Category Archives: Censorship

Those awaiting the most eagerly awaited film of the year will, it seems, have to await just a bit longer. John Patrick Shanleys Wild Mountain Thyme will not be available to rent in the Republic of Ireland on April 30th. The distributors have clarified that the twinkly romance, subject of much pre-emptive derision following the dropping of a trailer last November, will be coming to cinemas in the Republic of Ireland this summer.

Viewers in the UK will still be able to view the film digitally from the end of the month. The good burghers of Newry and Coleraine can enjoy Jamie Dornan romancing Emily Blunt in the privacy of their rose-covered shacks. Those in Navan and Cork must wait for the opening of cinemas.

It is most unusual for a release to be made available for digital rental in the UK but not in the Republic of Ireland. Most readers took UK to refer to the combined UK and Irish market as with the United States and Canada, distributors sometimes treat the territories as one and looked forward to an evening of ironic paddywhackery over the bank-holiday weekend.

Conspiracies already abound. Such was the aghast hilarity sometimes bleeding into naked anger at the stage-Irishness of the trailer that, when the film opened in the US, before Christmas, many American reviews referred to the response in Ireland. David Rooneys comments in the Hollywood Reporter were typical: Derisive reaction to the films trailer in the Emerald Isle suggests its less likely to be remembered alongside The Quiet Man than Far and Away, the 1992 Hollywoodized Oirish epic with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.

Shanley was dismissive of the blowback. I told Emily when we first talked about this project, Im not making this movie for the Irish. If you try to get the Irish to love you, no good will come of it, he told Variety.

With this in mind, more than a few on social media have suggested that Lionsgate, the films distributor, is trying to hide it from domestic audiences. This seems unlikely. The chatter around the picture would, most likely, only have increased rental demand for a film that received largely negative reviews on its American debut. It looks as if there is a real desire to get the film into cinemas.

Nor is Brexit to blame. The distributor still retains rights to the picture on both sides of the Irish Sea. But this remains a notable anomaly. Memories revive of the bad old days when censored films everything from Brief Encounter to Monty Pythons Life of Brian played merrily in the UK while Irish audiences seethed. Not that Brief Encounter has much else in common with Wild Mountain Thyme.

Read more:
Its as if censorship were back: Why Ireland cant watch Wild Mountain Thyme this month - The Irish Times

Screengrab via Fox NewsGov.Ron DeSantisreconnected with a national audience Wednesday, joining Fox and Friends to message against the content curation policies of Google and YouTube again.

The Governor said the tech platforms were anti-science and functioned as a council of censors when they opted to pull down a video of a controversial coronavirus roundtable DeSantis held with doctors earlier this year.

Last week, YouTuberemoved a videoof DeSantisroundtable, which included Drs.Scott Atlas,Jay BhattacharyaandMartin Kulldorff. At issue: medical guidance regarding children and the necessity of masks.

DeSantis, whobrought the doctors backto Tallahassee virtually this week to bemoan the censorship, reprised his objections at length Wednesday.

When you have the ability to debate people and you can marshal facts against certain viewpoints, you do that. When you dont have that, thats when you try to fall back on censorship, DeSantis said.

These are doctors and scientists who have been against the narrative really for the past year, and you know, theyve been right against lockdowns, theyve been right about kids needing to be in school. Obviously, Florida followed a lot of their advice and weve had much more success.

And so if what theyre saying isnt true on science, then show the science that contradicts it, the Governor continued. But Google and YouTube couldnt do that. What Google and YouTube (are) trying to do is serve as a council of censors, where theyre enforcers of the narrative. The narrative is lockdown. The narrative is mask a two year old kid. The narrative is all these different things we kept hearing, and when people counteract that, their instinct is to pull it down.

Very troubling, DeSantis added. Thats not what science is about. Science is always about asking questions, raising concerns, and Google and YouTube are not dedicated to the scientific method.

The Governor said the tech platforms stifled really strong critiques of lockdowns early in the pandemic, censored across all these tech platforms.

They suffocated it at the outset, DeSantis asserted.

The Governor held to that metaphor, adding a bit later that its really hard to just smother those facts and take it down, but thats what theyre doing.

