Category Archives: Censorship

The Chinese government is scrubbing the countrys media of sympathetic or accurate coverage of Ukraine and systematically amplifying pro-Putin talking points about Russia's invasion of Ukraine..

Why it matters: Chinas wide use of its propaganda and censorship muscle helps insulate Beijing from a domestic backlash against its support for Putin and leaves its citizens with an airbrushed, false version of events, similar to whats seen in Putins state-controlled Russia.

What's happening: Chinese media outlets were told to avoid posting "anything unfavorable to Russia or pro-Western" on their social media accounts, and to only use hashtags started by Chinese state media outlets, according to a leaked censorship directive.

But the Chinese government made a miscalculation in the early days of Russia's invasion, according to a new analysis published by Doublethink Lab, a Taiwan-based organization that researches online disinformation suggesting that Beijing underestimated Europe's resolve.

"They tried to depict the U.S., the West and NATO as not trustworthy, and people in Taiwan as delusional to think the U.S. will protect Taiwan at all," Doublethink Lab CEO Min Hsuan Wu told Axios.

Yes, but: Censorship means that opposing viewpoints are muted, making it seem like anti-west, pro-Russia sentiment is more ubiquitous among Chinese people than may actually be the case.

Go deeper: Governments around the globe hold upper hand online

View original post here:
China is censoring the invasion of Ukraine - Axios

The West's effort to curb pro-Russian websites and media outlets in reaction to Russias invasion of Ukraine is driven by lopsided business interests that could eventually censor conservatives, critics say.

Major social media companies, including YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter, have moved to reduce Russian propaganda and disinformation on their platforms by aggressively banning or restricting content from Russian state media outlets such as RT, Sputnik, and others.

Conservatives say the social media giants' approach to censoring Russian content is hypocritical and could be aimed at Americans in the near future.

Were seeing Russia being globally deplatformed across the board, and so its impossible not to look at that and think it wont happen to others in America and elsewhere, said Dan Gainor, vice president at the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog that tracks censorship on Big Tech platforms.

A group of people, the global mob, have decided to target Russia, but theyre fine with genocides in China. How is that acceptable? There are no rules, and the few that exist keep changing, Gainor said.

Gainor added that there was no consistency or fairness to Russia being censored now when it has invaded other regions in the past without similar consequences. He noted that other countries have also taken violent actions without facing any clampdowns.

Russias attack on Ukraine is one of the first major full-scale military invasions of another country in the age of social media, where online platforms are used by billions and where a separate war is waged online by governments trying to shape alternative narratives.

For example, two anti-Ukrainian disinformation operations that were taken down by Facebook last week were tied to Ukraine Today, a Russian propaganda news outfit created to make Ukraine look like a failed state by using fake Facebook profiles. Russian state media last week also falsely reported a Ukrainian civilian genocide that officials believe was a way to justify the Russian invasion.

The social media giants are aligned in trying to curb Russian disinformation regarding what is happening in Ukraine due to pressure placed on them by users and government officials around the world.

Some of the platforms have even restricted access to Russian government accounts altogether.

INTERNET FRAGMENTS AS RUSSIAN INVASION PUSHES PLATFORMS TO CHOOSE SIDES

Republicans in Congress are wary of the Russian censorship effort by social media platforms because their decisions appear to be driven by government pressure.

In a very limited way, the tech companies should squash Russian disinformation, but theyre now public utilities that are essentially extended realms of the government, which gives me pause, said Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, one of the most conservative Republicans in Congress.

I have a dubious, skeptical eye on what the tech companies have chosen to do, which is part of why we need to revisit the laws around tech legal shields, said Biggs, who is also one of former President Donald Trumps top supporters.

Biggs added that he wished there would be a similar reaction and attention from tech companies regarding violent activities in China and Africa.

Libertarians say the targeted social media censorship of Russia versus other countries is driven by the fact that there is less money to be lost by cutting off Russians than those in other countries, namely China.

The censorship decisions are mostly a business decision. Theyre responding to what consumers want or not and trying to hit their bottom line, said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel at TechFreedom, a libertarian-leaning technology think tank.

Personally, I feel a certain level of discomfort that were all collectively saying we dont want certain content from one place, Cohn said.

Cohn added that the Russian censorship efforts by social media platforms are not indicative of significant changes with regard to online content moderation because the Ukraine invasion is a unique event.

Tech industry insiders say that if conservatives or others disagree with how major social media platforms are making content moderation decisions, they can jump to other platforms instead.

