Category Archives: Censorship

How should God be represented? How about the word of God? Without these two fundamental questions, neither religion nor literature would have come into being.

The study of literature and language is the secular version of the classic human search for the meaning of the word of God. God is The Great Absent -- some faithful scribe took down Their words atop the Hill, but what do those words really mean? The attempt to read the scriptures gave birth to the field of hermeneutics -- be it the Talmud, Bible, Koran, or the Vedas -- a field that later lent its essential mechanism to secular literary or linguistic study. Dont trust the surface; true meaning is always hidden. Along the centuries, God came to be replaced by the literary Symbol, and trying to make sense of them gave birth to entirely new disciplines. God or author, dead or immortal, earthly or divine?

So much for (wo)mans search for meaning, but do different religions inspire different kinds of narrative representation? In a famous book of literary criticism called Mimesis, Eric Auerbach tells us the difference between what he considers the two fundamental modes of Western narrative realism -- one coming from the Greek epic poet Homer, and the other from the Bible: the former is externalized, sensory, digressive, while the latter is more abstract and obscure, directed towards a single goal. While Homeric epics take erotic delight in the senses and lie and equivocate as they feel, biblical stories claim an absolute, singular Truth. The Bibles claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homers, Auerbach writes, it is tyrannical -- it excludes all other claims.

The Hindu epics -- and its roster of gods -- resemble the Hellenic pantheon and Homeric narration far more than they resemble the Biblical insistence on Absolute Truth. Both humanise gods as playful, alternatively noble and petty, jealous and generous. Amit Chaudhuri has reminded us of the way the recently deceased Peter Brook, in his dramatised version of The Mahabharata, showed a serious, metaphysical Krishna as a giver of The Bhagavad Gita, consigning the cunning, diplomatic, playful, erotic Krishna to the status of folk aberrations. The moral ambivalence of the latter would have bewildered an Anglo-Protestant audience.

If Catholicism retains sensory, Protestantism is intellectual and abstract. The Abrahamic religion that has the most rigorous dicta about representation is Islam.

**************

Hindus become Islamic in their behaviour when they resent playful representation of their deities. Just the way todays Hindu nationalists become stern Victorian Christians when they try to limit the endless range of human sexuality to the heteronormative. The limits of sensory representation of The Divine is an Abrahamic, particularly Islamic dictum, not one that is Hindu in any way. Any attempts to standardise Hinduism runs counter to its plural, amorphous, and expansive spirit. In the land where versions of Ramayana run from the cheering for a Lanka-burning Hanuman to mourning for the slayed Ravana, nothing is more un-Hindu or un-Indian than the attempt to suppress a hundred -- or 300 -- Ramayanas.

But given the Abrahamic insistence on epistemological rigour and the Islamic strictures about representation, Muslims are within their right to resent divergent representations. Bringing these Abrahamic strictures to the representation of Hindu gods is to fundamentally misrepresent Hinduism itself.

Would Kali come to exist but for this mythical and regional plurality? It is not enough to be a Hindu to get her. One has to be a Bengali -- and who better than an outspoken female political leader? Does Kali eat meat, consume alcohol? Growing up Hindu Bengali in Calcutta, Ive never seen her otherwise. Shes married to a guy who meditates with marijuana in crematoriums. She drinks blood, for Shivas sake.

Probably the greatest Kali devotee in the modern Bengali memory is Shree Ramkrishna Paramhansa, the guru of Swami Vivekananda. Anyone who knows anything about Ramkrishnas ways of Kali worship know the richly ambivalent, even polyamorous relationship he practised with the goddess -- imagining her as mother, lover, daughter. Their play of love, hurt, devotion and anger was as deeply sensory as it was spiritual. In the intricate nature of his living relationship with Kali, he is one of Bengals great Bhakti poets -- as evinced by the earthy poetry of his gospel -- the Kathamrita. Ramkrishna ate fish, fowl, and mammal with great relish, and so do the monks of the order established by his followers, the Ramkrishna Mission. I spent six years in an elite boarding school run by the order in Narendrapur outside Calcutta, and every week, we eagerly looked forward to the chicken curry served to us, the teachers, and the monks for dinner on Fridays.

The great tradition of Bengali theatre in 19th century Calcutta would have been nothing without one of Ramkrishnas greatest devotees, Girish Ghosh, also a great alcoholic. Ramkrishna never asked Ghosh to give up drinking (though Ghoshs doctors certainly did). The mystic somehow came to acknowledge an inevitable relationship between Ghoshs literary creativity and his dependence on alcohol. Ramkrishnas moral attitude to alcoholism, a socially and politically sensitive subject for the bhadralok Bengali, however, was drawn from the culture of Kali-worship, where alcohol and other substances often played defining roles. Take Kalis name before you drink, Ramkrishna told Ghosh, the alcohol will become karon-bari, naming the divine, tantric elixir. A simple and chaste man with childlike excitement about the simplest pleasures of life, Ramkrishna did not smoke or drink himself. But it is well-known that his famous disciple, Vivekananda, loved his hookah. It is the unconscious reluctance to share his hookah with a person of unknown caste that got his great social conscience going, eventually making him one of modern Indias greatest champions of caste equality, a fact conveniently forgotten by many who seek to reclaim a model of militant Hindu masculinity through the Bengali monk.

