Category Archives: Censorship

A former employee of TikTok's parent company ByteDance has claimed it tried to develop an algorithm to censor livestreams in the Uighur language.

In an anonymous interview with Protocol, the former ByteDance staffer, who worked for the company's Trust and Safety team, described developing tools to help the company's moderation efforts for Douyin TikTok's sister app for the Chinese market.

China has been condemned for its treatment of the Uighur Muslims, an ethnic and religious minority in its western Xinjiang province, where tens of thousands of Uighur people have been held in detention centers.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said last month that he regarded China's treatment of the Uighur Muslims as genocide.

In the Protocol interview, the ex-employee described how their work often was helping ByteDance build tools to quickly remove content which might violate China's censorship laws.

"We received multiple requests from the bases to develop an algorithm that could automatically detect when a Douyin user spoke Uyghur, and then cut off the livestream session," they said.

"The moderators had asked for this because they didn't understand the language. Streamers speaking ethnic languages and dialects that Mandarin-speakers don't understand would receive a warning to switch to Mandarin.

"If they didn't comply, moderators would respond by manually cutting off the livestreams, regardless of the actual content.

"But when it comes to Uighur, with an algorithm that did this automatically, the moderators wouldn't have to be responsible for missing content that authorities could deem to have instigated 'separatism' or 'terrorism'."

The ex-employee said the tool was never built, partly because the company lacked the data and partly because popular livestream channels were already "closely monitored."

They added: "I do not recall any major political blowback from the Chinese government during my time at ByteDance, meaning we did our jobs."

A ByteDance spokesperson told Insider: "Given the huge diversity of dialects and languages spoken in China, Douyin continues to increase its moderation capacities to keep our community safe, particularly in livestreaming.

"As of today there are still a number of languages and dialects that we do not have the personnel resources to effectively moderate, but we are working to resolve this."

In 2019, TikTok itself was accused of censoring "in line with Chinese Communist Government directives" by US Senator Marco Rubio, near the start of an increasingly heated war of words that ultimately saw President Donald Trump try to ban the app from the US over national security concerns.

In November, a senior TikTok executive told a UK parliamentary hearing that the company did previously censor content "specifically with regard to the Uighur situation" but she added it no longer did this. The same executive later backtracked, saying she "misspoke" and the company had never had a specific policy against the Uighur community.

TikTok has repeatedly sought to distance itself from its Chinese ties. The Biden administration is reportedly re-assessing whether it will uphold an order from former President Trump that would force TikTok to divest its US operations.

More here:
ByteDance 'tried to build an algorithm to censor Uighur livestreams': ex-employee - Business Insider

How about Ted Cruz slams Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over censorship at Senate hearing USA TODAY

Despite repeatedcharges of anti-conservative bias from former President Donald Trump and other GOP critics, Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube are not slanted against right-leaning users, a new report out of New York University found.

Like previous research, False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives, concludes thatrather than censoring conservatives, social media platforms amplify their voices.

Republicans, or more broadly conservatives, have been spreading a form of disinformation on how they're treated on social media. They complain theyre censored and suppressed but, not only is there not evidence to support that, what evidence exists actually cuts in the other direction, said Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, which released the report Monday.

Conservatives Twitter purge: Trump allies and Republican lawmakers lost thousands of followers in Twitter purge after Capitol riots

Censorship or conspiracy theory?Trump supporters say Facebook and Twitter censor them but conservatives still rule social

The report lands as a unifying argument is taking shape that major forces in American society big media, big government, big business are muzzling conservatives. That argument intensified after the major social media platforms suspended Trump out of fear he would incite violence following the U.S. Capitol attack.

There is a broad campaign going on from the right to argue that theyre being silenced or cast aside, and that spirit is what is helping to feed the extremism that we are seeing in our country right now, Barrett said. We cant just allow that to be a debating point. Its not legitimate. Its not supported by the facts.

Many groups across the political spectrum feel their opinions and perspectives are under siege whensocial media platforms moderate content, researchers say, but its difficult to make the case that these platforms are biased against any one group since the platforms disclose so little about how they decide what content is allowed and what is not.

Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube are not slanted against right-leaning users, a new report says.(Photo: LIONEL BONAVENTURE, AFP/Getty Images)

For their part, Facebook and Twitter say their platforms strike a balance between promoting free expression and removing hate, abuse and misinformation. They acknowledge making enforcement errors but insist their policies are applied fairly to everyone.

Conservative author Denise McAllister does not see it that way. And shes called on the social media platforms to stop moderating speech altogether.

