Category Archives: Censorship

Minouk Lim.

LEILA MESDAGHI

Minouk Lim is a Seoul-based artist whose multimedia work looks at the various ways people can be marginalized, particularly by systems of government and various forms of mass media. Her work has been included in numerous international exhibitions, including the 2019 Biennale de Lyon, the 2016 Taipei Biennale, the 2016 Sydney Biennale, and the 2014 Gwangju Biennale.

Most recently, Lims work was included in the Aichi Triennale, which closed on Monday, October 14. The show has been the subject of controversy since it opened in August, when organizers decided to close an exhibition within the exhibition, titled After Freedom of Expression? That part of the Aichi Triennale looked at Japans history of censorship, and was shuttered citing threats against the exhibition and its staff. Among the most controversial works was Statue of a Girl of Peace by Korean artist-duo Kim Seo-kyung and Kim Eun-sung. That piece depicts ianfu, or comfort women who were drawn from throughout Asia and forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Imperial Army.(It is still a controversial topic in Japan.)

Lim was among the artists who signed an open letter calling for the removal of her work in the exhibition, a new piece titled Adieu News, in a stand of solidarity with the censored artists. ARTnews asked Lim about her work in the exhibition and the controversy surrounding the entire Triennale.

ARTnews: What was your initial impression of the After Freedom of Expression? exhibition?

Minouk Lim: I found the implied message behind the After Freedom of Expression? exhibition deeply meaningful because Daisuke Tsuda, the Artistic Director [of the Aichi Triennale], comes from a journalistic background and has regrouped the works that have already been censored. Aside from works by Korean artists, including the Statue of a Girl of Peace, the exhibition actually included works by Japanese artists reflecting more direct criticisms [of censorship in Japan].

Another point that should not be overlooked is that the Aichi Triennale tried to balance the gender ratio of participating artists. The exhibition was not a display of political art as the Japanese right-wing party criticized, but instead showed how politics shook and hijacked the art. Rather, it was an event that exposed another side of the reality of Japan that we must continue to face.

AN: Did you anticipate that there might be backlash?

ML: I already anticipated that there would be backlash, as hate speech [has been] an important source of political power in Japan for a long time. However, I did not expect that the Mayor of Nagoya would demand the [exhibitions] withdrawal directly and the Agency for Cultural Affairs would respond back to the artists by cutting subsidy as punishment. This result both surprised and disappointed me.

Installation view of Minouk Lims Adieu News, 2019, at the 2019 Aichi Triennale.

COURTESY THE ARTIST

AN: You were part of the group of 72 artists who said that the Aichi Triennales decision to remove the section of the show was not appropriate. What motivated you to sign the letter?

ML: I decided to close my exhibition space and sent my statement before we issued another statement with 72 artists signatures. It was on August 3 when the Triennale decided to shut down the After Freedom of Expression? exhibition. I sent an email to Daisuke Tsuda and Shihoko lida [Chief Curator of the Triennale], informing them that I would withdraw my works. They only reiterated to the press that they had to close the exhibition due to the threat of terrorism. However, I insisted that it is more dangerous to weave freedom of expression into a safety issue. I felt ashamed of the decision to take down the show. Thankfully though, many of the participating artists and Japanese colleagues expressed their support. They drew 72 signatures after deep agony and vigorous debate. Of course, I also signed it in solidarity. Moreover, 11 artists out of the total 72 artists took action by boycotting their works, including myself.

AN: Can you talk about your work in the exhibition? Does it also look at the complicated histories between Japan and Korea?

ML: For the exhibition, I presented a new scenographic space through a new body of work called Adieu News (2019), which includes a two-channel video of a newly-edited [version of] The Possibility of the Half (2012), as well as an installation featuring fake-traditional Korean dresses, Hanbok. By juxtaposing two funerals of the former supreme leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Il, and that of the former President of South Korea, Park Chung-hee, the work shows how the media-driven emotions create a community and how it resembles an incomplete ruin. If the former Japanese Prime Minister, Yoshida Shigeru, argued that the Korean War was a gift from God to the Japanese, both funerals are activated as an impetus behind the Nationalism and division of the two Koreas.

AN: Does the controversy at the Aichi Triennale speak to larger issues going on in the world?