All of these eddies create the spiritual culture through which a regional Hindu goddess such as Kali must be understood. Shakti, indeed, takes on myriad and bewildering forms.

People protesting the eclectic representation of Hindu deities are bringing the rigour of Islam into the playfulness of Hinduism. But they dont know that, do they?

Saikat Majumdars books include The Scent of God, The Firebird, and The Middle Finger. @_saikatmajumdar. The views expressed in the article are personal.

Subscribe Now to continue reading

Originally posted here:
Essay: Hindu nationalisms censorship of the gods - Hindustan Times

by DAVID KEATING

Assaults on the culture of free speech grow by the day. Unfortunately, much of the assault is coming from the major social media platforms.

The power of our democracy and the genius of our First Amendment is our recognition that no single authority can dictate what is true. We work out our disagreements through speech, publishing, and organizing into groups.

For centuries, reaching others with our views was difficult work, and in many respects it still is. But thanks to social media, most Americans can publish anything and theoretically reach millions of fellow citizens and even much of the world.

As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, social media platforms for many are the principal sources for speaking and listening in the modern public square, where Americans share vital information and express their opinions.

Social media allowed more Americans to engage in public speech than ever before, but like past revolutions in communications technology, it also triggered a backlash. Politicians, media outlets, or activists increasingly pressure companies to censor speech they deem false or misleading, or simply oppose. Lately, much of this speech concerns issues related to elections and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Certainly, you can find false claims about both topics online (and off) with ease. Yet the platforms judgments are far from infallible, and their heavy hand threatens to stifle important debates about unsettled issues. In fact, this has already happened.

Early in the pandemic, Facebook and YouTube censored claims that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from a lab leak in China, a theory that remains plausible to this day. And, of course, Twitter and Facebook restricted the New York Posts reporting about emails on Hunter Bidens laptop in the leadup to the 2020 election, claiming they were the product of foreign misinformation. After the election, the emails proved to be authentic.

Many Democrats have encouraged this trend towards censorship. Recall that then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki urged faster action against harmful posts and suspension of accounts across all platforms. The Biden Administration created the so-called Disinformation Governance Board before disbanding it in response to public outrage.

Many Republicans say they oppose censorship but want to repeal Section 230, which immunizes social media companies from liability for posts by users. That would likely result in even more censorship from platforms eager to avoid costly litigation. It would also make it effectively impossible for new social media companies to take down the incumbents.

What to do?

Lets stipulate that there are no easy answers. But many of the actions taken now pose real threats to free speech while doing little to stop misinformation and may enable more of it.

Some of the wealthiest corporations in the world operate social media sites, and their mission is to maximize profits. Getting on the wrong side of government officials is bad for business. This creates terrible incentives for the platforms to censor based on the views of the party in power.

Politicians who attempt to influence platforms speech policies are a menace to free speech. Platforms should focus on empowering their users, not their critics or the government, to control what content they see.

The government has a role to play in protecting free speech on the internet. We can create ethics laws and rules preventing government officials from using threats against platforms to get them to censor. And we should consider creating a legal defense against government enforcement actions against social media platforms if the government initiates action based on its interest in retaliating against a platforms refusal to censor or silence itself or its users.

Throughout history, free speech and open debate have been societys best tools for discovering the truth and managing our disagreements.

We also need more information on how the platforms use algorithms to promote and suppress content. Right now, all we get are random information dumps from whistleblowers. If no one knows how social medias black box algorithms are working and failing, how can we come up with sensible government policies?

Ultimately, the solution must come from the platforms themselves. They should return to the more speech-friendly mindset embraced before 2016. Taking on the role of a private sector Ministry of Truth has been a disaster for their reputations with no clear benefit to the public. And it is especially dangerous given the threats wielded by government officials against the platforms.

Throughout history, free speech and open debate have been societys best tools for discovering the truth and managing our disagreements. The technology that we use to express ourselves has changed many times, from the printing press to the telegraph to radio and television and now, to social media. The underlying principles of the First Amendment will always stand the test of time.

David Keating is the president of the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, DC.

More here:
To Protect Free Speech, Social Media Platforms Must Stop their Overreach - The Ripon Society

As an independent news organization dedicated to reporting the truth, The Epoch Times has been subjected to excessive censorship by Big Tech.

In the latest such incident, Twitter on July 28 censored all of our content by putting up a blockade to our website, describing it as unsafe, and encouraging users not to proceed.

Twitters actionsjust like those by other tech giants such as Facebook and YouTubespecifically targeted the reach of our independent news and video content.

Twitter hasnt responded to multiple requests for comment and appeal, nor has the company explained what led it to censor our content or what caused it to lift its blockage two days later, following a public outcry.

The move by the social media giant came less than a week after we published our new documentary The Real Story of January 6 and, on the same day, posted an interview with sex trafficking survivor Eliza Bleu, on our program American Thought Leaders.

While it remains unclear why Twitter targeted us, what is clear is that The Epoch Times is different from most other major news organizations, in that we dare to follow the stories where the facts lead.