I can understand and relate to conservative frustrations with censorship, but we want private businesses to be their own arbiters of what content is appropriate or not, said Carl Szabo, vice president at NetChoice, a tech trade group that represents companies such as Facebook and Google.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The marketplace is providing the solutions we want in terms of alternative platforms like Truth Social and others," Szabo said. "If youre not getting a square deal with one platform, you can always go to another thanks to competition."

Read more:
Conservatives fear censorship of Russians could be turned against them - Washington Examiner

Ryan Grim, left, and Robby Soave, right, host The Hills morning politics show Rising, in a screenshot from a YouTube broadcast in March 2022.

Photo: The Hill

The politics morning show Rising, produced by The Hill and which I currently co-host, was suspended by YouTube on Thursday for allegedly violating the platforms rules around election misinformation. Two infractions were cited: First, the outlet posted the full video of former President Donald Trumps recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on its page. The speech, of course, was chock full of craziness. Second, Rising played a minutelong clip of Trumps commentary on Russias invasion of Ukraine, which included the claim that none of it would have happened if not for a rigged election.

As an American, Im angry about it and Im saddened by it, and it all happened because of a rigged election. This would have never happened, Trump says in the clip, which you can watch here.

The crime, we learned, that got the show suspended for seven days from its platform was that neither I nor my co-host, Robby Soave, paused to solemnly inform our viewers that Trumps phrase a rigged election referred to his ongoing claim that the election was stolen from him in 2020 and that this claim is false.

We did scrutinize Trumps claims. Along with a guest, The Federalists Emily Jashinsky, we discussed a theory floated by my Intercept colleague Murtaza Hussain that Trump is such a madman of such aggressive unpredictability that perhaps that instability did have some deterrent effect.

Later in the segment, we discussed the New York district attorneys apparent lack of enthusiasm for prosecuting Trump over bank fraud. I argued that whatever the outcome, If you ask the public, do you think Donald Trump would have inflated his property values when trying to get loans and deflated his property values when paying his taxes,youd probably get100 percent of people being like, yes, I suggested.

The notion that any viewer came away from watching that segment with the mistaken idea that Trump whom we described as a fraudster and an actual madman had indeed won the election and that ithad been stolen from him cant be taken seriously. Its absurd, and The Hill is appealing the decision, so far with no success. But YouTubes approach reflects a broad problem with Big Techs approach to censorship: It has nothing but contempt for the viewer. If we had paused to note that Trumps gripe about his election loss was unfounded, what voter who previously believed that claim would be convinced by my simple rejection of it? And who was the person to begin with who was not previously aware that Trump disputes the election outcome? It might possibly be the most known political fact in America.

De-platforming any mention of a rigged election hasnt done anything to slow the theory down. Since YouTube and other platforms cracked down on Trumps election fraud nonsense in late 2020, the belief that the election was rigged has only grown, particularly among Republicans. And the policy has actuallystifled a rational response. As Soave pointed out in Reason, Not only does YouTube punish channels that spread misinformation, but in many cases, it also punishes channels that report on the spread of misinformation.

Last year YouTube came down hard on a wide swath of progressive content creators who had mentioned Trumps claims in order to debunk them. The independent outlet Status Coup, which captured some of the most revealing footage of the January 6 riot at the Capitol photojournalist Jon Farinagave a riveting interview to our podcast Deconstructed that evening licensed much of that footage to cable and network news outlets but was suspended for posting it on its own channel. Covering the event,Status Coupwas told, was tantamount to advancing false claims of election fraud. And so the left was disincentivized from talking at all on YouTube a major source of news particularly for young people about the election or about the January 6 assault, while the right has moved off into other ecosystems.

YouTube created the very mess it now claims its new policies are aimed at cleaning up.

As an aside, news outlets that post and house raw feeds of political events, like C-SPAN, are to me as a reporter invaluable. Long before I co-hostedRising, I found The Hills prolific posting of speeches and press conferences immensely useful. That YouTube wants to end that in order to spare fragile minds from the direct words of politicians is a tragedy for the public, for journalism, and for future historians. (Byits own rules,itought to de-platform C-SPANs channel, but thats probably too idiotic even for YouTube. Or maybe not.)

YouTubes preening is also maddeningly hypocritical. To a quite significant degree, YouTube created the very mess it now claimsits new policies are aimed at cleaning up. In the early days of the platform, YouTube did all it could to funnel viewers to Loose Change, the film arguing that 9/11 was an inside job, helping make it a phenomenally influential take. Conspiracy garbage on Covid-19 vaccines, Davos, flat Earth is favored content by YouTube to this day, because it engages viewers for hours on end. The most reliable way to draw viewers in the politics space over the past year has been to play footsie with all manner of vaccine-related conspiracies, and the pull of the algorithm has drawn entire swaths of commentators into its maw.