In astatement last week, YouTube spokeswomanElenaHernandezsaid YouTube pulled the video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Support local journalism in these crazy days. Our small but mighty team is working tirelessly to bring you up to the minute news on how Coronavirus is affecting Tampa and surrounding areas. Please considermaking a one time or monthly donationto help support our staff. Every little bit helps.

Subscribeto our newsletter and follow@cl_tampabayon Twitter.

Read more from the original source:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says YouTube, Google are a 'council of censors' - Creative Loafing Tampa

Chinas influential Douban review and culture online platform has wiped the 2021 Oscars from its site, the latest indication that this years Academy Awards have become a political flashpoint in the worlds largest film market.

Douban is a trend-setting social networking site home to a vibrant message board community and a platform for user reviews for books, music and films. It boasts an impressive catalogue of Oscar data, with homepages for each year logging winners and nominees going back all the way to the first Academy Awards in 1929. As of Friday, however, theres no longer a page for 2021.

Individual films catalogued on Douban also all have a homepage with a comprehensive running list of nominations and awards. Now, however, none of the films nominated for the Oscars this year have that accolade on file. The page for Chlo Zhaos Nomadland, for instance, lists every prize and nod shes won this year from the Online Film Critics Society Awards to the latest Golden Globes, but omits her history-making four Oscar nods.

The Oscars as a whole havent been deleted off Douban, however. Oscar-related discussion groups and forum posts still remain up, and appear to have avoided mass culling thus far.

Why did the entire list of this years Oscar nominees disappear entirely from Douban??? a puzzled user queried on one such message board. Another user answered frankly below: Because a documentary about the Hong Kong protests was nominated.

Doubans decision to wipe the 2021 Academy Awards comes after Chinese authorities last month ordered local media channels not to transmit live coverage of the event and to otherwise downplay the ceremony. Soon after, Hong Kongs top free-to-air TV network Television Broadcasts said it would drop its coverage as well, despite having carried the event every year since 1969.

Beijing has long sought Oscar gold, and in the past has even touted wins from ethnically Chinese non-Chinese nationals as wins for the country. This year is in fact actually a bit of a watershed for China. China-born director Zhao will be in the spotlight, as well as two other Chinese co-productions, animation Over the Moon and drama Better Days, which will vie for gold in the animated and international feature categories, respectively.

But ever since the nominees were announced, internal political issues have dogged celebration of these nods. First, Chinese internet users accused Zhao of slandering China in since-deleted comments made to a U.S. magazine almost a decade ago, possibly putting the late-April China theatrical release for Nomadland in jeopardy. They then upbraided Better Days director Derek Tsang for a since-deleted years-old photo that they said depicted him showing support for the 2014 pro-democracy Umbrella Movement, which angered Beijing.

The worst offense, however, is that the Academy nominated Norwegian director Anders Hammers 35-minute film Do Not Split, which chronicles Hong Kongs intense street protests against closer ties with Beijing, to run in the best documentary short subject race. Chinese authorities would never allow footage of such a film being discussed or celebrated to screen in the country.

There does not yet appear to be a blanket directive for all Chinese sites and platforms to follow in Doubans footsteps. Information about the April 25 Oscars were available, for instance, on the online Maoyan ticketing, data and review platform just with Hammers offending title omitted from the list of nominees.

Hammer told Variety that the more China censored coverage related to his short, the more Beijing was simply proving the films point for him.

[Do Not Split] is a movie about how basic democratic rights are challenged and are disappearing in Hong Kong, so [Beijings reaction] is just in line with the story that we are covering in the movie, he said. From how I see they deal with freedom of expression issues in general, unfortunately its not a surprise.

Read the rest here:
Chinas Douban Censors the Oscars From Its Platform - Variety

After the beheading of French teacher Samuel Paty by an Islamist, teachers in France are very shocked. A survey shows that half of French teachers practice self-censorship in matters of religion. This is reported by the Belgian VRT.

After Samuel Patys death, more and more French people seem to feel a certain pressure to pay attention to what they say. It makes sense, too, because no one wants to be the next beheaded for a wayward Muhammad cartoon. A recent survey shows that no less than 50% of French teachers are of this opinion.

The French principle secularism, the division between Church and State, is partly because of this under enormous pressure. Tolerance towards people with different worldviews and being able to believe what you want in private, without forcing it on others, is no longer taken for granted by everyone in France.

