Category Archives: Censorship

Twitter is implementing more warning labels and censorship, the company announced Thursday. The idea is to suppress content and apply red flags to various tweets in times of crisis.

Which content will Twitter target? According to the official company release, a group of outside experts will flag the posts that they deem, wait for it, dangerous misinformation.

During moments of crisis, establishing whether something is true or false can be exceptionally challenging, Yoel Roth, head of safety at Twitter and site integrity, explained in a blog post.

To reduce potential harm, as soon as we have evidence that a claim may be misleading, we wont amplify or recommend content that is covered by this policy across Twitter including in the Home timeline, Search, and Explore. In addition, we will prioritize adding warning notices to highly visible Tweets and Tweets from high profile accounts, such as state-affiliated media accounts, verified, official government accounts.

Helpfully, Twitter provided the following examples of content that will receive warning labels, all of which are subjective:

In other words, current Twitter management will task someone to separate the truth from the lies.

While that sounds shady, and it is, Twitter has been doing this itself for years. We explained how, step-by-step, in a column today. So this news only means Twitter will be more transparent about its rig-job.

And though the experts are sure to be sheep, they cant be worse than the employees who have been enforcing these rules recently. Can they?

Anyway, this new ruling will prove meaningless if Elon Musk ultimately takes full ownership of the platform.

View original post here:
Twitter To Flag and Censor More Content in Times of Crisis, Company Says - OutKick

From her bed in Shanghai, Paloma joined an online protest against the strict Covid-19 lockdowns in her city by sharing a video on the dominant messaging app WeChat. The video, with millions of views already, documented heartbroken voices from a city of 25 million confined for weeks in near-total lockdown: pleas from a son seeking treatment for his critically ill father, shouts from residents demanding food, and cries from babies separated from their parents.

As Chinas frenzied censors worked to delete the six-minute video, titled The Voice of April, people created new variations to keep it circulating on WeChat Channels, a TikTok-like short video service. In one, the clip was embedded onto a picture of Chinas Civil Code. Another combined it with a song by pop megastar Jay Chou. The more it was deleted, the more angry and determined Paloma became.

After sharing a dozen different versions of the video in a frantic hours-long, cat-and-mouse fight with the censors, Paloma who asked Rest of World to refer to her by a pseudonym in fear of government retaliation was too tired to continue. When she woke up the next morning, every single version of the video had been banned and Shanghais harsh lockdown persisted. What had been excitement the night before morphed into despair. Our anger rose like a massive wave, the 29-year-old told Rest of World. But then it just disappeared into the ocean.

In China, offline protests are rare, with gatherings discouraged by the police and closely monitored by the government. As an alternative, citizens join virtual protests, speaking in innuendo and making up codes and dates to keep their dissent alive. Recently, users have flooded seemingly pro-government hashtags with veiled criticisms and even resorted to inventing new languages. But at the same time, the government has grown adept at online censorship and propaganda, limiting the impact of cyber protests to brief outbursts of anger that are erased before they can coalesce into a movement. Researchers and cyber protesters speaking to Rest of World said these already fleeting actions have less impact than ever against the tightening grip of the state.

Its better than nothing, but do not expect a lot of significant political impact, said Fengshi Wu, political science professor at the University of New South Wales and co-author of a recent study of online criticism in China. All this impact is fragmented, localized, short-lived. Its not challenging any institutions or any political legitimacy.

During this Shanghai lockdown, digital protests have focused on individual suffering, food shortages, and censorship, but few voices have explicitly challenged the controversial zero-Covid policy, which President Xi has pledged to stand by. Though millions viewed and shared The Voice of April, reflecting broad discontent with the lockdown, its unclear what participants in this cyber protest were specifically demanding.

Cyber protests still erupt: thousands share the same critical post on Weibo; activists create artwork and memes. But the influence of these actions is dwindling. Resentment on the Chinese internet has become more subtle, and increasingly contained inside small enclaves of like-minded people, according to the study co-authored by Wu. As self-censorship has become a survival instinct, online criticism has become more commonly directed at local problems instead of broader government policies people who dare to question the regime are often attacked as anti-China.

One of the most galvanizing moments of digital defiance happened in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. In February 2020, the death of whistleblowing doctor Li Wenliang, who was punished for warning others about the coronavirus, triggered a torrent of mourning and demands for free speech. A phrase from an interview Li gave before his death started trending on the microblogging site Weibo: A healthy society should not only have one kind of voice. After the testimony of another Wuhan doctor, Ai Fen, was censored, internet users posted translations in foreign languages, emojis, and even Morse code. International observers called the outpouring of anguish by its citizens Chinas Chernobyl moment.

The grief, however, faded from the public arena in a few months. Chinas success in containing Covid-19 before wealthy Western countries also fueled a rise in nationalism. On the internet, where President Xi Jinpings government has spent years solidifying control, the propaganda apparatus stoked anti-Western sentiment and encouraged young nationalists to snitch on critics of the regime. Influencers like pop stars and entrepreneurs are careful to distance themselves from controversial issues.

A sense of hopelessness has silenced previously vocal digital activists. Lily, from mainland China and currently living in Hong Kong, made several posts on her WeChat timeline after Li Wenliangs death brought her to tears. Two years later, she no longer speaks up. Lily, who asked to be referred to by a pseudonym because of fears of political retaliation, said she worried that her WeChat contacts, including family members, might report her defiant stance to the police. In Hong Kong, Lily joined street demonstrations with tens of thousands of others, where she could chant slogans out loud and see just how many strangers were physically standing by her side. But online, she found her voice trapped in an echo chamber. Those posts disappear so quickly, she told Rest of World. Even if they dont get censored, they only appear on the screen for a few seconds before people scroll past.

