Category Archives: Censorship

Commentary

These days, I rarely encounter people who disagree that the COVID-19 pandemic policy was a disaster.

You can usually get a laugh at a cocktail party when making fun of sanitizer madness, 15 days to flatten the curve, ubiquitous plexiglass, or six feet of distance. The school closures are in disrepute, as is the restriction on hospital visits or the banning of funerals and weddings. Even masking seems ridiculous in retrospect.

And remember when you couldnt get a haircut for three months? How many lives did that save?

One even encounters widespread derision at the notion that the vaccines were effective at disease blocking. People whisper in private about vaccine injury, which seems incredibly common.

To be sure, theres still a hard-core of true believers out there, easily recognizable by their beaks worn in public spaces and the funny two-step they do in stores to keep from getting near others. They wish we had stayed locked down longer or imposed even more violence against the unvaccinated.

Lets say that group constitutes 10 percent but surely no more than 20 percent of the population. As for the rest, the days of delusion are long gone. The entire public health establishment faces tremendous public incredulity. Traditionally, medical science has been among the most trusted of all sectors of life. But the Pew Research Center documents that it has taken a huge hit this year. Its not as bad as elected leaders in whom three-quarters of Americans say they have little or no trust, but its still bad.

And yet, however many people think these things in private, these opinions were nowhere in the mainstream media for the better part of two years. The near-universal opinion was that Dr. Anthony Fauci was a genius with the best interest of the country at heart. Dissidents were silenced and punished with throttles and bans. The government collaborated with Big Tech to mark all opposition to the extremist lockdowns and mandates as misinformation.

What effect does that have? It causes the opposition sectors to migrate into a Samizdat category, a banned point of view thats nonetheless widely held. Think of opposition to Communist Party rule in the Soviet Union in the old days. Trust in the party was nearly zero, but that was hardly ever expressed in public culture. As a result, people felt a sense of shame for holding perfectly reasonable views.

In fact, most people who today disagree profoundly with regime priorities during the pandemic dont know that some of the worlds leading experts on the topic shared their views completely. There were some who spoke outnot nearly enoughbut there was a conspiracy from the top to crush and discredit them. We know this. We have the receipts.

The government worked closely with social media companies to shut down scientifically informed voices, which isnt only an outrage against truth and justice; its also a flagrant violation of First Amendment rights.

Still, the censors succeeded in keeping these reasonable views out of the mainstream of the public mind, which is to say that their censorship worked. You and I might be pleased to have read the right Substack or encountered a contrarian book or paper. But remember that for every one piece of exposure of a dissenting perspective, tens of millions of others receive the mainstream line.

I was speaking to a group of highly informed finance professionals and making all of the above points. They seemed to be in full agreement. But then I became curious and asked how many in the audience had heard of the Great Barrington Declaration. Only six hands went up from the whole crowd.

Six people out of 600! This was a great reality check for me since this topic had reached more mainstream readers and listeners than any other during the pandemic. But in this crowd of highly educated professionals, only 1 percent had even heard of it.

This statement of public health principles has nearly 1 million signatures after a year of being online, but thats a drop in the bucket compared with the daily reach of Faucis pronouncements. Even if people dont really believe what they read and hear from the mainstream, a reputable alternative has never really had widespread reach.

The sad reality today is that people who have a seriously informed understanding of the issues underlying the great public health and economic calamity of our lifetimesand perhaps in all of modern historyconstitute a very tiny group. This is the triumph of the censors.

This leaves us today in a very strange position. An economic crisis is brewing, and inflation has already wrecked the value of wages and savings. This is a direct consequence of the pandemic lockdowns and wild congressional spending packages that were funded entirely by funny money created by the Fed. When Americans want to know why all of this is happening, they need only reflect on the policies over the past two years.

And yet, when you scour the mainstream media for this point of view, its extremely difficult to find. Even now, there has been no large effort to rethink what happened. Instead, we get the Orwellian memory hole. The entire lockdown experience is being dropped from memory simply because it was such an unworkable disaster but nonetheless one backed by the whole of the public and private establishment as if it were a normal and scientific application of public health mitigation strategy.

These days, the whole subject is treated like something weird that goes on in China and nothing more. The New York Times and CNN write about Chinas continuing lockdowns as if nothing like that ever happened here, even though that did happen here. We just pretend otherwise.

Another strange effect of censorship is to train the public mind in a kind of protocol of compliance. We all know what we can and cant say. We can believe what we want to believe of course, but constant compliance has spillover psychological effects. Force a person to behave as if he believes something long enough and it might eventually become an authentic belief. Even worse, a person comes to believe that authenticity and truth dont really matter anymore.

Im graced often these days with the opportunity to speak out about lockdowns and mandates and the remarkable disaster of the past 2 1/2 years. I often hear from listeners that it isnt only educational; its also therapeutic. People truly need to talk, share, learn, decompress, and come to terms with the trauma that all of this has been for the world.

My message states to many people that they arent insane, evil, victims of misinformation, or dangerous non-compliers. Instead, theyre reasonable and responsible citizens who are looking at facts and reality for what they are. And the reality is that the ruling class that imposed this new order of things on the world is the real danger.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn served such a crucial role in the latter years of communism and after simply because he told the truth that everyone knew in their hearts but couldnt formulate fully or state without penalty or personal trauma. He said openly and with moral passion what multitudes knew but couldnt say.

Theres a crying need today for a coming together of reality and public culture instead of the preposterous game of pretend that Big Tech and Big Media play every day. They know they were and are wrong, but they have to keep up the masquerade as champions of science and slayers of misinformation. They wasted vast amounts of their own credibility in the effort and seem determined to keep it up until their reputations are in complete ruins.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Follow

Original post:
Did the Censors Succeed? - The Epoch Times

Available: Espaol

According to confidential information accessed by El American, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), which oversees Radio Television Mart, has a list of between 25 and 30 federal employees who could soon be fired from that channel. Since November 2020, right on the brink of the controversial presidential elections, several dozen contractors have been laid off.

At first glance, the matter seems to be a consequence of the budget cuts to be made by the current administration. However, employees and former employees explained to El American that there is strong censorship in the channel and that the budget cut would be one of the numerous measures that have been implemented for months, which would intend to seek to silence both those who discomfort the Cuban regime and those from the United States who are interested in resuming relations with the oldest dictatorship in the hemisphere.

An employee of Radio Television Mart, who asked not to be identified, explained to El American that he has been instructed not to use the word dictatorship in reports and audiovisual products in general. He assured that he also cannot use the word regime and, instead, has been asked to use the word government to refer to Castros tyranny. Likewise, the word dictator is forbidden and the word president must be used, according to our source.

What they tell you had happened during the administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, which ended in 2017. Colleagues related to me how they were censored back then. The budget is a pretext, an alibi, an old trick of the socialist clique that has done so much harm to the dream of the visionary Jorge Ms Canosa and the great Ronald Reagan, Luis Leonel Len, a former OCB contractor who worked for years at Radio Televisin Mart, commented to El American.

Radio Televisin Mart has been since its creation a space that is supposed to be dedicated to showing not only Cubans, but the American people and the entire world, the truth of what is happening on the island under a regime that has been in power for decades. The statements and testimonies of employees and former employees about an environment of censorship that would be an open secret are of great concern to the entire Cuban community and to the defenders of freedom of expression.

"*" indicates required fields

Another source contacted by El American pointed out that the cut in funds is functional to continue firing people who are uncomfortable with the interests of the Castro regime. He also assured that what is being experienced in the working environment of the channel is fear.