In our Jan. 6 documentary, our reporters take an unvarnished look at the events of that day and present new witnesses and evidence that challenge the prevailing narratives. It provides extensive evidence of excessive use of force by police that broke protocol and policy, and raises questions about the lack of security that day. So far, the documentary has received more than a half-million views on our EpochTV platform.

In recent years, there have been other major stories on which The Epoch Times, because of our independence and adherence to traditional journalism, has differed from other major news organizations, only to be proven right.

For example, The Epoch Times reported accurately on events surrounding allegations that then-candidate and later President Donald Trump had colluded with Russia. From day one, The Epoch Times reported on the facts and through our reporting uncovered significant problems with the FBIs probe of Trumps campaign, which included problematic conduct involving surveillance.

While other news organizations won Pulitzers for their articles suggesting collusion between the president and Russia, The Epoch Times was, in fact, correct in reporting that the allegations had no supportas confirmed through investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice inspector general, as well as the ongoing probe of the origins of the FBIs investigation by special counsel John Durham.

The Epoch Times also was among the first to report on the possibility that the novel coronavirus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. Our April 2020 documentary on the subject was censored by Facebook. Today, a lab leak is now held as the most likely explanation for the spread of the virus, by both media organizations and many government officials.

The danger of allowing platforms such as Twitter to take on the role of arbiter of the truth is that they, in many cases, are plainly wrong. The most prominent example was Twitters suppression of the New York Post over its reporting on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

This censorship behavior, which is antithetical to the protections Big Tech receives under Section 230, has also raised concerns about social media platforms censoring content on behalf of the government. Most recently, a federal judge ordered the government to cooperate in a lawsuit that alleges behind-the-scenes efforts to target the dissemination of information of stories related to COVID-19including its possible origins and alternative treatmentsthat didnt fit the governments narrative.

Government cant outsource its censorship to Big Tech, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said.

The public outcry against Twitters censorship of The Epoch Times was swift, with three U.S. senators publicly questioning the social media platformwhich in recent years has repeatedly found itself in hot water for acts of censorshipover its targeting of the news organization.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) demanded that Twitter explain itself for this outrageous act of censorship.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) asked, Wheres the respect for free speech and freedom of press, Twitter?

We all remember your biased censorship of [the New York Post] and how that ended for you, he said.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) described the action by Twitter as alarming.

Twitter is censoring [The Epoch Times] under the guise of unsafe speech. Remember what happened the last time corporate media and big tech tried to censor my investigation on Hunter Biden corruption? he wrote. The truth always prevails.

Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, described Twitters action as an outrageous act of censorship.

Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya called out Twitters suppression, writing: It is perfectly safe to click through to the [Epoch Times] site in the quote tweet. For some reason, Twitter decided that today was a good day to suppress access to Epoch Times.

Sex trafficking survivor Bleu, who was among the first to notice the censorship by Twitter because of its blockage of her interview withtheEpochTV program American Thought Leaders, posted a video condemning the platforms actions that went viral.

It also created a stir among Twitter users, with many condemning the platforms actions.

The Epoch Times wants to thank everyone who spoke out against this latest instance of censorship.

We will keep reporting the only way we know how, rooted in our tagline Truth & Tradition, without favor or fear. The fight for truth is one that has no shore and that is as old as the ages. We believe that only with brave individuals going the distance and striving to record the truth of what happens can the world have an accurate picture of events and history.

Follow

Go here to see the original:
Condemning Twitter's Censorship and Thanking Our Supporters - The Epoch Times

Hulu caves to political pressure on ads. Hulu will now accept ads from Democratic groups criticizing Republican stances on abortion and guns. Previously, the Disney-owned streaming service rejected these political adsprompting fierce outcry from groups including the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

The groups ridiculously accused the streaming service of "censorship" for rejecting their political ads, even though Hulua private companyis under no obligation to air speech about hot-button political topics. A "person familiar with Hulu's policies" told The Washington Post the company avoids ads that take any position on controversial issues.

"Their shady policies amount to outrageous political censorship," the DSCC tweeted. "Americans deserve to know the truth about these issues, and Hulu has no right to block it."

This is exactly wrong, of course. Hulu has a right to block ads from Democrats, Republicans, or any advertiser on whatever topics it chooses. Part of the beauty of the First Amendment is that it protects us from government-compelled speech, too. It's politicians who have no right to force Hulu to run particular ads.

The groups harassing Hulu over its decision are not government bodies or elected officials (rather, they're devoted to getting Democrats elected), so this stops short of being a First Amendment violation. And it's understandable that the groups didn't like Hulu's decision. It would be totally defensible for them to publicly criticize the company, encourage supporters to do the same, or encourage a boycott.

But where things cross the line is their attempt to mislead people into thinking that Hulu "has no right to block" Democrats' political ads.

Aren't Democrats the ones always crowing about how more must be done to stop misinformation on social media? And yet here are some of their biggest groups spreading misinformation in a self-serving manner and encouraging followers to retweet it.

This may have led to a short-term win for them, with Disney announcing that "Hulu will now accept candidate and issue advertisements covering a wide spectrum of policy positions." But it's bad news for free speech and liberal, democratic values more broadly.