Users could have social media accounts suspended for weeks or months for sharing whats deemed subversive content known as being put in cyber jail. Im out of cyber jail, a Weibo user posted on April 30. I couldnt say anything during the suspension, and now I dont have much desire to speak.

Though online outrage tests Chinas censorship machinery, the costs are mostly covered by social media companies, forced to hire armies of censors to comply with the tightening rules. The Chinese government still slaps platforms such as Weibo and Douban with millions of dollars in fines for letting posts slip by the censors. Sudden outbursts of online anger are extremely costly for the platforms, according to former Weibo censor Eric Liu. The pressure is enormous, said Liu, who is currently a researcher with China Digital Times. If you dont have enough people to scrub them off, the companies would look really bad to the regulators.

If you dont have enough people to scrub them off, the companies would look really bad to the regulators.

As platforms also expand their features and, as a result, attract more users, the political risk increases. When Tencent launched WeChat Channels to compete with short video platform Douyin, the Chinese equivalent of TikTok, the company made opening a Channels account even simpler than a WeChat account. That made it easier for users to quickly make new accounts to keep sharing The Voice of April. The business of social media is all about traffic. In the case of Chinese social media platforms, the trick is about how to incentivize users to speak up without incurring political or business risks to the platforms, said Guobin Yang, director of the Center on Digital Culture and Society at the University of Pennsylvania. Its a balancing act requiring high skills, because the stakes are high.

Rose Luqiu, a communications professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, said the power of digital activism in China is constrained by censorship, fear of retaliation, and the countrys lack of independent media and nongovernmental organizations. While social media is a decentralized platform and hub of information flows, it lacks authority and leverage with the state, she said.

Although criticism of national policies is scant, its possible for cyber protesters to push for changes locally. At Tongji University in Shanghai, a student protested bad lockdown food by sharing swearing words on the screen during an online meeting with the school management, and others expressed solidarity by creating similar blue-and-red artwork (some were uploaded to NFT marketplace OpenSea.) The protest subsided after the university promised to provide better food.

For others, creating even a fragile, temporary memory is in itself meaningful. The outpouring of online grief in the wake of Li and other whistleblowers testimony allowed people to express their anger, even if it was eventually erased, said Fang Kecheng, a communications professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Changing other peoples minds is very difficult, Fang told Rest of World. Yes, many people were doing it for themselves, but when they did it together, it was a collective action, expressing shared emotions.

More than two years later, doctor Li Wenliangs Weibo page remains active, and people regularly leave comments. There are still many people who remember you, wrote one in early May.

In an authoritarian country like China, said Fang, simply expressing frustration and anger can have the impact of bringing people together. When we talk about impact, we should include more subtle things other than changing policy or regime, said Fang. If some can remember then it already has huge impact, because it clearly shows an alternative narrative to the official propaganda.

Whats left from these ephemeral protests are memories that could, to some extent, challenge the official narrative that leaves out how agonizing many have found these moments. In the weeks following the Voice of April protest, the lockdown in Shanghai only intensified, with online videos showing officers in hazmat suits spraying disinfectant inside peoples apartments and forcing residents to go to quarantine facilities.

In May, Paloma managed to travel to another Chinese city, where she was free after two more weeks of isolation. On her social media feeds, she still shares disturbing news from Shanghai: Residents were seen dragged away from their homes by officers in hazmat suits. Travelers unable to find transportation walked for hours to the airport. Senior and disabled patients were denied proper care in makeshift quarantine camps. I believe most people will remember, but staying angry is hard, she said. If everyone could stay angry, we wouldnt see the same mistake being made over and over again.

Read more from the original source:
Cyber protests swelled around the Shanghai lockdown, then vanished thanks to China's state censorship - Rest of World

Military analyst and retired colonel Mikhail Khodarionok, 68, stole the show this week when Circumvention of Russian state TV censorship and criticism of the invasion of Ukraine live.

The situation, frankly, is going to get worse for us, the former soldier said in an interview on the 60 Minutes talk show hosted by Olga Scapieva, one of the countrys most pro-government journalists.

The reserve colonel also said that Russia needs to see reality and that the countrys main drawback is its complete geopolitical isolation.

Practically the whole world is against us and we need to get out of this situation, Khodarionok said.

The comments come amid a wave of arrests of critics of the conflict. About 32 people have been tried or arrested for demonstrating against the war, according to a Radio Free Europe survey by the Russian group Agora, which provides legal aid to victims of human rights abuses.

OVD-Info, a group that monitors repression in the country, mentions more than forty prisoners.

Born in Tallinn, the then capital of Soviet Estonia, and graduated from the Higher School of Military Engineering in Minsk, currently the capital of Belarus, Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarionok started in the Soviet Air Defense Forces in 1971.

Between 1977 and 1980, he commanded the Combat Control Department of the Wireless Technical Forces. Then he became the commander of the anti-aircraft missile division and then a senior officer in the Soviet Air Defense Forces.

Since 1992, he was the chief operational director of the Russian Armed Forces until his retirement in the 2000s with the post of colonel.

He is a military man full of honours. He was awarded the Order of Distinguished Service of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades, the Order for Merit for the Fatherland, presented to him by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2020.

The justification for awarding the award was advantages in the development of the national press, high professionalism, and many years of fruitful work.

This is because after going to the reserve, Khodarionok began working as a military journalist writing for Russian publications such as Military Industrial Mail and Aerospace Defense magazine.

He currently works as a military observer for the Gazeta.Ru publication and the radio station Vesti FM. She has a painting called A Hora do Militarista on the show Das Trs aos Cinco.

This is not the first time that Khodaryonok has criticized the Putin governments role in the Ukraine war.

Three weeks before the conflict began, the colonel published an article explaining that the countrys armed forces would not be able to defeat the Ukrainians in a few hours contrary to what many Russian politicians had said.