Luis Leonel confirmed these statements, assuring that if not everybody, a great part of the people are afraid. I was not told that. I lived it. It was sad and frustrating to see how fear is a constant where freedom is supposedly defended. The people I worked with still regret it. And you dont have to be very enlightened to clearly understand that if there is fear, it is because something is very wrong there.

El American also spoke with Isabel Cuervo, a renowned investigative journalist who was fired from Radio TV Mart in 2018. When we asked her if she experienced any kind of censorship at the channel, she answered the following: The biggest censorship that has ever happened in the history of Radio TV Mart was imposed on me, when in October 2018 they censored a report on George Soros, deleted it from all platforms, escorted me out of the building and then subjected me to federal investigation.

In relation to the atmosphere in the media, Cuervo said: With the Soros case they left a strong precedent, but obviously the censorship and silencing of journalists will continue. It is a shame and a real danger that this is happening in the United States.

Regarding the importance and impact of the media, Luis Leonel pointed out that Radio Mart could be the detonator for the Cubans imprisoned on the Island to finally reach the longed-for freedom, which has not yet been achieved and which will not be possible without a media that directly and systematically sends them free information. He also added that deactivating Radio Television Marti would be a great victory for Castroism. They want it as much as they want the Embargo removed and the Guantnamo Naval Base handed over to them, he said.

Legislators from both parties have sent a letter to the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which is in charge of OCB, to reject the budget cut. Mario Daz-Balart, Carlos Gimnez, Mara Elvira Salazar, Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, among others, have stressed the importance of Radio Televisin Mart for the Cuban people and access to free information.

The budget cut for OCB is worrisome and would significantly affect a medium that for a long time has denounced to the world what Cubans suffer. However, the allegations of censorship within the media are even more alarming. Turning off the voices of Radio Television Mart that tell the reality of what is happening under Castros regime would almost be tantamount to legitimizing the Castro dictatorship and Miguel Diaz-Canel before the world. There are no media anywhere in the world that does what Radio Televisin Mart has done for decades in giving voice to the Cuban people.

Vanessa Vallejo. Co-editor-in-chief of El American. Economist. Podcaster. Political and economic analysis of America. Colombian exile in the United States // Vanessa Vallejo. Co-editora en jefe de El American. Economista. Podcaster. Anlisis poltico y econmico de Amrica. Colombiana exiliada en EE. UU.

Go here to read the rest:
Censorship at Radio TV Mart? Employees of the Historic TV Station Talk About Possible Mass Dismissals - El American

The conspiracy world celebrates a new chapter in its crusade against humanity. 09/19/2022 14:00

The arguments of anti-vaccine and, in general, the opinions of lovers of conspiracies are so difficult to hold that we will not entertain them. In fact, we have a really fun article on some crazy conspiracy theories if youre interested in the subject and want to be entertained for a while.

Recently, thanks to the information shown on Gizmodo, we have learned how groups dissidents of traditional science and lovers of conspiracies have at emoji of a vegetable as its code in code for circumvent censorship of Mark Zuckerbergs social network. By the way, we also have an article showing the meaning of WhatsApp emoticons.

The carrot is the favorite emoji of anti-vaccines on Facebook

If you take a look at Tweet that we show you under these lines, you will be able to know the story of a man called Marc Owen Jones, who was invited to join an anti-vaccine group on Facebook. What those responsible for the group did not know is that Marc is an associate professor at Hamad bin Khalifa University and investigator about the growing trend for disinformation In the net. Once inside, he was able to verify a strange technique for avoid censorship of the social network. One of the messages it said the following:

My sister, 57, entered the hospital with respiratory problems. She has two and the b.

Given that we are dealing with a group of people against the vaccinesit can be understood that the carrots they are the way to avoid writing said word and, thus, be able to circumvent the algorithm in charge of pointing out the publications that could be problematic. In fact, the attempt to avoid censorship seems evident, given the message posted by Marc, where one of the group leaders type the following:

If a post has been rejected or deleted, it was probably me. As moderators, our primary role is to protect the group from censorship and removal. Encryption is important and carrots, to date, go undetected by artificial intelligence censorship.

It seems that the resemblance of the vegetable with a needle to give injections could be the reason chosen by the group to skip censorship, although the use of emojis from the group is also often observed in other groups. cupcake either shot glasses, English shot is used to name both this type of glass and the injections. assumptions human health monitors continue their crusade against the vaccines and each time they look for new ways to hide among the publications of the different social networks. It seems, at the moment, that Facebook has not taken action in the matter.

The rest is here:
This is the emoji with which anti-vaccines are dodging censorship on Facebook - Gearrice

In China, social media censors have been ordered to drown out public complaints about food and drug shortages.

China was the first country in the world to put quarantines in place during the Covid-19 pandemic. But the virus still persists there, as everywhere else. The Ili Kazakh autonomous prefecture, also known as Yili, was placed under lockdown in early August this year after a fresh outbreak of the virus, and this move was taken without any official announcement to give the public time to prepare.

Now, one month into the lockdown, locals in Yili have taken to social media to write about their experiences, especially about growing concerns and complaints regarding shortages of food, medication, delays or outright refusals of medical care. But their posts are being drowned out by a flood of innocuous posts dealing with anything from cooking to details of personal moods but not all is as innocent as it seems.

According to a leaked directive published by the China Digital Times, government censors were ordered to open a campaign of comment flooding to hide posts criticising the lockdown or those expressing concern with how the situation is evolving.

There are no subject matter restrictions, the document reads, according to CDTs translation. Content may include domestic life, daily parenting, cooking, or personal moods. All internet commentary personnel should post once an hour (twice in total), but not in rapid succession! Repeat: not in rapid succession!

Sample posts archived by the CDT as a possible example of the comment flooding campaign showed pictures of landscapes or local cuisine. However, they were quickly accused of being attempts to dilute the conversation around the lockdown.

Ili Kazakh is an autonomous prefecture for Kazakh people in Northern Xinjiang the region of China that is traditionally the home of mostly Uyghur people. This province has been the site of a years-long oppression campaign by the central government against the local Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, and locals believe the poor management of this lockdown is part of that campaign.

Locals concerns were further stoked by the fact that sites near Ili Kazakh, a popular tourist destination, have recently been re-opened to visitors. Despite this, the lockdown is now entering its 40th day with no sign of coming to a close anytime soon.

Although central authorities have denied that anything was going poorly initially, they changed their stance last week and recognized that there have been some issues with the distribution of food and medical supplies. Although they did apologize in a press conference, they shifted the blame squarely onto local officials.

Children who have a 40-degree fever cant even see a doctor, pregnant women cant even get into the hospital, we really cant take this any more, said one reported comment. First they say its fake news, then they apologise, added another. What is real, is that the entire city has been silent for 41 days, said another, according to CDT.

Last week, a health official in Yili said that the remaining lockdowns will be lifted after two to three more rounds of testing, according to the South China Morning Post.

The severity of the lockdown in Yili is bewildering given that only around 220 cases of Covid-19 infections are recorded in the whole Xinjiang province. But the rolling lockdowns continue to be implemented in various areas of China under the countrys dynamic zero containment strategy, in which widespread lockdowns and other restrictions can be implemented suddenly on residences, neighborhoods, or even whole cities, in an attempt to stifle any potential outbreak.

Still, the Chinese Governments use of concentration camps against ethnic Uygurs, in the form of the Xinjiang internment camps, officially called vocational education and training centers, casts a huge shadow of doubt on the Yili lockdown. Even if instituted for public safety, locals are understandably reluctant to assume fair play. The severity of restrictions imposed here, alongside food shortages, in particular, raise genuine concerns from locals which are further fueled by the leaked directive.