This is a platform, right? You don't need to act like mama Twitter or mama Facebook. Just let people say what they are going to say, whether its true, false, whatever, she recently told USA TODAY. You have to just trust the people as individuals and not to try to impose power because you are going to do it inconsistently.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg said last week that Facebook would no longer recommend political and civic groups to users and would downplay politics in people's News Feeds.

A recent poll shows that majorities in both parties think political censorship is likely occurring on social media, but that belief is most prevalent on the political right.

Nine in 10 Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party say its at least somewhat likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable, up slightly from 85% in 2018, according to an August report from the Pew Research Center.

CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg appears on a monitor as he testifies remotely during a congressional hearing to discuss reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .(Photo: MICHAEL REYNOLDS, POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

The perception that social media platforms censor conservatives is regularly circulated by Fox News hosts, GOP lawmakers in congressional hearings and online pundits. That, in turn, has intensified GOP calls to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social media companies from legal liability for what their users post and gives platforms immunity when moderating objectionable content.

Bipartisan support to restrain the vast power held by a handful of large corporations grew during the Trump administration and shows no signs of ebbing as Democrats retake the White House.

Social media platforms have been judged harshly by both parties for how they policed content over the past year, from the COVID-19 pandemic to election-related misinformation and disinformation.

Oversight board to review Trump ban: Facebook refers Donald Trump indefinite suspension after Capitol attack to oversight board which could overturn it

YouTube Trump ban:Google extends suspension of former President Trump's channel

Democrats, including Biden, say the social media platforms dont restrict or remove enough harmful content, particularly hate speech, extremism, hoaxes and falsehoods. They have called on companies to play a bigger and more responsible role in curating public debate.

Those on the right say these platforms have too much latitude to restrict and remove content and target conservatives based on their political beliefs.

Those grievances boiled over when Facebook, Twitter and YouTube suspended Trumps accounts, citing the risk that he would use his social media megaphone to incite more violence before the end of his term.

After being permanently suspended from Twitter, Trump accused the company of banning free speech in cahoots with the Democrats and Radical Left.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/02/01/censorship-conservatives-trump-facebook-twitter-youtube/4316155001/

View post:
Do Facebook, Twitter and YouTube censor conservatives? Claims 'not supported by the facts,' new research says - USA TODAY

Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: AP (3), Getty Images

Censorship online by Big Tech is a bad idea, in large part because its a distraction from the problem of how social media companies promote, spread and amplify harmful information, according to author Peter Pomerantsev.

Its ridiculous to think that you can regulate the billions of things people say every day, or that we should, or that its even feasible. So I dont think thats the way forward, Pomerantsev said in an interview on The Long Game, a Yahoo News podcast. Therell be a way to get out of the whole tricky thing of taking one comment down or leaving it up.

The way out, he said, is through forcing the tech companies to be transparent about how they are manipulating the spread of information, and holding them accountable to prevent public harms.

Pomerantsev is a Russian-born journalist now based in London whose parents were hounded by the KGB secret police in Soviet Russia. His book This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality argues that phrases like freedom of expression have been hacked by authoritarian leaders and governments like Vladimir Putin in Russia and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines.

Authoritarians use freedom of speech as an excuse to spread massive amounts of disinformation at the click of a button, while employing online mobs and troll farms to drown out and intimidate critical voices and obscure truth. This constitutes a sort of censorship through noise, Pomerantsev and two others wrote in a recent article for the London School of Economics Institute of Global Affairs, where he is a visiting senior fellow.

But countering autocrats doesnt have to mean removing the posts of ordinary people or taking them off their preferred social media platforms, he said, which has become a growing concern among many Republicans.

We thought that for a long time, the federal government is infuriating, Tucker Carlson said on Fox News Wednesday. The bigger threat to your family turned out to be huge publicly held corporations, particularly the tech monopolies.

Story continues

In fact, focus on censorship and cancel culture actually distracts from solving the problem of disinformation and all the chaos and confusion and real-world harm it brings with it in a way that preserves free speech, Pomerantsev said.

A lot of the virality is amplified artificially. Thats kind of how a lot of these platforms were designed, he said. That kind of artificial amplification I think really has to end.

Fake amplification everything from gaming algorithms and search engine optimization through to amplification through coordinated inauthentic activity I think that probably has to end if the internet is going to be a just reflection of society and not this kind of weird funhouse mirror that distorts everything, Pomerantsev said.

One of the first steps toward reducing disinformation is algorithm transparency: revealing how the social media and Big Tech companies engineer which information rises to the top and is seen by large numbers of people. Google, Facebook and TikTok have all taken some recent steps in this direction, Axios reported this week, but it was voluntary and most experts think this issue needs to be overseen by government regulators.