YouTube pretends not to like this, and to have rules about it, and yetit programsits algorithm to actively encourage people to tiptoe right up to that line but dont tell creators where exactly that line is and when one crosses it, they get hit with a sniper round from a moderator. The carcass becomes a warning to other hosts but a warning of what? Of whos in charge.

Moderation is reasonable as a principle. If YouTube doesnt want, say, porn on its site, nobody has a constitutional right to post porn there. If YouTube was interested in some sort of moderation that was intended to discourage flagrant lies from getting a boost from the algorithm and thats the key; again, its discussed as a black-and-white speech debate, but its largely about boost and suppression there are waysit can do this. But its not.

YouTube is obviously failing at its stated goal of producing reliable, accurate, informed content, but not because it doesnt know how to do it. It doesnt know how to do it and also maximize profits all of which is more evidence thatits flamboyant moderation decisions are all political posturing to fend off pressure for regulation. YouTube has long wanted the crazy stuff, because thats what pays the bills, and as a result its played a role in the crazy-making of our politics.

Now I get the sense and with an opaque algorithm, thats all you can have that YouTube is done with political content. Its more trouble than its worth. A platform fueled by gamers and reaction videos is less likely to fuel a ransacking of the Capitol and less likely to produce the real concern, a corporate-advertising exodus and just as able to bring in money. The conservative movement has already accepted this reality and is now building rival video platforms to hostitscontent, further polarizing politics. The left, though, has no serious backup plan, only calls for Big Tech to do more.

Here is the original post:
YouTube's Censorship Reflects Broad Problems With Big Tech - The Intercept

Protests at universities and statements from the International Science Council denouncing Russias invasion of Ukraine point to the beginning of a massive refugee crisis and also raise urgent questions about how the conflict will affect Ukraines scholars and research.

Following the Feb. 24 invasion, which has now resulted in more than 1.7 million Ukrainians fleeing the country, Ukraines universities and researchers are being seriously affected with the widespread displacement of faculty and students,and a suspension of all activities.

The full extent of the damage on scholars and research will not be known for some time, but predictions are grim.

Read more: Russian capture of Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear plant threatens future research on radioactivity and wildlife

Our research expertises are in exploring challenges associated with refugee and migrant integration into dominant societies and in intellectual traditions and the rise of populism.

We also advocate with, and for, refugee and displaced scholars fleeing conflict zones or repressive political circumstances, particularly those perceived as threatening to regimes and extremist groups, and who are at risk of being targeted as a result.

One of us, Karly, co-founded the Young Academy of Scotlands At-Risk Academic and Refugee Membership and is working on the At-Risk and Displaced Academics and Artists program for the Royal Society of Canadas College of New Scholars, Artists and Scientists. The other, Evren, has first-hand experience with dislocation as a displaced scholar from Turkey, and organizes lectures and panels exploring the challenges displaced scholars face in host countries.

Many of Ukraines researchers likely face exile, various forms of harassment or worse; a similar fate will likely await Russian colleagues who try to help them.

These predictions are based on what has happened before in countries facing war, conflict or political turmoil and strife including, in recent years, Syria, Venezuela, Hungary, Ethiopia and Turkey.

When a war or conflict erupts, educational institutions such as schools and universities are primary military targets. The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) notes that attacking schools and universities enables extremists to spread fear and indoctrinate new recruits.

Iraqs Mosul University was targeted by the Islamic State and its library destroyed in 2014.

Canada was one of 113 countries to endorse UNESCOs 2015 Safe Schools Declaration calling on countries to protect schools and universities from military use during armed conflict.

Universities are also subjected to intellectual dismantling. At the extreme, in countries like Syria, this occurs through the targeted harassment, kidnapping or even murder of professors, researchers and students whose work is perceived as being at odds with the messaging of the regime or authoritarian government.

Numerous women and LGBTQ+ researchers from various countries have told us they feel vulnerable to acts of violence and segregation because of their sex or how they identify or because of their research in the fields of LGBTQ+ or womens rights.

The International Science Council notes that early-career researchers without well-established networks often find themselves in highly precarious situations when conflicts erupt.

Being able to criticize government policy, to research subjects that are controversial or critical of an authoritarian government or toadvocate in fields like womens health is not a freedom that all academics and students possess.

As the Scholars at Risk Academic Freedom Monitoring Project shows, researcher displacement through war, conflict and targeted violence is a persistent, longstanding issue. Sample data collected from September 2020 to August 2021identified 332 attacks from 272 verified incidents in 65 countries a small subset of all attacks on higher education.

