Category Archives: Censorship

Types of Censorship and Notable Examples

In general, there are four major types of censorship: withholding information, destroying information, altering or using selective information and self-censorship.

Withholding information is a common form of censorship used by many governments throughout history. For many years, the United States government heavily censored information that came out of war zones because the government did not want citizens to turn against the war. The less citizens saw of the war, the more likely they were to believe it was a good thing.

Another common one is the destruction of information, like the book burnings used by the Nazis to physically eliminate information that went against their ideas. The act of trying to erase someone from history has a long precedent as well; ancient Egyptian pharaohs were known to destroy any records of rival pharaohs, even to the point of making their names illegal.

What else? Oh yeah, altering information is a good one. The former dictator of the USSR, Josef Stalin, was known to have photographs altered to remove images of people whom he had executed.

More commonly, altering information comes back to education, rewriting textbooks so that history only shows what you want it to. For many years, American history textbooks ignored the atrocities committed against Native American communities, and Japanese textbooks used to gloss over their brutal invasion of China during WWII.

And of course, there is also self-censorship, when people monitor themselves and stop themselves from giving the entire truth. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps you are afraid that the government will kidnap you for speaking against them, or perhaps you are afraid that you will be fired because a viewpoint is not supported by your employer. Encouraging self-censorship is one of the most effective ways for those in power to keep information quiet.

Regardless of how it's achieved, all censorship is seen as justified by somebody. Political censorship, for example, is used by governments to control the image of the state. For example, during the Cold War, the USSR needed the areas under their control to believe that they were winning and that life in communist Eastern Europe was better than life in the United States or capitalist Western Europe. So, the USSR carefully monitored writers, newspaper editors, television programs and other sources of information to ensure that only positive aspects of communism were depicted, along with the negative aspects of capitalism.

Another frequent source of censorship across history is religious censorship, where information is forbidden because it goes against religious ideas. One famous example of this was the trial and imprisonment of Galileo in 1633 for proposing that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which at the time was seen as heresy.

So, people in power who are afraid of the truth obviously like censorship. That means it must be pretty bad, right? Actually, many forms of censorship are not only accepted but embraced. For example, information regarding national security and military defense are often censored from the public. Many argue that if information on the movements of the United States military, for example, were made public, that an enemy would have an advantage and could launch brutal attacks.

And then there's moral censorship. The vast majority of TV networks are not permitted to show excessive violence or nudity, but it's not because somebody's trying to hide the truth from you, it's because somebody is trying to prevent kids from being exposed to things that kids shouldn't see. And then there are issues like child pornography, which we've decided is so immoral that it's actually illegal. Is it wrong of the government or mass media to censor child pornography? These are areas where censorship becomes a fine line where we, as a community, allow information to be suppressed for a sense of greater good.

Now, for some, the Internet is seen as something that should be unlimited, unrestrained and completely uncensored. It is the ultimate portal for sharing information, and we've seen how powerful that can be. The Arab Spring, a series of revolutions in the Arabic-speaking world that toppled entire governments, was sparked by social media. But again, where do we draw the line? Are racism, violence and hate suddenly acceptable just because they are on the Internet? Sometimes we decide that we need more access to information, and sometimes we decide that we need just a few more 'bleeps.'

Censorship is defined as the 'bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep.' Actually, that's just censorship in action. The suppression of information is something that has occurred throughout most of human history in some form or another. Censorship has been used to protect military secrets, hide truth from people to keep them oppressed, prevent ideas that contradicted accepted religious or scientific ideas or even preserve common morals. Censorship can be imposed by someone in power, or it can be a personal choice. A lot of censorship is seen as oppressive, but most societies agree on some level of censorship against immoral and illegal ideas. So, where's the line? 'Bleep.'

When you are finished, you should be able to:

View original post here:
Censorship: Definition, Examples & Issues - Video & Lesson ...

Joe Rogan, a podcast host on Spotify, and his spreading of misinformation surrounding COVID-19 is just one fragment of a difficult discussion in our society: how do we tackle misinformation on the internet?

Misinformation has circulated on the internet since its beginning. People have always been encouraged only to believe information from trusted sources online, as there are many sources that promote false information either to harm people, make a profit or because they are misinformed themselves.

This problem has received mass amounts of attention through the course of the pandemic and has caused a major political divide. Many people have promoted false information, namely anti-vax rhetoric and unproven treatments, which havecost, and will continue to cost, peoples lives.

