cases of intimidation and physical aggression against journalists in Venezuela during the course of their work. Some of these attacks on communicators have been caused by state security agencies such as the Bolivarian National Guard (GNB) and the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (Sebin). All this happened in the context of a severe polarization between the opposition and the government of Nicols Maduro.

In the context of a deep political, economic and social crisis, which has already taken the lives of 29 Venezuelans, the Maduro government began the process to withdraw Venezuela from the OAS on April 28.

The report also noted, with concern, the existing concentration of media, and the lack of pluralism in the media systems of several countries in the region. This reduces public debate and makes it less possible for all to express themselves, the analysis determined.

Media and the internet are vehicles for society to access and disseminate information and opinions on issues of undoubted social and political relevance, the report said.

Read more from the original source:
Censorship increased in the Americas while 33 journalists and communicators lost their lives in 2016, according to ... - Knight Center for Journalism...

"The globalist elite have always exercised their influence through manufactured consent," continued McNally. "In the past they used the mainstream media to convince everyone that their point of view was the only point of view. The waning influence of the mainstream press and the growth of the internet threatened to democratize information and break their control of their preferred narrative."

"Not surprisingly, this is a huge threat to the tech-left and the new global elite -- leftist Silicon Valley billionaires. They have quickly forsaken their commitment to a free and open internet and are using their dominance to push their own values while silencing those with other points of view."

The new campaign has already compiled more than 137 examples of Silicon Valley companies brazenly banning users, censoring content and manipulating search results to undermine the democratization of information on the web.

"We gathered these examples in less than 24 hours," said McNally. "The most surprising aspect of our research is that the majority of censorship examples have occurred since 2015, after President Obama passed rules regulating the internet as a public utility. We believe there are thousands of examples, so we're opening this up to citizen investigators to help us by submitting their own examples."

"If you've had your account banned on Twitter or Facebook; if you have examples of how Google is manipulating search results; or if your opinions have been censored by Silicon Valley companies, we want to hear from you," McNally concluded.

Citizen investigators can submit examples of web censorship by visiting http://freeourinternet.org/campaigns/report-the-bans/. Cases will be individually investigated and added to the chronological database to track the extent of the tech-left's and Silicon Valley's efforts to undermine a free and open internet.

CONTACT: Chad Wilkinson chad@freeourinternet.org 215-900-3245

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/free-our-internet-launches-new-campaign-to-expose-tech-left-censorship-300451809.html

SOURCE Free Our Internet

http://freeourinternet.org

Here is the original post:
"Free Our Internet" launches new campaign to expose tech-left censorship - PR Newswire (press release)

The Donald J. Trump for President campaign accused CNN of engaging in censorship andepitomiz[ing] the meaning of fake news Tuesday by refusing to air a Trump campaignad on its network.

The ad, titledFirst 100 Days, began airing on networks across the country Monday.It touts President Donald Trumps bold actions taken in his first 100 days to restore prosperity, keep Americans safe and secure, and hold the government accountable. In particular, the ads narrator noted, you wouldnt know about the presidents accomplishments from watching the news.

The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad.

The mainstream media lies. Dont let fake news dominate the truth, the adsays. President Trump promised to make America great again, and he is fulfilling his promise to you.

CNN declined to air the ad, citing objections to the depiction of thefake news media.

CNN requested the advertiser remove the false graphic that says mainstream media is fake news,' the networks communications department tweeted Tuesday. The mainstream media is not fake news, and therefore the ad is false. Per our policy, it will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted. Those are the facts.

Its no secret Trump does not hold CNN in particularly high esteem. During a campaign rally held Saturday in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the president singled out CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times as"fake news" thatcover him and his administration unfairly.

In response to CNNs rejection of the ad, the Trump campaign blasted the network with a press release Tuesday titled, "Fake News Station Refuses to Run Ad Highlighting the Presidents First 100 Days." The statement noted that the campaign "was stopped by the mainstream media from running a new television ad on CNN."

"It is absolutely shameful to see the media blocking the positive message that President Trump is trying to share with the country. It's clear that CNN is trying to silence our voice and censor our free speech because it doesn't fit their narrative," Michael Glassner, the campaigns executive director, said in the statement.

Later in the afternoon, the campaign issued a secondstatement in direct response to CNNs tweet, titled, "CNN Epitomizes the Meaning of Fake News, Censors Trump Campaign Ad."

"This is censorship pure and simple. By rejecting our ad, CNN has proven that it supports censorship is biased and fears an opposing point of view," Glassner said. "President Trumps loyal supporters know the truth: The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad."

View post:
Trump Campaign Accuses CNN of 'Censorship' - LifeZette

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the annual Facebook F8 developers conference in San Jose, Calif.Stephen Lam REUTERS

Censoring the Internet is easier than ever. In the past, governments tried to rely on technology to stifle online dissent, but now they have another option: They can just use trolls and social media to rob protest movements of their power.

That's the view of Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist and computer programmer, who joined law professor Tim Wu at Columbia University on Monday on a panel titled, "Free Speech in the Networked World." It was hosted by the recently-launched Knight First Amendment Institute and the Tow Center for Journalism.

"Its very rare theres not a way to circumvent censorship tools," said Tufekci. "We're now in a censorship environment where they're not going to block you, but will disempower you through ... too much information and distraction."

As an example, Tufekci pointed to Turkey where she says Internet access is not a problem for activists who are challenging the emerging regime of President Recep Erdogan. Instead, she says these activists complain of an onslaught of fake news and social media disinformation that makes it impossible to share reliable information or figure out what is authentic.