The consequences of these kinds of systemic attacks, due to armed conflict and academic censorship within countries, are severe because not only is immense human capital lost, but global research capacity is undermined.

Academic censorship often targets individual researchers whose political beliefs, activism or research does not align with the narrative that the regime or authoritarian government wishes to advance.

Credible estimates suggest there are at least 10,000 displaced scientists worldwide, but the number is likely much higher.

When a crisis hits, countless people end up internally displaced or in bordering countries. In the past decade, some of the major flashpoints have been Syria, Turkey, Yemen and Venezuela.

Ukraine is experiencing a similar mass displacement now, as many of its citizens seek refuge in other parts of the country or in neighbouring countries such as Poland, Slovakia and Hungary.

Some scholars fleeing conflict also end up in Canada. The Government of Canada and Canadian academia needs a shared commitment to recognizing research all disciplines as a universal undertaking, and to providing safe spaces for persecuted scholars to continue their work.

We are aware of numerous initiatives where some Canadian universities independently or in partnership with NGOs, provide support to displaced researchers through lectureships, visiting professorships, lab assistant roles or postdoctoral fellowships. The support is short term, usually for one, two or three years.

As far as we are aware, there is no systemic research documenting these initiatives across Canada.

While this kind of support is essential, long-term structures recognizing the various needs of scholars at risk are needed both in their home countries and in host countries.

Both Canada and academics in particular need to do more now because our colleagues in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Turkey, Ethiopia and many other countries are having, or have had, their academic freedom and rights to research stolen from them, with grave consequences for all of us.

It is essential that Canadians recognize that the Canadian research enterprise extends far beyond our own borders and we have a responsibility to make space for scholars at risk.

Academics and academic organizations in Canada have an important role to play in advocating for substantial support and getting started is easy. They can advocate for academic freedom in partnership with vulnerable colleagues, join or connect with NGOs such as Scholars At Risk or Scholar Rescue Fund, and work within universities to provide research positions or studentships to those forced to flee.

Academics can reach out to colleagues in dangerous situations to ask them what their needs are carefully, so as not to put them in more danger and they can read more history.

Additionally, hiring committees can spend more time reviewing applications that come in from displaced colleagues and take time to consider how they might enhance research and teaching.

When formal routes of diplomacy are severed or severely disrupted through war and conflict, its critical that researchers keep building relationships with one another. When this involves scientists and shared policy building that affects global networks, this is known as grassroots science diplomacy.

This can matter enormously. It can lay the groundwork for peace, and preserving essential research that collectively benefits societies and people across borders.

Read more here:
Ukrainian academics face exile, harassment and censorship in ongoing war - The Conversation

On Jan. 6, 2021, extremists assaulted our Capitol. Understandably, media coverage was extensive, and even now can make the news. While I cannot equate Jan. 6 to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 as did Vice President Kamala Harris, it was undeniably horrific. An American icon was attacked, a woman was killed, $1.5 million of damage resulted, and officers and Congress experienced real terror. Outrage was palpable.

Thankfully, the media keeps us informed.

Are you sure?

After George Floyds criminal death, lawful protests by unified Americans were everywhere. But sadly, after a Portland, Ore., vigil on May 29, 2020, violence erupted, continuing nightly for months. Overall, media reported variations of mostly peaceful protests as described by one correspondent; curiously, fires raged behind him as he spoke. In contrast, APs Mike Balsamo described fireworks and projectiles coming so fast that officers couldnt react quickly enough, injuring several. Five federal buildings were attacked with damage assessed at $2.3 million; one group attempted to set the Multnomah County Justice Center on fire, with workers inside. Where was the outrage?

Theres more. In Portland, people like you and me endured damaged livelihoods. The Portland Business Alliance reported the downtown area lost more than $23 million from vandalism and lost revenue during the protests. Again, where was outrage?

No incidents are identical, but facts should be reported as straightforwardly as possible. We are Americans, and slanting news in any direction is censorship. Americans demand better. When the media chooses what they want us to know, that is censorship. Censorship is not American, no matter your political views. Its time everyone remembers that.

Mary Rita Turka

Murrysville

Go here to see the original:
Letter to the editor: Censorship is un-American - TribLIVE

The Dartmouth chapters of the College Republicans and Turning Point USA were scheduled to host conservative journalist Andy Ngo (pictured) and activist Gabriel Nadales to discuss left-wing political violence in the United States. Then the college cancelled the in-person event. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com)

by Zach Greenberg

Dartmouths eleventh-hour cancellation of a student event featuring journalist Andy Ngo due to safety concerns immediately raised suspicion, especially after precious few protesters actually showed up. Now, police department records cast even greater doubt on Dartmouths security rationale and demonstrate how university administrators ignored law enforcement when they censored their students.