He further indicated that the Russian army would not be able to handle the supplies and weapons of Ukraines Western allies, as well as carry out high-precision strikes to overthrow the government of the neighboring country.

He concluded by saying that Russian experts should forget their hateful illusions.

Link:
The colonel who circumvented censorship in Russia and criticized the war - The Catholic Transcript

Russias invasion of Ukraine has resulted in even stricter censorship and control of Russian religious communities, other public organizations, media outlets, and individuals whether by means of prosecution for the newly created offenses of discrediting the Armed Forces or disseminating false information about them, or pressure from state authorities and religious hierarchies not to condemn or discuss the war.

Lutheran Archbishop Dietrich Brauer, who has left Russia for Germany, said that, at the start of the war, President Vladimir Putins administration made a clear demand of religious leaders to speak out in favor of the invasion.

A pastor in a different Protestant church described to Forum 18 how FSB security service officers visited clergy to warn them not to say anything critical in sermons or on social media.

Several religious organizations have apparently voluntarily endorsed the invasion, particularly the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Its leader Patriarch Kirill has long advocated the concept of Russky Mir (the Russian World), which holds that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus all constitute a single spiritual and cultural space in opposition to the liberal and secular West.

In his Sunday sermon on March 6, Patriarch Kirill claimed that Russia was protecting the Donbas from outside pressure to abide by liberal values, especially as expressed in gay pride parades, arguing that this indicates that we have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance. Pope Francis stated on May 3 that the Patriarch had spent much of a video call on March 16 reading out all the reasons that justify the Russian invasion.

Despite this official support for the war, several Moscow Patriarchate priests have resigned from their jobs and in some cases, left the country after their opposition to the war brought them into conflict with their dioceses.

Father Nikolay Platonov, for example, posted a YouTube video criticizing Patriarch Kirill for having justified in fact, blessed military action in Ukraine, and dismissing the Patriarchs argument about gay parades in the Donbas as ridiculous. He also notes the pressure his diocese has put on parishes to collect donations for the Russian army in Ukraine: No one asked the priests opinion. All those who disagree are being identified they will smear everyone. Nobody will be left out. Referring to President Putin, Father Nikolay concludes: I say this to those who can still see and hear, who still have a conscience. Run, run. A crazy subhuman is in power, who will retain power at any cost. On the altar of his vanity, he will lay thousands and hundreds of thousands of people your children, the children of a neighboring state.

People protesting against the war on the basis of their faith continue to be detained and prosecuted. On May 8, police in St. Petersburg detained Nikita Rezyukov outside Kazan Cathedral and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) for a placard with a quote from the Psalms: Turn from evil and do good. Seek peace and pursue it. Police did not respond to Forum 18s questions as to why they detained him for holding a placard with a Biblical quotation.

Russias media watchdog, Roskomnadzor, also regularly blocks websites with information about the war. Blocked material includes a Belarusian news report on the destruction of Ukrainian religious buildings, and a Ukrainian Protestant pastors appeal to fellow clergy in Russia speak out against the invasion. Roskomnadzor did not respond to Forum 18s inquiry as to why it blocks such material.

Small numbers of clergy and laypeople continue to protest against the war in Ukraine from an explicitly religious standpoint. Those who protest against the war are often punished under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation).

Courts have fined two Russian Orthodox priests and a Baptist preacher for discrediting the armed forces online or in sermons or conversations. Several people have been detained and some charged for using Biblical quotations or religious imagery in individual public protests.

Such public protests continued over the Victory Day May holiday weekend:

May 7, Khabarovsk: police detained local activist Nikolay Zodchy and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 for a placard reading Russian! Conquer the vatnik in yourself! (Vatnik is slang for an unquestioning, jingoistic nationalist; Zodchys placard used a Latin letter V in reference to the pro-war V and Z symbols which have become popular signs of support for Russias war in Ukraine.)

Zodchy also gave a speech to onlookers, footage of which was posted on the Sotavision YouTube channel:

Those who ask, where have you been for the last eight years, I want to ask, where are you now? Why are you crying for the children of the Donbas and not for the children of Ukraine? .. [To] many of you who are Orthodox and observe Christian holidays, why do you put above all else the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, although Jesus Christ taught that it is necessary to love your neighbor and love your enemy? After all, Ukrainians are not our enemies. This enmity exists only in the heads of Russians it was sown there by Putin. Ukrainians are our brothers in both the ethnic and the Christian sense therefore, to those who write that I should go to the Donbas, you should go to Mariupol, Kharkiv, Bucha, and other towns and see for yourself what the so-called Russian World has done there.

May 8, St Petersburg: police detained Nikita Rezyukov outside Kazan Cathedral and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 for a placard reading Turn from evil and do good. Seek peace and pursue it, The Bible, Psalm 33:15 [as numbered in the Russian Synodal Translation] #NoToWar.

Forum 18 wrote to the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Interior Ministry and the St Petersburg City Prosecutors Office on May 12, asking why Rezyukov had been detained for quoting the Bible and why this was considered grounds for prosecution under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

According to human rights news agency OVD-Info, as of May 13 more than 15,000 people have been detained (usually for a few hours or overnight) for participating in anti-war protests. These have included both large-scale demonstrations and individual actions such as wearing Ukrainian colors or displaying anti-war posters and placards (including those which have directly quoted from the Russian constitution or even President Putins own speeches).

As of May 5, also according to OVD-Info, from Feb. 24 police had initiated at least 1,731 cases across Russia and in illegally Russian-occupied Crimea under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) for making anti-war statements either in public spaces or online.

By April 28, 39 people had been charged or placed under investigation under various parts of Criminal Code Article 207.3 (Public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation), according to OVD-Info.