From the VRT report it appears that even if teachers find that they do not even understand the concept correctly explained anymore. It is understood by the students as a prohibition of the faith. Where the French say, You only wear symbols of faith outside of your school, French Muslims experience this as an outright reduction of their religious beliefs.

a

This puts things in place in the French school system. Teaching about gender equality in companies is already avoided by a teacher. Another was previously told that his Muslim students would not play that day because of Ramadan. The potential for classroom conflict is already present when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The Islamic minority in France seems to be more and more able (and willing) to impose its will, while the French majority has not yet been able to give a correct answer. And with French President Macron busy tackling the more radical elements, it looks like the tension will only increase in the years to come. In any case, we are a team of freedom of expression!

a

Infuriatingly humble social media ninja. Devoted travel junkie. Student. Avid internet lover.

More:
Allahu Akbar! Half of French teachers censor their own comments on Islam after Samuel Paty's murder - From Daily Standaard - DodoFinance

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed a bill on Tuesday that sought to limit perceived censorship by social media companies like Facebook and Twitter.

Senate Bill 228, which narrowly passed during this years legislative general session, would have required social media companies to provide clear information about the social corporations moderation practices and created an opportunity for a Utah account holder to appeal certain moderation practices that the social media corporation employs on a Utah account holders account or post, according to a summary of the bill.

What this does is it deals with free speech. I think our free speech rights have been infringed by some large tech folks and I think thats a problem, Republican Spanish Fork Sen. Mike McKell, the bills sponsor, told lawmakers on March 1. And I think what weve got is a good bill to create a process to create transparency; thats what this bill does.

In a press release, the governors office said Cox had vetoed the bill, his first veto since taking office in January, due to technical issues with the legislation and after speaking with legislative leadership.

The press release noted that censorship by tech companies is a serious concern and that the veto will not hinder nor prevent Utah from finding the right policy solution.

The sponsors of this bill have raised valid questions about the impact social media platforms can have on public discourse and debate, Cox said. Our country continues to grapple with very real and novel issues around freedom of speech, the rights of private companies and the toxic divisiveness caused by these new forms of connection, information and communication. While I have serious concerns about the bill, I appreciate the willingness of the bills sponsors to continue to seek a better solution.

Lawmakers considered the bill following cries at the national level of liberal bias among social media company executives and censorship of conservative posts and accounts.

Not very many things infuriate me more than to see blatant censorship, especially when its one-sided, Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, told his colleagues on Feb. 26 while speaking in support of the bill. And I can cite 10 examples from the last six months.

But other state lawmakers said the bill raised questions of constitutionality, including Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake City, who said he had real concerns and believed social media platforms should be able to make the same editorial judgments as newspapers, TV stations and other forms of media.

They make that decision, Davis said. And these (social) media companies are no different, I dont believe, than our general media is.

Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, said the bill is completely unenforceable and has no parameters.

I dont understand how this is actually going to work, said Riebe. So unless we can enforce something, I really dont think we should be passing laws.

S.B. 228 passed 21-6 in the Senate on March 1 and 39-35 in the House on March 4.

In the press release, McKell said he intends to open a new bill on May 5 to address the censorship issues.

Censorship practices are un-American and likely unconstitutional, he said. In Utah, we defend the right to freely express opinions and views, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

The Spanish Fork senator continued, The outcome of S.B. 228 is not ideal; however, the issue of free speech and online censorship remains a priority and policy will continue to be refined throughout the interim.

Connor Richards covers government, the environment and south Utah County for the Daily Herald. He can be reached at crichards@heraldextra.com and 801-344-2599.

Read more:
Utah governor vetoes bill limiting perceived social media censorship - Daily Herald

Three recently censored artworks again raise questions over COVID-fuelled racism, and the flipside, social media bullying and the lack of civil conversations where needed.

Luke Cornish (aka e.l.k.) is no stranger to censorship and public backlash to his art practice.

You might recall in September 2019, Cornishs high profile mural located along Bondi Beachs boardwalk was vandalised. It took a hardline against Australias Border Force policies and the resulting suicides in detention facilities a topic Cornish felt need greater community conversation.

Read: Luke Cornish on censorship, commercialism and street art

Cornish has again faced attacks this past week, and has became the centre of yet another national media storm. This time is over touted claims of #covidracism.

Three artworks from Cornishs exhibition of near 30 pieces, currently showing at a Canberra gallery, have been removed as a response to hundreds of angered social media posts and emails claiming the works were racist.