In the weeks leading up to a Jan. 20 in-person campus event featuring Ngo and activist Gabriel Nadales about left-wing political violence in the United States, the student organizers alerted Dartmouth to online groups threatening to disrupt their event. Communications between the student groups, public safety officials, and Dartmouth show the university was well-prepared for potential violence, as it had enlisted the local Hanover Police Department to help safeguard the campus discussion.

Despite the online fervor, few came out on the blustery, New England night to protest the event. Even so, right before the event was set to begin, Dartmouth forced the student organizers to hold it online, or not at all.

If such threats did exist, Dartmouth has not shown them to the student organizations, FIRE, or the general public.

Dartmouth claimed it based its decision on concerning information from the Hanover police, yet refused to provide any details. Responding to FIREs Jan. 26 letter calling on the college to explain these alleged security concerns, university President Philip J. Hanlon furnished no additional information and instead curtly remarked that Dartmouth prizes and defends the right to free speech.

FIRE didnt buy it. Something stunk, and it wasnt the smell of stale beer emanating from Keggy the Keg the anthropomorphic barrel that serves as Dartmouths unofficial mascot. We filed an open records request for all communications logged by Hanover police about threats against the event.

Our skepticism yielded results: It turns out the Hanover police did not make a recommendation to Dartmouth College regarding the January 20th event. In fact, Hanover police chief Charles Dennis stated, With the information we had, we were as operationally prepared as best we could to handle the event and protest. He also added that we were not provided a reason or reasons for Dartmouths decision to cancel the event. Likewise, the daily crime logs of campus and local police detail no threats to the event.

Records of police communications to university administrators describe online posts about mythological Antifa supersoldiers, opposition to Ngos views, and some discussion of violence, but no explicit threats of harm to Ngo or students. If such threats did exist, Dartmouth has not shown them to the student organizations, FIRE, or the general public.

Dartmouths conduct is far from that of an institution that prizes and defends the right to free speech. When faced with illiberal attempts to use violence to squelch speech, a commitment to expressive freedom requires universities to address the disruption, protect the speaker, and ensure that events can go on as planned. Dartmouth did the exact opposite punishing the student groups by altering the venue and format of their event at the last minute despite no evidence of severe disruption, and law enforcements extensive preparations to ensure public safety.

In our letter to Dartmouth today, we explain why bogus safety concerns must not be used to excuse canceling students expressive events:

Sacrificing free speech rights when faced with actual violence is seldom justified; restricting expressive activity in the absence of substantial disruption is inexcusable. Far from protecting free speech, Dartmouths actions will only prompt future threats and will deter speakers from coming to campusto the detriment of campus safety and students expressive freedoms.

FIRE once again calls on Dartmouth to explain what specific security concerns necessitated the cancellation of the Jan. 20 event. We urge the college to recommit itself to free speech by promising to make genuine, serious, and transparent efforts to protect students expressive rights when threatened with disruption going forward.

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

More here:
Dartmouth's 'safety' rationale crumbles as records reveal censorship as the primary motivator in canceling event with Andy Ngo - Foundation for...

In times of war, free speech suffers. Right and wrong appear indisputable. There is moral certainty that God is on our side. When we are convinced that the enemy is producing only dangerous lies and propaganda, we want to bar their entry into the marketplace of ideas.

The war between Russia and Ukraine is the latest test of our commitment to free speech. Vladimir Putin does not hesitate to censor his people, but Western democracies, and specifically the United States, are required to defend free speech. So far, they have done so. Today private actors do the censoring. Social media companies, under pressure to control disinformation, are bumbling along, blocking too much and too little. And now major cultural players in the US and Europe are canceling Russian artists, performers and anything else coming from Russia.

Cultural boycotts have mostly symbolic goals aimed at a Western audience. Any practical effect on Russia itself is hard to conceive. Artist cancellations will not further squeeze Russia financially. Russia lives on the export of oil and gas, not art. And the message of Western disapproval only entrenches Putins domestic narrative of a hostile West.

Cultural institutions in the US and Europe have the right, of course, to express their symbolic opposition to the war by blacklisting Russian artists. However, they must consider the full implications. Todays cultural institutions are full of artists and performers from countries across the globe. Should all these artists be held responsible for the misdeeds of their political leaders? Should they be asked to publicly condemn these leaders when doing so puts them and members of their family at risk of retaliation by their governments? Banning Russian artists based on their political views or, worse, solely because of their nationality, while welcoming artists from China and other repressive regimes undermines any moral high ground an institution can claim.