In the case of Rogan, his most infamous moment during the pandemic washis promotion of ivermectin as a cure for COVID-19. Ivermectin has not been proven to be effective or safe in treating infection, which makes encouraging its use extremely dangerous.

This action has driven massive outrage in both the public and the medical community, who all are calling for an end to Rogans showonSpotify.

Spotify says it will add content advisories to podcast episodes discussing COVID-19 and direct listeners to reliable sources, according to a company press release.. However, many are not satisfied and want the podcaster off the platform entirely.

However, Spotify Chief Executive Daniel Ek said in a memo provided to the New York Times that silencing Rogan is not the answer to the problem and canceling voices is a slippery slope.

It is possible Ek only said this because Rogans podcast is a Spotify exclusive and removing the show would equal a loss in revenue. Nevertheless, it brings up a very important discussion about how to address misinformation online.

Rogan and the COVID-19 misinformation situation is not the first debate surrounding misinformation we have seen. Former President Donald Trumps presidency directly inspired a harsher push for fact-checking public officials and popular media figures.

Since then, topics like climate change and election integrity have faced a huge crackdown on misinformation.

But, there are different ways to combat misinformation. While a lot of iteither gets publicly fact-checked or content advisories are plastered on the post it came from, many advocate for a harsher approach of de-platforming, banning or censoring people who spread misinformation.

I firmly believe it is our civic responsibility and right to call out lies and bring the truth to light. We live in an era where government officials and news media have manipulated the trust of the people; celebrities and other public figures have capitalized off of that reality.

However, I also believe suppressing people from speaking their minds even if rooted in falsehood can be more harmful than productive.

Suppressing speech does not suppress someones thoughts. In other words, banning someone for misinformation will not make them change their beliefs.

This also has an impact on their following. Banning someone for misinformation is not going to help that persons followers realize the truth. Instead, they are going to see it as a personal attack against the person they trust. This will only strengthen their beliefs.

In other words, silencing the leader does not mean their followers are going to disperse. At the end of the day, people will continue to believe what they want to believe. It is often difficult to change that.

Gage Berz, junior computer engineering major, said he believes misinformation is dangerous to the public. However, he believes silencing people is an ineffective strategy to remove misinformation.

People who spread misinformation will continue to do so no matter how many times they get removed, Berz said.

While de-platforming may seemingly fix the issue by removing the misinformation from platforms, it creates minority groups on other fringe areas of the internet which will grow silently, he said. Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist, was de-platformedon almost all social media platforms, but, even with that removal, he still has his own site pulling in millions of views.

In a way, this is akin to the dark web. People who like to share illegal content did not stop doing so just because the internet does not allow it. Instead, they find other ways to spread their ideas.

People who spread false information will only do the same. They may not go to the extreme and post on the dark web, but they will migrate to obscure parts of the internet where the crackdown on misinformation is not nearly as enforced.

Freshman psychology major Loki Hogmansaid he believes censorship rarely works as intended.

Like Berz, Hogman said silencing people will only make that person angrier. The act will encourage them to continue spreading false information, only elsewhere.

Misinformation is really hard to combat because hooking peoples attention with fabricated stories to make someone sound correct will and has always happened with humans, he said. The main tool against misinformation is teaching people how to identify it, so they can stay away and move on to something reliable.

The idea of teaching people how to identify misinformation brings up a very good point: sometimes, in order to reaffirm what is right, we have to be able to see what is wrong.

A key point in anyargument is not only saying why you are right but also saying why the other side is wrong and disproving them with the evidence you have. Removing all false information and only letting people access correct information completely dilutes that concept.

Letting people have access to information, even if it is incorrect, allows people to criticize and disprove said information. I think that can be more influential in getting people to change their viewpoints because you are disproving something rather than removing it entirely.

Because at the end of the day, stopping false information entirely is an incredibly unrealistic expectation. All that we can do is recognize misinformation and call it out when we notice it.

Continue reading here:
OPINION: Censorship not a solution to misinformation The Daily Evergreen - The Daily Evergreen

A screenshot of a comment made by Chinese American freestyle skier Eileen (Ailing) Gu was recently censored on the Chinese social media app Weibo for mentioning the availability of VPNs to bypass the countrys Instagram ban.

