Category Archives: Censorship

Pastor Greg Locke said Monday that in response to what he sees as First Amendment attacks on his church, the church will respond "with our Second Amendment right."

Locke, head of the Baptist Global Vision Bible Church in Juliet, Tennessee, was speaking to Stew Peters on the Red Voice Media program The Stew Peters Show about being banned from social media, as well as COVID-19 restrictions stopping large gatherings.

"People that say that this is not an attack have lost their mind. This is an absolute attack on our First Amendment right," Locke said in a clip surfaced by Right Wing Watch. "And I tell people all the time; look, when it comes to our churchand what we need to say and remaining openthat when they impede upon our First Amendment right, we'll meet them at the door of the tent with our Second Amendment right."

"They are trying to silence us, and I think our compromise is our silence. The fact that we are not willing to push back. And so I think big tech is in for a big rude awakening, because I think the Lord is going to turn this whole thing around, and they're going to start breaking this stuff up. Lawsuits are going to come in. And it's not going to be good for them, but I think it's going to turn out good for us," Locke continued.

Newsweek reached out to Locke for additional comment.

Since early in the pandemic, Locke resisted lockdown orders. In July of last year, he said in a Facebook video that he "will go to jail before I will close our church." In April of this year, he reiterated his statements that his church would stay open in the face of the military.

"They will roll up in tanks. They will drop down from helicopters. And I promise you, it won't be a dozen police out there from Wilson County and Mt. Juliet. It's going to take the entire United States military to roll up into this parking and tell us, 'Hey, we can't worship Jesus, and that we got to shut our church down and that we can't preach, and we can't pray,'" Locke said.

"You have lost your mind if you think I've given in to that! You have lost your mind if you think I'm giving into that mess! We are staying open forever," he added.

Locke also told his followers to not get the COVID vaccine, falsely claiming that "political elites" shown being vaccinated were instead given a placebo.

"I have not changed my stance. I haven't softened my stance. I have strengthened, strictly my stance against the vaccine," Locke said.

"I don't care what PfizerI don't care what any of the four groups do out there. Look, if you think... for one minute that those political elites actually got that vaccination, you are smoking meth in your mama's basement. Bunch of fake liars is what they are. They didn't shoot nothing in their arm but a bunch of sugar water," Locke insisted.

Go here to see the original:
Pastor Greg Locke Says Respond to Social Media 'Censorship' With 'Second Amendment Right' - Newsweek

Social media platforms shouldn't be trusted to censor scientific misinformation. As we've reported in recent months, such efforts by tech companies like Facebook are crippled by partisanship and double standards. The result is that some users (usually major media outlets) are allowed to botch the science with impunity, while others are silenced for committing the slightest of offenses, real or imagined. See my April story Follow The Science? How The Media's Hypocrisy Undermines Critical Thinking In The Age Of COVID for more on this.

Facebook safeguards the feelings of anti-GMO activists?

Right on cue, Facebook has offered up another example of why social media censorship fails. On June 19, the company flagged a 2015 post written by University of Florida geneticist Kevin Folta. [1] What was his offense? Folta took two anti-pesticide activists to task for making misleading statements about the weed killer glyphosate. They falsely claimed the herbicide causes cancer and alleged that the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) acknowledged the causal link between the two.

In reality, the journal published an opinion piece by two authors, one of whom was caught taking $100,000 from organic food companies to conduct studies that would make their products look good. That's very different than the NEJM taking an editorial stance on the health effects of glyphosate. For pointing out this obvious distinction, Folta was told his post violated Facebook's community standards and warned that his account may be suspended if he committed another offense.

There are two possibilities: Facebook isincapable of consistently settlingscience-based disputes, or the company uncritically acceptsreports of abuse from activists who want Foltaand other scientists de-platformed. Either is possible given the company's sloppy fact-checking history, but neither is excusable. Facebook's loosey-goosey community guidelines make this situation all the more ridiculous:

We want people to be able to talk openly about the issues that matter to them, even if some may disagree or find them objectionable. In some cases, we allow content for public awareness which would otherwise go against our Community Standards if it is newsworthy and in the public interest. We do this only after weighing the public interest value against the risk of harm ...

Presumably, this would include academics trying to politely educate the public about controversial science issues, but then we read this:

Our commitment to expression is paramount, but we recognize the internet creates new and increased opportunities for abuse We recognize that words mean different things or affect people differently depending on their local community, language, or background. We work hard to account for these nuances while also applying our policies consistently and fairly to people and their expression. Our enforcement of these standards relies on information available to us.

How's that for a loophole? The company says it may label content abusive if it's inauthentic or threatens its users' safety, privacy, or dignity. How Folta'scorrection crossedany of those lines is unclear to me. But then again, this whole exercise is inherently subjective; the censor defines the scope of censorship, and "risk of harm" is creepy, Orwellian language that could mean almost anything.

Who watches the watchers?

Science only works because researchers are free to present evidence that contradicts established dogma. This is the foundation of the whole enterprise."Science is a mosaic of partial and conflicting visions," physicist Freeman Dyson wrote in The Scientist as Rebel. "But there is one common element in these visions. The common element is rebellionagainst the restrictions imposed by the locally prevailing culture."When the subject is the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo, everybody in the academy seems to grasp the importance of open debate. [2] Though when they get to set the rules, many researchers are all too happy to help social media companies silence controversial voices.