So far, Criminal Code Article 207.3 is known to have been used against only one person for explicitly religious opposition to the war Nina Belyayeva, a Protestant and Communist municipal deputy in Voronezh Region. During a meeting of Semiluk District Council, she called Russias invasion a war crime. She later wrote: I realized that if I kept silent, I would not be able to respect myself. I wouldnt be a true Christian and human being. She fled Russia in early April.

Father Nikolay Platonov, a parish priest from Chelyabinsk Metropolitanate (Moscow Patriarchate), requested in early April to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat, meaning that he remains a priest but is not formally employed in a parish, cathedral, or other institution) because, as he said in a video explaining his decision, I cant be silent any longer, and because After [this video], our church hierarchy will inevitably want to get rid of me with some shameful [legal] article. When a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church starts to speak the truth, he immediately automatically becomes a pedophile, or a thief, or a drug addict.

Metropolitan Aleksey of Chelyabinsk and Miass granted his request on April 8, according to a letter Father Nikolay holds up to the camera.

In the video, posted on his YouTube channel on April 16, he criticizes Patriarch Kirill for having justified in fact, blessed military action in Ukraine, and dismisses the Patriarchs argument about gay parades in the Donbas as ridiculous. He also notes the pressure his diocese has put on parishes to collect donations for the Russian army in Ukraine: No one asked the priests opinion. All those who disagree are being identified they will smear everyone. Nobody will be left out.

Referring to President Putin, Father Nikolay concludes: I say this to those who can still see and hear, who still have a conscience. Run, run. A crazy subhuman is in power, who will retain power at any cost. On the altar of his vanity, he will lay thousands and hundreds of thousands of people your children, the children of a neighboring state.

Father Nikolay was among nearly 300 Russian Orthodox priests to sign an open letter calling for reconciliation and an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine. The letter criticized the suppression of protests against the war, and stated that we believe that the people of Ukraine should make their choice on their own, not at gunpoint, without pressure from West or East.

Another priest who signed the open letter, Father Sergey Titkov, also requested to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat) on March 30 for health reasons, according to his letter to Ryazan Diocese, which he posted on his Facebook and VKontakte pages.

A letter from Metropolitan Mark of Ryazan and Mikhailov, dated March 29 and also posted on Father Sergeys social media, stated that people who had attended the Church of the Intercession in the village of Turlatovo had informed diocesan authorities that Father Sergey was not reading the Prayer for the Restoration of Peace during services, a fact confirmed by the priest himself at a meeting with the diocesan secretary. The Metropolitan demanded that Father Sergey provide a written explanation by April 4 of his non-fulfilment of the blessing of the Holy Patriarch, who calls on faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church to offer this prayer at every service.

(Patriarch Kirill issued the Prayer for the Restoration of Peace on March 3 to be read in all churches during the Divine Liturgy, including in Moscow Patriarchate churches in Ukraine. The prayer in Church Slavonic refers to the peoples of Holy Russia, who come from a single font of baptism under Holy Prince Vladimir [of Kyiv, who brought Christianity to Rus] and asks that God establish in their hearts the spirit of brotherly love and peace and thwart the intentions of foreigners who want to take up arms against Holy Russia.)

In another letter of March 30, Metropolitan Mark also demands a written explanation within ten days of Father Sergeys posts on his VKontakte page. Such posts included reposts of articles condemning the war in Ukraine from ahilla.ru a website critical of the Moscow Patriarchate and reposts of a political character (particularly one allegedly comparing President Putin to Hitler and another containing swear words).

At present, the Metropolitan remarked, it seems appropriate not to confuse the minds of people who are already in a state of depression, strong feelings, [and] mental pain, but on the contrary, as far as possible, share with them spiritual warmth, [and] console and support [them]. It is impossible now to make assessments of what is happening, because they will not be correct.

Whether there was pressure on the bishop from the authorities, I dont know, Father Sergey told Forum 18 on May 7. Had he not stepped down as he did, he believes the diocese would have transferred him to another church where the senior priest would report to the bishop on his conduct, that I didnt read the new Prayer for Peace, and so on, or to live in some monastery as a reader, which I would have refused. That is, they would have rattled my nerves, and other peoples, and it would all have ended the same way. I wanted it over as soon as possible, and not to have it turn into a circus.

In 2019, Father Sergey was also among Russian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) priests who signed an open letter in defence of people arrested during protests in Moscow against the authorities refusal to register opposition candidates for local elections.

Deacon Dmitry Bayev wrote to the Vyatka Diocese on Feb. 25, asking to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat) until the situation is settled, since as a Christian holding the rank of deacon, he could not participate in services at which prayers were offered for the government and armed forces. He posted the letter to social media on the same day.

On March 11, the Diocese banned him from serving on the grounds of three Apostolic Canons, including Canon No. 25, which refers to being found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft despite the fact that Bayev had not yet been charged with any offence under secular law. The Diocese announced an ecclesiastical tribunal.

Forum 18 wrote to the Vyatka Diocese press office on May `1, asking what the outcome of the church tribunal was, and why diocesan authorities had banned Bayev from serving in church under Apostolic Canon No. 25 when he had not committed any of the named offences and before any criminal case had been opened. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

The Investigative Committee opened a case against Bayev on March 23 under Criminal Code Article 207. 3, Part 2, Paragraph d (Public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or based on hatred or enmity against any social group).

It does not appear that this was because of any protests made on religious grounds, but as Current Time noted on April 1, because of his vociferous general condemnation of Russias actions in Ukraine, including comments that Ukrainian troops had sent 17,500 orcs [a derogatory word for Russian soldiers] to the next world and that Russian troops were occupiers.

Bayev has also posted about the Genocide of the population of Ukraine by Russian orcs (with a series of pictures of destruction in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol), has called the FSB security service a terrorist grouping, and is highly condemnatory of the Russian government and army and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Bayev is now outside Russia, he told Idel Realii on April 12, and does not intend to return, because I was given to understand that as soon as I cross the border in the opposite direction, they will immediately take me in.