It would seem the title of the exhibition Dont shoot the messenger had become prophesy.

Cornish told ArtsHub: The whole crux of this exhibition is to call out the abuse of power; it targets all governments and all religions.

I think I inadvertently offended a group of young organised [Chinese] students I can understand why, I have to say I was nave to racism that COVID has bought with it, that is why I agreed that piece had to be taken down, he explained.

The piece called out was made on RMB Chinese currency depicting China's founding Communist leader Mao Zedong as Batman.

However, a further two pieces were also removed by the gallery RMB with Mao as Winnie the Pooh, and the third taking a stab at a facial recognition scan.

The gallery was getting hammered on social media, Cornish said. They did what they thought was right. They have been very supportive of my work over the past ten years, so I am really sad for any damage that has been done there.

Cornish said the Batman work was an attempt to point out the stupidity of conspiracy theories around coronavirus origins, but I can [now] see why the Asian community might have read it within the hate movement that has happened since the pandemic, he told ArtsHub.

The exhibition titled Dont shoot the messenger also uses riot shields, throwing knives and cutthroat razors as well as the paper currency from dozens of different countries as canvases for igniting conversations about violence, citizen protests en masse and media cycles.

The overall theme of the exhibition is injustice and protest, and people rising up against injustice globally, Cornish says on the gallerys website.

He continued to ArtsHub: The global climate in general is all about protest and war but I am not politically motivated. Cornish was clear in describing himself as an activist.

My whole arts practice is about the freedom of speech As I said to you in our earlier conversation, I need the freedom to make mistakes in my work.

Read: On Art, Activism and Empathy: George Gittoes and Luke Cornish

A coordinated attack

Cornish believes the social media campaign was a coordinated attack.

It felt like a targeted attack the hate mail all came in within a few hours it was definitely organised, said Cornish. They didnt try to speak to me [first]; they just wanted to shut down the conversation.

He described the attack as form of mental bullying, adding that the artwork has been completely taken out of context.

Cornish said the last couple of weeks have been a blur, but says the wave has started to die down.

Im starting to see trends it reminds me of what happened with Bondi first comes the hate, then comes the support ,and then comes the media knocking on the door.

The first week was just hate mail and social media, and then it turned around and come back as support and went viral in Hong Kong, and I just heard it is now in Brazil.

The exhibition includes activist artworks around the Hong Kong and Venezuela mass protests, and marches held for the Black Lives Matter movement around the world as well as issues closer to home like the Religious Discrimination Bill proposed by the Morrison government, and the greed and influence of the mining industry.

While located within the Australian National University (ANU) precinct, the gallery is independent.

Dont shoot the messenger at aMBUSH gallery, 12 March 11 April.

See the rest here:
Luke Cornish on the recent censorship of his work and COVID racism - ArtsHub

Given all we know about the way culture moves in this century, it should have surprised no one that the various stock characters of the Looney Tunes universe were ever going to make it 2021 without some complaints and some changes.

Well note that The Federalist was a year early to the idea of subjecting Looney Tunes to the cancel culture microscope. And now mainstream culture has justified their paranoia. With HBO Max running a new series of cartoons featuring Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and the rest, and a Space Jam sequel on deck, the inevitable grumbling about comedy that hasnt aged well turned into a full-blown shouting match after a New York Times Op-Ed piece by Charles Blow (which is mostly about the Dr. Seuss book discontinuation issue) mentioned problems with Speedy Gonzales and PepLe Pew.

The Internet, as it does, took that outrage ball and ran with it. Now, these two characters are under fire for cultural stereotyping. One of them will not be appearing in the upcoming Space Jam sequel: PepLe Pew, the one who is very rapey.

Furthermore, people have called out Le Pew as an obvious French Lothario stereotype, which turns out to be even more complicated: in France, they changed Le Pews ethnicity to Italian, as Tim Soret points out on Twitter. Because portraying Italian lovers as gropey and horny is better, somehow? Not surprisingly, because its Twitter, the skunk has his defenders who are presumably all right with persistent sexual harassment as long is its between non-human cartoon characters.

On the matter of Pepeand Speedy, I decided to try to remember on my own, without 2021 hindsight, what I thought of these characters growing up.