The kicker, in this case, is that Folta's opinion was anything but contrary. Excluding people who get paid to assert that glyphosate causes cancer (trial lawyers, activists), nobody familiar with the weed killer thinks it's carcinogenic.

Before anyone unhelpfully points out that private companies aren't subject to the restrictions outlined in the Constitution, let me remind you why that's entirely irrelevant. Allowing powerful interests (say multi-billion-dollar corporations) to dictate the boundaries of public discourse comes with costs, one of which is that they may turn the ban hammer on you. The fact that you follow the science is clearly no check on a company that thinks itself qualified to judge your authenticity.

[1] Full disclosure: I co-host the Science Facts and Fallacies podcast with Folta.

[2] Parenthetically, this is a poorly understood event in the history of science. See this analysis by historian Thomas Woods.

See more here:
Social Media Censorship: Scientist Corrects Anti-GMO Silliness, Facebook Threatens To Ban Him - American Council on Science and Health

Senator Roger Wicker's (R-Miss.) PRO-SPEECH Act, introduced last Thursday, takes a novel approach to one of the most pressing threats to our democracy: Big Tech's control of our political discussion. While previous congressional efforts have focused on reforming Section 230, this bill takes a different tack and makes it an unfair trade practice to "bloc[k] or otherwise preven[t] a user or entity from accessing any lawful content" or to discriminate against any user "based on racial, sexual, religious, political affiliation, or ethnic grounds." The unfair trade practices approach in Wicker's bill offers a creative path forward to countering Big Tech's censorship.

The PRO-SPEECH Act empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to handle any complaints of newly designated unfair trade practices. Relying on the FTC for enforcement has clear advantages. The agency could craft detailed, fact-specific settlements for the complaints it receives. It can also adapt more quickly than Congress to changing circumstances in the social media environment. Similar to the way in which it developed rules for online privacy and data breaches, the FTC could proceed in a methodical, small-steps approach to ensure fair practices and meaningful competition in the social media space.

Another one of the bill's strengths is its detailed disclosure requirementsan idea first put forth by the Trump administration's National Telecommunications and Information Administration Section 230 petition. Improved disclosure practices will help bring to light the ways that dominant platforms control public discourse through the promotion or silencing of certain content. The FTC here too could play a very useful role in setting forth the inevitably technical and complex rules that effective disclosure will require.

One final creative provision is worth noting. The act creates two exceptions from its prohibitions against blocking access to lawful content. One is for small platforms, and the other stipulates that prohibitions "shall not apply to the extent that an internet platform publicly proclaims to be a publisher." The bill essentially gives dominant social media platforms a choice: they can either choose to operate as a platform and be required to provide users access to all lawful content, or they can publicly declare themselves publishers and lose their immunity protections under Section 230.

Notably, these exceptions do not hold for the other unfair trade practices outlined by the bill. Whether a platform chooses to operate as a platform or publisher, it must abide by the bill's nondiscrimination and transparency requirements, as well as its prohibitions on unfair methods of competition.

The bill does have some areas for improvement, however. It could, for instance, go one step further to address the effects social media has on children. In what is perhaps the greatest and most ignored child experiment in human history, social media companies allow formation of accounts for minors without parental consent or mandatory parental control. If anything should qualify as an unfair trade practice, then recruiting, marketing to and profiting off of minors, all without parental consent, surely must.

The FTC has in the past taken the lead in responding to "Joe Camel" and Big Tobacco's marketing of harmful and addictive products to children. But it has so far been silent about Big Tech's marketing of the highly addictive product of social media to children. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt has demonstrated, social media use by minors leads to increased childhood depression, obesity, mental illness, emotional fragility and decreased school performance and social engagement. Wicker's bill suggests an approach by which government, at last, could muster a response to the myriad harms of social media on children.

Another issue the act could address is that of obscene or otherwise undesirable content. By prohibiting platforms from blocking access to any lawful content, the PRO-SPEECH Act would potentially make, for instance, Facebook's policy against nudity illegal, since most nude pictures are not illegal. Most platforms' current terms of service would become unlawful. Thus, the bill's critics claim that it would render social media a wasteland of pornography, profanity-laced trolling and annoying spam.

These are legitimate concerns, but there is a relatively simple solution. Wicker's bill could take one additional step, and incentivizeor requirethe platforms to hand the reins of their content-blocking or moderating tools to users themselves. Users could block pornography or other types of legal but unwanted content from their feeds. This solution to lawful, but unwanted, content would maximize consumer choice and free expression. Platforms' desire to centralize control over users' experiences and access to content is unjustified, except of course, insofar as it allows them to more easily segment markets for their advertisers and increases the power of their owners. They might at last be forced to give users the power to selectively filter and moderate what they see on their feeds.

Senator Wicker's thoughtful and innovative bill tackles these platforms' unjustified control and censorship head-on. Many of its provisions seem inspired by Justice Clarence Thomas's recent Supreme Court opinion, with an aim to stand up to legal scrutiny. There are areas where further improvements could be made, but overall, the PRO-SPEECH Act offers a strong, creative solution for protecting speech and competition in social media. Wicker has shown there are more strings for legislators to pull to curb Big Tech's censorship.