The ironic turn of events came after an Instagram user commented on one of Gus posts on Feb. 4, questioning the "special treatment" the athlete seemed to be receiving in a country where the platform is otherwise banned, reported Protocol.

Why can you use Instagram and millions of Chinese people from mainland cannot, the comment read. Why you got [sic] such special treatment as a Chinese citizen. Thats not fair, can you speak up for those millions of Chinese who dont have internet freedom[?]

In her reply, the 18-year-old Olympian suggested, [A]nyone can download a VPN, adding that it is literally free on the App Store.

In addition to blocking access to several international social media apps throughout the country, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp, the Chinese government has also barred internet users from using VPNs as a workaround for the Great Firewall, the countrys internet regulation system, according to the New York Times.

The Chinese government asked Apple to remove all VPN software from its App Store in 2017,Taiwan News reported. Googles Play Store has also been banned from China for many years now, and the only people who can use the program are state-run firms and government agencies.

While some users were reportedly impressed by Gus dedication to defend the motherland, others were quick to criticize the gold medalist for what they perceived as her privileged obliviousness.

Literally, Im not anyone. Literally, its illegal for me to use a VPN. Literally, its not f*cking free at all, one Weibo user wrote, HuffPost reported

After a screenshot of Gus Instagram comment was shared on Feb. 7 in a Weibo post that garnered nearly 4,000 shares and 1,000 comments, the screenshot of her comment was replaced with a blank placeholder image the day after.

Story continues

South African YouTuber Winston Sterzel and Chinese dissident artist Badiucao also criticized Gu on Twitter, with Sterzel likening her comment to a Marie Antoinette moment.

Gu previously crashed Weibo after winning an Olympic gold medal at the womens big air freestyle skiing competition for China on Feb. 8. Her win has pushed the San Francisco-born athlete into the spotlight and earned praise from Chinese social media users and local government.

Featured Image via NBC Sports (left), @Eileen_gu_ (right)

Enjoy this content? Read more from NextShark!

Reckless Driver Mocks Asian American Woman With Racist Insults on Instagram, Loses Her Job

12-Year-Old Fashion Designer Sews Masks for Doctors and Nurses Fighting COVID-19

Meet Japan's first esports team comprised entirely of elders

New Ad Slams Trump's Use of 'Anti-Asian' Names for COVID-19

See the original post here:
Eileen Gus comment advocating VPN workaround for Chinese internet censorship is in turn censored - Yahoo News

Paris, 1917 an era of bold artistic exploration, a voguish intellectual scene, post-WWI excesses and a thriving queer culture. Into all of this enters Sylvia Beach, a 30-year-old American woman looking to finally make something of herself in the City of Light. When she stumbles into a bookstore in the Latin Quarter, she does not expect to fall in love with the shop owner, nor to be absorbed into her circle of influential French authors and intellectuals. And Sylvia certainly does not expect to become one of the most distinguished women of her time, battling the U.S. governments censorship of literature and owning one of the most famous bookstores in the world. Kerri Mahers The Paris Bookseller tells the fictionalized story of this remarkable woman through the most exciting and tumultuous years of her life.

The beginning of this book does no credit to the rest. It is better remembered in hindsight, when you understand the story and the tenuous first chapters attempt to set up the literary world. Sylvias character is rushed and half-formed; for example, she moves all the way from New Jersey to Paris, which she has longed to return to ever since she was a teenager, and yet within months, she has signed up to volunteer on a Serbian farm for a year. Shes supposedly leaving Paris to run away from her feelings for the bookstore owner, Adrienne, who has a long-term partner, yet it is never made clear why Sylvia is so suddenly in love. Adrienne is described by others as charming, but Adrienne herself is only given a few lines of dialogue to prove that shes deserving of this adoration. She doesnt at least, not the sort of unrequited love that drives someone out of the country to a Serbian village.

Forty pages in, you still dont have a sense of who Sylvia really is or why she makes the decisions she does. You do, however, get the sense that Adriennes lover must not have been all that important to her after all, given how little Adrienne mourns her when she dies and how quickly she develops feelings for Sylvia instead. Everything happens abruptly, the twists and turns lacking emotional depth and the romance feeling forced.

Once you get into the meat of the story, you understand that these chapters are just the prologue to the real narrative and only serve to tell you what you need in order to understand the rest. The strategy makes sense logistically but it makes for a rocky start.