With absolute certainty I can tell you that Pepe Le Pew always seemed skeevy to me, a sexually depraved Wile E. Coyote who needed chemical castration. Did I know what chemical castration was as a six- or seven-year-old in front of the TV? No. Had someone explained it to me in great detail, would I have supported doing that to the cartoon skunk? Im confident my child-self would have.

Im proud to say I didnt need nearly 40 more years to figure that one out. In the #MeToo era, Le Pew has no business in any new animated properties unless they are underground, unsanctioned, and X-Rated, something like, Pepe Le Pubis in Pussy Purgatory. Something classy like that.

Speedy Gonzales presents a whole other set of issues, which start with the fact that in the Looney Tunes cartoons, hes not a lecherous villain/pursuer like Le Pew, hes a wily and smart hero, more along the lines of Bugs Bunny. Hes tiny and fast and clever even as hes throwing around extremely outdated Spanglish phrases that seem cringey now.

But to Latino/Hispanic/Mexican kids like me growing up, Speedy was one of the only representations we had on television at the time, let alone in an animated world we actually wanted to watch.

I know Im not the only Latino kid who grew up crying, Arriba,arriba! ndale, ndale! as I tore around the house in my Underoos, waving an imaginary sombrero. We loved the character because he was a hero, an undermouse. His brown mouse skin and diminutive stature spoke to us little kids who either had Mexican accents, or who had many family members with accents. Im not alone. He was the only Mexican in Hollywood I knew who never lostwell, him and Cheech and Chong, wrote Gustavo Arellano in the Los Angeles Times. A lot of us still revere the mouse

Yes, Speedy is a running, hopping stereotype, but so are Yosemite Sam (angry white NRA member), Elmer Fudd (impotent white NRA member), Foghorn Leghorn (southern lawyer?), Tasmanian Devil (Australian rugby player?), Porky Pig (long-suffering stutterer), Marvin the Martian (stereotypical space alien).

It gave me great hope when Gabriel Iglesias, who is voicing Speedy in the new Space Jam, didnt just tuck his mouse tail between his legs and apologize.

Like many Latinos, Iglesias feels strongly for Speedy. Iglesias, who has made a great career as a stand-up comic and TV sitcom star, has always smartly walked the line between using Latino stereotypes for comic hay, and smartly subverting those stereotypes by being smarter, harder-working, and more prolific than nearly anyone in comedy. Im more than happy to let Iglesias, who has a much closer connection to Speedy than any of us, speak for me: U cant catch me cancel culture. Im the fastest mouse in all of Mexico.

Visit link:
Looney Tunes Escapes the Censor's Axe...So Far - Book and Film Globe

What is censorship?

According to Websters Dictionary, to censor means to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. The word censor originated in ancient Rome, where the government appointed officials to take the census and to supervise public morals. Censorship happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their political or moral values on others by suppressing words, images, or ideas that they find offensive.

A censor, traditionally, is an official whose job it is to examine literature, movies, or other forms of creative expression and to remove or ban anything she considers unsuitable. In this definition, censorship is something the government does. But censorship can also be accomplished very effectively by private groups.

Not all forms of censorship are illegal. When private individuals agitate to eliminate TV programs they dislike, or threaten to boycott the companies that support those programs with advertising dollars, they are certainly trying to censor artistic expression and interfere with the free speech of others. But their actions are perfectly legal; in fact, their protests are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Not even all government censorship is unlawful. For example, we still have laws against obscenity in art and entertainment. These laws allow the government to punish people for producing or disseminating material about sex, if a judge or jury thinks the material is sufficiently offensive and lacks any serious value.

What is the basis for free expression in the United States?The First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances) protects against government restrictions on or interference with the content of speech. The First Amendment applies to Government at the national, state, and local level.

Why should I care about censorship?Understanding of First Amendment freedoms is fragile and imperiled by increasingly effective and sophisticated attacks. In numerous communities, people are determined to impose their own narrow views on everyone else, and censor what they do not approve.The First Amendment exists to protect speech and activities that are unpopularif only those ideas which were popular were protected, it wouldnt be needed. Limiting free speech is unAmericanwithout it, all our rights and liberties quickly disintegrate.Censorship is an assault on the rights of all of us. We must continue to fight for the freedom to read, to see, to know, and to think for ourselves.

How can I fight back against censors in my community?Heres what you can do to organize locally.