Adam Candeub is professor of law at Michigan State University and senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America. He was previously acting assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information. Clare Morell is a policy analyst at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where she works on the EPPC's Big Tech Project. Prior to joining EPPC, she worked in both the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice, as well as in the private and nonprofit sectors.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

View post:
The PRO-SPEECH Act is a Creative Solution to Censorship | Opinion - Newsweek

Until my term expired a few weeks ago, I was editor-in-chief of the Cherwell, Oxford Universitys oldest student newspaper. It isnt a big operation, but it is independent. Founded in the 1920s, and supported by advertising revenue and college subscriptions, it will only remain in business so long as it retains the interest and loyalty of its readers. And that is what I thought was the point of journalism: not to print only what those in authority want us to, but to publish in the public interest, without fear or favour.

Sadly, not everyone seems to agree. Consider Oxford Student Unions recent vote calling for the setting up of a Student Consultancy of Sensitivity Readers. The name may be innocuous, but the idea behind it is chilling: to vet what student papers like the Cherwell publish in order to ensure that no problematic or insensitive content appears.

Surely, you might think, it is only under the worlds most oppressive regimes Putins Russia, or Xis China come to mind that journalists have their articles inspected by an external body of censors prior to publication? But the student union apparently does not see it this way. It believes articles are being printed that are implicitly racist or sexist or just generally inaccurate and insensitive. And that this justifies, in effect, stripping student papers of their editorial independence.

As another former Cherwell editor, the journalist Michael Crick, told the Telegraph: The key thing about journalism is it should remain independent for people in authority, and if the students union dont like it they can set up their own. The irony is that the student union does run and fund its own paper, The Oxford Student. If it really wants to impose troubling new editorial standards on its own newspaper, it can do so, and see whether readers (or the volunteer journalists) appreciate articles that have been vetted by a committee. But any attempt to extend the scheme to external publications would be horrifying. We dont even know what the consequences of breaching the policy will be, including whether there will be disciplinary action against those who refuse to participate.

And surely the policy fails on its own identity politics-influenced terms. Who is meant to be doing the vetting? As a disabled woman, I imagine that I would be considered well-qualified to judge the sensitivity of some articles based on my lived experience. But my lived experience is only of my own disability, not that of others. Especially at Oxford, where there is such a variety of backgrounds, no group of sensitivity readers could ever be large enough to cover all the issues that could be discussed in articles.

None of this was apparently considered before the motion was passed. If student papers had been informed that this vote was taking place, we could have mounted a defence and pointed out that we have our own rigorous editorial integrity processes in place.

If Oxford students dislike what their paper prints, then they can stop reading it. If this isnt enough to satisfy their outrage, they are free to lobby their college to unsubscribe or send in an official complaint. Student papers shouldnt have their independence compromised just because a student union committee thinks they arent being sensitive.

More:
Oxford's woke new censorship body is a threat to free expression - Telegraph.co.uk

Over the past couple of years, cryptocurrency has garnered increasing attention from businesses and governments alike. While crypto has soared in popularity, many remain skeptical of it, with some regulatory bodies being outright opposed to it. China has generally fallen into the latter category.

The Chinese government isnt entirely against cryptocurrency and crypto-adjacent tech, but rather seeks to nationalize them. Chinas patent office filed more than 2,000 blockchain patents between 2014 and 2019, which is almost 10 times as much as the U.S. These patents are part of Chinas move to establish a national digital currency, which has also included widespread restrictions.

In late May, the Chinese government announced it would crack down on crypto mining and trading activities. These actions follow a history of crypto restrictions, and theyre influencing the value of crypto. As they continue, they could start to shape more than just cryptocurrency, too.

Chinas crypto crackdown

Despite tight regulations, Chinese markets have traditionally been a hotspot for crypto. China has previously banned crypto exchanges but still allows citizens to hold cryptocurrency. Citizens have latched on to this right, with some estimates saying that the nation accounts for 70% of the global crypto supply.

Recently, though, the countrys government has taken a firmer stance against crypto. This May, it banned banks and payment companies from offering crypto payment services. Three days later, the Financial Stability and Development Committee started cracking down on mining and trading that could pose financial risks.

Since these restrictions went into place, police have arrested thousands of suspects and shut down major crypto services. These arrests are all related to money laundering charges, and the account shutdowns serve to prevent scams and preserve the yuans value. Critics have pointed out how many of these regulations are still vague and could mostly be about establishing Chinas digital yuan.

How these changes affect non-crypto businesses

Since China accounts for so much of the worlds crypto activity, its easy to understand how these actions affect cryptocurrency. As crypto and blockchain technologies play an increasingly significant role in businesses, the effects could ripple further. The recent ban on crypto payment services, for example, limits banks options for keeping up with digital disruption.

Losses from crypto-related crimes fell 57% in 2020 alone, so more companies have been looking into crypto services. Providing crypto support for various payments could help businesses adapt to digital-native consumers changing needs. If these companies cant legally use cryptocurrency, though, they may have trouble offering the speed, security, and variety customers want.

These rising regulations could also have positive effects. Cracking down on risky or illegitimate crypto services could help regulation-compliant businesses offer safe, licensed alternatives. This shift would both protect consumers from fraud and boost legitimate companies sales.

Impacts beyond China

These effects could potentially extend far beyond China, too. China is the second-largest global economy and is on track to become the largest by 2030. As a global economic powerhouse, changes in China would affect the near-countless international businesses that have operations there.

