Category Archives: Censorship

YouTube is automatically deleting comments that contain certain Chinese-language phrases related to criticism of the countrys ruling Communist Party (CCP). The company confirmed to The Verge this was happening in error and that its working to fix the issue.

Upon review by our teams, we have confirmed this was an error in our enforcement systems and we are working to fix it as quickly as possible, said a YouTube spokesperson. The company did not elaborate on how or why this error came to be, but said it was not the result of any change in its moderation policy.

But if the deletions are the result of a simple mistake, then its one thats gone unnoticed for six months. The Verge found evidence that comments were being deleted as early as October 2019, when the issue was raised on YouTubes official help pages and multiple users confirmed that they had experienced the same problem.

Comments left under videos or in live streams that contain the words (communist bandit) or (50-cent party) are automatically deleted in around 15 seconds, though their English language translations and Romanized Pinyin equivalents are not.

The term is an insult that dates back to Chinas Nationalist government, while , (or wu mao) is a derogatory slang term for internet users paid to direct online discussion away from criticism of the CCP. The name comes from claims that such commenters are paid 50 Chinese cents per post.

These phrases seem to have been accidentally added to YouTubes comment filters, which automatically remove spam and offensive text. The comments are removed too quickly for human moderation and are deleted even if the banned phrases are used positively (e.g., The are doing a fantastic job). YouTube says its been relying more on its automated filters in recent months due changes to its workforce brought about by the pandemic.

The accidental censorship is even more puzzling considering that YouTube is currently blocked in China, giving its parent company, Google, even less reason to censor comments critical of the CCP or apply moderation systems in accordance with Chinese censorship laws.

The automatic deletion of these phrases was highlighted on Tuesday by US technologist and former Oculus founder Palmer Luckey on Twitter. But earlier reports of the issue date back to the middle of May when they were spotted by human rights activist Jennifer Zeng. As mentioned above, though, The Verge also found complaints on YouTubes official help pages dated to October 2019.

Google has frequently been criticized for accommodating the wishes of the CCP by censoring content. Most notably, it created a prototype search engine known as Project Dragonfly that complied with Chinese state censorship. The project, which was never deployed, is part of the companys long-running struggles to enter the Chinese market.

When news of Dragonfly leaked in 2018 in a report from The Intercept, Google was criticized by politicians and its own employees for selling out its principles. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in June 2019, the company said it had terminated the project and that it had no plans to launch Search in China.

Update, May 26th, 12:43PM ET: The story has been updated to include YouTubes response.

Update, May 27th, 04:18AM ET: The story has been updated with another response from YouTube confirming it is now working on a fix.

Here is the original post:
YouTube is deleting comments with two phrases that insult Chinas Communist Party - The Verge

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aimed at making it easier for people to sue Twitter and other social media platforms for what Trump and his allies have denounced as unconstitutional political censorship.

But any future First Amendment lawsuits that Trump has in mind will run into a problem that his order doesnt appear to address: a US Supreme Court decision written by a justice he appointed, Brett Kavanaugh.

Trumps executive order doesnt and couldnt change Supreme Court precedent. Last year, the court ruled 54 that private companies arent government actors subject to the First Amendments free speech protections just because they open their platforms to the public. Kavanaugh, one of Trumps two appointees to the Supreme Court, wrote the opinion.

Just this week, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit cited that Kavanaugh opinion when a three-judge panel rejected a First Amendment claim against Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple brought by conservative activists, including far-right media personality Laura Loomer, who argued theyd been deplatformed and censored in violation of the First Amendment.

And earlier this year, the 9th Circuit relied on the same Kavanaugh opinion to reject an appeal from Prager University, a nonprofit that produces videos about conservative issues, which had sued YouTube for restricting access to some of its videos.

Social media platforms are not the government, they are not public fora, trying to superimpose that kind of framework on this makes no sense, and the courts have uniformly held that, First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere told BuzzFeed News. (Corn-Reveres law firm Davis Wright Tremaine has represented BuzzFeed News.)