Throughout the Trump era and continuing today, Republicans have insisted that search engines, social media companies, and other digital entities must platform their candidates, causes, and pundits, frequently condemning and threatening those that reject conservative content. Throughout this, Democrats often pointed out that these private companies are well within their rights to block user content, ads, and accounts as they see fit.

Democrats rejecting that wisdom just so they can get some midterm ads against Republicans on Hulu seems like a strategy bound to backfire. But alas, neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to have any principles in this realm beyond "digital companies should platform the content we like and not the content we don't like"

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is going after the Miami bar and restaurant R House for allowing minors to eat at the restaurant during drag performances. DeSantis and the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation have filed a complaint against the restaurant, accusing it of disorderly conduct that is "manifestly injurious to the morals or manners of the people." The complaint cites a 1947 Florida Supreme Court ruling saying that "men impersonating women" in "suggestive and indecent" ways was a public nuisance. The state is now seeking to have R House's liquor license revoked, DeSantis said at a press conference.

The state's complaint, obtained by NBC News, goes on to state that a video shared by the Twitter account Libs of TikTok "shows what appears to be a transgender dancer leading a young girl by the hand and walking through Respondent's dining area.The dancer's buttocks were fully exposed, and his 'g-string'-style bikini bottom was stuffed with dollar bills a practice that is commonly known to occur at strip clubs. The dancer's breasts unmistakably female in appearance were also fully exposed except for the nipple and areola, which were covered with adhesive 'pasties.'"

"We are an inclusive establishment and welcome all people to visit our restaurant," said R House in a statement. "We are hopeful that Governor DeSantis, a vociferous supporter and champion of Florida's hospitality industry and small businesses, will see this as what it is, a misunderstanding, and that the matter will be resolved positively and promptly."

This is why we can't have nice things:

You can find the full letter here.

Most Americans think we're in a recession.

"The big question is not whether the U.S. is in a recession. It's whether the economy will soon worsen," writes David Leonhardt at The New York Times.

The RAP Act would restrict the use of musical lyrics and "artistic expression" as criminal evidence.

After Dobbs, Democrats and Republicans are switching places on Section 230.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has now been "holding America back" for two decades, write John Berlau and Josh Rutzick in The Wall Street Journal.

The "the antitrust duel of the summer" doesn't involve tech companies, but a much more traditional industry.

The family of a boy murdered over a water-gun fight is trying to hold TikTok responsible, since water-gun shooting videos have been popular on the app.

The American Data Privacy and Protection Act "mimics some of the worst flaws found in the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), while creating new problems that the GDPR had avoided."

"Home distilling, unlike home brewing and winemaking, is still prohibited by federal law," points out Reason's Jacob Sullum.

"55% of America's top startups were founded by immigrants," so why won't Congress let more of them in?

View post:
After 'Censorship' Claims, Hulu Will Air Democrats' Abortion and Gun Ads - Reason

Recently, there has been a drastic increase in outrage against loli and loli-style artworks and characters.

Source: Dead or Alive 6 (2019), Koei Tecmo

RELATED: Square Enix Heavily Censors Sexualized Artwork From Various Series For English Release Of Manga UP! App

Unable to separate the concept of young females drawn with baby-like big eyes, a chubby face and a small build from the real world, critics of the art style and fandom have falsely accused both of promoting sexual violence against real-world minors.

Believing themselves to be performing a societal good, the vocal condemnation campaigns undertaken by opponents have resulted in such outcomes as a Japanese mangaka being harassed, Patreon blanket-purging any art even slightly fitting the styles standard, and a player being banned from a fighting game tournament for liking the genres numerous loli characters.

Source: New Character Demo Diona: Wine Industry Slayer, Genshin Impact YouTube

In light of this ongoing attempt to erase any trace of the loli-style from anime and video games and curious as to how this attitude has affected the actual industry, Bounding Into Comics reached out to an insider for their insights.

Graciously taking time out of their day to speak with us after we reached out, writer, 3D artist, developer of Japanese video games, Haru47 spoke with us about this rising trend and what it means for the future of Japanese media in the West.

Source: Miss Kobayashis Dragon Maid S Episode 10 Troupe Dragon, On Stage! (They Had A Troupe Name, Huh) (2017), Kyoto Animation

RELATED: Patreon Begins To Purge Fan Art Of Characters Below A Certain Height And Bust Size

Nerdigans Inc.: What anime and what video game kicked off the rise in loli censorship?

Haru47: I think the anime that started everything was Kodomo no Jikan, the controversial anime about a loli falling in love with her teacher. Ive seen a lot of anti-lolicons bring this anime as an example.

Source: Kodomo no Jikan Episode 1 A Friendly Step (2007), Studio Barcelona

As for games it was the Nekopara series or any ero loli visual novels. I think also the Senran Kagura series, considering a lot of people were celebrating the censorship it received by Sony.

Source: Senran Kagura: Estival Versus (2015), Marvelous Inc.

Nerdigans Inc.: When would you say this sudden shift in loli erasure begin?

Haru47: I personally felt it began in mid-2016. I know its probably a longer debacle, but from personal experience, mid-2016 was when anime was becoming more mainstream.