Tufekci points to a similar phenomenon in China and Russia, described in her new book , where the governments pay an army of Internet trolls to wear down dissenters and distract citizens with other stories.

All of this distraction, say Tufekci and Wu, amounts to an insidious 21st century censorship built on the back of Facebook and other platforms that manipulate emotions.

"The architecture of Facebook promotes things to make angry, or to distract us with cuddly cats," said Tufekci. "Facebook has cracked the human code, and used edgier content to drag us down a rabbit hole."

The social network also poses a special danger because of personalized advertising, she claimed. According to Tufekci, the Trump campaign and others have used personalized ads to secretly spread misinformationa tactic that has proved successful because, unlike a TV commercial, a Facebook ad is not public, so it's hard to challenge false claims.

So how did we get to this point in the first place? Wu, known for coining the phrase " net neutrality ," said the problem is less the technology of social media but the business model behind it. In particular, he and Tufekci argued that Internet publishersnot just Facebook but news sites toohave little incentive to care about accuracy since they make money based on clicks. In this environment, an incendiary or even false story will flourish (and make money), meaning few publishers will press very hard for quality control.

The race for clicks makes television look dignified by comparison," said Wu, who makes this case in his new book The Attention Merchants.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter .

Taken together, this online environment of distraction and propaganda combined with a toxic business model, risks sapping democracy. In Tufekci's view, it's also why recent protest movementssuch as the women's march on Washington or Hong Kong's umbrella revolutionfeel so ephemeral. Unlike the original 1963 March on Washington, the more recent demonstrations did not come together after years of organizing, but were spun up with hashtags and dissipated soon after. Tufekci claims this is why governments, even repressive ones, are less afraid of street demonstrations since they see them now as the product of fleeting Internet dross.

If all this sounds bleak, well, that's because it is. Wu and Tufekci, who are part of a fledgling intellectual vanguard confronting social media distraction, concede there are no legal solutions for Facebook's rabbit hole. And Tufekci argued one obvious answersuch as putting down your phone and reading a bookcan be salutary on an individual level, but will do little to fix a broken Internet culture.

All these warnings, though, might prove more persuasive if Wu and Tufekci also took time to acknowledge the many upsides of the Internet, flawed as it might be. For instance, it's thanks to Twitter , I and many others discovered Tufekci's ideas in the first place. Without social media, it's unlikely her influence would have spread far beyond her North Carolina classroom.

And while Wu is technology savvy, his views of BuzzFeedwhich he denounced repeatedly as nothing more than a gimmick for attentionhad a get-off-my-lawn tone, which will be off-putting to a generation for whom the website, which now invests heavily in serious reporting, is a favorite news source. Such a critique is not just grouchyit also fails to acknowledge how older media brands likewise pander with stories that can distract from "real" content. (Even the New York Times, for which Wu writes, publishes fluffy fare like its "Vow" section.)

Read this article:
A Look at Government Censorship in the Age of Facebook - Fortune

From ultramodern skyscrapers to artificial islands, Dubai is known for unveiling buzzworthy projects that promote it as a placeof innovation. The citys latest endeavor to brand itself isDubai Font, a set of type commissioned by the the Crown Prince of Dubai Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, and launched by the executive council of Dubai in partnership with Microsoft. Its available for anyone to use free of charge, and you candownload it online in 23 different languages.

Dubai is now the first city to have a specially designed Microsoft font although it is technically a typeface, available in four weights.The projects website crowsthatits so much more than just a newcomer to the world of typography; itwas honed to reflectthe modernity of the city. It was designedto create harmony between Latin and Arabic, reads a description. It is an embodiment of a vision one of promoting literacy, unity, and forward-thinking laced with tradition, carrying within it aspirations beyond its outlines. It is young, dynamic, and full of passion and energy.

Dubai Font is also supposed to be a new global medium for self-expression which is a pretty peachy claim when you consider the citys history of censorship. The executive directors of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth and Andrew Stroehlein, were quick to point outthe irony of the typefaces purpose on Twitter, noting that the initiative very likely represents anempty promise of free speech for Dubais own citizens. The campaigns hashtag, #ExpressYou, has also predictably been deployed on social media to highlight the hypocrisy of a government known for detaining artists and activists for expressing themselves.

Notably, the Crown Prince has urged government institutionsto adopt the typeface in all official correspondence so anyone punished for their opinions will receive asentence spelled out in forms celebratingthe voice of our brave new world.

See the rest here:
Dubai, a City Known for Censorship, Launches Typeface for Self-Expression - Hyperallergic

The Trump campaign is calling it censorship pure and simple that CNN is refusing to air their ad celebrating the first 100 days of Donald Trumps presidency.

Trumps team put out a statement earlier today blasting CNN as fake news again when the network wouldnt let the ad run on their airspace. CNNs public relations division responded by saying that they took issue with the commercial for featuring a graphic decrying them and other news agencies as fake news:

The Trump camp took notice of this, and they offered this response:

In response to a claim today by CNN that it refused to run a TV ad by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. because the mainstream media is not fake news, executive director, Michael Glassner said, This is censorship pure and simple. By rejecting our ad, CNN has proven that it supports censorship is biased and fears an opposing point of view. President Trumps loyal supporters know the truth: The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad.

And theyre now promoting the video as the ad CNN refuses to air.

[Image via screengrab]

>> Follow Ken Meyer (@KenMeyer91) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

View original post here:
Trump Campaign Accuses CNN of 'Censorship' in Rejecting Ad: 'Epitomizes' Fake News - Mediaite