The people of a nation are not identical with its leadership and should not be equated with it. On the contrary, they can be allies in opposing a repressive regime from within. Among the Russian artists blacklisted today are people who have been critical of the war.

US institutions have so far limited their action to artists who refuse to condemn the regime, the more restrained path still fraught with questions likely to haunt these institutions for a long time. Blacklisting artists based solely on their political views is a tactic associated with the Cold War and the McCarthy era. That era also demanded loyalty oaths similar to current demands on artists to denounce the Putin regime or be canceled. Only this time artists are also asked to face risks in their home country by making such denunciations.

There are better ways for cultural institutions in Western democracies to get involved in the current political crisis. Rather than banning artists associated with Putin, they should support dissident cultural workers within Russia, as well as Ukrainian artists and institutions, by highlighting their work and offering them platforms to amplify their voices. If, after 30 years of open global cultural exchange, an iron curtain falls again, art and cultural institutions should not be complicit.

Information on resources and support for Ukrainian artists here

Continued here:
Free Speech and the War in Ukraine - Blogging Censorship

Putin wants to control the media, wants to control what Russian teachers say in their classrooms, doesnt give a damn about the environment, and couldnt care less about human rights and freedom.

By Ed Kociela

What does the Utah Legislature have in common with Russian President Vladimir Putin?

A lot more than we should tolerate, especially at this moment.

Putin wants to control the media, wants to control what Russian teachers say in their classrooms, doesnt give a damn about the environment, and couldnt care less about human rights and freedom. He is the epitome of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and jingoism that we actually saw trying to take root in the United States one president ago.

On the whole, the U.S. rejected that brand of insanity when it booted Donald Trump from office. Now, if we could only do the same with his handler, Putin, we might be able to put that part of the world on a path to peace, love and harmony.

Except, here in Utah, we need to clean up our own backyard first, especially after reviewing the predictable, but nonetheless traumatic results of the recent Utah legislative session.

The Legislature stripped local decision-making regarding COVID-19 masking regulations, did nothing to clean up the air, failed to repeal the death penalty once again, added some cosmetic changes to the election system that do relatively nothing while costing at least $500,000, banned transgender female athletes from competition, and placed blinders on the media assigned to covering their legislative sessions by approving a rule that would require credentialed news media to only have access to legislative floors, hallways, and lounge if they have permission from a senator or Senate media designee and must promptly exit the designated area after completing the specific interview. It also added restrictions to accessing information regarding police-involved deaths, shielding the actions of the cops to provide cover for those who would take advantage of the badge to deliver what they consider street justice or to, lets be blunt, indulge their inner racism. These last two items are of particular concern because in depriving the press free access to government activities it also shuts down public access to the actions of this legislative body, hiding it in the shadows instead of allowing it to sit in the sunshine of public scrutiny.

We see this happening in Russia right now, this very moment, as Putin puts a lid on the media from Facebook to the legitimate press. You cannot write an op-ed piece over there that is critical of Putins wanton invasion of the Ukraine, cannot deal in the numbers of casualties civilian and military or cost of the war. Cannot question the morality or political reasoning for this unwarranted invasion. Already Putin has branded videos from the West showing the destruction in the Ukraine as false and misleading, of being fake news. How you can fake a video of a missile strike on a building, however, escapes me. And, God help anybody who takes to Russian streets to protest the invasion and egregious war crimes being committed by Putin and his troops.

Its pretty much the same in Salt Lake City where the Capitol lounge lizards only take direction from LDS Church officials the Utah oligarchy.

Ive worked with our legislators on many occasions over the years and have yet to see a clearly unique or progressive thought emerge from any one of them. Even the Democrats seated in the Capitol are connected to the herd. They may wear blue, but they see red.

The U.S. Constitution is a document that guarantees a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That means strict oversight, whether through in-person attendance by voters or via surrogates like the media, charged with being the publics trustworthy watchdogs to report openly and fairly on the goings-on of our elected officials. There is no middle ground here, no compromise in that freedom of speech, no interference that could or should be granted to allow our elected officials to operate in the shadows. Its about transparency, laying the cards on the table face up and playing out the hand by allowing public question and debate. That simply cannot be done unless there is an unfettered press reporting without fear or favor.