When Trumps people would say, Google pushes conservative views right down, liberal news up, we dont know because Google has not shown anyone its formulas that shape search results, Pomerantsev said. Thats ridiculous.

Carlson addressed the same root cause on his show. Twitter refuses to release data on who it bans, he said.

Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., and Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., sent letters to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter in late January urging the companies to address the fundamental design features of their social networks that facilitate the spread of extreme, radicalizing content to their users. The letters were co-signed by 38 other House Democrats.

The lawmakers drew a straight line between the focus of social media companies on maximizing user engagement and the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by Trump supporters who believed the former presidents lies about the 2020 election.

The rioters who attacked the Capitol earlier this month were radicalized in part in digital echo chambers that these platforms designed, built, and maintained, and that the platforms are partially responsible for undermining our shared sense of objective reality, for intensifying fringe political beliefs, for facilitating connections between extremists, leading some of them to commit real-world, physical violence, Malinowski and Eshoo wrote.

The lawmakers cited a Wall Street Journal investigation from last May that revealed Facebook knew in 2018 that its algorithms sometimes radicalized its users, but did not take action to reduce this because it would reduce profits. Our algorithms exploit the human brains attraction to divisiveness, a presentation created internally said, noting that the company was serving more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention and increase time on the platform.

Malinowski and Eshoo have proposed a change to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act a law targeted for reform by conservatives as well that would hold tech companies accountable for content they proactively promote for business reasons, if doing so leads to specific offline harms.

Malinowski said in a hearing this week that this is a solution that Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on. We can believe that the biggest problem is on the right, on the far right or on the far left it doesnt matter. We can debate that. Whichever of those things you believe you should be for this, because the mechanism works the same way. It pushes people on the left further left. It pushes people on the right further right, until they reach an extreme.

Pomerantsev pointed to the United Kingdoms approach, which says in his words that companies have to think about the harms they cause, and those harms could be around public health or some forms of personal abuse.

And the question is what are the companies doing almost like in a health and safety kind of regime to mitigate that? So are their algorithms making it too easy for people to bully others or to harass them? Pomerantsev said. Are the way their systems are designed making it too easy to spread this information thats dangerous to peoples health?

The British have said there needs to be a regulator thats making a judgment about whether theyre doing enough around those issues, and are working to set up a system in which Ofcom, its communications regulator, could issue fines if the companies are found at fault.

The tech companies have lobbied the British government against giving Ofcom punitive regulatory powers.

But as Pomerantsev wrote in his book and expounded on in his interview with Yahoo News, the Big Tech companies have acquired so much information about their users which is most people that there is a real question about whether they are infringing upon freedom of thought.

To some degree our private thoughts, creative impulses, and senses of self are shaped by information forces greater than ourselves, he wrote in This Is Not Propaganda.

Are they actually invading your freedom of thought? Are they actually crossing the line of you, and then using it against you? he said. What is that line of our unconscious that deserves to be protected?

____

Read more from Yahoo News:

Visit link:
To avoid online censorship, government must force Big Tech to be more transparent, expert says - Yahoo Sports

Claims that conservative voices are being censored online by social media platforms are not backed by evidence andarethemselves a disinformation narrative, according to areport released Monday.

The New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights report concluded that anti-conservative bias claims, boosted by some top Republican lawmakers including former President TrumpDonald TrumpChamber of Commerce CEO to leave: reports Fox News Media cancels Lou Dobbs's show GOP lawmakers call for Pelosi to be fined over new screenings MORE, are not based on any tangible evidence.

The claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy large-scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests, the report stated.

Republicans have ramped up accusations that social media companies have an anti-conservative bias after Facebook and Twitter took action to ban Trumps account following the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Twitter says it has permanently banned the former president from its platform, while Facebook is leaving the final decision up to its independent oversight body.

The allegation of censorship has been key in Republicans attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from liability associated with third-party content posted on their sites.

Despite the repeated accusations by Republicans, the report found that by many measures, conservative voices including that of the ex-president, until he was banished from Twitter and Facebook often are dominant in online political debates.

For example, the report highlighted the engagement on Trumps Facebook page compared to now-President Bidens page during the three months leading up to Election Day. Trumpelicited 87 percent of the total 307 million post interactions between the two, compared to Bidens 13 percent.

Additionally, the report noted that Fox News and Breitbart News led the pack in terms of Facebook interactions with posts by media organizations from Jan. 1 through Nov. 3 of last year. Fox News had 448 million interactions and Breitbart had 295 million; the closest behind them was CNN, at 191 million interactions.