Chinese tech policies already deeply affect companies from other nations. For example, every company operating in China is required to give their source code, encryption keys, and backdoor access to the Chinese government. This law sets the precedent that China could force foreign businesses to comply with its cryptocurrency and blockchain regulations.

Companies in various industries outside of China, from automakers to financial services, have started dealing in crypto. As crypto becomes an increasingly central part of these businesses operations, these regulations will affect them more. Some may not be able to operate in China anymore or may have to tailor their international offerings.

If all of these actions are to bolster the digital yuan, their impact could reach even further. Such a major market shifting away from the U.S. dollar-dominated global financial system could disrupt the global economy. The dollar could lose much of its international power, and businesses with international dealings would follow.

Chinese regulations could shape the global economy

Since China is such a massive economy, any disruptions there could ripple throughout the world. As cryptocurrency starts to gain traction in international businesses, the countrys crypto crackdown wont come and go silently. While the specifics remain uncertain, the growing prevalence of crypto and Chinas international power mean these regulatory changes could have far-reaching effects.

If you're interested in writing for International Policy Digest - please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org

Follow this link:
Why China's New Mining Censorship Will Affect More Than Just Crypto - International Policy Digest

First, Indian Express (IE) Deeptiman Tiwary, talks about the Centre inviting all mainstream political parties of J&K for a meeting with PM Modi. He explains the significance of this move, what has prompted it, and what the meeting will be about it.

Next, IEs Krishn Kaushik, talks about a new bill that would empower the Centre to order re-examination of an already certified film, and how it could even enable it to suggest cuts (11:48).

And in the end, IEs Amitabh Sinha, explains the concerns around a possible third wave of Covid-19 infections, and whether children will be more vulnerable to it (17:54).

You can follow us and leave us feedback on Facebook and Twitter @expresspodcasts, or send us an email at podcasts@indianexpress.com. If you like this show, please subscribe and leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts, so other people can find us. You can also find us on https://indianexpress.com/audio.

Centre invites J&K parties for a meet, more censorship in films, and 3rd wave concernsFirst, Indian Express (IE) Deeptiman Tiwary, talks about the Centre inviting all mainstream political parties of J&K for a meeting with PM Modi. He explains the significance of this move, what has prompted it, and what the meeting will be about it.Next, IEs Krishn Kaushik, talks about a new bill that would empower the Centre to order re-examination of an already certified film, and how it could even enable it to suggest cuts (11:48).And in the end, IEs Amitabh Sinha, explains the concerns around a possible third wave of Covid-19 infections, and whether children will be more vulnerable to it (17:54).You can follow us and leave us feedback on Facebook and Twitter @expresspodcasts, or send us an email at podcasts@indianexpress.com. If you like this show, please subscribe and leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts, so other people can find us. You can also find us on https://www.indianexpress.com/audio.

The rest is here:
Centre invites J&K parties for a meet, more censorship in films, and 3rd wave concerns - The Indian Express

New VOD release Censor is meta-horror, but dont let that frighten you off. Director Prano Bailey-Bonds stylish directorial debut springboards off Britains video nasty controversy in the 1980s, when gory slasher flicks were targeted for supposedly corrupting children (wont SOMEBODY think of THE CHILDREN) and allegedly inspiring real-life copycat violence. A new censorship board was formed in 1984 to screen videocassette releases, since they were easier for young audiences to watch and thats where this movie starts, with Niamh Algar (of HBO series Raised by Wolves) playing a censor who brings a bit of psychological baggage to work with her.

The Gist: Eye gouging must go, Enid (Algar) writes in her notebook. Theres a question about a decapitation scene, a mention of screwdriver stuff and a light passing brush up against something to do with genital cuts, and I didnt care to discern if those were literal cuts as in with a blade or cuts as in film edits, because, you know, eek. Anyway, Enid is very exacting and detailed in her work, which involves watching some pretty cool terrible movies all day and determining which bits need to be lopped off in order to make them suitable for ages 15 and up or 18 and up, stuff like that. If this all seems terribly subjective, well, thats because it is, but Enid seems to be quite good at it, and is calm and collected in the face of an avalanche of disturbing blecch. She works long hours wouldnt you, if you got to screen amazing garbage 80s horror movies all day? then goes home and does crossword puzzles by herself and doesnt answer the phone while Baroness Thatcher goes on about this and that on the telly.

A crack begins to show in Enids facade when she has dinner with her parents (Andrew Havill and Felicity Montagu). They have a death certificate. Many years ago, Enids seven-year-old sister disappeared and was never seen again; cue some vague, bleary scenes of young Enid and her sibling, apparently lost in the woods. Its time for closure, Mum and Dad insist, but Enid clings to a miniscule thread of hope that her dear sibling is still alive out there somewhere. This is the opening rumble for a perfect storm thats about to soak Enid right through her poofy 80s blouse and loosen her hair bun. Things at work start getting bumpy; a while back she passed a movie titled Deranged, in which a man eats someones face, and now a real-life man has eaten a real-life face and somehow, her name got leaked to the press as the censor. If you have a rather myopic view of things and reality and the like, its quite obvious that its all her fault.