The degree to which state authorities are putting pressure on religious leaders and organizations at different levels is unclear. Asked whether Russian Orthodox diocesan authorities were acting autonomously in disciplining clergy over their views on the war, a priest told Forum 18 that Russia has not been just taken over by enemies or extraterrestrials. Becoming a bishop can only be done by being willing to play by certain rules.. No special pressure [from the authorities] is needed here.

According to Archbishop Dietrich Brauer, head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Russia, the Presidential Administration issued a clear demand to all religious leaders to speak out in support of Russias invasion of Ukraine. Brauer gave a sermon in Moscows Cathedral of St Peter and St Paul on Feb. 27, which consisted of thinly veiled criticism of the war. He left Russia for Germany shortly afterwards and sees no possibility of return in the near future.

I believe that under no circumstances is it appropriate to put pressure on religious leaders, Archbishop Brauer commented to independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta on March 22. On the contrary, it is they who can become intermediaries in achieving sustainable peace.

In an interview with Die Kirche (a weekly church newspaper in Berlin and Brandenburg) on April 14, Brauer said: We are witnessing the blackmail of religion. But we shouldnt abandon the truth of the gospel, because then we have no future. He also noted that prayers in Russian churches cannot specify that we have in mind the people in Ukraine, the images and horrors of the war.

Brauer described the invasion as unimaginable in an interview on March 17 with Magdalena Smetana, press officer of Wrttemberg Diocese. We were not allowed to talk about the war, pray for peace, or contact our Ukrainian brothers and sisters, he said.

The Presidential Administration made a clear demand of all religious leaders to speak out and support the war. Most did. [My] Catholic colleague refers to the Vatican and is silent, the Jewish chief rabbi, who also has American citizenship, found clever words. He called on everyone to work for peace. We could have joined that. I wanted to write a joint statement with all religious communities, but the others didnt agree. Together we could have made a difference.

I clearly and publicly distance myself from this war, which is not just a war against Ukraine, but a war against humanity. It is not carried out in our name.

The website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Russia still lists Brauer as Archbishop, but notes that due to his absence, his duties are being carried out by Deputy Archbishop, Provost Vladimir Provorov.

An official statement issued by the Church in March (signed by Provorov) noted that we feel united with our country and we pray for our people, for the well-being, freedom, wisdom and strength of our state. It goes on to acknowledge that parishioners may have different beliefs and views. The doors of our churches remain open to all. We regard all believers as brothers and sisters. At the same time, we avoid political discussions and splits in the communities.

We deeply regret that people are now suffering and dying in Ukraine, the Lutheran statement continued, and we call on politicians to reach a peaceful resolution to the conflict as soon as possible.. Despite all the political divisions in our societies, we feel our spiritual connection with our Ukrainian co-religionists and pray for the speedy onset of peace and that there will be no hatred, bitterness and confrontation between our peoples.

A Protestant pastor from a non-Lutheran denomination, who asked not to be identified, told Forum 18 that the security services are exerting pressure on religious communities at a local level. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, FSB officers in one city have visited at least two Protestant pastors for prophylactic conversations, warning them not to post material criticizing the war on social media, or to speak out against it in church. The officers warned them that they could face prosecution if they did so and it would be better not to write or say anything about the war.

According to the pastor who spoke to Forum 18, the FSB security service has long shown interest in any Ukrainian connections churches may have, such as when the church received visitors from there.

After undercover officers went to one Protestant church in the Mari-El Republic in 2019, prosecutors charged both the church and a visiting Ukrainian musician with unlawful missionary activity under Administrative Code Article 5.26, Parts 4 and 5.

Since the Russian invasion, the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) has blocked dozens of webpages, both Russian and foreign, which describe events in Ukraine as a war, discuss Russian losses or alleged atrocities, or criticize the Russian government.

On April 20, at the request of Russias General Prosecutors Office, Roskomnadzor blocked access to an article entitled Russian troops purposefully destroy churches and places of worship in Ukraine, published by Belarusian news outlet Brestskaya Gazeta on April 11. The article outlined the destruction of at least 59 places of worship as of March 25, Christian (including those of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate), Jewish, and Muslim. It also noted the deaths of priests in Russian bombardments of Ukrainian towns and villages.

(As of May 8, 116 places of worship and other religious buildings had been destroyed or damaged in Russian attacks, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and Information Policy.)

A few days later, the article disappeared entirely from the Brestskaya Gazeta website. Roskomnadzor demanded [that we] delete this article, staff at the newspaper told Forum 18 on April 26. Since the site is hosted in Belarus, we had to delete it. They did not explain why they had to abide by Roskomnadzors demand, as the newspaper is registered and its website hosted outside Russia.

Roskomnadzor blocked another Brestskaya Gazeta article (about how to talk to relatives who do not believe in Russian atrocities in Ukraine) on April 13, which has also been removed. According to GlobalCheck, which monitors internet censorship in Russia, Brestkaya Gazetas entire site is inaccessible in Russia, despite not appearing to be blocked as a whole by Roskomnadzor.

On April 1, also at the request of Russias General Prosecutors Office, Roskomnadzor blocked a Russian-language appeal on the foreign Protestant website invictory.org by Valery Antonyuk, head of the All-Ukrainian Union of Churches of Evangelical Christian Baptists, to Protestant pastors in Russia, Belarus, and elsewhere.

Antonyuk talks about how Russian soldiers destroy cities, wipe out villages, rob and rape in Ukraine, condemns the silence of Evangelical leaders, and calls on them to speak out against the war: Where are todays Niemllers and Bonhoeffers in your churches? he asks, in a reference to German pastors who opposed the Nazis. Where are Gods pastors who clearly call aggression aggression, annexation theft, and presidents who unleash bloody wars criminals? Many Christians and their pastors, unfortunately, today believe more in the new bible, Russian TV, than in the testimonies of brothers and sisters in faith.