Where can I get further information on censorship?For more information about censorship, here is a list of NCACs resources, or drop us an e-mail here.

Original post:
What is Censorship? - National Coalition Against Censorship

Watch the newCBSN Originalsdocumentary, "Speaking Frankly | Censorship," in the video player above.

Musician Joy Villa's red carpet dresses at the past three years' Grammy Awards were embellished with pro-Trump messages that cemented her as an outspoken darling of the conservative movement. With over 500,000 followers across Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, Villa refers to her social media community as her "Joy Tribe," and a few years ago she enlisted them to help wage a public battle against what she claimed was YouTube's attempt to censor her.

"I had released my 'Make America Great Again" music video on YouTube, and within a few hours it got taken down by YouTube," Villa told CBSN Originals. "I took it to the rest of my social media. I told my fans: 'Hey listen, YouTube is censoring me. This is unfair censorship.'"

Villa saw it as part of a pattern of social media companies trying to shut down conservative voices an accusation that many other like-minded users, including President Trump himself, have leveled against Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in recent years.

But those who study the tech industry's practices say that deciding what content stays up, and what comes down, has nothing to do with "censorship.""There is this problem in the United States that when we talk about free speech, we often misunderstand it," said Henry Fernandez, co-chair of Change the Terms, a coalition of organizations that work to reduce hate online.

"The First Amendment is very specific: It protects all of us as Americans from the government limiting our speech," he explained. "And so when people talk about, 'Well, if I get kicked off of Facebook, that's an attack on my free speech or on my First Amendment right' that's just not true. The companies have the ability to decide what speech they will allow. They're not the government."

A YouTube spokesperson said Villa's video wasn't flagged over something she said, but due to a privacy complaint. Villa disputed that, but once she blurred out the face of someone who didn't want to be seen in the video, YouTube put it back online, and her video remains visible on the platform today.

"At YouTube, we've always had policies that lay out what can and can't be posted. Our policies have no notion of political affiliation or party, and we enforce them consistently regardless of who the uploader is," said YouTube spokesperson Alex Joseph.

While Villa and others on the right have been vocal about their complaints, activists on the opposite side of the political spectrum say their online speech frequently ends up being quashed for reasons that have gotten far less attention.

Carolyn Wysinger, an activist who provided Facebook feedback and guidance about minority users' experience on the platform, told CBSN Originals that implicit bias is a problem that permeates content moderation decisions at most social media platforms.

"In the community standards, white men are a protected class, the same as a black trans woman is. The community standards does not take into account the homophobia, and the violence, and how all those things intersect. It takes all of them as individual things that need to be protected," said Wysinger.

The artificial intelligence tools that automate the process of moderating and enforcing community standards on the sites don't recognize the intent or background of those doing the posting.

For instance, Wysinger said, "I have been flagged for using imagery of lynching. ... I have been flagged for violent content when showing images about racism and about transphobia."

According to the platforms' recent transparency reports, from April to June 2020, nearly 95% of comments flagged as hate speech on Facebook were detected by AI; and on YouTube 99.2% of comments removed for violating Community Standards were flagged by AI.

"That means you're putting these community standards in place and you have these bots who are just looking for certain specific things. It's automated. It doesn't have the ability for nuanced decision-making in regards to this," said Wysinger.

Biases can be built into the algorithms by the programmers who designed them, even if it's unintentional.

"Unfortunately tech is made up of a homogenous group, mostly White and Asian males, and so what happens is the opinions, the experiences that go into this decision-making are reflective of a majority group. And so people from different backgrounds Black, Latino, different religions, conservative, liberal don't have the accurate representation that they would if these companies were more diverse," said Mark Luckie, a digital strategist who previously worked at Twitter, Reddit and Facebook.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said he believes the platform "should enable as much expression as possible," and that social media companies "shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online."

Nonetheless, a recent Pew Research Center survey found that nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults believe social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints. In the last two years, two congressional hearings have focused on the question of tech censorship.

"We hear that there is an anti-conservative bias on the part of Facebook or other platforms because conservatives keep saying that," said Susan Benesch, executive director of the Dangerous Speech Project, an organization based in Washington D.C. that has advised Facebook, Twitter, Google and other internet companies on how to diminish harmful content online while protecting freedom of speech.