I cannot think of a president, let alone a state legislator, who held a honeymoon relationship with the media throughout their term. Trump, who called the media the enemy of the people, wasnt the first to have an uneasy relationship with the press. Throughout U.S. history there have been dustups from Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson and just about every other occupant of the White House and the press. Some, like the relationship between the media and Trump and Richard Nixon, were of a much larger scale, but even John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who came across as very pres savvy, had their moments as well.

Doing the peoples business should not be done in secret because the reasoning behind certain bills or votes can often be as important as the legislation itself. That is the job of the media, to ensure transparency in all our elected officials do. You need to know and I need to know what is going on and why. We need to understand who benefits and who doesnt. We need to know that there was no collusion or untoward outside influence on decisions made and that just cannot happen when the peoples business is cloaked in the shadows. It is why there are gallery seats for the public, whether at the lowest city council levels or the floor of the U.S. Senate. And, since we all cannot attend each and every meeting, we rely on the media to report on what went down, why, and learn who was behind it all.

The danger, of course, in a media clampdown is the proliferation of fake news propaganda ginned up by specific ideological groups with no basis in fact or legitimacy, just the spin of insiders with a particular agenda that they would like to keep hidden.

So, the question I have for any member of the Utah Legislature is this: What have you got to hide?

See original here:
Utah Edges Toward Authoritarian Censorship - The Independent | News Events Opinion More - The Independent | SUindependent.com

On Friday, the Levada Centerone of the only independent polling firms in Russiareleased the results of its two most recent surveys: one on domestic support for President Vladimir Putin and the other on Russians opinions of the ongoing war in Ukraine. For those who have been following the brave anti-war demonstrations in places like St. Petersburg and Moscow, the poll results are, unfortunately, a disheartening reality check.

As of last month, 71 percent of Russian respondents approve of Putins job performance, compared with only 27 percent who disapprove. This represents a slight uptick in support from last month, and it marks the third consecutive poll in which Putins domestic support has increased. At the same time, Russians attitudes toward Ukraine have worsened. Only 35 percent of Russians responded that they generally feel good about Ukraine, as opposed to 52 percent who had a negative perception of the country. Most tellingly, 60 percent of respondents blame the U.S. and NATO for the recent escalation in eastern Ukraine, while only 4 percent believe Russia is at fault.

These poll results are a stark reminder that Russians live in a very different media ecosystem than other Europeans or Americans. While Western media outlets have portrayed Ukrainian resistance to Russian invaders as both justified and heroic, Kremlin news sources have been issuing very different messages. Some stories simply echo Putins rhetoric, claiming Russian actions aim is to save people, demilitarize, and denazify this state [Ukraine]. Others draw from internal divisions within America itself, such as this RT piece amplifying a recent Tucker Carlson segment that argued that the U.S. is not protecting Ukraine but getting revenge on Russia. Others bluntly insist that Russias actions in Ukraine are vindicated by previous U.S. foreign policy blunders.

Its worth noting that Russian propagandists arent necessarily fairor even consistentin their arguments. In a February 16 RT column headlined Guilty Without War (a Russian-language wordplay on an old Soviet drama called Guilty Without Guilt), journalist Sergei Strokan mocked the U.S. for its hysteria about an upcoming Russian invasion.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine scheduled by Washington for February 16 was canceled by Washington itself, Strokan wrote. The fact that Kyiv does not see the prerequisites for a Russian invasion was announced on Monday by the head of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council, Alexei Danilov. But no one listens to him or President Zelensky in the West: there was no place for the Ukrainian bandura with its hysterically weeping strings in Bidens orchestra.

Unsurprisingly, RT failed to issue an apology (or even retract the story) when Russia sent tanks across the Ukrainian border a week later.

The obvious absurdity of Russian propagandamixed with its blatant refusal to accept Ukrainian sovereigntyhas left Western governments and tech companies grappling with an important question: How should we respond?

If the West were to follow Vladimir Putins example, the solution would be to simply ban all dissenting viewpoints. In what seemed like a panic censorship surge this week, the Russian government blocked both Facebook and Twitter nationwide, as well as the websites of many Western media outlets, such as Radio Free Europe, Deutsche Welle, and the BBC. This came on the heels of a new law signed by Vladimir Putin denoting the dissemination of all false information about the activities of Russian armed forces as a criminal offensefor example, referring to the Ukrainian military offensive as an invasion or attack as opposed to a special military operation. And only days earlier, Russian authorities blocked access to Dozhd TV and Ekho Moskvy, two of the few remaining domestic news outlets that challenged the official narrative from the Russian government about the Ukraine invasion.