With Biden in office, Republicans have continued to push back against Section 230 over the unfounded accusations of anti-conservative biases.

The report recommends the Biden administration work with Congress to update Section 230, rather than pushing for a repeal of the law as Trump sought before leaving office.

The controversial law should be amended so that its liability shield is conditional, based on social media companies acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement, the report stated.

Bidens nominee to serve as the secretary of Commerce, current Rhode Island Gov. Gina RaimondoGina RaimondoDaines seeks to block Haaland confirmation to Interior Hillicon Valley: Democratic senators unveil bill to reform Section 230 | Labor board denies Amazon request to delay local union vote | Robinhood lifts restrictions on GameStop, other stocks Cruz blocks vote on Biden Commerce secretary nominee over Huawei concerns MORE (D), said last week during a Senate confirmation hearing that the law needs some reform, indicating the administration is open to amending it.

Biden during his presidential campaign said Section 230 should be revoked, but he has largely not detailed plans moving forward.

The report also recommends the Biden administration create a new Digital Regulatory Agency. The agency would be charged with enforcing the responsibilities of a revised Section 230.

Additionally, it recommends the Biden administration pursue a constructive reform agenda for social media, including pressing the companies on improving and enforcing content policies.

As for social media companies, the report recommends the industry provide greater disclosure on content moderation actions, offer users a choice among content moderation algorithms, undertake more vigorous human moderation of influential accounts and release more data for researchers.

Continue reading here:
Conservative claims of online censorship 'a form of disinformation:' study | TheHill - The Hill

Facebook and Twittersuspending former President Donald Trumps accountsin the wake of a mob storming the Capitol raises yet again the issue of the discretion that federal law affords internet platforms to regulate speech and Big Techs monopoly power.

Bigness is not necessarily a problem and can be an asset. Facebook FB, +0.60% is a leader in artificial intelligence research, Google GOOG, +1.73% gave us Android, Amazon AMZN, +0.63% pioneered cloud computing, and Apple AAPL, -0.31% pioneered the modern smartphone.

Facebook may have a monopoly by providing a substantially differentiated digital bulletin board, but it is a free service, making questionable the economicharm to consumersthesine qua nonof modern antitrust enforcement.

In the advertising market,Google has the largest market share. And it is noteworthy that the Justice Departmentdid not charge Facebookin its suit against Google for manipulating the ad-marketing algorithms.

In this previous column, I argued that the Federal Trade Commission suit against Facebook is wrongheaded. It could be interpreted as an attempt to rein in the company owing to gross data privacy misdeeds going back to theCambridge Analyticaaffairand enablingRussian meddling in the 2016presidential campaign. And for the complaints ofDemocratic and Republican politiciansabout editorial abuses at both Twitter TWTR, +0.48% and Facebook.

Forcing Facebook to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, as the FTC seeks, wont solve the data-mining and privacy problemsthat would require legislation similar to theEuropean Union General Data Regulationthat mandates users be informed, understand and consent to the data collected about them and how it will be used.

Section 230of the Communications Decency Act provides Twitter, Facebook and other internet platforms with expansive legal immunity for the statements and other material that users post. It exempts service providers from civil liability for actions taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. And for providing users with tools to restrict access to such materials.

As a candidatePresident Joe Biden called for revoking those protectionsand permitting the websites to be sued. More generally Democrats would like Twitter, Facebook and others to remove what they view as false information, whereas Republicans believe the two platforms exhibit ananticonservative bias.

All sides appear to miss even bigger problems.

Justice Clarence Thomas argues that lower courts apply Section 230 too expansively. Internet platforms have been found exempt from liability even when they know the content or activity it enables is illegalfor example, child pornography, human trafficking, and terrorism.

With millions of daily posts, it is impossible for Twitter and Facebook to catch everything, but they could be compelledor be held criminally or civilly libelto remove material they know is illegal or facilitates crimes. And for failing to pre-emptively screen material that could incite civil unrest until the full context of an incident is determined and accurately portrayed.

As for political and other speech, Twitter and other platforms have been accused of anticonservative bias in the content they exclude and promote. This is broadly protected, because the First Amendment applies to restrictions that may be applied by government entities, not private actors. And thecourts do not treat internet platforms as public squares where viewpoint discrimination is impermissible.

Absolute neutrality is impossible but the ruminations of politiciansas long as their posts are not illegal and do not incite illegal assembly, destruction of property or violenceshould be left to the intelligence of voters. After all, what is true and not true is often in the eyes of the beholder.