And then, a film producer named Doug Smart (Michael Smiley) oozes into the office to be a male chauvinist pig with rapey vibes, and to drop off Dont Go in the Church, which he promises to Enid will be a real bowel-gripper (my words, not his). And its true, because Enid fires it up and starts losing her shit while watching a scene in which two young girls get lost in the woods. She runs to the loo and barfs. No spoilers, but I will say that Enid will soon inspire a co-worker to comment, Someones losing the plot.

What Movies Will It Remind You Of?: I havent liked a new horror film this much since Amulet, or maybe His House. Censor shows a bit of Argento-Suspiria giallo (the opening credits feature a Goblinesque score), scenes in a subway tunnel tickle the undercarriage of That Scene From Possession and Bailey-Bond cops many an old-school atmospheric vibe from stuff like Evil Dead and Halloween.

Performance Worth Watching: Algar is terrific as a buttoned-up protagonist who builds a wall of oh-so-British reservedness thats destined to crumble. Her characterization isnt outwardly TUT-TUT like a stereotypical conservative its more understated than that, and goes deeper than we may expect.

Memorable Dialogue: A decontextualized doozy via Enid: Thank you for the whiskey. Ill see myself out.

Sex and Skin: None. Having any such stuff in the movie sure would seem to clash with its intent.

Our Take: Ooh, tongues feel so nicely when theyre in cheek, dont they? Co-writing with Anthony Fletcher, Bailey-Bond doesnt weave the tightest narrative, but she slamdunks the tone, assuring that Enids psychotrauma carries some dramatic weight within an overall satirical context. And she doesnt Mank the crap out of things by making a smart-arsed movie about movies. Rather, Censor is stylish homage, winking pastiche and relevant commentary on the root cause of violence: not art, be it trashy or otherwise, because its never arts fault for doing what art does, namely, and specifically in the case of horror films, indulging the darkness within humanity, and/or humanitys fascination with that darkness.

No, the assertion the film makes is that a damaged mind left untreated is doomed to malfunction; its a serious champion for mental-health awareness. As the sides of the screen begin to narrow, so tighten the screws on Enids sanity. And Bailey-Bond shows us how ones mind may deteriorate into delusion with confident visual savoir-faire, playing with color, subtly referencing slasher classics, toying with aspect ratios and lightly fetishizing a/v static and the whirr and clunk of a VCR. She also implicates the sexual politics of the business of making gory movies notably, all of which feature human-on-human wickedness, not vampires or aliens or chupacabras by depicting lurid male filmmakers as exploitationeers who subject women to gross debasement. Some of you movie producers out there should give Bailey-Bond a blank check for her next project.

Our Call: STREAM IT. Censor is provocative and funny, boasting a smartness-to-cleverness ratio of 75:25, which is just about perfect.

John Serba is a freelance writer and film critic based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Read more of his work at johnserbaatlarge.com or follow him on Twitter: @johnserba.

Where to stream Censor

The rest is here:
Stream It Or Skip It: 'Censor' on VOD, a Provocative Horror Film About a Woman Who Cuts Up '80s Slasher Flicks - Decider

The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in a standoff with social media companies over what content gets investigated or blocked online, and who gets to decide. Bikas Das/AP hide caption

The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in a standoff with social media companies over what content gets investigated or blocked online, and who gets to decide.

MUMBAI AND SAN FRANCISCO One night last month, police crowded into the lobby of Twitter's offices in India's capital New Delhi. They were from an elite squad that normally investigates terrorism and organized crime, and said they were trying to deliver a notice alerting Twitter to misinformation allegedly tweeted by opposition politicians.

But they arrived at 8 p.m. And Twitter's offices were closed anyway, under a coronavirus lockdown. It's unclear if they ever managed to deliver their notice. They released video of their raid afterward to Indian TV channels and footage shows them negotiating with security guards in the lobby.

The May 24 police raid which Twitter later called an "intimidation tactic" was one of the latest salvos in a confrontation between the Indian government and social media companies over what online content gets investigated or blocked, and who gets to decide.

While the Indian constitution includes the right to freedom of speech, it also bans expression or publication of anything that risks India's security, public order or "decency." But the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has introduced a long list of new IT rules going beyond this. They require social media platforms to warn users not to post anything that's defamatory, obscene, invasive of someone else's privacy, encouraging of gambling, harmful to a child or "patently false or misleading" among other things.

If the government orders it, platforms are required to take down such material. The rules also require platforms to identify the original source of information that's shared online or, in the case of messaging apps, forwarded among users. Company executives can be held criminally liable if the platforms don't comply.

Many tech companies are aghast. They say these rules violate their users' freedom of expression and privacy, and amount to censorship. Free speech advocates warn that such rules are prone to politicization and could be used to target government critics.

India's Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad (left) and Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar announce new regulations for social media companies and streaming websites in New Delhi in February. India's government has warned Twitter to comply with the country's new social media regulations, which critics say give the government more power to police online content. Manish Swarup/AP hide caption

India's Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad (left) and Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar announce new regulations for social media companies and streaming websites in New Delhi in February. India's government has warned Twitter to comply with the country's new social media regulations, which critics say give the government more power to police online content.

But India with nearly 1.4 billion people is one of the tech companies' biggest markets. The country's hundreds of millions of internet users present a ripe business opportunity for companies such as Twitter and Facebook, especially since they're banned from operating in China.

And India's government like others around the world knows this, says Jason Pielemeier, policy and strategy director at the Global Network Initiative, a coalition of tech companies and other groups supporting free expression online.