Trumps order concerns Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly says that companies that serve as platforms for third-party speech, like Twitter or Facebook, arent liable for what people post on their sites. It also says that these companies cant be sued for acting in good faith to restrict or take down obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable material.

Trump contends social media companies arent acting in good faith and are using Section 230 as a shield to censor conservative voices. Trump signed the order after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets and flagged them as containing potentially misleading information.

It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that far from acting in good faith to remove objectionable content instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree, the executive order states.

The executive order doesnt change anything about how Section 230 is applied in court right away. Trump directed agencies to propose new rules and draft legislation for Congress that would chip away at the immunity social media companies have against being sued.

The question of just how much immunity social media platforms should get has come up in the federal courts in recent years, but not always for the reasons Trump articulated in Thursdays order. Victims of terrorism and their families have tried to sue tech companies for serving as platforms for groups such as ISIS to recruit, but theyve lost, in part because courts have found that social media sites are immune under Section 230.

Rather than focusing on political speech, Attorney General Bill Barr brought up terrorism cases in a speech in February as one area where Section 230 had severely diminished the power of other tools Congress adopted to provide relief to victims. But Daniel Weininger, a lawyer for families involved in some of the terrorism-related cases, told BuzzFeed News that it didnt appear Trumps executive order would directly address the Section 230 issues that have come up in their cases.

The administrations concern seems to be some sort of pressing the thumbs on the scale of the content thats posted on the platform, and what were driving at is that there needs to be more activity from the big three [Facebook, Google, and Twitter] with respect to the content that is on there, Weininger said. We are asking for more vigilance in terms of policing the content.

Trumps order is couched in terms of the First Amendment. The first section reads: Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.

Several courts have cited Kavanaughs June 2019 opinion in rejecting First Amendment claims against online platforms. That case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, wasnt about social media; it involved a private nonprofit that operated a public access TV channel in New York. The nonprofit faced a First Amendment claim after it suspended people from the network who had criticized the nonprofit. Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., and Neil Gorsuch (Trumps other Supreme Court pick), wrote that the nonprofit wasnt acting as a government entity just because it opened up the channel to public speech.

As a private actor, and not a state actor, the nonprofit was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion, Kavanaugh wrote.

In February, the 9th Circuit relied on Halleck when it upheld the dismissal of Prager Universitys lawsuit against YouTube, which had restricted access to some of the organizations videos and limited advertising. The 9th Circuit found that the Supreme Court was clear that private entities dont become state actors just because they operate as a public forum for speech.

PragerUs attempt to foist a public forum label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum ... fails. YouTubes representation that it is committed to freedom of expression, or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be a neutral public fora, cannot somehow convert private property into a public forum, Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the three-judge panel.

And in yesterdays DC Circuit order, a three-judge panel wrote that a First Amendment claim against Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple brought by Loomer and conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch failed because there was no evidence that the platforms were engaged in state action.

In general, the First Amendment prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech, the DC Circuit panel wrote, quoting Kavanaugh, who had included the italics for emphasis in his opinion. Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But, under Halleck, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.

See more here:
Trump Wants To Help Conservatives Sue Twitter For Censorship, But Hell Face An Obstacle: Justice Brett Kavanaugh - BuzzFeed News

A former NSA foreign surveillance agent tells The Sociablehow censorship destroys the very diversity of thought it was meant to protect just beforeUS President Trump signs an Executive Order to prevent online censorship.

Jim Penrose is a former NSA foreign surveillance agent and the current Chief Operating Officer at the cybersecurity firm, BlueVoyant, which works with global industries around the world to help them understand how nation-state adversaries think and what cultural norms push them to act the way they do in cyber warfare.

Fundamentally, the scourge of censorship as we know it today is that its forcing an orthodoxy which actually destroys the very diversity its meant to protect

During his 17 years of service in the NSA and beyond, Penrose has seen first-hand how misinformation campaigns have been launched to influence elections, and how censorship has impacted societies from Russia, China, and the Middle East, and all the way back to the United States.

At the heart of the censorship debate is, as always, the issue of free speech.

Censorship creates a scenario where assumptions dont get the proper questioning that they need, and we need to have ideas tried in the crucible of public debate, and free speech is fundamental to that, Penrose told The Sociable.