All that being said, the rest of the book is beautiful.

Some of the biggest names in English literature find their way into Sylvias life (Ernest Hemingway, James Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald and the like). From public readings in Adriennes bookstore to wild nights in Parisian clubs, high society dinners to heated debates over artistic movements and law, we get to peer into the (fictionalized) lives of the Lost Generation writers who would go on to change the literary world. To see them portrayed not as heroic geniuses but as people the rivalry between Hemingway and Fitzgerald, Joyces health problems and alcoholism, Hemingways many failed romantic ventures enriched my understanding of their work.

This is particularly the case with Joyces Ulysses, which poses the central conflict of the book. In the 1920s, America was undergoing a crisis of censorship (one of many in its history). The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, headed by John Sumner, was granted legal powers of search, seizure and arrest by the New York state government. Sumner took particular issue with Ulysses, which was written in a controversial new style that focused on telling the whole truth of the characters day-to-day life, every intimate detail and unfiltered moment even when it came to so-called obscene topics like masturbation, which ultimately led to the novel being put on trial. This work was massively influential for contemporaneous and future writers, including other greats like Virginia Woolf, but it faced years of censorship and legal troubles. Sylvia saved it from censorship and the resulting obscurity through great personal sacrifice, yet she was never truly given credit for it by the broader public in the story or in real life.

Women were (as they too often still are) disregarded as foolish or, worse, utterly unimportant. In the legal battles against censorship and plagiarism, Sylvia was written off as a secretary, despite playing the second most important role (after Joyce) in the conception of this book. She alone agreed to publish it against the law; she alone organized the herculean effort it took to parse through and type up his scribbles; she alone hounded his former lawyer for lost pages; she alone raised the money to pay for the printing. Thats not to mention the efforts from the three women arrested and brought to trial over its distribution (two editors that published it as a periodical in their journal and one bookstore owner who distributed it), or the woman who financially supported his work year after year or the woman Joyces partner who raised his children so that he could focus on writing. When we think of mans great achievements, we often forget that they are womens as well. Maher is determined to make us remember.

The Paris Bookseller is brimming with famous names, legal intrigue and dramatic fights between friends, family and strangers alike. Yet it is also fundamentally a very human story, one that digs deeply into how good people can be at such odds with one another, and how we love, use and neglect one another.

There is genuine character development, spanning years, that embodies perfectly the way life so often feels that combination of grief, nostalgia and growth that defines change. Twenty years pass: friends move away, couples divorce and the city in which you live turns from new to familiar to new again as the world advances around you. The changes that occur in Sylvias life are sometimes big and grand, but sometimes they are so subtle that all of a sudden you find yourself asking: How did we get here? How is everything so different than it was?

Closing this book, I was filled with a sense of longing a longing for a life as well-lived as Sylvias. Her life is not always hopeful; things do not always work out as planned, and there is far more pain than anyone would wish for (as is the case in most lives). But Maher has shone a light on a figure more pivotal than anyone gives her credit for, this woman who just wanted to own a little bookstore in Paris.

Daily Arts Writer Brenna Goss can be reached at bregoss@umich.edu.

Read more from the original source:
Sapphic historical fiction about the founder of Shakespeare and Company - The Michigan Daily

Spotifys decision to resist calls by powerful voices to remove Joe Rogan from its platform offers a good reminder that Americans must firmly reject government interference in private business decisions, including social media companies. Coverage of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell have buried far more concerning voices attacking Spotify for hosting Rogan: those coming from the Biden administration.

Administration officials calling for censorship of dissenting voices, as U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has done, should outrage all Americans. Yet this is the kind of government power state governors across the U.S. are trying to capture with social media regulations.

Last year, courts blocked legislation in Texas and Florida to prevent social media companies from monitoring content on their platforms but 19 other states have followed with bills in the same vein. Legislatures from coast to coast including Kentucky, California, Utah, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee, New York, Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, W. Virginia, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Idaho are considering similarly unconstitutional bills.

Such bills are a flagrant assault on the First Amendment, effectively putting government officials in control of online speech and private businesses. This is exactly the kind of control Murthy and other government officials crave, and the kind of government control Americans must fight. Its not just a bad idea from a Constitutional standard, its a bad policy idea to have the government determine what information is suitable for Americans to see online.