"Over time, the governments have become more and more sophisticated in terms of their understanding of the pressure points that large internet companies have and are sensitive to," he says. "Those companies have also, to some extent, become more sensitive as they have increased the revenue that they generate in markets all around the world. And so where you see companies having large user bases and governments increasingly dissatisfied with those companies' responsiveness, we tend to see situations like the one that is currently flaring up in India."

Some companies, including Google, Facebook and LinkedIn, have reportedly complied, at least partially, with the new rules, which took effect May 25. Others are lobbying for changes. Twitter says it's "making every effort to comply" but has asked for an extension to do so. WhatsApp, owned by Facebook, has sued the Indian government.

The police raid last month on Twitter's offices in New Delhi came amid squabbles between India's two biggest political parties, accusing each other of spreading misinformation.

Politicians from Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, had been tweeting screenshots of what they claimed was a "media toolkit" used by their main rival, the Indian National Congress party, to amplify online complaints about Modi's handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Twitter's rules about platform manipulation prohibit users from "artificially amplifying" messages.

But the screenshot BJP politicians were tweeting of this alleged "toolkit" was fake. Some of India's most reputable fact-checkers concluded it was a forgery. After its own investigation, Twitter slapped a "manipulated media" label on those tweets by BJP politicians.

The government then asked Twitter to remove that label. Twitter did not. Police raided its offices three days later.

"We, alongside many in civil society in India and around the world, have concerns with regards to the use of intimidation tactics by the police in response to enforcement of our global Terms of Service, as well as with core elements of the new IT Rules," a Twitter spokesperson wrote in a statement emailed May 27 to NPR and other news organizations.

To many observers, it looked like the Indian government was trying to drag Twitter publicly into a dispute between rival political parties, by sending the police to serve Twitter executives with a notice that could have been sent electronically especially during the pandemic.

"Serving a notice of that kind, in the form that played out, just confirms the idea that this is just theater," said Mishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of India's Software Freedom Law Center.

Choudhary says the optics are troubling. It looks like the Indian government has rewritten the country's IT rules to endow itself with extraordinary powers to silence its critics online. In February, on orders from the Indian government, Twitter blocked more than 500 accounts but then reversed course when it realized many belonged to journalists, opposition politicians and activists.

More recently, the Indian government demanded that social media companies remove news articles or posts referring to the B.1.617 coronavirus variant as the "Indian variant." (The WHO has since renamed this variant, which was first identified in India, as "Delta").

"The government has been trying to either block handles or curb dissent," Choudhary says. "Both the government and [social media] companies are claiming they're protecting users, when it's convenient for them, but users are really the ones left without much power."

Modi's government published its new IT rules on Feb. 25 and gave social media companies three months to comply. So the rules took effect May 25. Twitter is asking for another three-month extension.

"We will strive to comply with applicable law in India. But, just as we do around the world, we will continue to be strictly guided by principles of transparency, a commitment to empowering every voice on the service, and protecting freedom of expression and privacy under the rule of law," a Twitter spokesperson said in the May 27 statement.

One of the requirements Twitter finds most onerous is that it name an India-based chief compliance officer who would be criminally liable for content on the platform. The company says it's worried about its employees in that situation.

Indian government officials say Twitter has already had three months to comply with this and the rest of the requirements.

"You are a giant, earning billions of dollars globally! You can't find a technological solution?" India's IT minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, recently said on India's CNN-News18 channel.

Prasad acknowledged that India's social media rules might be more onerous than what tech companies are used to in the United States. But India is a place where mob violence has erupted over rumors shared on social media. The government needs to take extra precautions, he said. And big tech companies could comply with these rules, he insisted, if they really wanted to.

"The same Twitter and social media companies are complying with all the requirements in America! In Australia! In Canada! In England!" Prasad said. "But when it comes to India, they have a double standard."

Tech executives have been grilled about misinformation by members of the U.S. Congress. But when India summons them, they often don't show up. Choudhary says this has fueled anger among Indian politicians, who fume that they're not taken seriously.

"The companies say, 'Our servers are in California. So we don't have this information.' Or, 'We can't come and talk to you,'" she says. "That gives the government justification to say, 'How can you monetize our users, but when we want to have a discussion with you, you claim you're only a sales office?'"

India has reason to be sensitive to the threat of being taken advantage of by foreign powers. It has a colonial past. Even before Great Britain ruled India, a foreign corporation, the East India Company, pillaged it for centuries.

Choudhary calls what big tech companies are doing in India "digital colonialism."

"It's now the Silicon Valley 'bros' who think they can tell us what to do and what not to do," Choudhary says.

In a particularly harshly worded statement issued May 27, the Indian government called Twitter a "private, for-profit, foreign entity" that needs to "stop beating around the bush and comply with the laws of the land." It accused Twitter of "seek[ing] to undermine India's legal system" and blamed the company for what it called "rampant proliferation of fake and harmful content against India."

Last weekend, the Indian government appeared to reject Twitter's request for an extension. It sent the company what it called "one final notice" as a "gesture of goodwill," urging the tech giant to comply with the new social media rules. The government warned of "unintended consequences" if Twitter refuses to comply.

Nigeria's government recently banned Twitter after the company took down a tweet from President Muhammadu Buhari that appeared to threaten separatists. There are fears that India could do the same.