Roskomnadzors demand to invictory.org dated March 26 and seen by Forum 18 describes Antonyuks appeal as containing untrustworthy information which may contribute to the destabilization of the situation, as well as the creation of conditions for mass violations of public order and public security on the territory of the Russian Federation. Roskomnadzor demanded that the website take down the page within 24 hours and inform it when it had done so. Roskomnadzor warned that if the website failed to take down the material, it would be entirely blocked in Russia.

According to GlobalCheck, invictory.org is inaccessible in Russia, despite not appearing to be blocked as a whole by Roskomnadzor.

Forum 18 wrote to Roskomnadzor in the afternoon of the working day of May 10, asking why it had blocked these webpages and on what grounds it could demand the removal of material from a site hosted abroad. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

This story is republished from Forum 18.

See the original post here:
Russian Religious Communities Opposed to Ukraine War Face Pressure And Censorship - Religion Unplugged

How people feel about Big Tech has changed since last year.

A new study from the Pew Research Center found that fewer people in the US want more regulations for Big Tech companies. This decline, which spans across the political spectrum, showed that 44 percent of Americans are in favor of more government regulation compared to 56 percent of those surveyed last year.

That doesnt necessarily mean theyre all in favor of less regulation; for example, 32 percent of liberal Democrats surveyed say that the current amount of regulation is just right compared to the 23 percent who thought so in 2021. However, 27 percent of moderate or liberal Republicans do support less regulation, up from 13 percent, and 36 percent of conservative Republicans do, too, up from 11 percent. Only 35 percent of those conservative Republicans surveyed desire more regulation now, a drop from the 59 percent recorded in 2021.

In 2018, following Facebooks Cambridge Analytica scandal that found that the company harvested data from at least 50 million users without their permission, many people called for more regulations from the US government, and Congress went on to question Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other tech leaders. Globally, this sparked a backlash against Big Tech companies and lots of ideas about how to regulate them. The EU in particular has been pushing hard with a huge new antitrust law called the Digital Markets Act, though its implementation has been postponed until next year. Its also enforcing older laws like the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, to hold tech companies more accountable for their business practices.

The Pew study also addresses one possible reason why Americans might be softening on additional regulation: the popular idea that social networks are censoring speech. Now, 77 percent of Americans surveyed say that its likely that social media platforms intentionally censor opposing political viewpoints, up from 73 percent in 2020, and 44 percent say these platforms favor liberal views over conservative ones, according to the survey.

Twitter, Facebook, and others have been criticized by users for censorship, but prospective new Twitter owner Elon Musk has declared he would take a more relaxed approach to how Twitter handles its content moderation. As Verge contributing editor Casey Newton points out in his latest Platformer newsletter, Musk might want to look at these companies transparency reports; he explains that many of these removals referenced in complaints about censorship are rooted in mistakes and that social networks remove others because its good for business. Over and over again, social products find that their usage shrinks when even a small percentage of the material they host includes spam, nudity, gore, or people harassing each other, Newton writes.

Understanding that can help people have better conversations surrounding online content.

See original here:
Fewer Americans think Big Tech should have more regulations - The Verge

In the wake of the death of the Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and the images of Israeli police officers beating pallbearers at her funeral, the discussion over the past week has focused primarily on the question of the damage to Israels international reputation and not the fear that a life was taken due to an error the responsibility for which has not yet been determined, whether that of an Israel Defense Forces soldier or a Palestinian gunman. The violence of the police officers during the funeral procession also drew little attention from most Israelis and Israeli media outlets. To many people, appearances are everything.

Against the backdrop of this public atmosphere, it is easy to understand how it is that the IDF Military Censor which operates by dint of emergency regulations that have been in effect since the country's establishment, in the name of national security got up on its hind legs in order to prevent a different publication with the potential to affect Israels image: the purpose for which, according to defense sources, then-Mossad chief Yossi Cohen traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2019 (see story, page 1).

Cohen visited Congo three times during that year with the Israeli billionaire businessman Dan Gertler, without coordinating with the authorities and while concealing his identity. During at least two of these trips he met with Congos former president, Joseph Kabila, a matter that aroused the suspicion of President Felix Tshisekedi. Cohens relationship with Kabila and his uncoordinated visits triggered apprehension in people close to Tshisekedi, and in a rare move he expelled the Mossad director from the country at the end of the third visit. Cohens odd conduct, which led to his expulsion and the exposure of his activity in Congo, is the part of the story that was not censored.

The purpose of these visits is in itself a Pandoras box, but the censor is not permitting publication of those details. It appears that Cohens mission in Congo had only a tangential connection to Israels national security, and his employment of the Mossad in dealing with it raises difficult questions regarding the judgment of Cohen and of the state.

It can be said with a great degree of certainty that the Military Censor is preventing publication for considerations having to do with the image of the state that do not necessarily have direct bearing on its security. Although publication of the details of the affair has the potential to generate an international storm, it is difficult to imagine that their disclosure could do concrete damage to national security.

Just as the Military Censor does not have a mandate to prevent publication of the images from Abu Aklehs funeral even though they are harmful to Israels image it is similarly exceeding its mandate when it prevents publication of Cohens reasons for traveling to Congo. The censor must immediately lift the blackout on details of the affair. A state whose military censor operates out of considerations of the optics does not deserve to be called a democracy.

The above article is Haaretz's lead editorial, as published in the Hebrew and English newspapers in Israel.

See more here:
Who is the Israeli army censor protecting? - Haaretz

A press freedom report criticising Greece for suppressing coverage of migrant pushbacks was censored by the European Parliament, it has been revealed.