Free speech is complicated by the fact that big social platforms like Facebook and Twitter have billions of users from just about every country on the planet, and these countries dont all have the same levels of protection for free speech in their laws, so regulating free speech on social is a slippery slope.

Censorship creates a scenario where assumptions dont get the proper questioning that they need, and we need to have ideas tried in the crucible of public debate, and free speech is fundamental to that Jim Penrose

However, at the time of writing, US President Donald Trump had just signed an Executive Order to Prevent Online Censorship, which stated, Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse, and that It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.

Today, Im signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people, Trump said at the time of signing.

My Executive Order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield, he added.

Further elaborating on the subject of free speech vs censorship, Penrose said that people can say things we dont like, or they may say things that are abhorrent, but at the end of the day, arguments should be won with the force of ideas and the proof to back up those statements.

Instead of having that respectful conversation that we used to have, and we would have had if we were face-to-face, we ended up going into a mode where were just not going to talk Jim Penrose

When ideas are censored; however, their arguments, too are censored. The right to question information becomes censored as well.

For example, in the name of public health and safety, massive amounts of content are removed on a daily basis while more orthodox narratives become the accepted truth without question.

Right now, YouTube is censoring content that goes against recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO), but in hindsight, the WHO hasnt always given the best information, especially with regards to Chinas transparency in the handling of the coronavirus.

Nevertheless, the WHO narrative has become the orthodox ideology on world health policies, and saying anything against that orthodoxy on social media is met with censorship.

Fundamentally, the scourge of censorship as we know it today is that its forcing an orthodoxy which actually destroys the very diversity its meant to protect, said Penrose.

Big tech platforms are aggressively trying to stamp out misinformation, which is a very real problem when it comes to massive influence campaigns, but in stamping out misinformation, they are also stamping out real concerns from real people whose real voices have been silenced to censorship.

As citizens, we get pulled into this weird position where do I really want to debate this person on topic X do I really want to have that argument? Jim Penrose

Penrose explained that there are many motives and tactics behind spreading misinformation and how those activities influence the way we behave online.

If you think about the Russians and what they did during the election in 2016, their primary tactic was the noise in the channel tactic you create so much noise in the channel that people start to have overall doubts on all information thats available in the media, social media, and other places, he said.

Some people turn off and disengage. They stop debating and they stop talking. Then theres other groups that go full into what I would say vehement, strident, vitriolic mode where they themselves become internet trolls and attack the living daylights out of anybody who they disagree with and report them as abusive or objectionable content in trying to get everybody removed from a platform like Twitter, Penrose added.

Coincidentally, as Penrose was speaking, #TakeTrumpOffTwitter was trending on Twitter, highlighting those who call for censorship through efforts to deplatform certain individuals.

Some people turn off and disengage. They stop debating and they stop talking. Then theres other groups that go full into vehement, strident, vitriolic mode where they themselves become internet trolls and attack the living daylights out of anybody who they disagree with Jim Penrose

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal recently published a story called Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less Divisive, in which it says that Facebook internally studied how it polarizes users, then largely shelved the research.

Social media companies bank on divisiveness in order to keep users on their platforms. In fact, the Center for Humane Technology president Tristan Harris went before Congress earlier this year and testified that tech products and culture were designed intentionally for mass deception, which furthers the division.

Tech products, culture are designed intentionally for mass deception: Ex-google ethicist testifies https://t.co/ewkeWBBvxF via @thesociable

Joe Rogan (@joerogan) January 17, 2020

Penrose said that this divisiveness on social media makes us turn on one another online, whereas if we had met in person, we would probably be having civilized discussions instead.

As citizens, we get pulled into this weird position where do I really want to debate this person on topic X do I really want to have that argument? said Penrose.

As a result, the divisiveness has led many to self-censor or fear the wrath of a thousand trolls calling for them to be censored.

It rips at the fabric of who we are and how we can still be friends and patriotic colleagues with each other, even when we disagree about topics Jim Penrose

I think what happens is we have actually estranged ourselves from each other, Penrose continued.