ML: The censorship issue of the Aichi Triennale is a problem for the art world as a whole. South Korea is a divided nation, and artists think that they all live by self-censorship. There still exists great risk in revealing certain truths throughout the world, which questions whether information should be censored. Personally, I feel the answer is not to suppress the freedom of expression. Art and freedom of expression are a struggle against the oppression of all kinds. There is vulnerability in truth, which is why we must protect it. Japanese intellectuals denounced the Aichi Triennial as the worst case of censorship in the countrys history.

I do not want to lose hope and feel strongly that Aichi can be reborn as a symbol of expressive and creative freedom. I felt such a strong sense of solidarity and connection with the 11 participating artists, includingJapanese artists, who chose to withdraw their works in protest. I hope that this experience will not promote fear, but rather breed strength and security in anyones ability to effect change. This act of protest is not about Nationalism, or about being a Japanese artist or a Korean artist, but about the inherent right to find freedom in the act of creation.

The rest is here:
Aichi Triennale Artist Minouk Lim Speaks Out on Art World Censorship and How the Exhibition Could Be 'Reborn' - - ARTnews

Online gaming communities are rife with toxic behavior sign on to Xbox Live and its a near-guarantee that youll hear some of your fellow gamers hurling insults and slurs as readily as they lob grenades in Call of Duty.

Its regular, every other game youre in, theres always someone who has a mic or types in chat, then-16-year-old gamer Bailey Mitchell told the BBC in 2017. Theyll call you some random abusive thing they can think of.

In an effort to fight back against that toxicity, Microsoft announced Monday that it had begun rolling out new filters for Xbox Live designed to block out potentially offensive messages andin a futuristic twist, the company is already trying to figure out how to do the same for voice messages.

According to a Microsoft blog post, Xbox users will be able to choose between four levels of content filtration: Friendly, Medium, Mature, and Unfiltered.

If the filtration system flags a message as being beyond the limits the player has set, it will replace the message with a placeholder reading potentially offensive message hidden. The player can then click on the placeholder if they want to read the message anyway.

But filtering text-based messages is just the first step.

Microsoft Research is already trying to crack real-time speech-to-text translation a technology that would allow it to transcribe a verbal conversation essentially as it takes place and the companys Xbox division is already contemplating what that could mean for its online community.

What weve started to experiment with is Hey, if were real-time translating speech to text, and weve got these text filtering capabilities, what can we do in terms of blocking possible communications in a voice setting?' Dave McCarthy, head of Microsofts Xbox operations, told The Verge.

Rob Smith, a program manager on the Xbox Live engineering team, addedthat the ultimate goal would be a system that could detect a bad phrase [in voice conversations] and beep it out for users who dont want to see that.

He compares it to broadcast TV, though television censors have the benefit of a seven-second delay to aid their filtration of offensive content delaying voice communications between gamers for even afraction of a second could dramatically impact game play.

Still, its easy to see how transcription technology is already moving in the direction Microsoft envisions, so while gaming communities might currently be cesspools of toxicity, that might not always be the case.

If we really are to realize our potential as an industry and have this wonderful medium come to everybody, theres just no place for that, McCarthy told The Verge.

READ MORE: Microsoft Unveils Xbox Content Filters to Stop the Swears and Toxicity [The Verge]

More on Microsoft: Microsoft: We Stopped Listening to Your Xbox Convos Months Ago

Continue reading here:
Microsoft Wants to Censor Xbox Live Voice Chat in Real Time - Futurism

An internally displaced woman rides a bus back to her village in North Darfur. Photo by Albert Gonzalez Farran via United Nations/Flickr.

For over thirty years, Sudan was ruled and controlled by a military regime under Omar al-Bashir until a revolution earlier this yearousted him from power. What started as protests against the rising price of bread became a movement against the Bashir regime, whocommitted mass crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in Darfur. The regime often used laws and tactics to silence and oppress opponents including systematic internet censorship.

Today, as Sudan embarks on a three-year transition toward democracy and civilian rule, transitional authorities need to take steps to guarantee internet freedom and cut ties with censorship practices and policies of the former regime.

Transitional authorities have already taken small steps toward improving the climate for internet freedom, such as shifting regulatory power away from the military and making commitments to open up the press but these remain inadequate.

In September 2019, The Sovereignty Council of Sudan, sworn in last August as part of a power-sharing agreement to guide Sudans three-year transition toward civilian rule, issued a decree that places the Telecommunications and Post Regulatory Authority under the councils subordination instead of the Ministry of Defense.