Read this article:
Chinese censors told to drown out posts about food and medicine shortages in the mostly-Uyghur province of Xinjian - ZME Science

Look, I was raised by Trekkies. I get it.

I understand what its like to follow a show religiously, to trace its ups and downs, and to debate endlessly with fans of other franchises over which franchise is better. I know what its like to dedicate ones time to arguing over whether the U.S.S. Enterprise could defeat an Imperial Star Destroyer (though I prefer Star Trek over Star Wars, not a chance Star Destroyers are simply too large). I know what its like to argue over subliminal, liminal and superliminal messages inserted into episodes by oft-harried writers. I know how much fun it can be to chew on plot inconsistencies or to debate the canonicity of various third-party sources.

At no point in my life, however, did I ever pretend I was doing politics by doing so. The same, regrettably, cant be said for the consumers of certain purveyors of conservative news commentary.

This is the only explanation I can give for why school board candidates the country over even in Washoe County are running on the same platform: Our nations schools need to be taken back from an ultra-left curriculum which teaches children various harmful theories (the label preceding each theory rotates depending on who the Big Bad is each week; the described content of each, however, is intentionally divorced from any recognizable epistemology). If you elect them, they promise to ban harmful books from our school libraries and fire if not prosecute anyone who disagrees.

Which schools specifically are teaching this? Why, our schools, of course all schools, whether theyre located within walking distance of the corner of Haight and Ashbury in San Francisco or the suburbs of southern Idaho, all share the same Marxist curriculum, library books and teachers. How do they know this? Well, they saw it on LibsofTikTok. Does that all sound very silly and ignorant to you? Then you might be a groomer.

To be blunt, this is all about as real as any piece of halfway immersive science fiction, which is a long winded way of saying its not real at all. There are, indeed, schools just as there are, indeed, recognizable bits of physics in the Star Trek universe. Past that, the connection between reality and fantasy is only as strong as the writers need it to be to advance each plot each plot and talking point being whatever is needed to keep viewers afraid enough to buy dodgy supplements, fake gold coins, and overpriced emergency survival supplies. Since each talking point is based on the news and a carefully curated collection of home videos instead of The Silmarillion or the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, however, they feel real.

They are not, however, real enough to a large enough population to win general elections not even in comparatively conservative Boise.

Boise is both the capital of and largest city in Idaho, one of the most consistently conservative states in the country. Idahos voters are so conservative, in fact, that Donald Trump received a larger majority in Idaho in the last election than he received in Nevadas own Douglas County. Douglas County, for perspective, was the first, last, and thus far only constituency to elect Danny Tarkanian to something in a general election a decision they openly regretted because Danny and his wife were somehow too liberal (they refused to support some of the internet trolls running for statewide office under the Republican banner, in other words) for their sensibilities.

Now, Boise is admittedly a bit more liberal than the rest of the state, but its still no Democratic Party stronghold. If you flip Washoe Countys last election results on their head if, that is, you take the percentages President Biden (a bit over 50 percent) and Donald Trump (a bit over 46 percent) each received and give them to the opposing candidate youd end up with the most recent presidential election results in Boises home county, Ada (Boise, confusingly enough, is not located in considerably more conservative Boise County).

Put briefly, Boise may not be as ruby red as the rest of the Gem State, but its still more supportive than not of Republican candidates and causes and certainly more supportive of Republicans than any county of similar population in Nevada.

Unsurprisingly, then, incumbent politicians in Boise prefer to position themselves on the conservative side, culturally and politically speaking. Thats perhaps why, when Steve Schmidt an incumbent member of the Boise School Board received an endorsement from the Idaho Liberty Dogs, a hardline conservative group that previously gained notoriety by claiming libraries in neighboring Meridian were distributing smut-filled pornography, he opted first for nuance over outright denunciation.

Depending upon your personal beliefs, that (endorsement) may give you cause for concern or comfort, Schmidt wrote in a since-deleted Facebook post. I am not a member of their group and I dont represent them.

That, even in comparatively conservative Boise even for a widely respected incumbent who received the support of past superintendents and trustees, as well as the local teachers union wasnt anywhere near strong enough. Local leaders criticized both the endorsement and Schmidts reaction. The Idaho Liberty Dogs, demonstrating their character, responded by comparing an opposing rabbi to Hitler and claiming he supports groups that indoctrinate and groom our children. All of that led the Idaho Statesman to endorse his opponent: Shiva Rajbhandari, an 18-year-old Boise High student who pledged to take a gap year before college to complete his term if the rest of the school board couldnt find a suitable student to replace him after he graduates.

On September 7th, Boises comparatively conservative voters got their chance to weigh in.

The result? 56 percent of the voters in that election decided theyd rather have an 18-year-old high school student who might leave the position in a year or two than a previously respected incumbent who didnt have the sense or the spine to clearly distance himself from a bunch of rabid conservative propaganda junkies.

To be clear, Steve Schmidt didnt run as someone who would ban books or fight some esoteric sociological theory prepended with Marxist in the title for narrative effect. He ran as an establishment conservative the sort Nevada used to produce on the regular. He was, by many accounts, an excellent and professional school board member.

He was, in other words, a better candidate for school board than any of the candidates challenging the incumbents on Washoe Countys ballots.

But he still wasnt good enough. When given an opportunity to distance himself from a pack of overzealous fans living in political fantasy worlds, he refused to channel his inner William Shatner and tell them to get a life and that was all it took to lose him the election in Boise.

Not Reno. Not Las Vegas. Not San Francisco. Refusing to stand up against conservative medias most fervent, overzealous fans lost Schmidt the election in Boise.

It certainly must not have helped Schmidts cause that the rest of Idaho is ruby red enough for those same fans to seize political control from time to time. Nampa, one of Boises suburbs, recently banned 22 books from their schools libraries because they allegedly contained pornography, including Margaret Atwoods The Handmaids Tale. Meanwhile, the Idaho House (the states lowest legislative chamber in more ways than one) tried to pass a law House Bill 666, amusingly enough that would criminally charge librarians if a minor checked out a book that was considered harmful by that august body; that bill ultimately died in the state senate.

Additionally, since Idaho is so conservative, its also paradoxically a punching bag by the very same conservative media some of its residents love so much. After all, if even Idaho is teaching students porn literacy (its not, but dont let that get in the way of a good plotline), surely every other school in the country including the one in your neighborhood must be so much worse!

The worst part, if youre a politician trying to build a constituency, is there frankly arent that many fans. Only three million or so people watch Tucker Carlson if you add up everyone in the country who watches cable news commentary at the same time, you reach a high water mark of around six million viewers out of a nation of over 330 million. Thats not even 2 percent of the population. Speaking as a now-former longtime member of the Libertarian Party, I know a thing or two about trying to win elections with only 1-2 percent of the electorate it doesnt work, especially when that 1-2 percent is more interested in demonstrating loyalty to their fellow fans than they are in getting outside, touching grass, and maybe talking to a neighbor or two.

Boises voters saw firsthand what happens when you let the fans take over the show. Its bad enough when it happens to a beloved media franchise (looking at you, The Rise of Skywalker). Its considerably worse when it leads to school board members bullying children because of their gender identity, books getting removed from school libraries, and politicians leading witch hunts against Marxist indoctrination from the capitol grounds because the fans favorite talking heads on television or social media showed them a 30-second viral video which proves there are luxury gay space communists infiltrating every branch of Idahos Idahos! government.

So they voted accordingly.