But she adds, "I would be surprised if that were the case in part because on most days the most popular, most visited groups on Facebook and pages on Facebook are very conservative ones."

She said she also finds it interesting that "many conservatives or ultra-conservatives complain that the platforms have a bias against them at the same time as Black Lives Matter activists feel that the platforms are disproportionately taking down their content."

A 2019review of over 400 political pages on Facebook, conducted by the left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters, found conservative pages performed about equally as well as liberal ones.

But reliable data on the subject is scarce, and social media platforms are largely secretive about how they make decisions on content moderation.

Amid ongoing criticism, Facebook commissioned an independent review, headed by former Republican Senator Jon Kyl, to investigate accusations of anti-conservative bias. Kyl's 2019report detailed recommendations to improve transparency, and Facebook agreed to create an oversight board for content removal decisions. Facebook said it "would continue to examine, and where necessary adjust, our own policies and practices in the future."

According to Fernandez, the focus should be on requiring tech companies to publicly reveal their moderation rules and tactics.

Benesch points out, "We have virtually zero oversight regarding take-down, so in truth content moderation is more complicated than just take it down or leave it up," referring to the fact that, to date, there has been little publicly available data provided by tech companies to allow an evaluation of the process.

"Protecting free expression while keeping people safe is a challenge that requires constant refinement and improvement. We work with external experts and affected communities around the world to develop our policies and have a global team dedicated to enforcing them," Facebook said in a statement.

And a statement from Twitter said, "Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. In fact, from a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the service."

Meanwhile users like Wysinger struggle with mixed feelings about social media sites that promise connection but sometimes leave them out in the cold.

"Whether we like it or not, we are all on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter all day long, and when they take us off the banned list, I don't know anyone who doesn't post a status on Facebook right away, after the ban is lifted: 'I'm back y'all!'," said Wysinger.

"It's like an abusive relationship, you can't even leave the abusive relationship because you become so used to and dependent on it."

Link:
Censorship on social media? It's not what you think - CBS News

by: Wes Wilson, Faith Castle, John Engel

AUSTIN (KXAN) Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is leaning into a rallying cry of conservatives: something must be done to stop social media companies from censoring political views.

Abbott held a news conferenceFriday regardinghis legislative proposal to ban social media platforms from censoring Texans. Abbott says too many social media sites silence conservative speech and ideas and trample free speech.

Abbott joined Sen. Bryan Hughes in Tyler, Texas to discussSenate Bill 12.

Conservative speech will not be cancelled in the state of Texas, Abbott said. (This bill) would allow any Texan who has been cancelled, censored or de-platformed to file a lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook or any of these other companies.

In his bill, Hughes said social media platforms are akin to common carriers like cell phone or cable companies. and have enjoyed governmental support in the United States. He says the bill will protect Texans and allow them to get back online quickly should a social media company punish them for expressing a viewpoint based on their religious beliefs or political leanings.

Just like AT&T cant cut off my cell service becausethey dont like a conversation were having, these folks should not be given that power, Sen. Hughes said. We cant let them abuse it like they have been.

Abbott tweeted that doing so is un-American, Un-Texan, & soon to be illegal.

I am joining @SenBryanHughes to announce a bill prohibiting social media companies from censoring viewpoints.

Too many social media sites silence conservative speech and ideas and trample free speech.

It's un-American, Un-Texan, & soon to be illegal.https://t.co/zSdirRa1pj

Conservatives have grown increasingly frustrated with social media companies in the wake of the presidential election.

In light of the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol in January, many social media companies including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have banned people who have tried to cast doubt on the 2020 presidential election.

That includes former President Donald Trump who has tried to falsely claim that he won the election and was only denied due to widespread voter fraud. Numerous courts with judges that President Trump appointed failed to find any widespread voter fraud that could have changed the election.

Joshua Tucker, co-director of the Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University, said its impossible to know whether one side of the political spectrum is being censored more than the other by social media companies because those companies dont provide access to outside researchers.

The data that we need to answer this and many other pressing public policy questions is being produced by Facebook and Google, he said.

A Pew Research poll conducted in 2020 found that three-quarters of American adults, including 90% of Republicans, believe that it is very or somewhat likely that social media companies censor political viewpoints.

Read this article:
Gov. Abbott holds news conference on bill to prohibit social media censorship - KXAN.com