The move is a welcome step toward ensuring the independence of the regulator from the full control of the military authorities, given that six of the 11-member-council are civilians. Five of these civilians were chosen from the Forces of Freedom and Change the political coalition that represents the protesters.

However, the rules and policies under which the regulator functions are still unchanged. In fact, the authority has been a key player in deciding and implementing the former regimes censorship policies with its filtering and blocking system.

According to a document explaining the regulators filtering practices, 95 percent of all banned materials pertain to pornography, while the rest of the banned content relates to drugs, bombs, alcohol, insults against Islam and gambling. Yet, these categories have been vague and lack definition, leaving the door open for those in power to decide what to block.

The regulators so-called filtering unit also has a formthat allows users to submit requests to block or unblock certain websites or webpages. These decisions are made without a judicial order and the regulator explains that the unit treats these requests seriously and expeditiously before orders are submitted to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

To filter and block content, the former regime used technologies it imported secretly from abroad. For example, a 2013 report titled Some Devices Wander by Mistake by Citizen Lab, a Toronto-based interdisciplinary laboratory that studies information control and content filtering, concluded that Sudan was among 83 countries that installed the Blue Coat ProxySG and PacketShaper devices on its public networks.

According to Citizen Lab, these devices can be used to secure and maintain networks, but it can also be used to implement politically-motivated restrictions on access to information, and monitor and record private communications.

In another positive step, Prime Minister Abdulla Hmadok signed the Global Pledge to Defend Media Freedom and stated that never again in the new Sudan will a journalist be repressed or jailed, during the 2019 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA):

Under the Bashir regime, print newspapers that faced repression offline found respite online. A 2017 report by France 24 noted that about a dozen internet papers have been launched in the past year alone as agents of the powerful National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) continue to confiscate entire print-runs of newspapers over articles opposed to President Omar al-Bashir's regime.

However, authorities also targeted online newspapers, often blocking them without a judicial order.

For example, during the anti-regime protests of June 2012, authorities blocked access to three online newspapers: Hurriyat Sudan, Sudanese Online and al-Rakoba, without a judicial process. At that time, SudanTribune reported that the rulingNational Congress Party (NCP) accused some websites of launching a campaign to distort the countrys image in collaboration with opposition parties and the United States. Access to online newspapers was later unblocked. Hurriyat Sudan, however, ceased publications in April 2018, due tolack of funding.

To enforce and implement its censorship policies, authorities under the former regime resorted to laws that were vague and open to misinterpretation.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized at the international level through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), in 2003 inGeneva,Switzerland,and in 2005 inTunis, Tunisia,reaffirmedas an essential foundation of the Information Society that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers as outlined inarticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Articles 14 to 17 of the 2007 Cybercrime Act, criminalizes the dissemination of content deemed in violation of public order, morality, religious beliefs or the sanctity of private life and online defamation. Despite the fact that the Act delineated on the punishments, with sentences up to five years in prison, fines, or both, definitions were still vague and lack clarity, allowing for abuse by authorities.

Article 25 gives the court the right to confiscate the hardware, software or media used in the commission of any of the offenses provided for in this Act and of the funds proceeding from them.

Bashirs regime used these laws to restrict online content and target newspapers and news websites as well as individual citizens online and social media activities.

A 2018 report by the African Center for Justice and Peace Studies documented four incidents where four Sudanese citizens have been charged with defamation under the Cybercrimes Act, 2007 and Criminal Act, 1991, as well as breach of public order and morality under the Cybercrimes Act following statements shared via social media platforms.The report highlights the case ofSaad Ahmed Fadul, who was charged in April 2018 under the Cybercrimes Act for sharing a video via WhatsApp narrating a story of how she was dismissed from the Sudan Communication Company and replaced with Hind Abdalla Hassan Albashir, a niece to Sudans [then] President, Al Bashir. She was charged withblackmailing and threatening another person, breach of public order and morality and violation of religious beliefs or the sanctity of private life.

PM Hamdoks public commitment to press freedom and the Sovereignty Councils decree to reduce the influence of the military in the regulator are two steps in the right direction toward the guarantee of internet freedom.

However, lingering laws place vague restrictions on these fundamental rights and allow authorities to block and filter content without a judicial order. These laws allow authorities to jail individuals and journalists for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Transitional authorities should rectify these laws and take additional steps to ensure that the telecommunications industry regulator is independent of government interference. The regulator should focus on protecting users rights to access the internet instead of serving as a political tool that silences dissent.