All these Normies are just watching the seasonal shows without even bothering to investigate the tropes of the media they consume.

Source: The Saga of Tanya the Evil Episode 10 Path to Victory (2017), NUT

Nerdigans Inc.: Would you say it was around the same time in video games?

Haru47: Actually, yes at least for Sonys part, since in 2016 is when they started with their censorship policy over the #MeToo movement.

Source: BlazBlue: Chrono Phantasma (2012), Arc System Works

RELATED: Study Finds Video Games With Sexualized Content Do Not Cause Misogynistic Attitudes Or Body Image Issues

Kind of ironic they are now facing a gender discrimination lawsuit and one of their VPs got fired for trying to hook up with a minor, but loli bad according to Sony.

(One of the games referred to by Haru47 is Star Ocean 5: Integrity & Faithlessness. At the start of the MeToo era, Square Enix increased the size of Mikis panties in the overseas release of the series fifth installment due to the Western accusations that it oversexualized its underage characters.)

Source: Star Ocean: Integrity and Faithlessness (2016), Square Enix

Nerdigans Inc.: Why in particular is there such a prejudice against lolis? Why cant the loli critics seem to comprehend that the illustrations they are fighting to protect are not real children (and that some lolis are adults)?

Haru47: Projection. And I wish I was making this up, but most of the time most of these people are guilty of the same thing they accuse everyone of.

Source: Granblue Fantasy: Versus Cagliostro DLC Character Trailer | PS4, PlayStation YouTube

As for the drawing part, they insist its illegal, but the part they missed is that its actually pornographic drawings of IRL children that are illegal, while loli is not because its based on fictional characters. This was the main reason why Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, reported lolicon content on the site to the FBI, only for the agency to label his reports as a waste of time.

Source: Hello, Goodbye (2019), NekoNyan Ltd.

RELATED: To Heart 2 Spin-Off Dungeon Travelers 2 Denied Release On Steam

Nerdigans Inc.: I recently spoke to a professional translator regarding the state of the English localization industry and he revealed that the stranglehold a certain group of English localizers had on the video game industry was worse than it was for anime and manga. Are they involved with the western coordinators on the escalated censorship on loli content?

Haru47: Yes, I believe so, considering that localizers were always complaining on social media about tropes they hate and have actually lied and said the word lolicon translates to pedophile in Japanese. In reality, the Japanese use another word called shouniseai or jidouseai.'

Source: Seton Academy: Join the Pack! Episode 12 The Animal Students I Know (2020), Studio Gokumi

Nerdigans Inc: By now, video game publishers like Sony should have realized that lolicons are a fierce community who are loyal to their loli waifus. Why would the publishers ignore that money in favor of an audience that are more-than-likely not going to play their games?

Haru47: Now, thats the funny part. People want to erase any skimpily-dressed female character, but are ok with sexualizing male characters.

Source: Disgaea: Hour of Darkness (2003), Nippon Ichi Software

One of my favorite examples of this hypocrisy is from YouTuber Noralites. She made a long video complaining about loli characters by using the term minor coded just for people to find that she made a video lusting over Hanako-kun a Shota character and her art page was full of explicit yaoi content of underaged characters.

Source: Toilet-Bound Hanako-kun Chapter 87 (2022), Square Enix. Color Spread by AidaIro.

RELATED: Climax Of Night Tournament Bans Player Who Shared Meme In Appreciation Of Loli Fighting Game Characters

Nerdigans Inc.: What are your thoughts on the Climax of Night loli ban scandal?

Haru47: I think it was a really stupid ban. Imagine getting banned over meme that says you like lolis.

The organizers of the event started calling the devs of Melty Blood pedos while still using their product for their own monetary gain. Weve come to the point you cant express yourself if you like a certain character trope because higher ups will throw you under the bus to appeal to a minority of annoying people.

Source: DNF Duel (2022), Arc System Works

RELATED: The House In Fata Morgana Author Pushes Back After Western Localizer Boasts Of Rejecting Inward-Knee Female Character Designs For Being Unnatural

Nerdigans Inc.: What actions can the video game community take to fight back against censorship?

Haru47: As a developer, I say dont buy their censored products. Hit publishers where it hurts them. As a consumer they offered you a product a certain way, just so they later backpedal and expect you to give them money.

Source: Melty Blood: Actress Again: Current Code (2016), French Bread

Nerdigans Inc.: Recently, the manga community has taken their English localization concerns to the Japanese publishers. Should video game fans begin to take a similar approach?

Haru47: Theyve basically been taking the same approach. The thing is whether or not the publishers are willing to listen.

Source: Dengeki Bunko: Fighting Climax Ignition (2015), French Bread

(Editors Note: Originally, this article and its title referred to @Haru47 as a Japanese video game developer. While this phrasing was meant to describe his role as a developer who works on Japanese game, it unfortunately but understandbly gave some readers the mistaken impression that the developer was a Japanese native.

As such, the text has since been updated to clarify that @Haru47 is a developer of Japanese video games.)