The rest of us, meanwhile, just wish these dorks who keep bringing guns to school board meetings, threatening to ban books, and driving our existing board members towards a mental health crisis would just go home and leave the families of Washoe County alone. Our schools have enough problems without candidates role playing as fourteenth-level Freedom Warriors fighting the Dark Lord of Marxism on the taxpayers dime.

David Colborne ran for office twice and served on the executive committees for his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is now an IT manager, a registered nonpartisan voter, the father of two sons, and a weekly opinion columnist for The Nevada Independent. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [emailprotected].

Conservative book censors and conspiracy theorists dont even win in Boise

Look, I was raised by Trekkies. I get it.

I understand what its like to follow a show religiously, to trace its ups and downs, and to debate endlessly with fans of other franchises over which franchise is better. I know what its like to dedicate ones time to arguing over whether the U.S.S. Enterprise could defeat an Imperial Star Destroyer (though I prefer Star Trek over Star Wars, not a chance Star Destroyers are simply too large). I know what its like to argue over subliminal, liminal and superliminal messages inserted into episodes by oft-harried writers. I know how much fun it can be to chew on plot inconsistencies or to debate the canonicity of various third-party sources.

At no point in my life, however, did I ever pretend I was doing politics by doing so. The same, regrettably, cant be said for the consumers of certain purveyors of conservative news commentary.

This is the only explanation I can give for why school board candidates the country over even in Washoe County are running on the same platform: Our nations schools need to be taken back from an ultra-left curriculum which teaches children various harmful theories (the label preceding each theory rotates depending on who the Big Bad is each week; the described content of each, however, is intentionally divorced from any recognizable epistemology). If you elect them, they promise to ban harmful books from our school libraries and fire if not prosecute anyone who disagrees.

Which schools specifically are teaching this? Why, our schools, of course all schools, whether theyre located within walking distance of the corner of Haight and Ashbury in San Francisco or the suburbs of southern Idaho, all share the same Marxist curriculum, library books and teachers. How do they know this? Well, they saw it on LibsofTikTok. Does that all sound very silly and ignorant to you? Then you might be a groomer.

To be blunt, this is all about as real as any piece of halfway immersive science fiction, which is a long winded way of saying its not real at all. There are, indeed, schools just as there are, indeed, recognizable bits of physics in the Star Trek universe. Past that, the connection between reality and fantasy is only as strong as the writers need it to be to advance each plot each plot and talking point being whatever is needed to keep viewers afraid enough to buy dodgy supplements, fake gold coins, and overpriced emergency survival supplies. Since each talking point is based on the news and a carefully curated collection of home videos instead of The Silmarillion or the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, however, they feel real.

They are not, however, real enough to a large enough population to win general elections not even in comparatively conservative Boise.

Boise is both the capital of and largest city in Idaho, one of the most consistently conservative states in the country. Idahos voters are so conservative, in fact, that Donald Trump received a larger majority in Idaho in the last election than he received in Nevadas own Douglas County. Douglas County, for perspective, was the first, last, and thus far only constituency to elect Danny Tarkanian to something in a general election a decision they openly regretted because Danny and his wife were somehow too liberal (they refused to support some of the internet trolls running for statewide office under the Republican banner, in other words) for their sensibilities.

Now, Boise is admittedly a bit more liberal than the rest of the state, but its still no Democratic Party stronghold. If you flip Washoe Countys last election results on their head if, that is, you take the percentages President Biden (a bit over 50 percent) and Donald Trump (a bit over 46 percent) each received and give them to the opposing candidate youd end up with the most recent presidential election results in Boises home county, Ada (Boise, confusingly enough, is not located in considerably more conservative Boise County).

Put briefly, Boise may not be as ruby red as the rest of the Gem State, but its still more supportive than not of Republican candidates and causes and certainly more supportive of Republicans than any county of similar population in Nevada.

Unsurprisingly, then, incumbent politicians in Boise prefer to position themselves on the conservative side, culturally and politically speaking. Thats perhaps why, when Steve Schmidt an incumbent member of the Boise School Board received an endorsement from the Idaho Liberty Dogs, a hardline conservative group that previously gained notoriety by claiming libraries in neighboring Meridian were distributing smut-filled pornography, he opted first for nuance over outright denunciation.

Depending upon your personal beliefs, that (endorsement) may give you cause for concern or comfort, Schmidt wrote in a since-deleted Facebook post. I am not a member of their group and I dont represent them.

That, even in comparatively conservative Boise even for a widely respected incumbent who received the support of past superintendents and trustees, as well as the local teachers union wasnt anywhere near strong enough. Local leaders criticized both the endorsement and Schmidts reaction. The Idaho Liberty Dogs, demonstrating their character, responded by comparing an opposing rabbi to Hitler and claiming he supports groups that indoctrinate and groom our children. All of that led the Idaho Statesman to endorse his opponent: Shiva Rajbhandari, an 18-year-old Boise High student who pledged to take a gap year before college to complete his term if the rest of the school board couldnt find a suitable student to replace him after he graduates.

On September 7th, Boises comparatively conservative voters got their chance to weigh in.

The result? 56 percent of the voters in that election decided theyd rather have an 18-year-old high school student who might leave the position in a year or two than a previously respected incumbent who didnt have the sense or the spine to clearly distance himself from a bunch of rabid conservative propaganda junkies.

To be clear, Steve Schmidt didnt run as someone who would ban books or fight some esoteric sociological theory prepended with Marxist in the title for narrative effect. He ran as an establishment conservative the sort Nevada used to produce on the regular. He was, by many accounts, an excellent and professional school board member.

He was, in other words, a better candidate for school board than any of the candidates challenging the incumbents on Washoe Countys ballots.

But he still wasnt good enough. When given an opportunity to distance himself from a pack of overzealous fans living in political fantasy worlds, he refused to channel his inner William Shatner and tell them to get a life and that was all it took to lose him the election in Boise.

Not Reno. Not Las Vegas. Not San Francisco. Refusing to stand up against conservative medias most fervent, overzealous fans lost Schmidt the election in Boise.

It certainly must not have helped Schmidts cause that the rest of Idaho is ruby red enough for those same fans to seize political control from time to time. Nampa, one of Boises suburbs, recently banned 22 books from their schools libraries because they allegedly contained pornography, including Margaret Atwoods The Handmaids Tale. Meanwhile, the Idaho House (the states lowest legislative chamber in more ways than one) tried to pass a law House Bill 666, amusingly enough that would criminally charge librarians if a minor checked out a book that was considered harmful by that august body; that bill ultimately died in the state senate.

Additionally, since Idaho is so conservative, its also paradoxically a punching bag by the very same conservative media some of its residents love so much. After all, if even Idaho is teaching students porn literacy (its not, but dont let that get in the way of a good plotline), surely every other school in the country including the one in your neighborhood must be so much worse!

The worst part, if youre a politician trying to build a constituency, is there frankly arent that many fans. Only three million or so people watch Tucker Carlson if you add up everyone in the country who watches cable news commentary at the same time, you reach a high water mark of around six million viewers out of a nation of over 330 million. Thats not even 2 percent of the population. Speaking as a now-former longtime member of the Libertarian Party, I know a thing or two about trying to win elections with only 1-2 percent of the electorate it doesnt work, especially when that 1-2 percent is more interested in demonstrating loyalty to their fellow fans than they are in getting outside, touching grass, and maybe talking to a neighbor or two.

Boises voters saw firsthand what happens when you let the fans take over the show. Its bad enough when it happens to a beloved media franchise (looking at you, The Rise of Skywalker). Its considerably worse when it leads to school board members bullying children because of their gender identity, books getting removed from school libraries, and politicians leading witch hunts against Marxist indoctrination from the capitol grounds because the fans favorite talking heads on television or social media showed them a 30-second viral video which proves there are luxury gay space communists infiltrating every branch of Idahos Idahos! government.