These bills are being sold as a way to prohibit social media businesses like Facebook and Twitter from removing conservative content. While this may be appealing to some, what it would mean in practice is that the government would determine what private businesses can and cant say. That means Murthys tweets would become commands.

Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies are private businesses and as frustrated as conservatives are that some conservative speech is removed, as private businesses social media businesses have that right. Frustration and ire has sparked the rise of conservative social media platforms like Rumble, Parler, and Trumps new platform, and that is exactly the result the free market enables.

And just like Facebook and Twitter, these conservative social media sites shouldnt be forced by the government to host content they dont want like opinions from Rachel Maddow or Elizabeth Warren. Inviting the government in to be the referee and create the rules of the game is wrong headed and illegal. If conservative states were able to tell social media sites what news and views they can host, so could liberal states.

This is not a hypothetical threat to free speech. A bill introduced in New York state this year would punish social media sites for hosting alleged misinformation. Clearly, access to information should never be determined by the political party in power.

And censorship is only one of the threats social media censorship bills pose to private businesses. They would also strip social media companies of the freedom to remove content at their discretion. These bills would make it illegal for Facebook and Twitter to remove content that most of us dont want to see or want our children to see like hate speech, violent content, X-rated content, and more.

Despite conservatives frustration about social media censorship, we cannot allow private businesses to become vessels for the governments preferred messaging. Both blue and red states have realized the internets power and want to harness it for their own agendas and are seizing on the opportunity to use public frustration to seize more power.

I will continue to fight tooth and nail against legislation that violates First Amendment protections that prevent lawmakers from using the governments coercive powers to settle scores against Americas leading technology businesses. At the end of the day, whether it is the Biden Administration telling Joe Rogan what not to say, or the state-level administrations telling Facebook what is must say, we should all let private businesses decide what is best for their customers and let us vote with our feet not let politicians dictate to us the speech we should hear.

Carl Szabo is vice president and general counsel for NetChoice.

See the article here:
OPINION | Joe Rogan controversy is reminder that censorship laws are bad idea that will backfire - The Livingston Parish News

Many thanks to those students who are speaking up at school boards for their right to have books that are important to them. Adults in the community need to take a page out of their book and stand against censorship.

Marilyn ElieCortlandt Manor, N.Y.The writer is a retired school librarian.

To the Editor:

Re Tennessee Board Bans Teaching of Holocaust Novel (news article, Jan. 29):

Im Jewish, from New York City, and I taught at a state university serving low-income Tennessee students for 25 years. So I need to set the record straight.

Every Tennessee fifth grader is required to learn about the Holocaust. My university, with its minuscule fraction of Jewish students, has a Holocaust studies minor. We host an international Holocaust conference every two years.

To convey the magnitude of six million lost, three decades ago teachers in Whitwell, Tenn., asked their eighth-grade class to collect that many paper clips. They ended up with 30 million, sent to the school from people around the world. These are on display in the schools Childrens Holocaust Memorial, housed in a boxcar from Germany, which may be the most riveting testament of young people working together to vow Never again.

People in the rural South have different cultural norms. After moving to Tennessee, I learned you dont swear in class. But painting a state as yahoos and Holocaust deniers for rejecting cursing or nudity in one book epitomizes the very stereotype we people who study the Holocaust should always abhor.

Janet BelskyChicago

To the Editor:

Re A Disturbing Book Changed My Life, by Viet Thanh Nguyen (Sunday Review, Jan. 30):

One could argue that Art Spiegelmans Maus, which depicts the fascism and bigotry flourishing in Poland in the 1940s, mirrors a disturbingly similar political climate, albeit to a lesser degree, in America today. Maybe that is the real reason the Tennessee school board preferred to limit this information to its young scholars.

Books are inseparable from ideas, Mr. Nguyen notes.

For that reason alone the current book-banning trend in America is an abomination. It does not belong in an educated, open-minded and enlightened society. From the evidence of late, these attributes do not define America today, nor does their paucity offer much promise for the future. The dumbing down of America is no longer a joke.

Originally posted here:
Opinion | The Rise in Book Bans and Censorship - The New York Times

Censorship is parents' right

The recent removal of 16 books from Polk County school libraries in response to complaints from a political group declaring the books to be obscene undermines parents rights to have a say in the education of their children.