Instead of having that respectful conversation that we used to have and we would have if we were face-to-face, we ended up going into a mode where were just not going to talk, he added.

And weve actually grown farther apart from each other, which I think ultimately was one of the major goals of the Russians during their influence campaign.

It rips at the fabric of who we are and how we can still be friends and patriotic colleagues with each other, even when we disagree about topics X, Y, and Z, Penrose concluded.

No matter the intention, online censorship eliminates the possibility to have a free and open exchange of ideas if they are not in line with the ideologies of social media platforms.

Online censorship creates a herd mentality where there is no gray area; only black and white.

Its us vs them, and it looks like the truth lies somewhere between those who scream the loudest, and those who have disengaged and dont want to hear about it.

Big tech COVID-19 surveillance data & censorship threaten privacy & free speech: op-ed

Businesses are turning to more secure communication tools to avoid govt overreach: encryption platform report

We must not let coronavirus response be a cover to restrict our human rights: Committee to Protect Journalists advocacy director

Read the original:
Censorship destroys the very diversity it was meant to protect: former NSA foreign surveillance agent - The Sociable

Censorship has always been a concern throughout American history. How important was censorship to our Founding Fathers? Our government was literally founded on it with the First Amendment which established freedoms such as speech, expression, press, protest and religion. With the recent attempts by countries to limit freedoms by censoring people's abilities to express their thoughts and words, such as in Pakistan with the temporary banning of Twitter, Americans have unleashed a barrage of criticisms towards those governments who are attempting to squash one of America's most cherished amendments. Most Americans may not be able to list all of our 27 amendments, but we never have a problem remembering the first. Though many governments throughout the world are guilty of violating specific freedoms, many Americans fail to realize that, just because our constitution states that we are entitled to certain freedoms, America hasn't always necessarily practiced what we preach, or even founded our nation on.

AP

See the original post here:
Cameron Winklevoss Claims Fact-Checking Is Censorship And Gets Fact-Checked - HuffPost

Twitter opened a new can of worms in the censorship debate on Tuesday by fact-checking posts by President Donald Trump, suggesting he was wrong about voter fraud.

Meanwhile, YouTube has been deleting comments with phrases that insult Chinas Communist Party, and its sister company, Google, deleted millions of TikTok reviews. after the app's ratings fell to an all-time low.

The tech titans have sought to explain away these latest swipes at the citadel of free speech. Its because of automated filters, introduced due to workforce changes during the pandemic, argued YouTube; its to curb spam abuse, Google said, in reference to Tik Tok. Meanwhile, Twitter politely explained that the President simply violated its new civic integrity policy, which bars users from posting misleading information that could dissuade people from voting.

But many are having none of it. Today, Mati Greenspan, founder of Quantum Economics, asked his Twitter followers: What have you done to #ungoogle yourself lately?

And President Trump was fuming. Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen! he responded.

Up to now, Twitter has proven a willing participant in Trumps misinformation campaign. But good luck to him in getting its latest decision reversed. As millions of banned accounts have discovered, federal law protects the rights of internet platforms to moderate the third-party speech they publish. And Twitter has stuck to its guns.

Not so YouTube. It has since promised to fix the enforcement systems error that has led thousands of comments criticising Chinas ruling Communist Party to be removeda mistake thats apparently gone unnoticed since October 2019, when the issue was raised on YouTubes official help pages.

But it has plenty of other critics, including Elon Musk. In April, he slammed YouTube for removing a video of two doctors who were urging an end to lockdowns.

And there are signs a YouTube backlash may have begun. Podcaster and sports commentator Joe Rogan announced his move to Spotify last week, while lambasting Googles heavy-handed censorship of content providers.

Popular crypto vlogger Ivan on Tech announced a move over on to his own platform earlier this month, after YouTube repeatedly censored his content. The cryptocurrency industry, often portrayed as a scammer haven, is an obvious target for social media censorship across all social media platforms.

Social media platforms policies towards cryptocurrency companies have often been uneven. For instance, on Google, genuine companies have complained of being banned from placing ads on its site, while the platform seemingly allows phishing sites who impersonate them.