See the original post:
Internet censorship in Sudan: Rethinking laws and tactics that served an authoritarian regime - Global Voices

The latest skirmishes in the bruising trade war between the U.S. and China have led to the unlikely politicization of the NBA. But how did the views of a basketball executive become such a political football? And what does Chinas ideological commitment to censorship say about the value of free speech and of free speech money, as bitcoin is sometimes known?

Also read: Berlusconi Admins Disappear Darknet Users Rush to Find Alternatives

The Communist Partys gangsterish demands on private companies is nothing new, but the recent decision by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey to tweet support for pro-democracy protestors amid bedlam in Hong Kong quickly exposed just how fragile the notion of free speech really is. In the face of opprobrium from Beijing, Moreys climbdown, augmented by groveling input from Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta and NBA spokesman Mike Bass, was pitiful to behold. But it hinted at the wider problem of gutlessness among companies that have provoked the ire of the Chinese government.

A curated list of companies that have kowtowed to Chinese censorship requests, maintained on Github, is damning. As well as the NBA, the roll of shame includes Apple, Marriott, Nike, ESPN, several of the worlds largest airlines like British Airways, Qantas and American Airlines, and Versace. With trade talks between the US and China underway in Washington, the specter of censorship, while not on the agenda, will loom large over proceedings.

Both nations have a lot to answer for as far as free speech, privacy, money and other basic human rights are concerned. Chinas persistent assault on freedom seems more flagrant, but the U.S. and, for that matter, other western nations hardly cover themselves in glory. Attorney General William Barr recently squeezed major tech companies to provide government agencies with backdoor entry points for encrypted devices and software. It remains perfectly legal for citizens throughout the world to be fired by their employer or interrogated by customs for something theyve said on social media even when it occurred years ago.

Edward Snowdens expos of rampant state surveillance shows that when it comes to assembling a digital panopticon thats always watching, the Americans are even more ruthless than the Chinese. At least in China you can see the cameras observing you; theres no such courtesy when the U.S. agencies activate your webcam and start recording.

Speaking of surveillance and its insidious incursion into peoples lives, the Washington Post just reported that more than 400 police departments across the U.S. have entered into surveillance partnerships with Amazons camera-enabled doorbell company, Ring. Its yet another way in which the government is utilizing tech, while co-opting big business to bear down upon civil rights and liberties.

In the modern world, digital freedom is everything. The bulk of our lives now unfold online: our conversations, our financial transactions, our very identities. What we are witnessing, increasingly, is free speech being smothered via the deplatforming of certain voices and an attempt by governments to introduce regulatory oversight on financial transactions which goes beyond ensuring proper taxation, but under the guise of crime prevention impinges upon privacy at a fundamental level. When governments seek to blunt-force encrypted devices and software, it requires a stupefying level of naivety to assume that their motivation is cracking down on kiddie porn.

Value and dignity exist in an internet where speech, financial autonomy and other basic rights are not controlled by government agencies or international conglomerates. Where our private data is not commoditized and sold to the highest bidder, and where we have the right to lives that are not the object of constant and unforgiving scrutiny.

Avoiding inference from third parties in the form of censure (deplatforming) and restriction of speech are basic desires shared by all digital citizens. This is why, when the topic of censorship and governmental overreach rears its head, Bitcoin isnt far behind. Being able to process payments on the internet without permission or risk of confiscation is a privilege that provokes a desire to exercise the same level of freedom in other realms. To harness fully open source, secure and private systems of expression that are immune to the tentacles of power.

If the convergence of state and corporate interests continues unchecked, we are all imperilled; Chinese, American, or otherwise. Seized bank accounts, stolen information, frozen assets and ever greater attempts to stifle free speech and freedom of association will become the norm, and not just for those existing on the fringes, but for the masses. Is it any wonder that protestors harness technology to combat the might of the state? Tools such as PGP, Bitcoin, and decentralized networks allow individuals to conduct their affairs without permission from any bank, corporation or government.

While the summit in Washington is focused on matters such as trade imbalances and intellectual property violations, at an individual level we have bigger questions to ask of ourselves. Are we prepared to endure online censorship and a veritable onslaught on our civil liberties? Or are we willing to fight for an internet that does not function as an arm of the state but as an open platform for the free exchange of ideas and value? A censorship-resistant internet benefits everyone. It also benefits Bitcoin, for where theres free speech, theres demand for free speech money.