The list of banned books includes highly acclaimed works by respected authors, including a recipient of the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes for literature. Presumably, these materials were placed in school libraries based on the judgment of professional educators who deemed them to be of value to students.

Provocative and challenging literary works are bound to offend the tastes and sensibilities of some. Parents have the right to prohibit their own childrens access to library materials they consider unsuitable. A group of self-appointed censors should not be able to intimidate school administrators to deny everyone access to materials that group finds offensive.

Although the complaining group calls itself County Citizens Defending Freedom, the preemptive removal of the books by timid school administrators denies freedom of choice to parents who may have different views. School officials say the current ban is not final, but reinstatement of the prohibited materials depends on a protracted multi-committee review process which they acknowledge has no timeline.

Bill Dufoe, Lakeland

The Ledger encourages its readers to share their opinions through letters to the editor. Submit your letter byclickinghere, or send it tovoice@theledger.com. Include your name, street address, a phone number and an email address. Only your name and city of residence will be printed. Letters are limited to 200 words or less and are subject to editing.

Continued here:
Voice of the people: Censorship is parents' right - The Ledger

Bad behavior seems pervasive on the internet. Americans want Big Tech to deal with it.

Social media is getting under our skin, and new polling data shows that Americans want tech companies to fix it.

Surveys released by polling firm Ipsos on Monday show that a majority of Americans support content moderation on social networks, including putting warning labels on misinformation, deleting incitements to violence and suspending or banning offending accounts. Only 19% of Americans believe tech companies should do nothing and allow incitements to violence to be posted. Even fewer people, just 17%, believe social media companies should do nothing and allow posts containing misinformation or bullying.

Catch up on the biggest news stories in minutes. Delivered on weekdays.

"Basically, public opinion is giving license to tech companies to curate themselves," saidCliff Young, president of US Public Affairs at Ipsos. He added that another Ipsos poll found that Americans don't support government intervention with social media content. "What we see across the board is support for self-action" by tech companies, he said.

More than half of Americans support social media companies acting against bad behavior.

The Ipsos data, based on about 200 questions asked in eight polls over the past year and made available to the wider public Monday, offers an unusually clear indication of what Americans want social media companies to do about bad behavior on their platforms.

For much of the last decade, politicians, tech executives and people using the internet have argued about how much social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google's YouTube and TikTok should moderate their platforms. Companies that track hate groups say the companies aren't aggressively pulling down enough posts, while many politicians, including former President Donald Trump, say tech companies have gone too far.

In some cases, conservative politicians, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, have signed new laws aimed at punishing social media companies for "wrongful censorship" on their platforms. Though many of those efforts have struggled amid constitutional arguments in the courts, some of the loudest voices in American politics have made clear they believe big tech companies shouldn't moderate potentially hateful, bullying or incendiary political speech.

Polling shows that many Americans agree on most policy proposals around big tech, including antitrust, right to repair and net neutrality.

Shortly after the US Capitol riots on Jan. 6 last year, tech companies including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed Trump and some of his most vocal advocates from their platforms. They cited concerns that Trump's months long campaign of bullying, threats and lies about his election loss had sparked the carnage that left five people dead, including a Capitol Police officer. Trump has since released many statements denying his culpability, arguing instead that tech companies had acted wrongly. Trump's actions related to the Jan. 6 riot led to his second impeachment by the US House of Representatives, and they're a focal point for a bipartisan congressional commission investigating the event.

Young, at Ipsos, said the Capitol riots were a key moment when many Americans began to reexamine social media's role in their lives.

Indeed, older polls from the Pew Research Center showed that before the 2020 election and 2021 riot, Americans were much more split about how to treat tech. A 2019 study by Pew found that 77% of Democrats thought social media companies "have a responsibility to remove offensive content from their platforms." By comparison, about 52% of Republicans had the same view back then.

Fast-forward to 2021, when Ipsos polling performed in the months after the Capitol riots indicated that more Americans in both parties want tech companies to curb bad behavior online. "This was an inflection point for decision makers wanting to better understand the relationship between society and tech," Young said.

A mob of people carrying Trump flags attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, erecting a hangman's noose, beating police officers and threatening lawmakers.

Tech companies are among the most profitable, most valuable and most powerful businesses in the world. They're also front of mind for many Americans, who rate disinformation, conspiracy theories, social media-driven radicalization and hacking above other big issues, like racism and the climate crisis. More than 79% of respondents to one Ipsos poll, in September, said they were concerned with at least one of those tech issues, roughly tying with "crime and public safety" and "the economy and jobs."