They may be technology wizards, but Jack Dorsey and other internet magnates should not be exercising broad censorship powers.

European officials were shocked by the recent Facebook and Twitter bans on Trump andsuggested such decisions should be left to elected officials to arbitrate.

Importantly, Twitter, Facebook and other social media have become so pervasive that they have become the public squareand legally should be treated as such. Neutral arbitration panelswith equal representation chosen by Republican and Democratic leadersshould oversee editorial decisions to ensure some measure of objectivity.

Its not perfect but if you want perfection you will have to wait for the hereafterSt. Peter wont be facing a primary challenge anytime soon.

PeterMoriciis an economist and emeritus business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist.

The rest is here:
Facebook and Twitter should not be in the censorship business - MarketWatch

The premise of Prano Bailey-Bonds Sundance Midnight selection opener is so strong that its little wonder the film cant quite live up or perhaps down to it: In a Thatchers Britain riven by tabloid-fueled video nasty hysteria, a young woman working for the national censorship board is assessing a horror flick, when it triggers sudden flashbacks to a traumatic, amnesiac episode in her own life. Given the ongoing debates around censorship and its trendier 2020s companion, cancellation and the relationship between screen violence and its real-life counterpart, not to mention the grungy exploitation aesthetic of the no-budget films it references, Censor dangles the prospect of topical, ticklish provocation that will prove offensive to some sensibilities. And offense, in a time of pandemic numbness, is tantalizing in itself: at least youre feeling something.

Initially, at least, Censor teases in that direction. The witty opening segues from snowy, degraded-VHS versions of classic Film4 and BFI logos into a scene that wouldnt look out of place in any one of a hundred 80s horrors. A terrified teenage girl runs through a forest, tortured by filtered lighting effects, strobey editing and a Carpenter-esque score. A hand clicks a clunky remote and the frame freezes, as the two censors placidly watching, Enid (Niamh Algar) and Sanderson (Nicholas Burns) discuss whats to be done with the gorier parts (that we sadly have not been shown). The decapitation is fine because its ridiculous, claims Enid, but the eye-gouging will need to be cut. Sanderson demurs, pompously citing Shakespeare, Homer and Buuel as forbears in ocular assault, but Enid holds her ground. After all, shes already salvaged the tug of war with the intestines and only trimmed the tiniest bit off the end of the genitals.

This archly amusing exchange tells us a lot about Enid, a bookish type whose prim blouses are always done up to the throat and who takes herself and her job which she sees as protecting a vulnerable public very seriously. Which only adds to her dismay when she learns that a killing has occurred recently in exactly the gruesome manner of one of the films she was responsible for sanitizing. Worse, shes been personally identified as the censor involved, and in a painfully plausible early example of misdirected public outrage, tabloid hacks are now encamped outside the office and anonymous callers spew hate into her home phone.

This is promisingly juicy stuff, even though its quickly apparent, from the meticulously beige 80s styling, DP Annika Summersons careful, muted compositions and Enids solitary, mournful characterization, that Bailey-Bond, co-writing the script with Anthony Fletcher, has designs for a more artful, far less creaky movie than the ones Enid watches at work more Berberian Sound Studio than Last House on the Left. And though self-appointed morality wonks like Mary Whitehouse and, of course, Maggie Thatcher drone away on the telly and lurid headlines scream from newspaper stands, soon the background hum of social paranoia the films most original aspect dies back and a more rote genre-horror storyline comes into focus. A shame, when self-righteous, panicky public scapegoating is more compelling and frightening than the mystery of what happened in the woods one day a couple of decades ago.

Enids drab, sexless lifestyle echoing the slasher archetype of the final girl is at least partly due to her terrible guilt at having blanked out the details of a childhood incident in which her sister Nina went missing, never to be seen again. So the censor is self-censoring, on some subconscious level, but who is she protecting this time, and from what?

Her parents decide at long last to have Nina declared dead, which further destabilizes the already fraying young woman. So its hard to say if its real or imagined when she starts to believe that her sister lives on, as an actress (Sophia La Porta) who shows up in the latest trashy offering from local horror maestro Frederick North (perhaps a reference to notorious British serial killer Fred West). Oleaginous producer Doug Smart (played oleaginously by Michael Smiley) might be able to provide some answers.

There are some nice subtle flourishes, as when a projector beam turns red implying the bloodiness of the image indeed Summersons excellent framing and moody color blocking is a sophisticated pleasure throughout. And with Saffron Cullanes precise, subtly heightened 80s costuming, and composer Emilie Levienaise-Farrouchs cleverly referential yet non-derivative score, Censor is a stylish calling card for all involved, one that certainly demonstrates an impressive level of directorial control for a debut filmmaker.