Do you think free speech and financial sovereignty as provided by Bitcoin are interlinked? Let us know in the comments section below.

Op-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors own. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see whats happening in the industry.

Kai's been manipulating words for a living since 2009 and bought his first bitcoin at $12. It's long gone. He's previously written whitepapers for blockchain startups and is especially interested in P2P exchanges and DNMs.

More here:
Bitcoin Is a Weapon for Free Speech in the Face of Government and Corporate Censorship - Bitcoin News

Americas entertainment industry is known for touting its love of artistic freedom.

Chinas authoritarian government is not.

The worlds largest and most influential communist regime routinely takes White-Out (or rather, Red-Out) to American products.

Movies have either been white-washed so as to contain the minimal amount of free expression and political commentary while still drawing eyes or canceled altogether so as not to offend the communist regime. Products have been altered to comport with Chinese propaganda regarding Taiwan or Tibet.

The worlds most popular search engine, Google, has entertained the idea of adhering to the regimes Internet censorship demands. And in June, Nike famously bowed to Chinas demands and removed an entire product line of sports shoes because the designer supported the Hong Kong protests on social media.

Get started today for free and become the most informed Texan you know after your first month, it's just $9.00.

Earlier this week, Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey widely considered one of the leagues brightest young figures tweeted out a photo that said Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.

In retaliation, China announced it would be ceasing operations with the NBA.

Since then, the NBA has attempted to straddle both sides of the fight on one side, adhering to Chinas demands and protecting the leagues massive growth rate that is largely thanks to Chinas market, and on the other defending its employee and the free expression it has long touted.

Commissioner Adam Silver stated, It is inevitable that people around the world including from America and China will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences.

For their part, the Rockets (who boast the largest popularity of NBA teams in China) carted its star duo James Harden and Russell Westbrook out to apologize. We love China. We love playing there, Harden stated.

The Houston Rockets press office did not reply to request for comment.

This trend of capitulation to the Chinese government is not new, and not limited to the NBA.

Just yesterday, Deadspin got its hands on an internal ESPN memo forbidding employees, when discussing the Morey controversy, from mentioning Chinas and Hong Kongs political dispute.

ESPNs parent company, Disney, has been widely accused of self-censoring its products at the bidding of Chinas National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA) for some time now.

The video game company, Activision Blizzard, banned one of its players for making a pro-Hong Kong statement on camera after a victory. That company has nearly $18 billion worth of assets and has both a sales headquarters in Dallas and a design studio in Austin.

Apple and Paramount recently excluded the Taiwanese flag from its products, while Tik Tok censored videos mentioning the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Mercedes even apologized for quoting the Dalai Lama on Instagram.

However, not everyone has elected to go this route.

In typically prescient fashion, the popular and irreverent cartoon comedy South Park released an episode in its latest season called Band in China. The whole premise is how American companies self-censor in order to sell their products in China.

In this fictional-in-name-only version of China, Winnie the Pooh and Piglet are held as political prisoners. How is this not that fictional? Because Chinese censors banned the movie Christopher Robin after internet trolls started comparing Xi Jinping to the honey-loving, friendly bear.

This episode went over about as well as youd expect among Chinas communist ruling party. China banned South Park from its internet.

To which the creators (Matt Stone and Trey Parker) issued the following sarcastic statement: Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts. We too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesnt just look like Winnie the Pooh at all. Tune into our 300th episode this Wednesday at 10! Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this Autumns sorghum harvest be bountiful. We good now China?

Contrast that with the NBAs diplomatic statement and you have two clear and different approaches toward facing down big brothers authoritarian stick.

Indeed, when hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars are at stake, its clear that some companies have been all too comfortable choosing one particular path even if Matt Stone and Trey Parker chose another.

Will corporate America, particularly those in the entertainment industry, support protestors in Hong Kong standing up for their human rights and basic human freedoms?

The trend line is not promising.

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

Original post:
Houston Rockets-NBA Controversy Over Chinese Censorship Reveals Growing Corporate Trend - The Texan

Radhika Apte recently got nominated in the Best Actress category in the International Emmy Awards. (Photo: Radhika Apte/Instagram)

Radhika Aptes Kalindi, a fiery college professor in the first Anurag Kashyaps Lust Stories got her nominated in the Best Actress category in the International Emmy Awards. Her first reaction on hearing the news was similar to how anyone of us would have reacted. She googled Emmys a bit and found out if it was the same Emmys.