So they voted accordingly.

The rest of us, meanwhile, just wish these dorks who keep bringing guns to school board meetings, threatening to ban books, and driving our existing board members towards a mental health crisis would just go home and leave the families of Washoe County alone. Our schools have enough problems without candidates role playing as fourteenth-level Freedom Warriors fighting the Dark Lord of Marxism on the taxpayers dime.

David Colborne ran for office twice and served on the executive committees for his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is now an IT manager, a registered nonpartisan voter, the father of two sons, and a weekly opinion columnist for The Nevada Independent. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [emailprotected].

Original post:
Conservative book censors and conspiracy theorists don't even win in Boise The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

Artists who have faced censorship are taking center stage at Unit London. Sensitive Content, curated by artist Helen Beard and art historians Alayo Akinkugbe and Maria Elena Buszed, presents artworks that have challenged the status quo by raising questions on artistic freedom and foregrounding issues linked to the circulation and suppression of art.

On view through October 16th, the group exhibition examines censorship and artistic freedom from multiple standpoints. The interrogative nature of Sensitive Content expands on social, cultural, and political issues touching upon gender, sexuality, religion, race, and eroticism, among other topics. Featuring 19 artists whose works have fought against the culture of censorship, the showaddresses agency, access, and power to encourage viewers to engage in an expanded public discourse.

The personal is political in Sensitive Content. The works of Polly Borland, Micol Hebron, and Emma Shapiro draw attention to sexisms role in the policing and censoring of specific body types, deeming them as inherently sexual when unclothed. Feminist themes also emerge in Leah Schragers Infinity Selfie series (2016) and Caroline Coons performance piece I AM WHORE (2019). Schragers digitally manipulated photographs blur the line between model and photographer to question how one is represented and by whom. Meanwhile, in Coons compelling historical examination of misogynistic tropes, the artist forces the viewer to encounter the uneasy truths about the violence women still face in todays patriarchal societies.

With artworks depicting erotic and sexual themes that have often been deemed obscene, controversial, or inappropriate, Sensitive Content features pioneers in feminist artsuch as Carol Rama, Betty Tompkins, Penny Slinger, and Linderwho prominently incorporate explicit imagery in their practices. In the 1970s, French customs confiscated photorealistic works from Tompkinss Fuck Paintings series, declaring the pieces obscene. Whereas thousands of copies of Slingers 1978 book Mountain Ecstasy were seized and destroyed by British customs, Linders collages had to be published covertly due to the ongoing restrictions. Many of the shows artists still frequently battle with the limitations placed on exhibiting and disseminating their work.

One such artist is co-curator Beard, whose radiant paintings depicting female pleasure seduce through vivid and bold graphic shapes. Beards social media posts of her paintings are frequently removed due to alleged violations of community guidelines. Like Beard, Beverley Onyangunga has often been shadow-banned on social media. Onyangungas archival photomontages depicting the history of colonial violence remind viewers of the excruciating atrocities that took place from 1885 to 1908 in Congo Free State, present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo. Under the gruesome, 23-year-long colonial rule of Belgiums King Leopold II, Congolese children and adults were brutalized and denied access to food if they failed to meet their daily rubber quotas.

Onyangunga recalls this period of history in her installation Parts of a Rubber Tree (2022), in which the leaves of a tree are replaced by red rubber gloves. In Onyangungas photo collage Archive I (2022), a red rubber glove appears again; this time, it occupies the space where a Congolese childs hand was severed. A missionary grips the childs arm, while Black children pay witness to the scene and Leopold IIs head and torso peek up from behind them.

Other artists have faced repercussions outside of the digital sphere for the content in their work. Russian activist and performance art group Pussy Riot and Chinese artist Xiao Lu have previously been detained by their respective government authorities for political dissent. Pussy Riots three artworks in Sensitive Content, all titled Push This Button (2022), feature a call to action followed by a kaomoji: This button makes you squirt =^.^=, This button eliminates sexism =^_^=, and This button neutralizes Vladimir Putin =^.^=. Despite their cutified appearance, the politically charged works are met by viewers with caution.

In Xiaos performance Polar (2016), the artist climbs into a semi-transparent cubicle made of ice. With only a kitchen knife, Xiao repeatedly hacks at her icy confinement, even as she begins to draw blood and stain her surrounding environment. The violent and aggressive subtexts found in Polar are recurring themes in Xiaos transgressive work critiquing the CCPs political and social policies. Perhaps Polar can also be understood as a symbolic pursuit of breaking free from the constraints of a patriarchal society.

Meanwhile, Renee Coxs photograph Yo Mamas Last Supper (1996)which features Cox as Jesus in the center of the composition, surrounded by 11 Black men and a white man, Judaswas deemed sacrilegious and offensive by both the Catholic Church and thenNew York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. The latter called for a commission to set decency standards for all publicly funded art. Its worth asking whether the artwork sparked such opposition due to its reinterpretation of a biblical scene or because such artistic license was taken by a Black woman.

Operating as a site for thought-provoking public discourse that welcomes both contemporary and historical artistic acts of resistance, Sensitive Content responds to the complex sociopolitical and cultural mechanisms involved in silencing and suppressing narratives deemed threatening, disruptive, obscene, divergent, or offensive. As the curators stated in the exhibition catalogue, Ultimately, despite their many differences, the artists in Sensitive Content have a shared commitment to the real over the fakewhether in our politics, interactions or expressionsthat binds them more deeply than their works censorship. This exhibition hopes to honor that courageous common bond. And indeed it does.

Follow this link:
With Graphic Works on Sex and Inequality, a New Show Addresses Artistic Censorship - Artsy

Finance Magnates got the opportunity to get the thoughts of Brian Pasfield, CTO at Fringe Finance on the future of Ethereum's move to PoS, DeFi's split into permitted and non-permitted, and shares his vision of where this could lead DeFi in the future.

Q. The transition to PoS is the dawn of the bifurcation of DeFi into 'permitted' and 'non-permitted' DeFi. What are the possible consequences of it?

Authorities have commenced attacks on the DeFi ecosystem by introducing censorship. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. So, any implementation of DeFi that enables censorship is not DeFi. Permissioned DeFi = on-chain CeFi, which eliminates all that is valuable about DeFi. Not even composability as a benefit remains, as it poses existential risks for protocols composed with sanctioned/permissionless protocols. And, much of DeFi has centralized components, which, therefore, attack vectors for authorities to coerce censorship.

Q. What are the prospects of DeFi then?

Keep Reading

DeFis only path is to pursue avenues that assure its censorship resistance. This means removing the reliance on a number of things that are variously characteristic of DeFi today, including doxxed teams, centralized pegged stablecoins and any notion of PoS given PoS introduces a greater attack surface for authorities to enact bribery attacks that can compromise the network.

Q: So Why is DeFi so valuable?

Many participants in the DeFi ecosystem do not recognize DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance. Many view DeFi as just an additional way to deliver financial services and a way to achieve rapid financial gains. But, DeFi is distinct because of its core value proposition. This proposition is valuable to those who have a security mindset - and those who do not want to be stolen from. A security mindset refers to the notion of personal sovereignty and that the aims of authorities and some supra-national organizations are all too often not in the people's interests. A good introduction to understanding this can be found in The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli.

Q. The censorship calls from the authorities will increase. Does this mean that DeFi projects will soon face new difficulties in obtaining licenses? Will they close more often due to censorship?