Ipsos data also found that Republicans, Democrats and independents largely agreed on the importance of these issues, with hacking, malware and data breaches scoring among the top three concerns from all three groups.

Additionally, Ipsos surveys found that Americans largely understand the difference between social media companies and other tech giants, with 88% saying search engines and the ability to find things on the internet improved their lives, while only 45% felt the same about social media. When discussing specific companies, respondents saying they're Republican or independent overall had a negative view of Facebook and Twitter, while less than 15% of Democrats viewed either company favorably. Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple were all viewed more favorably, Ipsos data showed.

Read more:
Social Media Should Censor Itself, Without Government Intervention, Most Americans Say - CNET

From nostalgic throwbacks to a high-energy set list, this year's goosebump-inducing Super Bowl halftime show lived up to its hype and delivered more than anticipated. But the biggest highlight was the star-studded lineup Dr. Dre,Snoop Dogg,50 Cent,Mary J. Blige, Kendrick Lamar and Eminem who refused to heed guidelines about what they could or couldn't do on stage.

A few hours before Sunday's game, Puck News reported that the NFL had denied Dr. Dre's request to take a knee the gesture of protest against racial injustice and police brutality that was popularized byformer San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick during his performance.

While Dre reluctantly complied, Eminem did not. Prior to his performance, the NFL had also advised the rapper not to take a knee. They had good reason to think he would. Eminem had previously expressed solidarity with the cause, once honoring Kaepernick's efforts in a freesteyle rap during the BET Hip Hop Awards and later, including Kaepernick in the lyrics of his 2017 song "Untouchable."

Sure enough, after performing his 2002 Oscar-winning hit "Lose Yourself," Eminem dropped to his knee for several minutes while Dre played piano in the background.

RELATED: The 25 best hip-hop protest songs ever

No wonder Candace Owens faced backlash for supporting the show's "undeniable hip-hop and R&B excellence." Hip-hop has a history of protest; that is part of its excellence. It's likely one of the reasons why rap hasn't been the central feature of halftime before.

Of course, kneeling wasn't the only aspect of the halftime show that the NFL tried to control. TheDaily Mailreports thatthe NFL also attempted to "disgustingly censor" some of the more outspoken lyrics in Dr. Dre's songs, going back and forth on content for weeks.

In particuar, they objected to the line,"Still f**king with the beats, still not loving police," in his 1999 hit single "Still D.R.E." They ordered him to omit the anti-cop lyrics, butDre, who reportedly contributed more than half of the show's total budget, took his shot. He unapologetically rapped the lyrics while sharing the stage with Snoop Dogg.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The latest Super Bowl halftime show follows in the footsteps of previous shows that have been used to make a statement. In 2016,Beyonce, performed her hit single "Formation" among a swarm of dancers wearing Black Panther berets to protest police brutality. The following year, Lady Gaga became the first Super Bowl performer to reference the LGBT community with a riveting show masked as a middle finger to Trump. AlthoughMark Quenzel the senior vice president of programming and production for the NFL said that he didn't discourage Gaga to not discuss politics, a statement from Billboard revealed that Quenzel described the Super Bowl as "a unifying day for people" and claimed that"anything that detracts from that is not something that we should be focusing on." In 2020, the last major halftime show before the onset of the pandemic, headlinersShakira and J.Lo also delivered an unforgettable performance that celebratedthe Latinx diaspora and sided with immigrants.

More stories you might like:

View post:
How the NFL tried and failed to censor its hip-hop halftime performance - Salon

Azra* has been a journalist in Turkey for 25 years. She has witnessed her country's press freedoms fall away under the acceleration of censorship, and it has left her scared.

Reporters have increasingly found themselves in court facing criminal charges for their stories. For Azra, her prosecution came with a choice that many before have also faced. Stop what you are doing or change the way you report.

As a result, she has gone underground. "This job is the main thing in my life, so I could never fully give it up," she says. "But I miss being a correspondent and writing the headlines of Turkey."

Turkey is one of many countries across the world who are increasingly prosecuting and detaining journalists. Reporters Without Borders observed record levels of journalists detained in 2021, with 488 people, including 60 women, currently held in detention due to their work.