Aptes nomination and the nomination of Netflixs Sacred Games in the International Emmy Awards speaks volumes about Indian content being accepted across the world. The acclaimed 34-year-old actor feels the idea of television has changed in India. Thus, our content has gained recognition on the international platforms.

She tells indianexpress.com, I think it is about television. So far the television we had was not at par with the world content at all. Lets call it a revolution or whatever, but with the digital medium, the world has become so small. Everyones viewing each others content. The idea of television has changed completely which is why we are making content which can be viewed across the world. And, this is why there are so many nominations this year. If we continue making such content, I am sure well have nominations every year.

But does it mean, we are at par with other industries or we still have a long way to go? Apte says, We will have to wait and see since we have been producing digital content only for two years now. So, lets give it another two-three years to see if our content becomes better or balanced or if it gets dumbed down.

While Indian web series are gaining prominence in the international sphere, a lot of debate is going on over their censorship in India. Violence, intimacy, obscene language and characters smoking on-screenscenes like these have often irked a section of the audience. The Sacred Games actor doesnt understand this criticism of online content for being inappropriate for the Indian audience.

She argues, The web is a great platform and reaches to a lot of people at the same time. You can watch both longer and shorter format stuff. Now whether if you use it to your advantage or you just waste your money on it, its on you. As a medium, I dont think theres anything bad in it. If we talk about the misuse of freedom in the absence of censorship, I dont agree with it at all. We are all becoming very right-wing. We are all so extreme, we are trying to ban everything. We have the freedom to express. What is misuse? I mean if two people are intimate, it happens in every household.

And, this is why she thinks her anthology film Lust Stories which is a take on Love, Sex and everything in between! found its audience in India. Theres nothing more common than sex. We are one of the most populated countries. People just dont like to talk about sex but they all relate to it. Its the most relatable thing. Lust, love, attraction, sex, all of them are the most relatable things. Thats what it is. Cinema is one the mediums where we feel emotions which we dont talk about openly, suggests Apte.

Apte will soon start work on Australian filmmaker Justin Kurzel directorial Apple TV+s upcoming series Shantaram. It is based on Gregory David Roberts bestselling India-set novel of the same name. Talking about her decision to star in the series, the actor says, I accepted it without even knowing what my role was. I think that is because its such a big book. It is Apple first series. The people involved are really great, and I like their work. So I thought that it would be quite an interesting project to work on.

Lastly, we ask Apte who has surprised the audience with her every performance, to describe the evolution of Indian cinema. She replies, The content has changed, more people are up for this industry, there are more subjects and different stories being explored, suddenly our content is being consumed by audience across the world. So, the standard has changed. But I think it is still a male-dominant populace and there is still a lack of equal parts for women. We are still massy in many ways and we still have to do a lot of compromises.

See the rest here:
Radhika Apte on censorship of web content: We are all so extreme, we are trying to ban everything - The Indian Express

Last week, several events have shown a spotlight on Chinese censorship of the ongoing Hong Kong protests. Chinese censors have been taking increasingly draconian action to crack down on criticism of the country. When a Hong Kong-based Hearthstone streamer voiced support for the protesters who have battled for their right to a fair trial, Blizzard cracked down harshly. Chung blitzchung Ng Wai was suspended from Hearthstone for a year and forced to forfeit his prize money. A similar punishment was applied to the two individuals who were interviewing him at the time.

The community response has been withering. Multiple casters and streamers have announced boycotts or stepped away from various positions and roles in the Hearthstone community. Now, Blizzard has released a lengthy statement on the matter, written by the company president, J. Allen Brack. It announces that the full-year ban against Blitzchung has been reduced to six months and that his prize money is no longer forfeit. It also claims: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.

This pair of excerpted statements are a master class, ironically enough, in self-censorship. Lets talk about why.

When people think of censorship, they tend to think of a government or corporation suppressing information by refusing to allow it to be published. This is one type of censorship, to be sure, but its not very compatible with the existence of the modern internet. Simple anti-publishing mandates are fairly easy to route around on the internet, where an article that exists online even for an instant can be screen-shotted and disseminated.

A far more effective tactic is to teach people to self-censor by convincing them that speaking up is not in their own best interest. A related term, soft censorship, refers to the practice of using financial pressure on media companies to persuade them not to speak up on certain topics out of concern for having their access restricted or revoked.