Any reference to licenses and DeFi in the same sentence indicates a misunderstanding of what makes DeFi useful. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. A truly censorship-resistant DeFi protocol can not be regulated, as it is not susceptible to state coercion. Any nominally DeFi protocol that does require a license is an example of on-chain CeFi. Given DeFis core value proposition, by definition, DeFi will not and cannot be regulated by authorities. It is the centralized aspects of current DeFi that are censorable.

Q. Give examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects. What are their risks?

Examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects are USD-pegged stablecoins. Ultimately, they rely on meat-space entities that can be and have been coerced by authorities to enact censorship. DeFi will move away from its current love affair with USD-pegged stablecoins because of the attack surface they represent in terms of coercion and censorship by authorities.

Q: Many people strongly hold that PoW is a danger and that a move to PoS is necessary. However is there a risk of PoSs attack vectors being exploited by vested interests?

Yes, there is a significant risk. PoS bribery attacks will be attempted. DeFi on PoS will then be TradFI but on a censored blockchain. For humans to unshackle themselves from coercion and censorship and to move to a state of greater freedom, a security mindset is needed. Proper DeFi, with its core value proposition of censorship resistance, is necessary. There are people in the DeFi ecosystem who understand the core value proposition of censorship resistance, and DeFi will find a way. Look for these people and follow their projects.

Q: The industry uses PoS for several reasons: to lower fees and use less energy, and it is also claimed to increase security. Is this true and are there any security issues caused by the adoption of PoS?

Lets analyze new security issues added by the adoption of PoS. Fees are a function of demand for block space. The market dictates the price. The participants demand the security afforded by the current blockchain and are willing to pay the fees. If participants did not demand it, the price would be lower. And we now have L2s which increase throughput and correspondingly reduce fees.

The remaining reason for Eth PoS is energy usage. PoW and PoS have different properties; hence, there are trade-offs moving from PoW to PoS. Particularly, PoS represents a greater attack surface for censorship via bribery attacks, which, if successful, could be fatal for the network. If more people were aware of this, they would ask, is the energy usage matter really as its been described by untrustworthy supra-nationalists? And if so, is reducing DeFis energy usage at the price of removing DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance worth it?

The solution to this is (proper) DeFi will find a way to remain uncensorable in the long term. This may or may not be on the Eth blockchain Blockchain Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Read this Term - and likely will not be, given the current PoS adherents ideological positions distort their ability to make decisions with the required objectivity.

Q: What's your vision of the future of DeFi?

B: DeFi is just starting. It is so new. Many DeFi projects have not fully embraced Its core value proposition of uncensorability. Were now seeing authorities taking action not only to sensor DeFi, but to confiscate assets and take legal action. There is effectively no reason for censored DeFi to exist. DeFi needs to divest itself of its current vulnerabilities to censorship so that it continues to deliver on its core value proposition.

DeFi is one part of the decentralized economy. It's a part of the future decentralized world. A whole new body of legal precedence would evolve in this decentralized space that completely bypasses the distortions of state-based legislation systems. In the areas where it competes with meat-space legacy institutions, the decentralized world will be more efficient and deliver greater prosperity to communities.

Brian Pasfield is the CTO at Fringe Finance with almost 10 years of expertise in blockchain, cryptocurrency, fintech and DeFi. He has delivered technically-complex projects that have leveraged his engineering background and keen understanding of industry trends and philosophies. Furthermore, Brian has worked with industry blockchain bodies to lobby for legislation and government policy changes.

Finance Magnates got the opportunity to get the thoughts of Brian Pasfield, CTO at Fringe Finance on the future of Ethereum's move to PoS, DeFi's split into permitted and non-permitted, and shares his vision of where this could lead DeFi in the future.

Q. The transition to PoS is the dawn of the bifurcation of DeFi into 'permitted' and 'non-permitted' DeFi. What are the possible consequences of it?

Authorities have commenced attacks on the DeFi ecosystem by introducing censorship. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. So, any implementation of DeFi that enables censorship is not DeFi. Permissioned DeFi = on-chain CeFi, which eliminates all that is valuable about DeFi. Not even composability as a benefit remains, as it poses existential risks for protocols composed with sanctioned/permissionless protocols. And, much of DeFi has centralized components, which, therefore, attack vectors for authorities to coerce censorship.

Q. What are the prospects of DeFi then?

Keep Reading

DeFis only path is to pursue avenues that assure its censorship resistance. This means removing the reliance on a number of things that are variously characteristic of DeFi today, including doxxed teams, centralized pegged stablecoins and any notion of PoS given PoS introduces a greater attack surface for authorities to enact bribery attacks that can compromise the network.

Q: So Why is DeFi so valuable?

Many participants in the DeFi ecosystem do not recognize DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance. Many view DeFi as just an additional way to deliver financial services and a way to achieve rapid financial gains. But, DeFi is distinct because of its core value proposition. This proposition is valuable to those who have a security mindset - and those who do not want to be stolen from. A security mindset refers to the notion of personal sovereignty and that the aims of authorities and some supra-national organizations are all too often not in the people's interests. A good introduction to understanding this can be found in The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli.

Q. The censorship calls from the authorities will increase. Does this mean that DeFi projects will soon face new difficulties in obtaining licenses? Will they close more often due to censorship?

Any reference to licenses and DeFi in the same sentence indicates a misunderstanding of what makes DeFi useful. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. A truly censorship-resistant DeFi protocol can not be regulated, as it is not susceptible to state coercion. Any nominally DeFi protocol that does require a license is an example of on-chain CeFi. Given DeFis core value proposition, by definition, DeFi will not and cannot be regulated by authorities. It is the centralized aspects of current DeFi that are censorable.

Q. Give examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects. What are their risks?

Examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects are USD-pegged stablecoins. Ultimately, they rely on meat-space entities that can be and have been coerced by authorities to enact censorship. DeFi will move away from its current love affair with USD-pegged stablecoins because of the attack surface they represent in terms of coercion and censorship by authorities.

Q: Many people strongly hold that PoW is a danger and that a move to PoS is necessary. However is there a risk of PoSs attack vectors being exploited by vested interests?

Yes, there is a significant risk. PoS bribery attacks will be attempted. DeFi on PoS will then be TradFI but on a censored blockchain. For humans to unshackle themselves from coercion and censorship and to move to a state of greater freedom, a security mindset is needed. Proper DeFi, with its core value proposition of censorship resistance, is necessary. There are people in the DeFi ecosystem who understand the core value proposition of censorship resistance, and DeFi will find a way. Look for these people and follow their projects.

Q: The industry uses PoS for several reasons: to lower fees and use less energy, and it is also claimed to increase security. Is this true and are there any security issues caused by the adoption of PoS?

Lets analyze new security issues added by the adoption of PoS. Fees are a function of demand for block space. The market dictates the price. The participants demand the security afforded by the current blockchain and are willing to pay the fees. If participants did not demand it, the price would be lower. And we now have L2s which increase throughput and correspondingly reduce fees.

The remaining reason for Eth PoS is energy usage. PoW and PoS have different properties; hence, there are trade-offs moving from PoW to PoS. Particularly, PoS represents a greater attack surface for censorship via bribery attacks, which, if successful, could be fatal for the network. If more people were aware of this, they would ask, is the energy usage matter really as its been described by untrustworthy supra-nationalists? And if so, is reducing DeFis energy usage at the price of removing DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance worth it?

The solution to this is (proper) DeFi will find a way to remain uncensorable in the long term. This may or may not be on the Eth blockchain Blockchain Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Read this Term - and likely will not be, given the current PoS adherents ideological positions distort their ability to make decisions with the required objectivity.