NEXT: Anime Matsuri Teams With Vic Mignogna To Launch New Dubbing Studio, Sparking Outrage From Voice Actors Critics

Visit link:
Interview: Developer Of Japanese Video Games Discusses The Rise Of Loli Censorship In Anime And Video Games - Bounding Into Comics

Cubas art market shut down completely during the pandemic, leading the community to turn to digital markets for survival. However, artists say that they remain censored due to the United States sanctions against Cuba, with U.S. based platforms like the nonfungible token (NFT) marketplace OpenSea going to the extremes of deleting content and accounts linked to the country itself.

The censorship began in January with the sudden closing of the account of Fabrica de Arte Cubano an art gallery that provided exposure to emerging artists.

As Cuban visual artist and founder of the project CryptoCubans, Gabriel Bianchini, explains: The embargos sanctions are so vague that platforms just prefer to not take the risk and close our accounts.

This type of censorship is a common occurrence for Cuban artists exposing their work on the Internet. Ernesto Cisneros, a musician and NFT artist, recounted his own experience as a tragic one after losing all his earnings on Patreon due to the embargo during the pandemic. This experience brought him to Web3, unaware that the same story would repeat again. He recounted:

Adding to the consequences of censorship, they believe that Cuban artists have an increased susceptibility to being victims of hacks. Such is the case for Avinro, an NFT artist from Havana. There are antivirus programs that dont function correctly because Im in Cuba,he says, alleging that the lack of proper digital protection allowed an attacker passing for an interested buyer to send him a virus via Zoom link which should otherwise have been detected by the software. Avinro claimed that this oversight allowed the attacker to take over his MetaMask wallet, resulting in the theft of his earnings and the loss of his user profiles on various NFT marketplaces.

However, there is apparent progress on the technological side being made through official channels. Cubas government recently announced that it is open to the use of cryptocurrencies, which has fostered hopes of adoption at a rapid pace. Even if this comes to pass, however, it will still be highly regulated for citizens. Now, the arrival of blockchain smart contracts is a game changer for Cubans looking to send their messages back into the world. Bianchini said:

See the rest here:
Cuban NFT artists say they face censorship within the crypto market - Cointelegraph

British veteran Darren Brady said Hampshire police were impeding his right to free speech by tracking him down for reposting a meme featuring the LGBT pride flag arranged in the shape of a swastika.

In viral footage of the arrest taken by political activist Laurence Fox who created the meme, officers tell the 51-year-old at his residence in Aldershot that someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. That is why you have been arrested.

A spokeswoman for the Hampshire Constabulary told The Federalist that officers confronted Brady following a report that an offensive image had been shared online. It is unclear who filed the report but officers visited Bradys home to establish the exact circumstances around the social media post.

Harry Miller, a former police officer and Bad Law Project CEO who was also arrested, said police first tried to extort Brady by demanding he pay around 80 for educational course so he could downgrade from a crime to a non-crime, which would still show up in a basic Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

Thats why when officers promised to return on July 28 to hear Bradys final answer about re-education, both Fox and Miller were on the scene to document what Miller dubbed the worlds worst shakedown. When officers arrived at Bradys house for a second time, the police spokeswoman said they were prevented from entering the address to discuss a potential resolution to the matter.

As a result, officers felt it was necessary to arrest a man at the scene so they could interview him in relation to the alleged offence, the spokeswoman continued. She also said a 57-year-old man, whom the Daily Mail identified as Miller, was arrested on suspicion of obstructing/resisting a constable in execution of duty.

He was released under investigation, and our enquiries are ongoing. Due to this being a live investigation we cannot comment further, the spokeswoman said.

Officers claimed to be investigating an alleged offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003), a sweeping law that gives the United Kingdom government the authority to imprison someone if officials deem his online posts grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, or if he knowingly makes a false post for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.

The spokeswoman made it clear that no further action is being taken against Brady but maintains that officers come to work every day to protect the public and were acting in good faith when they singled out Brady.

We are engaging further with our police and crime commissioner to make sure that we deploy our resource in a way that reflects need in our local communities, she concluded.

Donna Jones, the Hampshire police and crime commissioner, issued a statement criticizing her own force and voicing concern about both the proportionality and necessity of the polices response to this incident.

When incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins dont always get a police response, something is wrong, Jones said before promising to write the College of Policing asking for greater clarification on how police should respond more appropriately in the future.

That hasnt stopped free speech critics such as Caroline Russell, a member of the Police and Crime Committee in the Greater London Authority, from demanding police look into Laurence Fox using pride flags to create nazi imagery and posting the images on a public platform.

This is a hate crime, Russell tweeted.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more:
British Veteran Arrested For Reposting Meme That 'Caused Anxiety' - The Federalist

Newly unearthed documents obtained by America First Legal Foundation reveal that top U.S. health officials worked hand-in-hand with big tech companies to moderate content related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The documents released Wednesday were obtained after America First Legal sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after filing a FOIA request for documents related to communications with big tech firms. They reportedly show that companies including Twitter and Facebook were repeatedly advised by the CDC on what to flag as misinformation and how to moderate.