READ: 'Egypt is the republic of fear:' New videos show torture of prisoners inside Katameya Prison

The 20 per cent surge in detainments over the past 12 months has risen in tandem with a global decline in democratic freedoms. Amy Slipowitz co-writes 'Freedom in the World', an annual report assessing political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries. She explains: "What we found is that between 2005 and 2020, there has been a consecutive decline in global freedom, and press freedoms have experienced the most drastic overall decline."

According to the report's findings, media freedoms are now 13 per cent lower than they were in 2005. In the Middle East, these freedoms have worsened at an alarming rate over the past decade. "The average score for media freedoms has declined by 25 per cent, which is massive," says Amy.

Graph showing 'freedom levels' of Middle East countries using Freedom House scores

Saudi Arabia and Egypt hold the highest number of journalists in prison, second only to China. In August 2021, Ali Aboluhom, a Yemeni journalist based in Saudi Arabia was sentenced to 15 years in prison for tweets that authorities said were guilty of spreading "ideas of apostasy, atheism and blasphemy." It marked one of the highest prison sentences in the world for a journalist last year.

Tactics to restrict press freedoms are varied and fast changing as journalists seek alternative ways to ensure critical news reaches audiences. Social media has become an increasingly vital tool for journalists amid government closures and take-overs of media outlets.

However, over recent years, laws directly targeting journalists on social media have emerged. "The common point between several countries in the Middle East is the use of laws related to "fake news" or "cybercrime" in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism," says Sabrina Beunnoui, Reporters Without Borders' (RSF) head of Middle East.

"It is a systematic tool in Egypt where almost all the journalists and bloggers are currently detained under charges such as 'spreading false information' or 'belonging to a forbidden group'. The cybercrime accusation is mostly used in Syria and Lebanon when it comes to investigating corruption issues or alleged defamation on the Internet," says Sabrina. "It is definitely used to silence journalists and bloggers and limit their freedom to inform."

As Sahar Mandour, Amnesty International's researcher on Lebanon, reflects: "The laws are not in favour of freedom of expression. Instead they protect the status of people in office."

"In 2019, we witnessed an unprecedented crackdown on freedoms of expression in Lebanon. Different security agencies were summoning journalists and activists simply for expressing something on their social media. It used to be rare for a journalist to be summoned for criticising the president, but a new precedent has been set and now, it has become the norm."

As the clamp down against press freedoms spreads, journalists are increasingly practising self-censorship. "Unfortunately, in many countries with a strong power and an authoritarian government like Egypt, Syria or Saudi Arabia, journalists and bloggers have given up the idea of doing their job and left the true concept of journalism behind," explains RSF's Sabrina. "They remain completely silent, which is a victory for the authorities in place."

For Turkish journalist Azra, self-censorship practises are a necessary form of protection, "My reporting became less aggressive because of the risks. I've seen many colleagues stepping back due to the risk of imprisonment. We are in crisis."

It has left her fearful for the future of journalism;

Young reporters are now simply accepting censorship without questioning it. A generation of journalists are being trained to think censorship is normal and adopting it as a precondition.

In order to work, many journalists have been forced into exile. Kurdish reporter Kaveh Ghoreishi lived and worked in Iraqi Kurdistan for six years but left in 2011 due to the risks involved. Now based in Germany, his reporting faces numerous issues. "As a diaspora journalist, I deal with many restrictions. The most important one is the lack of access to the geography to which my work is directly related. Especially since we have to be in constant contact with those countries to document our activities."

He adds: "I am being prosecuted for my activities in Iran, and I am not able to travel safely to Kurdish areas due to Iran's influence in Iraq. As a Kurdish journalist in Iran, I am potentially at risk of the death penalty."

Restrictions and risks for journalists are set to worsen, most recently highlighted during the coronavirus pandemic. RSF noted that press freedoms during this time experienced a "dramatic deterioration" as numerous governments tightened controls over news coverage and ramped up trials of journalists.

Despite this, there is hope for the future of journalism. As Azra and Kaveh both show, while they have been forced to adapt, they continue to report. "There might be lots of restrictions but new and innovative ways to develop content are emerging," says Freedom House's Amy. "People will always find a way to share the truth."

*Name changed to protect identity

READ: A victory for common sense and free speech in Germany

More here:
'We are in crisis': Middle East journalists on censorship, imprisonment and exile - Middle East Monitor