Yet it is impossible to see Putins decision to create a Russian splinternetone which effectively cuts Russian citizens off from the rest of the online worldas anything but a sign of weakness and desperation. In its statement announcing its ban on Facebook, Roskomnadzor, the communications watchdog operated by the Russian government, said that the social networks decisions to restrict access to many Kremlin news outletsincluding Sputnik, RT, and Gazeta.rurepresented violations of federal law. As NPR columnist Shannon Bond wrote on Wednesday, tech companies were always walking a geopolitical high-wire as they navigated the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and even before Putin decided to block social media access in Russia, these tech companies were effectively crafting a splinternet of their ownusing selective deplatforming in an attempt to placate both Russia and the West simultaneously.

Over the last week, TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook removed RT and Sputnik from their platforms in Europe, while allowing both outlets to stay live in Russia. Google and Apple pulled RTs and Sputniks news apps from their app storesagain, with an exception made for Russia. For its part, Google did ban several state-owned Russian outlets from monetizing their content on any of its advertising platforms last week, but this only affected their ability to earn ad moneya small percentage of their overall budget, which is subsidized by Russian taxpayers. When Roskomnadzor complained that large advertising campaigns to misinform the Russian audience were running on YouTube, Google simply suspended all advertising in Russia, thereby punishing even anti-war Russian content creators.

Before Russia announced its broad crackdown on social media access, many of these Big Tech actions seemed to miss an obvious point: the place where people were in most need of an alternative perspective to Russian propaganda was in Russia itself. According to a Yahoo News/YouGov poll earlier this week, only 6 percent of Americans believe Putin was justified in invading Ukraine, while 74 percent say he was not justified. But as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky noted earlier this week, it is only the Russian people who can bring an end to the war. Do Russians want the war? I would like to know the answer, he said. But the answer depends only on you, citizens of the Russian Federation.

By banning Western audiences from being able to access state-backed Russian news, Big Tech companies were almost playing into Putins handintimating that Russian propaganda was too persuasive and alluring to be available in America and Europe. Many journalists had the exact opposite perspective. As Ricardo Gutirrez, the general secretary of the European Federation of Journalists, explained on Tuesday, It is always better to counteract the disinformation of propagandist or allegedly propagandist media by exposing their factual errors or bad journalism, by demonstrating their lack of financial or operational independence, by highlighting their loyalty to government interests and their disregard for the public interest.

Politicos senior media writer Jack Shafer put it similarly: Knowing what Putin is thinking or at least what hes telling his people or the outside world is essential to countering him, if need be.

Social media companies may have handled the Russian news situation imperfectly, but by completely blocking these companies nationwide, Putin has reasserted himself as the primary villain in the storyalbeit, a very thin-skinned one. The fact that Putin has now banned almost all independent journalism in Russia proves he does not have the confidence to defend his illegal invasion in the public square.

The fact that VPN installationswhich allows users to keep accessing blocked internet siteshave risen by 1,906 percent in Russia in the last few days is evidence that this cowardly censorship may backfire spectacularly.

Jonathan Chew is a former Dispatch intern.

Go here to see the original:
Putin, Propaganda, and the Politics of Censorship - The Dispatch

On Feb. 16, a Roskomnadzor official said companies that did not comply by the end of the month would face penalties. In addition to fines and possible shutdowns or slowdowns, the penalties could disrupt ad sales, search engine operations, data collection and payments, according to the law.

For those companies that have not started the procedure for landing we will consider the issue of applying measures before the end of this month, Vadim Subbotin, deputy head of Roskomnadzor, told the Russian Parliament, according to Russian media.

Human-rights and free-speech groups said they were disappointed that some of the tech companies, often viewed inside Russia as less beholden to the government, were complying with the law without public protest.

The ulterior motive behind the adoption of the landing law is to create legal grounds for extensive online censorship by silencing remaining opposition voices and threatening freedom of expression online, said Joanna Szymanska, an expert on Russian internet censorship efforts at Article 19, a civil society group based in London.

Mr. Chikov, who has represented companies including Telegram in cases against the Russian government, said he met with Facebook last year to discuss its Russia policies. Facebook executives sought advice on whether to pull out of Russia, he said, including cutting off access to Facebook and Instagram. The company complied with the laws instead.

Mr. Chikov urged the tech companies to speak out against the Russian demands, even if it results in a ban, to set a wider precedent about fighting censorship.

There have been times when the big tech companies have been leaders in terms of not only technology but also in civil liberties and freedom of expression and privacy, he said. Now they behave more like big transnational corporations securing their business interests.

Anton Troianovski and Oleg Matsnev contributed reporting.

Read more here:
Russia Intensifies Censorship Campaign, Pressuring Tech Giants - The New York Times