One email from May 2021 shows CDC official Carol Crawford emailing a list of tweets to Twitter employees that the agency regarded as misinformation about vaccine shedding and microchips. Another email from one month prior shows Twitter senior manager for public policy Todd OBoyle asking Crawford to help identify certain types of misinformation. The employee adds that theyre looking forward to setting up regular chats.

Another instance reveals OBoyle commenting that it would be tricky to set up a meeting to discuss misinformation because Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was testifying before Congress that week.

Facebook was also coordinating with the agency. Crawford sent the company a list of posts containing disinformation similar to the list she provided Twitter, and Facebook gave the CDC and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) $15 million in free advertising during the pandemic.

The company additionally set up a Misinformation Reporting Channel for CDC and Census Bureau officials to report posts to Facebooks team. The Census Bureau was involved because the CDC asked the agency to leverage their infrastructure to identify and monitor social media for vaccine misinformation.

Google appears to have gotten in on the action too. The CDC asked the search engine giant to include its vaccine finder page at the top of search results about the vaccine, and a Google employee said that they were working with the CDC to set up a Question Hub related to the pandemic.

Much of the information shared by the CDC and other top health agencies and officials in the early days of the pandemic turned out to be misinformation. CDC director Rochelle Walensky once said that vaccinated people wouldnt transmit COVID-19, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said vaccinated people were a dead end for the virus.

Fauci also said Americans shouldnt wear masks at the start of the pandemic, before quickly giving the exact opposite recommendation.

President Joe Biden himself has spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, saying in July 2021 that Americans wont get COVID-19 if theyre vaccinated. (RELATED: Biden FDA Commissioner Says Misinformation Is Leading Cause Of Death In America)

This isnt the first time federal agencies and officials have been exposed coordinating with big tech to censor speech. Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki once said that the administration was working with Facebook to flag alleged disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

See the article here:
Internal Documents Reveal CDC Worked With Big Tech To Censor COVID-19 Speech - Daily Caller

from the just-knock-it-off-already dept

So, we just had a post mocking the Democrats for whining about Hulu refusing their issue ads, and falsely calling it censorship. And now we have Republicans issuing a bullshit blustery threat letter to Google not to limit searches for sketchy fake abortion centers.

If youre unaware, malicious anti-abortion folks have set up fake abortion centers, which they call crisis pregnancy centers, that are masquerading as actual abortion providers, but which are only there to lie to vulnerable patients about their options, and push them to give birth. Last month, Democrats (again, deeply questionably) told Google that it should demote search results pointing to these misleading centers when people are searching for abortions. As Ive argued for years, politicians have no rights trying to dictate anything about search results or content moderation. Coming from politicians there is always an implied threat that if these search results dont come out the way the politicians want, they may take action in the form of legislation.

And, now, a bunch of Republican Attorneys General have sent this ridiculous threat letter to Google with the opposite type of threat, saying that they will take action if Google does limit the search results to these centers. The letter is hilarious in that it whines about politicians seeking to wield Googles immense market power by pressuring the company to discriminate against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in Google search results when these Republicans are doing the exact same thing just in the other direction.

Unfortunately, severalnational politicians now seek to wield Googles immense market power by pressuring the companyto discriminate against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in Google search results, in onlineadvertising, and in its other products, such as Google Maps. As the chief legal officers of ourrespective States, we the undersigned Attorneys General are extremely troubled by this gallinglyun-American political pressure. We wish to make this very clear to Google and the other marketparticipants that it dwarfs: If you fail to resist this political pressure, we will act swiftly to protectAmerican consumers from this dangerous axis of corporate and government power.

Note that the letter from Republicans is much more explicit in the threat (and its coming from Attorneys General, so actual law enforcement agents, rather than elected legislature members who have much less power to act on their own).

The letter is chock full of nonsense.

Complying with these demands would constitute a grave assault on the principle of freespeech. Unbiased access to information, while no longer a component of Googles corporatecreed, is still what Americans expect from your company.

Thats bullshit. Its a search engine. The entire point is bias. It is literally ranking the search result to try to bring up the most relevant, and that, inherently, means bias. The attacks on free speech are not from Google trying to serve up more relevant search results, but from politicians of both parties sending these competing threat letters to try to pressure Google into modifying search results to get their own preferred search results shown.

This is what people are talking about when they say that all this politician jawboning and grandstanding is working the refs. As we noted last year, the bipartisan attacks on the internet are really all about trying to control the flow of information in their favor, and leaning on powerful companies to try to get their own side more prominence.

And, of course, Google itself has contributed to this somewhat. For years it took a completely hands-off approach to directly modifying its search results, noting that the algorithm returned what the algorithm returned. Yet almost exactly a decade ago, we noted that, for the first time, Google was caving to outside pressure to modify its search results when it promised the MPAA that it would start demoting websites based on DMCA notices.

We warned that this would open the floodgates of others pressuring Google to make modifications to demote sites they disliked, but now its reaching new and ever more ridiculous levels, with politicians of both major political parties screaming take it down from one side and leave it up from the other, with both sides threatening to take some form of punitive action if theyre not obeyed.