Reporters Without Borders issued a report saying Greek police regularly resort to violence to stop journalists covering the refugee crisis, as well as demonstrations against Covid measures.

Greece tumbled from 70th place to 108th in its latest press freedom league table as a result, lower than any other EU country and lower even than Albania.

But despite regularly voicing support for both media freedom and Reporters Without Borders, the European Parliament deleted the report from its website on the grounds that it was "not in line with the editorial guidelines".

Jaume Duch Guillot, a spokesman for the European Parliament, said it was because the report made no mention of "the parliaments activities and agenda".

But the deletion of the report followed a virulent reaction from the Greek governments supporters. A lawmaker from the ruling New Democracy party labelled Reporters Without Border a leftist NGO and losers from abroad.

There has been some suggestion that the decision to delete the report was made by Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament.

Both Ms Metsola and New Democracy belong to the centre-right European Peoples Party (EPP), the parliaments largest political group.

Metsolas effort to protect the last strong EPP government in Europe can be partly understood, said Sarantis Michalopouloss, a columnist with Brussels-based website Euractiv. What cannot be understood and tolerated is the lies of an EU institution which gets paid by EU taxpayers money, who are suffering from soaring prices across the bloc.

Ms Metsola's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Amendments to Greeces criminal code "passed under the pretext of fighting the Covid-19 pandemic" have harmed press freedom, the report stated.

The spreading of false information is now punishable by five years imprisonment, which Reporters Without Borders said represents a serious threat to journalists right to publish information in the public interest, and increases the risk of self-censorship.

The police regularly resort to violence and arbitrary bans to hamper journalistic coverage of demonstrations and the refugee crisis on the islands, the report reads.

One Dutch journalist had to leave the country for her own security after she was attacked in the street following a smear campaign by the pro-government media over her heated exchange with the prime minister about migrant pushbacks.

The Greek government was also criticised for dragging its feet after promising a probe into the murder of Giorgos Karaivaz, a veteran crime reporter who was gunned down outside his Athens home in broad daylight.

The UK rose nine places in the reports ranking, to 24, although media freedoms were said to be "worrisome".

Report authors pointed to an alarming proposal for reforms to official secrets laws that could see journalists jailed for espionage.

Journalists in the UK faced extensive freedom of information restrictions, with reports surfacing of a secretive government clearing house for freedom of information requests.

The report also mentioned alleged governmental interference surrounding the failed appointment of Paul Dacre as chair of Ofcom, the UKs communications regulator.

Link:
European Parliament accused of censoring press freedom report that criticised Greek suppression - The Telegraph

My first personal recollection of feeling censored was when a valued but left-leaning client corrected me in mid sentence. I had used the word Democrat instead of Democratic. After a few of these encounters I noticed myself, slowly falling in line, guarding my speech, in an attempt not to offend in my work place.

Fast forwarding a few years, Ive watched the divide between the news organizations grow. The information they choose to present reveals their bias as they echo the same talking points in unison. No matter if their information is true or not, they forge on, never apologizing for misinformation or actual lies.

The 2016 and 2020 presidential elections confirmed the great political divide between Americans. It was during these years more informed and engaged citizens started self censoring. Too many people associated with only those they agreed with politically. Partisans watched the news outlets that bolstered their political agenda and were content repeating talking points without sufficient research to substantiate their accuracy.

Today we have media outlets and big tech telling us what we can say and what we can see. The fact checkers successfully covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 Presidential election. It is now being exposed by the New York Times as truth. Why now? Probably because it no longer stands in the way of their agenda or more likely, incriminating evidence is about to be revealed. The fact checkers have proven themselves to be partisan hacks.

Now lets explore the high gas prices with these facts in mind. When President Trump left office we were energy independent. President Biden on his first day in office shut down the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. He also stopped the extraction of oil on federal lands. Did that cause the price of gas to go up? Yes, it did. Biden was sending a message to the fossil fuel industry that he was starting the great shut down of Americas most valuable asset, fossil fuel. Does Ukraines war have a part in high gas prices? Yes, but prices were already heading upward before the war.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Biden has imposed sanctions on Russian petroleum. Who will this impact more, the Russians or the US? I dont know. What I do know is I support exploration and development of all energy sources. Biden should abandon his quest to cripple the fossil fuel industry and get on the Drill Baby Drill bandwagon, ASAP.

Biden is begging Venezuela, Mexico and the Saudis to ramp up their drilling and send the US more oil. Begging other countries to potentially pollute their own environment so the US can claim the moral high ground of environmental purity, screams of hypocrisy.The green economy Biden envisions is being hoisted on the American people at a time when the technology is not sufficient to meet the demand. This is a suicidal act that will destroy our economy and crush the middle class in our country.

For years I have heard the drum beat of Russia, Russia, Russia. The media and the government have told us about all the misinformation Russia is spreading. My thoughts on this issue lead me to more questions than answers. Could Russia be feeding Europe and the US misinformation about climate change to curtail our production of fossil fuels? Could Russia be funding non-profits to produce bogus climate models to sway the public with fear? Is Putin using Europes dependency on Russian petroleum as leverage in his war in Ukraine? So many questions and so few answers.

In my childhood I remember how terrible I thought it was that Russia censored their newspapers. Back then it seemed unimaginable censorship would ever be used in the United States.

We are living in a time when Americans are accused daily, by fact checkers aka censors, of spreading misinformation. Whether its Hunter Bidens laptop, COVID, spying on a sitting president, etc., we are censored. When scoffed at stories are eventually proven to be factual, the media or the government never acknowledges it with an apology and seldom a correction. They just move on, not caring if you notice.

Though some of us do not recognize our own country these days, we are not living in a foreign land, we are simply living in foreign times. I conclude with a quote attributed to the 6th century Greek storyteller Aesop, United we stand, divided we fall.