For Twitter, that would be a blow not just to its business interests, but to its avowed commitment to fostering public conversation.

"As much as these kinds of centralized corporate platforms can be frustrating in a number of ways, they are, when it comes down to it, the place where the majority of the world interacts," says Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"Years ago, I would have said that companies should stand up to authoritarian governments to tell them, 'Hey, block us if you want to, but we're not going to comply with these restrictions,'" she says. "But as time has gone on, that's become less and less of a viable option. ... For some people, these are really vital channels for accessing a global audience, for reaching people outside of their normal space, especially during the pandemic."

In India, for example, people took to Twitter to source medical supplies and raise money during a devastating COVID-19 resurgence.

On Monday, a Twitter spokesperson told NPR that the company remains "deeply committed to India," has been "making every effort to comply" with the new IT rules and has been sharing its progress with the Indian government.

The same day, Twitter also disclosed to a Harvard University database that it had restricted access within India to four accounts including those of a hip-hop artist and a singer/songwriter that had criticized the Modi government online. To comply with Indian law, Twitter sometimes blocks content in India but allows it to remain visible outside the country.

Twitter and other companies face pressure from other governments too. Around the world, free speech advocates say, there are increasing demands to restrict certain types of speech and for governments to play a greater role in regulating online platforms.

Germany, for example, has a law requiring social media platforms to act quickly to take down illegal speech or face financial penalties.

In the U.S., Democrats are pushing companies to curb misinformation, while Republicans have turned their own complaints about social media censorship into laws like one passed in Florida last month that bars platforms from banning politicians.

Another part of the showdown between India's government and tech companies hinges on privacy.

The government wants to be able to trace misinformation that's shared online. So as part of its new IT rules, it's asking social media companies to be able to identify the "first originator" of any piece of information. It says it will ask for that information only in rare cases where a potential crime is suspected to have been committed.

WhatsApp filed a lawsuit over this last month in the Delhi High Court. The company says it's unable to provide "first originator" information unless it traces every message on its platform which would amount to what it called "a new form of mass surveillance."

"To comply, messaging services would have to keep giant databases of every message you send or add a permanent identity stamp like a fingerprint to private messages with friends, family, colleagues, doctors, and businesses," WhatsApp wrote in an FAQ about traceability on its website. "Companies would be collecting more information about their users at a time when people want companies to have less information about them."

Experts say messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal would likely have to break their end-to-end encryption which ensures only the sender and recipient, not the company or anyone else, can read a message to comply with Indian law. Namrata Maheshwari, an India-based lawyer and policy consultant for the Center for Democracy and Technology, predicts that will have a "chilling effect" on free speech.

"This is problematic for users' right to privacy, because the core promise of end-to-end encryption is that users can communicate safely and securely without any unauthorized access by any third party, including the service provider," she says.

Maheshwari says the WhatsApp lawsuit is one of many filed in various high courts across India challenging India's new IT rules. They bring a key third party judges into the ongoing standoff between the Indian government and social media companies. The lawsuits will be decided over several months, or even years.

"As far as the question of who the stronger entity here is, I actually think it's now the Indian courts," she says. "The battleground has moved."

Editor's note: Facebook, Google and LinkedIn are among NPR's financial supporters.

Read more here:
India And Tech Companies Clash Over Censorship, Privacy And 'Digital Colonialism' - NPR

Twitter declared a free and open Internet to be "an essential human right in modern society" Saturday morning after the Nigerian government banned access to the social media giant following a dispute with its president even as critics say it suppresses conservative content and bans its own users.

Twitter deleted a fiery tweet from President Muhammadu Buhari that many perceived as a veiled threat against violent separatists in the nations southeast then his governments information wing responded by banning the social media platform from the country.

ETHIOPIAS AMHARA ETHNIC GROUP ACCUSES BIDEN OF IGNORING ATROCITIES

"The Federal Government has suspended, indefinitely, the operations of the microblogging and social networking service, Twitter, in Nigeria," the countrys Federal Ministry of Information and Culture tweeted Friday night.

Alhaji Lai Mohammed, Nigerias Minister of Information and Culture, also announced that the government would begin licensing social media platforms and "OTT," or over-the-top, operations, which offer content directly to viewers via the internet.

"We are deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria," Twitters Public Policy division tweeted in response. "Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society. We will work to restore access for all those in Nigeria who rely on Twitter to communicate and connect with the world. #KeepitOn."

The declaration immediately drew responses from Twitter users who noted that the social media giants own policies allow for suspending and banning users including former President Donald Trump.

"Access to the free & #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society... unless youre Donald Trump. Or reporting on Hunter Bidens laptop. Or discussing the biology of gender. Or the murderous dictator of Iran. Or a Chinese Communist Party peon lying about COVID," conservative author Liz Wheeler wrote in response to Twitters tweet.

Another user tweeted the meme of a comic book hero sweating over which button to choose "Access to Twitter is a human right," or "Ban these accounts for saying things I don't like."

Several other users weighed in with similar sentiments.

The company has also been accused by Republican lawmakers of "shadow-banning" conservatives, or using an algorithm that suppresses the visibility of their tweets.

Twitter also restricted the New York Post's account over a story about Hunter Biden just days before the 2020 presidential election, then backtracked after the story checked out.