On Facebook, some users have complained that using the single word coronavirus means a post is auto-censored. The platform hopes its new Oversight Board will resolve censorship dilemmas, but critics warn that platform governance means platform interference, and even the most qualified, objective censors are still censors, forced to make subjective distinctions between good and bad speech.

For some, the best course of action is decentralized alternatives, such as privacy enhancing browser Brave.

In fact, earlier this month, Tyler Winklevosscofounder of the Gemini crypto exchange and a venture capitalist known for his tussles with Facebook in the pastcalled for crypto entrepreneurs to start building the uncensorable social networks of the future. A central party should not play referee, Winklevoss told Decrypt, at the time.

Cryptocurrency offers interesting possibilities for self-censorship. Reddit, for instance, is running an experiment using crypto as a measure of reputation, earned by submitting quality posts and comments.

The social media platform said its vision was for a new frontier: a free and fair Internet. It claims the Internet has been ruined by advertising, censorship and walled gardens, and cryptocurrency might offer a way out.

The social media giants know that the battle isnt really about spam or fraud. Its about who gets to define truth. And theres some consolation that Trump is subject to that too.

Visit link:
Big tech has had enough of what you say - Decrypt

Disney+ is the subject of a new censorship controversy surrounding the blurring of cleavage in episodes of Wizards of Waverly Place.

Disney+ is under fire for the censorship of a character's cleavage in Wizards of Waverly Place, which is a Disney Channel original show. The question remains, however, whether this censorship was present in the original broadcast or was changed for streaming on Disney+.

Disney appears to have blurred the cleavage of Maria Canals-Barrera, who plays Theresa Russo, the mortal mother of the main characters in the show. In the censored episode, she wears a purple blouse that features a very noticeable blur where a hint of cleavage should be.

RELATED: Deadpool Creator Rob Liefeld Throws Shade At Disney With Dead Mickey Mouse

Twitter user Danielle Owen (@lovelychubly) noticed this censorship and shared a photo of it in a tweet that has since gone viral.

The photo demonstrates how distracting the attempted edit is to the eye. However, it's apparently not a Disney+ issue, as many other Twitter users have come forward to argue that this censorship was present when the episode wasoriginally broadcast in 2009.

In the age of deep fakes, more evidence is required to prove whether this censorship is new or old. But, as fans know,Disney is no stranger to censorship controversy. And while it may not have originated with Disney+, thisincident is only fanning the flames after the service's firstcensorship discovery, involving itsversion of Splash.

There, the streaming service added longer CGI hair to Daryl Hannah's famous mane in order to cover her backside as she runs into the ocean. However, much like the Waverly cleavage blurring, the edit only serves to draw the eye to the area Disney is seeking to cover.

KEEP READING: Disney+'s Loki: First Season May See More Episodes

(via Movieweb)

YouTube's Cobra Kai to Stream on New Platform for Season 3

Katarina writes and lives at the intersection of mental health, media, and hope. She has written for National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and Women Write About Comics in the past. Currently she serves as editor for The Future of the Force and writes lists for CBR. Film, writing, people, and nature are Katarinas four favorite things. Her passion lies in using writing to help people understand and experience the world and its media more vividly. A new resident of LA, Katarina is probably crying about something nerdy at this very moment.

See the original post here:
Is Disney+ Censoring Cleavage on Wizards of Waverly Place? | CBR - CBR - Comic Book Resources

Back to the Future 2 writer Bob Gale reveals Universal provided Netflix with the censored version of the movie, so the streamer isn't to blame.

Back to the Future Part II writer Bob Gale tells fans Universal is responsible for the controversial censored version, not Netflix where it streamed. The firstBack to the Future premiered in 1985, directed and co-written by Robert Zemeckis, and grossed more than $350 million at the box office. The film starred Canadian-American actor Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly, a boy who travels back in time to 1955. He's joined by his eccentric friend, scientist Emmett "Doc" Brown (Christopher Lloyd) in the now-iconic modified Delorean. Lea Thompson plays Marty's mom in the past and present, thanks to prosthetics, like Crispin Glover in the role George McFly, Marty's dad.