Q: What's your vision of the future of DeFi?

B: DeFi is just starting. It is so new. Many DeFi projects have not fully embraced Its core value proposition of uncensorability. Were now seeing authorities taking action not only to sensor DeFi, but to confiscate assets and take legal action. There is effectively no reason for censored DeFi to exist. DeFi needs to divest itself of its current vulnerabilities to censorship so that it continues to deliver on its core value proposition.

DeFi is one part of the decentralized economy. It's a part of the future decentralized world. A whole new body of legal precedence would evolve in this decentralized space that completely bypasses the distortions of state-based legislation systems. In the areas where it competes with meat-space legacy institutions, the decentralized world will be more efficient and deliver greater prosperity to communities.

Brian Pasfield is the CTO at Fringe Finance with almost 10 years of expertise in blockchain, cryptocurrency, fintech and DeFi. He has delivered technically-complex projects that have leveraged his engineering background and keen understanding of industry trends and philosophies. Furthermore, Brian has worked with industry blockchain bodies to lobby for legislation and government policy changes.

Read more here:
Censorship in DeFi and the Transition to POS: Causes and Consequences - Finance Magnates

Public libraries in the U.S. are under increasing scrutiny.

Last year, the American Library Association reported a record number of book challenges, topping nearly 1,600 books.

"How a book on a shelf could be a threat to anyone is beyond us. Libraries are for voluntary reading. Libraries are for choice. They're a resource we should fiercely protect and preserve."

Efforts are also more aggressive. Several communities have voted to stop funding their public libraries. In others:

"There's been a few instances where there have been physical threats or, for example, the library in Montana that found books in their book dropped that had been riddled with bullets."

Today, On Point: Protecting America's public libraries.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. She works on projects "addressing censorship and privacy in the library."

Patrick Sweeney, political director of EveryLibrary, the first and only national political action committee for libraries. He is also the former Administrative Librarian of the Sunnyvale Public Library in California.

George M. Johnson, author of All Boys Arent Blue. The book is a young adult non-fiction memoir about Johnson's journey growing up as a queer Black man in America. Its the third most challenged book of 2021 out of nearly 1,600 books. It has been targeted for removal in at least 14 states. (@IamGMJohnson)

Kimber Glidden, director of the Boundary County Library in Idaho.

On the climate in American libraries

Deborah Caldwell-Stone: "We're seeing the result of a divisive campaign intended to limit everyone's access to information, to really sanction one viewpoint, one political view, one approach to information, to prevent everyone from having the ability to make choices for themselves.

"We're observing organized advocacy groups try to impose an agenda on libraries to change policies, to ban books, to really limit the ability of the public library to serve as a community resource that meets the information needs of everyone in the community, but instead limits their offerings to what's approved by a few political groups in the community. And this has had very real consequences for libraries across the country.

"We're seeing contentious board meetings. We're seeing librarians actually charged in criminal court with pandering obscenity to minors. And we're also working with libraries, closely monitoring situationslike you've described, where there's been an effort to either defund the library or take over the library board in order to impose a particular agenda."

In Jamestown Township, Michigan, voters voted to defund the Patmos Library.

The library has 67,000 books, videos and other items. There were only about 90 titles voters had a problem with. Why were they willing to risk the whole library over that tiny fraction number of titles?

Deborah Caldwell-Stone: "We're seeing the result of a lot of disinformation and misinformation about libraries, how librarians work and the content of the books. For example, I absolutely reject the idea that books that deal with puberty, human reproduction, sexual health, developing good relationships have anything to do with what's called grooming. That's a falsehood that's spread by a number of advocacy groups that really have an anti-pornography, anti-LGBTQIA agenda.

"And these talking points are picked up. People don't have any basis to question them. And as a result, they are encouraged to act on that false information when they participate in elections. You know, and it's also a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of public libraries as a whole. These are community institutions that are intended to serve everyone in the community. And we know that we live in a rapidly diversifying society, that there are all kinds of people in every community that have different information needs.

"And so the library, by its nature, is going to be acquiring works that represent a variety of ideas, viewpoints, including books you might not agree with. That you might not give to your own child, but another family, another parent would want their child to read. And there's this loss of civic engagement, community feeling where we share a resource. And we understand there's a book on the shelf that is there for me. But by its very nature, the library is also going to have books on the shelf that I don't agree with, but I tolerate that. I understand that, because that means that the library will be there for me, as well, to serve my information needs.

"And we're seeing a real loss of that community, of that understanding of the library as a community institution. And the loss can be so great. A public library is essential for not only for reading books, but, you know, many, many times it's the community's portal to the internet. It supports home schooling. It supports the ability to train for new jobs, to find new jobs. It supports small businesses in the community. It's a real resource. It can help seniors with applying for Social Security.

"You know, the public library has really turned into that place, that third place you go to. Not only to read a murder mystery, but also where you can find support and information to live your best life, to find work to support your family. ... If you're a young adult, it's the place you can go to prepare to go into college, to enter the military, to start a successful career."

On defunding libraries for political leverage

Patrick Sweeney:"I think it is fundraising and getting elected. You know, we are seeing that the governors who we are seeing surfacing themselves to run for president are the ones that are beating the indoctrination and grooming drums the most. Speaking of Idaho, Heather Scott in Idaho had the Panhandle Patriots come to a meeting where she was talking about the grooming indoctrination of children who said that they weren't scared of librarians and they defend against librarians.

"Librarians are average age over 40 and 80% female. So these open carry highly militant organizations are going to shoot a 48 year old female librarian over some books. But what we're seeing is that talk was really about fundraising. It was really about riling her base. It was really about her getting the resources she need to move her personal agenda forward. You know, I think that's the most terrifying thing, how effective these lies have become in order to raise money. And so disconnect and divisiveness in our country simply for short term political gain."

On what we stand to lose when libraries are under threat

George M. Johnson: "We literally just go back to our origins, when we start to deny the ability of reading and writing. And that's what it really is, right? We're trying to literally deny an ability for people to read and people to write. And that is something that my ancestors know about very well, because we were denied that ability to read and write. It was illegal for people like me to be able to read and write in the 1800's and in the 1700's in this country. And so when we are specifically targeting books by Black people, books by queer people, we are going back to this country's origins, which is interesting.

"Because that's the whole tagline, right? Make America Great Again. And it's like, But at what point are you speaking of? Are you speaking before Black people had civil rights? Are you speaking of during slavery? Are you speaking of when the indigenous people? Like what point was it great for the people who you're literally targeting right now? And so even like when we hear those type of statements, we know exactly what the dog whistle is, too. And so when you start to say, Well, we're going to remove these specific books and we're going to start to remove these specific talking points.

"What you are really saying is that there is a second class and a third class of citizen that exists in this country, and we are going to remove the materials that make them powerful, that make other people want to know about these people, and that make other people build those bridges of empathy towards these people. Because the danger is if we lose our power as the majority, oh my God, there might actually be equity and equality. And that's not what we want. We don't want equity inequality. Like who would want that when we've been in power for so long? And so that's really the danger in removing that. It's like the onion and we just keep peeling away layers. First it's books. Then it's our rights. Then what's next?"

Read the original post:
Censorship wars: Why have several communities voted to defund their public libraries? - WBUR News

A century ago, Virginia lawmakers created the Virginia State Board of Censors with the goal of keeping a close eye on what the public saw on the big screen.

The all-white board later renamed the Division of Motion Picture Censorship required edits to more than 2,000 movies between the 1920s and 1960s, and it was especially concerned about depictions of race and sexuality.