As we detailed in our previous coverage, China has directly encouraged self-censorship by enforcing severe penalties against offenders. In 2018, Marriott published an online poll listing Tibet as a separate country rather than a part of China. A Tibetan separatist group published a link to the survey. A Marriott employee, Roy Jones, liked the post the separatist group made. He wasnt Tibetan. He knew nothing about China-Tibetan relations. He was doing his job promoting content created by people who appeared to be fans of Marriott.

Jones, who made $14 per hour, was fired within a week.

In February 2018, Mercedes-Benz took down an Instagram post because it quoted the Dalai Lama and enraged China in the process. The offending quote? Look at the situations from all angles, and you will become more open. I have no idea why anyone thought this statement would be useful when selling cars, but its objectively meaningless as far as any reference to the political situation between China and Tibet. Instagram is also banned in China, meaning few-to-no Chinese users would have even seen the ad.

Chinas disproportionate responses are not mistakes. Theyre the whole point.

If you want people to self-censor, fear, uncertainty, and doubt FUD are your absolute best friends. When China cracked down on popular online bloggers and opinion-makers in 2013, it claimed it did so to prevent fraud, abuse, and slander but many of the accounts taken offline had a political edge to them. 9,800 social media accounts were banned in a single action. Afterward, the government introduced new laws governing online speech. At least one woman went to jail for three years for breaking them. This year, the Chinese silenced a social media star named Ma Ling, with more than 16 million followers. The NYT reports she posted about a young man with cancer whose talent and virtue were not enough to overcome problems like corruption and inequality.

The Chinese government obliterated her social media accounts and erased her online presence.

Egregious overreaction to seemingly minor events is how China maintains the necessary climate of fear. While it cannot directly jail the employees of Americans who mouth off on Twitter, it can certainly make retaining those employees incredibly expensive for companies wishing to do business in mainland China.

Lets get back to Blizzard. China is a major market for the company. While Blizzard no longer releases player data for World of Warcraft, China currently accounts for 5.2 percent of Activision Blizzards revenue, almost double from its share one year ago. Activision Blizzard earned $7.2B in 2018. Assume equivalent revenue for 2019 (just to make the math simple), and that means China would be worth about $360M to the combined company.

You are Blizzard. A streamer from Hong Kong makes a statement you know will enrage the Chinese government. Do you instantly take action to remove the content, thereby preserving your harmonious relationship with the Chinese people, or do you wait for the censors to act, knowing how you will be treated if you do? Keep in mind, there is explicitly no guarantee whatsoeverthat you will not be punished. Others in your exact situation have been punished. But if you act instantly, theres a chance youll be deemed to have been acting in good faith.

Presented, once again, without commentary. But you might infer insinuation.

This is why I suspect J. Allen Brack could write that China had nothing to do with his companys decision. It could very well be true. Blizzard didnt make this decision after its lovable pal Xi Jinping stopped by with a pot of honey problem that needed solving. It made this decision independently, knowing that its entire Chinese business could be at stake if it did not. This, my friends, is what is often referred to as motivated reasoning.

As for the second part of the statement, I suspect its true as well. Would Blizzard have cracked down on a streamer with a big pro-China message? Very possibly but importantly not for the same reason. Blizzard likely cracked down on pro-Hong Kong statements to save its own ass. It would crack down on a pro-mainland China statement to preserve the illusion of neutrality. The only way for Blizzard to superficially appear to be neutral is to declare that it will crack down on both viewpoints. Neutrality, by its very nature, supports the status quo in this case, the idea that no one is allowed to talk about Hong Kong unless its the government of mainland China. And mainland China has precious little interest in allowing news of whats actually going on to reach its own citizens.

Image by Polygon

J. Allen Bracks statement makes no mention of the fact that a Hearthstone team from American University attempted to get itself suspended by doing exactly what Blitzchung had done just days before. That team has not been penalized. In fact, it received a next match assignment after its action a match it will forfeit in protest. Evidently China still recognizes that there are certain people it would be unprofitable to go after or Blizzard realizes that its efforts to curry favor with Xi Jinpings administration have already been catastrophic for its brand. Possibly both.

Everyone practices self-censorship to a certain extent. I personally learned the value of the concept around age 10, when I called a church deacon a bastard for not taking my money during the offertory. My mother turned a shade so alarming, my father thought shed choked on a mint. But when applied at the corporate or government level, self-censorship isnt just a personal decision we all make to smooth social interactions. In situations like this, its poison to the very idea of transparent or accountable governance. And Ive seen the impact in my own work.