Though initially conceived as a stand-alone film, the popularity led to a franchise that continued withBack to the Future Part IIin 1989, which filmed consecutively with the third installment.Back to the Future Part IIIreleased the following year, in 1990. Some regard the second film as not only one of Zemeckis' best works, but one of the best sequels of all time. Gale wrote most of the first draft forPart II alone, while Zemeckis completed work onWho Framed Roger Rabbit?.Pre-production set construction and developing convincing aging prosthetics took around two years before principal filming began.

Related:What Michael J. Fox Has Done Since Back To The Future

Gale spoke withTHRabout an edited version ofBack to the Future Part II streaming on Netflix. Thealtered sceneappears when Marty finds the French lingerie magazine,Oh La La,within the sports almanac dustcover. In the censored version, the scene is shortened, and the cover of the magazine isn't shown. The almanac becomes a major plot point for the movie, so cutting out two linesthatprovide context for the film to edit out the magazine cover is a problem.

However,Gale revealed the censorship was the work of the film's original distributor, Universal Pictures, who provided Netflix with that version. Neither Gale nor Zemeckis knew the cut existed until it appeared on Netflix. The writer emphasized that Netflix does not edit films from other studios and did not blame them for the situation. He also explained it was a foreign version of the film, "for some country that had a problem with the Oh La La magazine cover."Gale even took it a step further and asked that Universal destroy that version ofBack to the Future Part II.

The edits seemed surprising when first announced, as Netflix isn't known for withholding graphic or sexual content. The truth that the cut came from Universal, used for foreign distribution, and makes far more sense. While one could wrap their mind around editing out the cover to make the film "more family-friendly," removing the two lines which frame the discovery of the almanac and its role in the film is a disservice to the fans consumingBack to the Future Part IIfor the first time. The experience underscores the control of studios over the work of directors, as well as the ability to alter a finished product and potentially alter its legacy.Netflix now has the original, unedited versions of all three filmsstreaming.

Next:Back To The Future: All Three Movies, Ranked Worst To Best

Source: THR

Why Hugh Jackman Never Wore Wolverines Mask

Maki Zatychies is a freelance writer based in Ontario, Canada, with a BAh in English and an MA in creative non-fiction from the University of Guelph. Alex Trebek is her lord, and she worships at the altar of Jeopardy! Her consumption of media, literature, and pop culture ranges from excessive to compulsive. She lives in a hobbit hole with her mini-Rex rabbit, Sawyer.

Go here to see the original:
Netflix Didn't Censor Back To The Future 2, Universal Did - Screen Rant

Two years after its launch and the EU's data protection rules have been used to muzzle journalists in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, according to new research.

And NGOs have been targeted in Poland, after one provided searchable access to public data contained in the Polish National Court Register.

Known as the General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR, the EU rules have been commended for protecting privacy rights, but also with promises of hefty penalties for violations by big techs firms and others.

But some national authorities have also used it to intimidate and censor media. Among them was the head of Slovakia's data protection authority, Soa Ptheov.

Last December, she suggested a possible 10m fine against a Czech investigative outlet called Investigace.cz unless they revealed their anonymous sources.

"Ptheov clearly abused her power and harassed journalists," said Beata Balogova, editor-in-chief of Slovakia's largest independent newspaper Sme, in an email on Monday (25 May).

Investigace.cz had obtained a video featuring Marian Koner, the suspected mastermind behind the murder of journalist Jn Kuciak. The video shows Koner installing a camera inside the office of Slovakia's former general prosecutor Dobroslav Trnka.

Ptheov was told by the Slovak parliament in April to step down over the affair.

But Balogova said Ptheov should never have been given the job in the first place, due to her previous work history with Koner.

"The case of Ptheov shows how the former government massively underestimated the issue of data protection and its potential abuse," said Balogova.

Several politicians in Slovakia have also gone after the Sme newspaper itself, claiming their own personal data protection rights have been violated.

The newspaper had reported about their connections with Koner, and published parts of conversations over the applications Threema or Viber.

Access Now, an international NGO, drew similar conclusions.