But that control does sometimes feel like constriction: Until the very end, when we finally get a ridiculous decapitation, a nastily Cronenbergian talking wound and a properly deranged nightmare coda (a testament to Mark Towns punchy editing), it doesnt really feel like Bailey-Bond is having as much nasty fun as she could. Its an irony that Censor would probably have passed even Enids moralizing eye without cuts, and that a movie set during the Ban This Sick Filth moment should be neither sick nor filthy enough to run the slightest risk of being banned. Between this and 2015 short Nasty, Bailey-Bond clearly has great affection for the genre, but if a love letter to the cheapie slasher is going to reach its addressee, better it be written in warm, sticky blood.

Read the original here:
Censor Review: A Horror-Homage to the Video Nasty That Isnt Quite Nasty Enough - Variety

NEW YORK, Jan. 28, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via InvestorWire BIGtoken today announces its placement in an editorial published by NetworkNewsWire ("NNW"), one of 50+ trusted brands within the InvestorBrandNetwork (IBN), a multifaceted financial news and publishing company for private and public entities.

To view the full publication, Censorship and Data: The Stakes and Consequences Are Getting Serious, please visit: https://nnw.fm/yzWoa

A recent Pew Research article pinpointed major concerns with social media platforms. Americans have complicated feelings about their relationship with big technology companies, the article observes. While they have appreciated theimpact of technologyover recent decades and rely on these companies products to communicate,shopandget news, many have alsogrown criticalof the industry. The article goes on to report that a Pew Research Center survey found that roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults say it is very (37%) or somewhat (36%) likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable. Just 25% believe this is not likely the case.

The events of the last few weeks have made that article appear almost prophetic as issues of censorship and privacy have gained additional prominence on the world stage. A number of private and public companies are working to resolve these issues, with many of those companies relying on blockchain to provide their services.Leading the pack is BIGtoken, the first consumer-managed data marketplace where people can own and earn from their data. The opportunity ahead has such potential that parent company SRAX Inc. (NASDAQ: SRAX) is spinning out BIGtoken into a separate publicly traded company and has entered into a definitive share exchange agreement with Force Protection Video Equipment Corp. (OTC: FPVD). The separation of BIGtoken provides shareholders a pure play in the consumer-managed data sector.

About BIGtoken

BIGtoken(R) is a consumer data management and distribution system. BIG is the first consumer-managed data marketplace where people can own and earn from their data. Through a transparent platform and consumer reward system, BIG offers consumers choice, transparency, and compensation for their data. Participating consumers earn rewards, and developers are able to build pro-consumer online experiences on top of the BIG platform. The system also provides advertisers and media companies access to transparent, verified consumer data to better reach and serve audiences. For more information on BIGtoken, visit http://www.BIGtoken.com.

About SRAXSRAX (NASDAQ: SRAX) is a financial technology company that unlocks data and insights for publicly traded companies. Through its premier investor intelligence and communications platform,Sequire, companies can track their investors behaviors and trends and use those insights to engage current and potential investors across marketing channels. For more information on SRAX, visit http://www.SRAX.com.

NOTE TO INVESTORS:The latest news and updates relating to SRAX are available in the companys newsroom athttp://nnw.fm/SRAX.

About NetworkNewsWire

NetworkNewsWire (NNW) is an information service that provides (1) access to our news aggregation and syndication servers, (2)NetworkNewsBreaksthat summarize corporate news and information, (3) enhanced press release services, (4) social media distribution and optimization services, and (5) a full array of corporate communication solutions. As a multifaceted financial news and content distribution company with an extensive team of contributing journalists and writers, NNW is uniquely positioned to best serve private and public companies that desire to reach a wide audience of investors, consumers, journalists and the general public. NNW has an ever-growing distribution network of more than 5,000 key syndication outlets across the country. By cutting through the overload of information in todays market, NNW brings its clients unparalleled visibility, recognition and brand awareness.

NNW is where news, content and information converge.

To receive SMS text alerts from NetworkNewsWire, text STOCKS to 77948 (U.S. Mobile Phones Only).

For more information please visithttps://www.NetworkNewsWire.com.

Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the NetworkNewsWire website, applicable to all content provided by NNW wherever published or re-published:http://NNW.fm/Disclaimer

NetworkNewsWire (NNW)New York, New Yorkwww.NetworkNewsWire.com212.418.1217 OfficeEditor@NetworkNewsWire.com

NetworkNewsWire is part of theInvestorBrandNetwork

See the original post:
BIGtoken Focused on Top Consumer Concerns: Censorship and Data - GlobeNewswire

Censorship is constructed largely along the lines of power. Censors reduce the power of the contestants in exercising power. Its function is about enhancement and sustaining power. Constructing media structure it appears is not about finding facts and transparency only. Its also about exertion of power. How its function is interpreted depends on the nature of what its function is. What therefore is understood as its function?

Pre-study findings on censorship and media

To conduct a KAP Knowledge, Attitude, Practice- study on censorship and media, a preliminary investigation to determine the parametres of the study of the key stakeholder groups was held. This focused on the stakeholders related to media. They were A. consumers. B. Practitioners. C. Owners.

Once the groups were confirmed, some basic questions were asked about medias role and responsibility in the context of censorship. The responses will form the basis of further enquiry.

For the moment we find that the three segments can be split further into several sub-segments. For example, owners and Editors can be both one entity but in many/most cases they are different. Thus there is a possibility of conflict between owners and Editors. However, both represent authority and power. They decide what is published and not published though their functioning differs.

Similarly, working journalists also have sub-segments. One split is between the activist journalist and the non-activist media worker. Within the activist group, there are trade unionist and non-trade union media workers and other associations and clubs etc. For the moment, activist and non-activist journalists may be taken as sub-clusters.

Similarly, the consumer is not one monolith and a variety of sub-category applies. The difference between the consumer and the workers is that one is an outsider and the other is the insider. The consumer doesnt see the difference between Editor and worker, owner and worker etc. but considers everyone as Media, a monolith. In this categorization, they primarily refer to the worker and blame or praise them for what media does. Since public confidence is declining in media, the worker is held responsible for medias decline.

Perceptions of censorship

In the preliminary discussions on the issue of censorship there is divergence of views on what it means and how it applies. Each group expressed different views on what it constitutes. However, most considered the role of the Government as the prime censor. This was in particular with the working journalists and media workers. Editors too agreed but were more reticent while the Owners were not ready to discuss the issue elaborately.

The consumers notion of media freedom or censoring was different. They felt that their right to information was violated in most cases due to fault of media as they were not doing their job properly. A section also felt that media workers were in some cases dishonest and in collusion with others GOB, owners, private sector etc.- self-censoring in their own self-interest.

In discussing what constituted censoring, most responded that it had to do with holding back information that might affect the powerful. Whoever is holding back that information is a party to the censoring of media, many consumer felt.

In case of media workers, the political activists held sway. The Government is considered the prime and in some cases, the only censor. Depending on the political party such workers follow, the interpretation is made regarding its objective, function and current state. Thus the pro-Government activists think that some censorship does exist and its positive as it protects public interest. Meanwhile the anti-Government activists think its the Government that is all in all in censoring and the rest are minor censors.

In many/most cases, media freedom is interpreted along political lines only and many media workers see their role as an auxiliary political force. They are there to play their role in progressing the struggle for political democracy. Their opponents see their own role as countering the efforts of anti-government/ state/peoples forces. Thus media becomes a proxy space for political battles. The consumer is not perceived as a factor here but the audience becomes various political powers, sectors and quarters to whom their loyalty belongs.

Internal censor

While media workers admitted that the owners interest was prime and they could not act beyond it nor write if not approved, they didnt see it as censorship but house policy. Thus the concept of internal censorship is weak and taken for granted by many that it will be there. They think, Censor is external- Government - not internal- owners - which most saw as a natural fact of life.

They were ready to give much more space to this as it was linked to livelihood. That by accepting house policies through exercise of self-censorship they were a party to the objectives of the owner hence internal censorship was not stated by any. The focus was on the official censor.

The notion of external censor dominates while that of the internal censor doesnt. That self-censoring was automatic when it came to conflict with owners interest was described as; house policy while Government directives as censorship.

A comprehensive framing of censorship in media requires more attention and work.

(This article was first published in Dhaka Courier)

Read more:
Government, owner and the self: Media's three Censors? - United News of Bangladesh

Fox News host Maria Bartiromo said she'd lost more than 100,000 followers in the last couple of months. Roy Rochlin/Getty Images

Fox News host Maria Bartiromo had Sen. Josh Hawley on her show and the the two talked openly about reportedly being censored.

"They put Parler out of business, and on top of all the bans, banning President Trump, you still have the Ayatollah Khomeini there on Twitter," Bartiromo said in shock.