All of this is dangerous. All of this is government interfering with the 1st Amendment rights of sites to display information, content, and expression how they best see fit. Both the Democrats and Republicans need to stop this ridiculousness. Stop demanding how sites operate.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, control, crisis pregnancy centers, democrats, jawboning, republicans, search, search rankings, working the refsCompanies: google

Visit link:
Politicians Whining About Censorship Are All Just Trying To Dictate The Terms Of Debate - Techdirt

Meta's third-party fact-checkers have flagged as "false information" posts on Instagram and Facebook accusing the Biden administration of changing the definition of a recession in order to deny that the U.S. economy has entered one. This is yet another reminder that the project of purportedly independent fact-checking on social media is a highly partisan one, in which legitimately debatable opinions are passed off as objective truth.

Last week, the White House published an online article disputing the standard definition of an economic recession: i.e., two consecutive fiscal quarters in which GDP growth was negative.

"Both official determinations of recessions and economists' assessment of economic activity are based on a holistic look at the dataincluding the labor market, consumer and business spending, industrial production, and incomes," wrote the White House. "Based on these data, it is unlikely that the decline in GDP in the first quarter of this yeareven if followed by another GDP decline in the second quarterindicates a recession."

This post has been widely sharedand in some cases, mockedon social media. Graham Allen, an Instagram personality, posted a video reacting to the post in which he asked Siri to define the termrecession. Siri's definition: two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.

But Allen's video is currently obscured on Instagram; users can still watch it, but they first have to click past a disclaimer that it contains "false information reviewed by independent fact-checkers." A similar label has appeared on some Facebook posts that also take issue with the Biden administration's wordplay.

The fact-checker is Politifact, a fact-checking website run by the Poynter Institute. Politifact is an official third-party fact-checking apparatus for Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram. This means that PolitiFact is not like any ordinary website that offers a critique of a political narrative: PolitiFact's critiques are enforced by social media platforms.

In this instance, PolitiFact has rated as false the claim that "the White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession." PolitiFact acknowledges that the Biden administration's efforts to spin current economic conditions as something other than a recession are political in nature. Nevertheless, the fact-checkers conclude that since the White House is citing the National Bureau of Economic Research's official definition, the administration is on solid footing.

Phil Magness, director of research and education at the American Institute for Economic Research, thinks PolitiFact is playing games.

"In this case, PolitiFact's 'ruling' is compounded by the fact that they have previously invoked the very same definition of a recession2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline in previous rulings to either provide cover to exaggerated Democratic claims about an impending recession or tear down Republican claims to the same effect," he tells Reason.

In a recent op-ed forThe Wall Street Journal, Magness explained that the NBER is not the "official arbiter of recessions"; on the contrary, the federal government has often used the general definition preferred by most lay people, as well as Siri:

Mr. Biden's economic advisers are certainly free to make the case for a revised determination. The NBER takes a more holistic approach, in part because some recessionary events are shorter than two quarters or manifest in nonconsecutive quarters. But this rationale worksagainstthe White House's current argument, which seeks to delay acknowledging a recession even if a two-quarter decline is observed this year. The NBER committee has previously acknowledged recessions that fell short of a strict and sustained two-quarter contraction. This last happened during the 2000 dot-com bust, which played out in nonconsecutive quarterly drops.

While recognizing its limitations, the traditional definition of a recession provides a functional rule of thumb to interpret events as they unfold. The NBER determination is a rigorous and reputable historical indicator for dating the beginning and end of business-cycle troughs, but it isn't suitable for real-time policy determinations.

This is hardly the first time that the social media fact-checking industry has failed to add clarity to a contentious issue. Last year, PolitiFact rated as false the claim that COVID-19 is 99 percent survivable for most age groups.

"Experts say a person cannot determine their own chances at surviving COVID-19 by looking at national statistics, because the data doesn't take into account the person's own risks and COVID-19 deaths are believed to be undercounted," wrote PolitiFact.

Regardless of what "experts say," it is certainly the case that individual persons can estimate their likelihood of surviving COVD-19 based on national statistics. The disease's age discrimination is extreme: The overwhelming majority of young, healthy people are not at significant risk, especially when compared with elderly Americans. This was a curious fact-check, and it was hardly the first.

Science Feedback, another of Meta's fact-checking partners, wrongly labeled as false one of my own articles about the efficacy of mask mandates in schools. Not only was the fact-check incorrect, but it also introduced a new error: The fact-checker suggested that my article had erroneously claimed masks don't work to stop the spread of COVID-19 in schools. In actuality, my article had only asserted that there wasn't much compelling evidence that mask mandateshad made a difference. (A year later, this distinction is moot, since even COVID-cautious public health officials now admit the cloth masks required in most schools do practically nothing to thwart the variants.) After I pointed out the mistake to Facebook, Science Feedback removed the "false information" label.

These are concerning mistakes. Media organizations routinely get things wrong, but the premise of fact-checkers was supposed to be that they are somehow above the fray, only weighing in when something can be proven or disproven quite definitively. Instead, they are often making dubious judgment calls on issues where reasonable disagreements exist.

"The fact-checking industry has become a partisan arbiter of political disputes, using claims of expertise that its writers do not actually possess to censor and shut down challenges to the political left," says Magness.

See the original post here:
Facebook, Instagram Posts Flagged as False for Noting Biden's Recession Wordplay - Reason