In a report out on Monday, it said some public authorities are misusing the law to stifle journalism and undermine the work of civil society.

Estelle Mass, a senior policy analyst at the Access Now, signalled out Slovakia's Ptheov as one of the most alarming cases when it comes to GDPR.

She said the European Commission needs to take action to make sure authorities do not abuse the data protection rules.

"If actions are not taken to address and eliminate such behaviour, press freedom and the right to data protection are at risks as the GDPR could ultimately be perceived as a tool for oppression despite the fact that it is precisely the opposite," said Mass, in an email.

Slovakia is not alone.

In 2018, Romania's data protection authority threatened journalists with a 20m fine unless they revealed their sources.

The reporters had uncovered links between Liviu Dragnea, the president of the ruling Social Democratic Party and a Romanian company involved in large-scale fraud.

Romania's data protection authority claimed forcing journalists to reveal their sources "is not likely to violate the professional secrecy of journalists" because the source of their leak was a suitcase.

Meanwhile in Hungary, the GDPR was used to force the local publisher of Forbes magazine to recall from newsstands an issue featuring a list of Hungary's wealthiest people.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based NGO, said the EU data law must not be used as a tool to target reporters.

"If EU legislation is being misused to support those who would wish to censor, then resolving those loopholes needs to be given high priority," said Tom Gibson, the NGO's representative in Europe, in an emailed statement.

For its part, the European Commission notes that Article 85 of the GDPR states that EU states need to "provide for exemptions or derogations" when such data is processed "for journalistic purposes".

See the rest here:
EU data protection rules abused to censor media - EUobserver

Never get mad at a fan, because they are faithful devotees of what they admire. That is, perhaps, what should have been considered Disney plus when it decided to censor a neckline on one of her series most admired: The wizards of Waverly Place. The followers of the famous fiction dosmilera known to the nearest millimeter each of the scenes and dialogues, this is why they have become aware of the detail and have expressed their anger through the social networks. What is certain is that the result is a real sloppy, as youll be able to check below.

A user on Twitter noticed the trap and, amazed, threw him in the world. One of the actresses seemed to have something strange in the part of the neckline. The young man thought he was a stain on your television, but no, the platform had smudged the area so far away, attracted his attention more. Do not miss the result.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

As you can see in the image, the neckline of Theresa Russo (Maria Canals-Barrera), the mother of The wizards of Waverly Place, appears with a cloud strange. Soon, the alleged censorship of Disney was the big topic of conversation on social networks.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

No member of the division of The wizards of Waverly Place, the series that gave fame to our beloved Selena Gomez, has been manifested, nor Disney plus.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

This commenting section is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page. You may be able to find more information on their web site.

More here:
Disney plus censorship, a plunging neckline on The wizards of Waverly Place - Play Crazy Game

State officials in Florida, Arizona, and Georgia have reportedly been censoring scientists or providing questionable COVID-19 case data while pushing for early reopenings.

Posted on May 20, 2020, at 3:26 p.m. ET

BuzzFeed News has reporters across five continents bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus. To help keep this news free, become a member and sign up for our newsletter, Outbreak Today.

Disputes over coronavirus case counts in reopening states like Georgia, Arizona, and Florida are worrying public health experts, who fear public trust in health agencies is being destroyed by moves to silence or obscure unwelcome data.

Ultimately this is going to kill people, said biostatistics professor Ruth Etzioni of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle. People are going to see low numbers from these reports with manipulated numbers, go outside when they should stay in, get ill, and die.

As those three states pushed to ease stay-at-home orders in recent weeks, they have each reportedly taken steps to obscure data that would have run counter to their plans, hiding or misapplying complete numbers of those who have died or become ill from COVID-19. The White Houses April guidelines to states called for a 14-day downturn in case counts before reopening, but the three states and others have proceeded before that happened.

Most public health projections see cases dipping nationwide from the effects of the past stay-at-home orders, but then climbing as May ends as people get sick from new exposures during reopenings. The data problems in Georgia, Arizona, and Florida come as overall US coronavirus cases counts stand at more than 1.5 million, with over 92,000 deaths. New US case reports have declined to less than 25,000 new cases a day in May, however, down from more than 35,000 a day in late April. More than 40 states have in the last month reopened businesses after widespread stay-at-home orders in March led to staggering US unemployment and financial losses.