On January 24, Hawley wrote an op-ed about being "muzzled" in the New York Post, the US' fourth-largest newspaper.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Fox News host Maria Bartiromo and Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley discussed the "censorship obsession," and Bartiromo complained about losing more than 100,000 Twitter followers on Tuesday night's edition of "Fox News Primetime."

"Yeah, I had-right around the election-one million followers on Twitter," Bartiromo told Hawley. "Now I have under 900,000. Literally in a couple of weeks. I don't know what's going on there!"

Hawley, whose Simon & Schuster book deal was recently cancelled, said he wouldn't be shut down "by the corporate mob, by the woke mob."

On January 24, Hawley wrote an op-ed about being "muzzled" in the New York Post, the US' fourth-largest newspaper.

Bartiromo and Hawley lamented Twitter's recent suspension of former President Donald Trump's account and the removal of tens of thousands of Qanon-related accounts from the platform.

Bartiromo also had several tweets flagged for misinformation and tweeted that she left Twitter for Parler.

After that purge, Insider reviewed the Twitter followings of every Republican governor and the entire GOP congressional caucus via Social Blade and found that 94% of accounts have lost followers since January 6. Insider also found that more than 100,000 of Rep. Jim Jordan's and Sen. Rand Paul's followers were purged or defected.

Bartiromo and Hawley condemned Birdwatch, a public disinformation reporting tool recently unveiled by Twitter.

Story continues

"They put Parler out of business, and on top of all the bans, banning President Trump, you still have the Ayatollah Khomeini there on Twitter," Bartiromo said.

In early January, Fox News announced a re-shuffle of their programming, which saw many daytime and primetime anchors lose coveted spots and move to less-viewed slots.

Solo afternoon anchors like Dana Perino and Bill Hemmer were put together for a rebooted version of "America's Newsroom." At the same time, Mediaite reported that the network seeks to shift primetime slots to more right-wing opinion content following a loss in ratings after the November election.

Fox News was one of the first networks to call Arizona for President Joe Biden, and many viewers have flocked to Newsmax for more decidedly pro-Trump content.

Bartiromo is among the Fox News anchors who have repeatedly made baseless claims about the election.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Continued here:
Fox host Maria Bartiromo complained about left's 'censorship obsession' on air, and said she's lost over 100k Twitter followers - Yahoo News

Actor Saurabh Shukla said the COVID-19 induced lockdown gave him an opportunity to read and reflect, more importantly get his creative juices flowing, and he ended up making a full-length one man feature film where he donned the hat of a writer, director and the only character.

The 90-minute film, currently in its post-production stages, is funny, dark and thrilling, Shukla said, adding that he would be soon sending his latest movie for screening at festivals.

The veteran actor, all excited to work in Kaushik Gangulys first Hindi flick Manohar Pandey, also said that Kolkata is his home, and he loves the city for his unique character, culture and food.

Ganguly has made some amazing films. He is multi-talented, and can write direct and act equally well. This film has a soul, it has humour in it but you cant really brand it as just another comedy. Also, I will be sharing screen space with talented co-stars Supriya Pathak and Raghubir Yadav, and I am looking forward to it, the Bollywood actor, who is in the city for shooting of the film, told PTI.

Shukla, also said that he would want to do a Bengali film someday.

Asked about his journey in the film industry from Shekhar Kapurs Bandit Queen to Manohar Pandey the National Award-winning actor underlined that the experience so far has been a fulfilLing one, but not without a fair share of hiccups.

I was overweight, and was usually cast in roles that amused the audience. Comedy also elicits pathos, but that concept wasnt there in Hindi films. We just want an overweight person to be funny. It was Sudhir Mishra, who gave me the role of a professional killer in Is Raat ki Subah Nahi, and my work was noticed and appreciated, the 57-year-old actor said.

Talking about the mushrooming OTT (over-the-top) sites, and the fear that it could overshadow big screen films, Shukla said that every new platform creates its own space, and can co-exist with other mediums. He, however, expressed concern over the growing censorship over art and films in the country.

Censorship has its pros and cons. It is, in some cases, necessary. But, objecting to anything and everything that is not suited to a particular taste and culture is not acceptable, he said.

On a lighter note, Kallu Mama of Ram Gopal Varma Satya also shared that he loves sports, and takes table tennis pretty seriously.

As and when I visit a new city, especially for my shoots, I get in touch with the table tennis clubs there. I have had the opportunity to play with professionals, be it in Los Angeles, London or Lucknow. Not many know that Bengal has some very talented TT players. I got to play with some of them at a club in Bhawanipore here, and it has been an enriching experience, he signed off.

See the original post here:
Saurabh Shukla: Censorship has its pros and cons, necessary in some cases - The Indian Express