PRO-IRAN TWITTER ACCOUNTS GOT ANTI-SEMITIC HATE TRENDING AMID ISRAELI-HAMAS ESCALATION

And yet FOX Business reported last month that a network of pro-Iran Twitter accounts got numerous anti-Semitic hashtags trending as violence between Israel and Hamas broke out at its highest levels since 2014.

Twitter Headquarters building in San Francisco (iStock)

Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Buharis deleted tweet came in response to arson attacks on government offices and police stations and appeared to threaten ethnic Igbo militants believed to be behind them.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Many of those misbehaving today are too young to be aware of the destruction and loss of lives that occurred during the Nigerian Civil War," he wrote in the now-deleted tweet. "Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war, will treat them in the language they understand."

The Nigerian president was a military officer in the fight against Igbo separatists who wanted to establish an independent Biafra nation in the countrys bloody civil war. More than 1 million people died in the conflict between 1967 and 1970.

Twitter rules prohibit tweets promoting or threatening violence.

Follow this link:
Twitter declares access to its platform a 'human right' amid censorship of conservatives - Fox News

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, argued on "Sunday Morning Futures" that "it now is clear" that Facebook was "utilizing their monopoly position to censor on behalf of the government" regarding information related to COVID-19 and its origins.

Cruz made the comment reacting to Facebook saying on May 26 thatit would no longer ban posts suggesting COVID-19is man-made amid mounting calls from President Biden and other officials for further investigation into the pandemics origins.

The announcement marked a reversal for the social media giant. In February, Facebook said it would remove posts claiming the virus was man-made or manufactured "following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization" who had "debunked" the claim.

"These latest breakthroughshave real consequence becauseit now is clear that Facebookwas operating at the directionof and in the direct benefit ofthe federal government andoperating as the government'scensor, utilizing their monopolyposition to censor on behalf ofthe government," Cruz told host Maria Bartiromo.

He then called it "a very dangerous admissionthat is now out there for Facebook," explaining that there could be legal ramifications for anybody "whosespeech was censored byFacebook" on the topic.

"If you went out andposted the facts that led a yearago to the very stronglikelihood that the COVID virusescaped from a Chinesegovernment lab in Wuhan, China,if you posted that a year agoand they took it down, I thinkthere's a very good argumentyou have a cause of actionagainst Facebook," Cruz said.

"Facebookwould ordinarily say, Were aprivate company, were not liable," he continued.

"Well, you know what, when they act atthe behest of the government, when theycontact [Anthony] Fauci, when they say, 'Should we censor this?' and Faucisays, 'Yes' and they censor it for thefederal government and then magically when thegovernment changes its mind, and say, Oh, allthose facts that were there a year ago,now you're allowed to talk aboutit, they stopped censoring it with aflip of a switch, that lays a very strong argument thatFacebook is operating as a stateagency and that opens verysignificant legal liability."

RAND PAUL GIVES 2-WORD RESPONSE TO FAUCI'S UNEARTHED EMAILS

A Facebook spokesperson did not respond to Fox News request for comment to Cruzs statements on Sunday.

However, in a statement late last month a Facebook spokesperson said, "In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps."

"Were continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge," the statement continued.

Politico was first to report on the policy change.

Cruz told Bartiromo that he "unfortunately" doesnt expect that the Biden administration "will doanything to hold them [Facebook] to account."

Public calls for further investigation into the pandemics origins intensified in recent days after the Wall Street Journal reported that three researchers at Chinas Wuhan Institute of Virology displayed symptoms severe enough to seek hospital treatment. A previous State Department fact sheet noted the researchers had "symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illness."

In a statement last month, Biden said he had directed his national security adviser to develop a report on the virus origins, including the possibility that it emerged after a laboratory accident, shortly after he became president. Biden said he has called on intelligence officials to present a report on their findings within 90 days.

Facebook and other social media platforms have faced pressure from both sides of the aisle regarding their COVID-19 content policies. Democratic lawmakers have pressed platforms to crack down on the spread of misinformation, while Republicans, including Cruz, have accused the companies of stifling open debate, including discussions on the lab leak theory.

Cruz also reacted to the trove of recently released emails to and from top government epidemiologistAnthony Fauci, which sparked fierce backlash against him from someRepublicans, including Cruz.

"I got to saythis e-mail dump that came outmakes clear that this is notjust being sloppy, it issystematic, and it is systemically aneffort to mislead the Americanpeople," Cruz told Bartiromo.

Cruz added, "He[Fauci] wasn't doing it alone, but he wasdoing it with much of the U.S.government behind him and withFacebook and Big Tech operatingas an extension of the U.S.government in order to silenceany views that disagreed, notwith the science because hewasn't looking for the science,he was suppressing the science,but rather trying to silenceanything that disagreed with thepolitical narrative that wasconvenient that he was pushingat that moment."

The emails Cruz was referencing were obtained first by BuzzFeedvia a Freedom of Information Act request.

The emails reportedly show that Fauci apparently took seriously questions about whether the virus leaked from a lab early in the pandemic before laterdismissingthe possibility.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A spokesman for Fauci and TheNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases(NIAID), where Fauci serves as director, did not respond to Fox News request for comment.

Fox Business Thomas Barrabi and Fox News Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Sen. Cruz argues Facebook was censoring COVID-19 content on behalf of the government - Fox News