Lorraine Christensen is a retired Oroville business owner.

Excerpt from:
Censorship and misinformation what are we to think? | Editor For A Day - Chico Enterprise-Record

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE TUSK, a censorship-free web browser for conservatives with an emphasis on free speech, launched on Tuesday, allowing users to "browse right" on the internet.

TUSK founder and Virtual World Computing CEO Jeff Bermant feels "most popular browsers and search engines are inherently left-leaning and biased" and he wanted to create a place where conservatives can see what like-minded people are saying.

"TUSK was developed with the idea of free speech, because if you go to other browsers and you go to their news feeds, you'll find that its center left or it's left and you weren't getting the full story," Bermant told Fox News Digital.

LEVIN: THE NEW YORK TIMES 'WORSE THAN FAKE NEWS'

Bermant, who was inspired by the work of high-profile conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, believes that right-leaning news organizations werent easy to find through popular search engines that millions of Americans rely on. TUSK is a private browser intended to bring free speech and provide conservative information that Bermant created after Levin called for conservatives to fight back against what he calls American Marxists.

"One of the things I have a talent of is knowing how to build browsers We built a news feed that is basically a conservative news feed and we built what you would call the links or the tiles. Instead of populating them with some brands you might want to buy, we populated them with conservative sites," Bermant said. "You know, tech, or the web, is basically controlled by liberals."

Because of liberals controlling tech, Bermant believes many conservative news organizations are buried and hard to find using traditional search engines such as Google. "There wasnt an easy place to go," he said.

NEW YORK TIMES SCOLDED FOR HANDLING OF HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY

Bermant feels TUSK can help change the web-browsing experience for conservatives.

"Its really needed because otherwise you dont really realize that youre being censored," he said. "Youre not seeing the news that you want."

Bermant said many conservative websites get placed on the third or fourth page of results when a user is searching for something on traditional search engines, even if the article is exactly what they were looking for.

"As the scientists know who built the web, you wont go to that page," he said.

Unlike other search engines, TUSK doesnt monitor users, collect data to sell for profit or create profiles.

"We want to respect your privacy," Bermant said, noting that a portion of proceeds from sponsored ads will go to veterans groups.

"Most popular browsers and search engines are inherently left-leaning and biased," according to TUSKs founder. (bernardbodo)

While TUSK targets conservatives and provides easy access to right-leaning information, users can also find liberal news organizations on the search engine if they want to simply by pushing a few buttons.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We're all about free speech," Bermant said. "We want you to see what the other side is saying we built this for free speech because we felt that basically Americans are being censored in their browsers, in their search engines."

TUSK is available for download for mobile and desktop devices by visiting the App store or tuskbrowser.com.

Fox News' Matthew Wall contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:
Censorship-free web browser launches for conservatives with an emphasis on free speech - Fox News

The Biden administrations formation of a disinformation board has sparked momentum for two states to sue the U.S. government, alleging pressure and collusion with Big Tech corporations to censor political content that challenges the government line.

If we wouldve tried to bring this lawsuit two or three months ago, I think they wouldve laughed us out of court, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry told The Daily Signal in a phone interview about the new Disinformation Governance Board inside the Department of Homeland Security.

People are really starting to raise their eyebrows and its mostly because of this disinformation branch, Landry said. In other words, the government and Big Tech have become basically brazen in the face of the American people, saying, We are going to give you the information that we deem you need.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt joined Louisianas Landry last week in filing a federal lawsuit that alleges top-ranking government officials worked with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to censor free speech and truthful information regarding COVID-19, election reforms, and other matters.

The two states lawsuit names President Joe Biden, White House medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Nina Jankowicz, director of the Disinformation Governance Board, among other administration officials.

When the government strong-arms, or basically forces, a company to do something that it would be unconstitutional for them to do, then basically what happens is that those companies then become an arm of the government, Landry told The Daily Signal.

Among the points in the 86-page complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, are:

Fauci is both the chief medical adviser to the president and the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The lawsuit by Louisiana and Missouri names as defendants Biden, Jankowicz, Psaki, Murthy, and Fauci as well as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas; Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra; and Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

As alleged further herein, Defendants have coerced, threatened, and pressured social-media platforms to censor disfavored speakers and viewpoints by using threats of adverse government action, the two states lawsuit says, adding:

As alleged further herein, as a result of such threats, defendants are now directly colluding with social-media platforms to censor disfavored speakers and viewpoints, including by pressuring them to censor certain content and speakers, and flagging disfavored content and speakers for censorship. These actions violate the First Amendment.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges action in excess of statutory authority and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act by both HHS and DHS officials.

Landry said the lawsuit would focus on both public information but also explore nonpublic information.

Whats amazing is theyve been pretty brazen. What Psaki has done, Jen has gone out there and said it, basically, that theyve worked with some of the Big Tech companies in order to censor the information, Landry said, adding:

Were going to use the public statements in order to go after the discovery of exactly what youre looking at. I cant wait. I cannot wait to lift the hood of that vehicle and see whats underneath it. I can tell you, itll be extremely interesting. And again, the interesting part is that all of the information and the communication between the government and Big Tech is certainly a matter of, it should be a matter of, public record.

Americans regularly use social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, now ubiquitous in society, to discuss topics such as public health, Missouris Schmitt said in a formal statement.

In direct contravention to the First Amendment and freedom of speech, Schmitt said, the Biden administration has been engaged in a pernicious campaign to both pressure social media giants to censor and suppress speech and work directly with those platforms to achieve that censorship in a misguided and Orwellian campaign against misinformation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.com, and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Go here to see the original:
Biden 'Disinformation' Panel Gives Ammo to Case on Big Tech Censorship - Daily Signal