Among the hard-hit states is tourism-heavy Florida, which reopened on May 4. The head of the states widely praised coronavirus dashboard, Rebekah Jones of the Florida Department of Public Health, reported in an email update on Friday that she had been removed from her role for "reasons beyond my divisions control." Jones, who had previously won praise from White House coronavirus task force leader Deborah Birx, later told a local TV station that the state had asked her to manually change data to drum up support for the plan to reopen.

The Florida Department of Public Health did not respond to a query from BuzzFeed News over whether it had manipulated data to make reopening more attractive. A statement sent from Helen Ferr of the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Rebekah Jones exhibited a repeated course of insubordination during her time with the Department, including her unilateral decisions to modify the Departments COVID-19 dashboard without input or approval from the epidemiological team or her supervisors. Ferr added that Jones had until Thursday to resign or would face termination.

Jones did not respond to requests for comment. An email sent to her work address bounced back on Wednesday morning.

The Sunshine State was criticized in April for pressuring medical examiners not to release their COVID-19 death counts, then 10% higher than official state figures. A Tampa Bay Times report on Wednesday concluded that COVID-19 had likely led to hundreds of unreported deaths in Florida since March.

Arizona started a limited reopening plan on May 8. Four days earlier state officials directed Arizona State University and University of Arizona researchers modeling the projections for state coronavirus cases to pause all their work. Also, we have been asked to pull back the special data sets which have been shared under this public health emergency effort, the order said, according to a copy obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The university models had suggested the only way to keep deaths from rising in the state was to delay reopening until the end of May, but the state officials had said they wanted to rely on federal models instead. After the researchers said they planned to continue releasing their projections anyway, the state backed down from the pause order.

Georgia was among the first states to reopen business, on April 27. The state was criticized last week for mistakes in its data just ahead of its reopening, showing that new cases in counties with the highest infection rates had been in a steady two-week decline when in fact theyd stayed flat. The same errors were made three times. Critics suggested that the mixed-up dates and incorrect case counts were part of misleading bids to suggest that fewer people were getting sick just ahead of reopening.

The accuracy of case count data is essential for safe state reopenings, which rely on declining case numbers, accurate testing data, and hospitalization rates to proceed in states like Virginia and California, still under regional lockdowns.

A recent Georgia Tech report suggested that people staying at home rather than readily mixing after Georgias reopening would cut the peak of June and July cases in the state by 40%. That makes strong public messages about physical distancing and staying at home crucial during any reopenings, the report concluded.

When public health agencies are not being transparent, not being complete and accurate over the long term, they are fundamentally undermining the trust of the public, said George Washington University health policy professor Jeffrey Levi. The pandemic will likely see repeated periods of calls for stronger physical distancing to blunt future outbreaks, making this particularly dangerous, he added. The next time you tell them to trust your data, they wont.

The pandemic is already a tough situation for collecting accurate data, Levi noted. Many people dont get tested because of a lack of symptoms or poor access to tests, and reports from New York, New Jersey, and Michigan have suggested large undercounts of deaths are likely. A healthcare company in Florida reported on Tuesday that as many as 33,000 people there were given unreliable diagnostic tests, not the first time that unreliable tests have muddied the waters for epidemiologists.

Most worrisome, the three-week lag between the onset of a COVID-19 outbreak and deaths in hospitals shooting upward makes maintaining public trust in public health agencies even more crucial, said Levi. He called the allegations being raised against the state public health agencies altering data and censoring scientists "unprecedented."

Anything short of full transparency does not serve the public good, American Public Health Association President Lisa Carlson told BuzzFeed News. People make mistakes; people dispute data. Whats important is to get to, and to maintain, accurate, timely, and complete data and transparency.

Zahra Hirji contributed reporting to this story.

Excerpt from:
Florida, Arizona, and Georgia Have Sidelined Their Coronavirus Data and Experts - BuzzFeed News