The boards targets included:

Melissa Ooten, gender research specialist at the University of Richmond, wrote Race, Gender, and Film Censorship in Virginia, 19221965, a book about the board. She sat down with VPM News Ben Paviour to discuss her research.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Paviour: Youve studied the State Board of Censors. Can you talk a little bit about what that is how it came about?

Ooten: So, the State Board of Censors originated in 1922. And it was in play until 1965. And it was a board of three people who viewed all films before they could be shown in the state of Virginia legally. So, they had the power to determine that a movie cannot be shown, or more commonly, that certain scenes had to be cut out of it before it could be shown in the state.

What were they looking out for? What did they find objectionable?

Especially in the 1920s and 1930s, they were concerned about race relations. So, they looked especially at films in which you saw more equal treatment of people of color. That would be something they did not want shown, to be clear. And then anything dealing with sexuality, women's sexuality, in particular. Some violence, but that was less there were a few states that had these boards. New York's was more concerned with violence, particularly gambling those issues. But Virginia was really looking for things that they thought bordered on obscene in terms of sexuality and then race relations.

Why did they ultimately disband?

Because of Supreme Court decisions giving movies greater and greater freedom of speech rights. And they were never well funded.

When the movies switched from being silent to sound, they went for years without having the equipment to hear the sound. So, they would ask these film distributors to send them the transcript. It's not like it was some well-funded machine, right? It was three people, often loyal to the Democratic Party, which was in control of Virginia at the time. And often older white women. There were some women who served for decades for their 60s, 70s and 80s.

Do you see any parallels to contemporary movements to censor books, to take them out of schools, to restrict the sales of books? Or do you think these are very different issues?

I think they're connected. But I think what is interesting about the censorship board is that most of what they censored was not aimed at children, right? It was movies children really wouldn't be watching, period. And I think what we're talking about today is very much around kids. Or that's how it's being portrayed. But I mean, all these are part of broader culture wars.

What, if anything, do you think the State Board of Censors tells us about the era in which it operated in Virginia?

So, this was passed in 1922. It is around the same time Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law. It is around the same time other sorts of regulations around race and around sex and sexuality [were passed]. So, it was meant as the cultural arm as they're doing these other regulations. How can we also regulate this medium that they see as potentially problematic? Because who knows what Hollywood is producing?

This at a time when Virginia is primarily rural. There is very much a strain of, The liberal radicals in Hollywood are doing [something objectionable] and now they've come to show their fare in Virginia. But then it also shows how that dissipates over time because most of their power is in the 20s and 30s.

Read the original:
Virginia Board of Censors sought to enforce Jim Crow on the big screen - VPM News

Queen Elizabeths death yesterday spurred a global outpouring of grief from many of her fans, alongside discussion and debate about the complicated history of Englands monarchy. Much of this debate took place on Twitter, which, for better or worse, serves as a modern public square for commentary about current events.

But critics succeeded in at least partially silencing one such commentator: Carnegie Mellon University professor Uju Anya, who wrote on her personal account hours before the Queens death was announced: I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.

Amid a wave of criticism including from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and calls for CMU to punish Anya, Twitter removed the tweet from its platform, citing a rules violation.

While Twitter censored Anya likely under its murky rule banning wishing, hoping, or calling for serious harm on a person, except where Twitter chooses, in its sole discretion, to make an exception FIRE urged CMU not to do so in a letter late yesterday, reminding the school it promises faculty free expression.

Thousands of critics took to Twitter to express their own opinions of Anyas words. In a follow up tweet, Anya doubled down:

Anyas critics ranged from anonymous Twitter users to Bezos, who said, This is someone supposedly working to make the world better? I dont think so. Wow. Others, however, supported Anyas point of view, with one user tweeting, I dont know why they expect people to be gracious, when the monarchy has gone around ransacking the entire world.

It seems the nays outweighed the yeas if not in number, then in influence because, within hours, Twitter removed Anyas tweet.

By late afternoon, CMU released a statement condemning Anya but stating that free expression is core to the mission of higher education.

In removing Anyas tweet, Twitter cited a rule violation, but did not make publicly clear which rule was violated. Twitters policies prohibit users from wishing death on an individual or group of people, except in limited cases which, of course, Twitter gets to pick. This arbitrary enforcement lends credence to critics who allege Twitter subjectively enforces its rules, favoring the loud and powerful.

Twitter itself claims to serve the public conversation and to represent what people are talking about right now. Anyas voice is part of that conversation and must not be censored.

Although private social media companies like Twitter may have the authority to determine what content is displayed on their platforms, it is unwise for them to use that power to censor speech solely because its unpopular. There is value in viewpoint diversity and in possessing knowledge about others arguments. By shutting down Anyas speech, Twitter not only prevented Anya from expressing her viewpoint, but also prevented the public from learning more about her and hearing a perspective that they may not have considered.

We have urged, and will continue to urge, Twitter to look toward First Amendment standards for guidance specifically standards around viewpoint discrimination when moderating content on its platform. To promote a culture of free expression which FIRE believes should be encouraged across American society Twitter must allow minority and dissenting viewpoints to exist on its platform. After all, Twitter itself claims to serve the public conversation and to represent what people are talking about right now. Anyas voice is part of that conversation and must not be censored regardless of the outroar that followed in its wake.

For good reason, the First Amendment protects most speech and allows diverse and subjectively offensive viewpoints to be expressed free from government censorship. Speech unprotected by the First Amendment is limited to narrow categories with exacting definitions established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The three categories of unprotected speech that Anyas tweets come closest to but still are not are incitement, true threats, and fighting words.

As such, Twitter should have allowed the tweets to live on, subject to debate and scrutiny, to contribute to the conversation surrounding Queen Elizabeths death.

Regardless of public controversy, Anyas tweets remain protected under First Amendment standards. Private institutions like CMU are not bound by the First Amendment to promise free expression, but, laudably, the university has chosen to do so, committing that it values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission. CMU goes so far as to say the university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration.

Now that CMU has promised faculty free expression, it cannot backtrack from all ideas may be expressed, to all except this one because people are mad. CMU has not backtracked, but it also has not foreclosed the threat of punishing Anya in its public statement. Thats why FIRE is asking CMU to publicly commit not to investigate or punish Anya for expressing her opinion. As we told CMU:

While some may find the timing or substance of speech about the deceased to be offensive, freedom of expression does not observe a mourning period. It applies whether speech about the recently departed takes the form of a venerating eulogy, scorn, or something in between.

This is far from the first time FIRE has seen faculty criticized for expressing delight at a public figures death. When former First Lady Barbara Bush died in 2018, California State University, Fresno professor Randa Jarrar was promised a long investigation for her tweet celebrating the death and calling Bush a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal. FIRE and the ACLU of Northern California quickly wrote the school, which then dropped the investigation.

Now that CMU has promised faculty free expression, it cannot backtrack from all ideas may be expressed, to all except this one because people are mad.

And just last year, after the death of provocative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, University of Alabama at Birmingham professor Sarah Parcak was investigated after tweeting she had no sympathy and expressing a desire that Limbaugh suffered until [his] last breath. Just days after FIRE wrote a letter advocating for Parcaks rights, the university emailed the student body, saying that it recognizes individuals constitutionally protected rights to free speech.

We hope CMU does those institutions one better by standing up for faculty rights from the outset and refusing to investigate or punish Anya. And though we hope the platform restores Anyas tweet, in the future, we urge Twitter to recognize its essential role as a forum for public debate and stand up for free expression.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members no matter their views at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If youre faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).

View post:
FIRE urges Twitter, Carnegie Mellon not to censor professor who wished Queen Elizabeth 'excruciating' death - Foundation for Individual Rights in...