Since I ran my first story on this topic, multiple readers have reached out to tell me they dont dare share the link. Some of them travel to China regularly. Some of them have friends and family there. This is precisely how self-censorship and Chinas social credit monitoring system are supposed to work. When I heard this from readers, it then occurred to me that I might be targeted in some fashion. This is also by design. Anxiety is socially transmissible.

This article is my response.

Chinas censors know they cant control every word that people say on social media. They know even the most ardent human filters cannot read every single line of text before its put online. Instead of attempting an impossible task, they rely on the rest of us to do their dirty work for them. I have known people at Blizzard for 20 years. I participated in the closed beta tests for Diablo II, Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, Diablo III, and many of the WoW expansions. I have written tens of thousands of words about World of Warcraft over the last 15 years. I admire many aspects of the company, but its initial response to this situation was flatly unacceptable. Its current half-retreat wears the queasy smile of an abused individual hoping immediate obeisance will stave off a blow. Having rushed to defend the tender feelings of the Chinese government, the company now feels compelled to tack backward in response to public opinion.

Blizzard could and should do better. Its one thing to promote free trade of goods and services. Its another thing entirely to do business when the cost of doing so is the suppression of the rights of private US citizens to speak their minds concerning public affairs of the day. A low-level Marriott employee was bullied off his job for the crime of failing to grasp the context of a complex geopolitical situation on Twitter. This is not some hypothetical what-if scenario. Chinas censors are already changing content, getting people fired, and controlling the larger narrative around geopolitical events in important ways now.

If we stand by and allow this to happen we will be giving up the right to free speech in the corporatized public-private spaces that now dominate the internet. China will not allow internet companies to operate within its borders without agreeing to enforce its censorship policies. We already know Google was willing to build Project Dragonfly, a new search engine for the Chinese market, despite having previously publicly pledged not to work in the country. Based on how the country is now acting, we can assume any companies with a media presence that extends into China will find themselves policed for improper references to China. How we collectively respond to these events will determine what happens when these collisions of values occur. Google killed Dragonfly only after widespread public outcry and protests from its own employees. When employees, users, and citizens demand companies stand up for the values they claim to stand for (and that Americans wish to stand for in general), theres a much greater chance of affecting change.

Stand for freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.

Now Read:

Read the original:
Blizzard Lowers Penalty on Hong Kong Streamer, Says China Uninvolved in Censorship - ExtremeTech

Installation view of Regina Jos Galindos LA FIESTA #latinosinjapan, 2019, at the Aichi Triennale 2019.

ITO TETSUO

When the Aichi Triennale in Japan opened at the beginning of August, it immediately caused controversy. The outcry was largely centered around one section of the exhibition, titled After Freedom of Expression?an exhibition-within-an-exhibition about censorship within Japan. That section included a work by Korean artist-duo Kim Seo-kyung and Kim Eun-sung,Statue of a Girl of Peace, which referenced the history ofianfu, or comfort women who were drawn from throughout Asia and forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Imperial Army. The history is so contentious within Japan that many politicians within the country did not acknowledge it until 2015.

When the organizers of the Triennale decided days later, on August 3, to close After Freedom of Expression?, citing safety concerns, 72 participating artists in the triennial signed a letter condemning the exhibition. A week later, with the exhibition still closed, a group of 10 artists wrote an open letter, first published on ARTnews, saying that they would remove their own work in solidarity.

On October 9, after more than two months of the After Freedom of Expression? being closed, the organizers reopened the section and put back on view all the removed works. But the After Freedom of Expression? was only open to visitors who entered a lottery to see the it. (The Triennale closed Monday, October 14.) Anyone who saw the section had to sign statements saying they would not post images of it to social media, according to the Art Newspaper. The Japan Times has also reported that, as a result of this controversy, the Cultural Affairs Agency of Nagoya Prefecture would withhold a 78 million (about $720,000) state subsidyabout 15 percent of the exhibitions total 1.2 billion (about $11 million) operating budget.

ARTnews reached out to some of the 10 artists who withdrew their works to ask about their experiences throughout the controversy and what it means going further.

Pedro Reyes

This edition ofAichiTriennale is perhaps the most political exhibition that has taken place in Japan in this century. Beyond the After Freedom of Expression? exhibition, all the other works included in the show were highly political as well. As a curator, I commissioned works that addressed two issues that are known to be problematic in Japan: feminism and migration. The artists I invited shared the fact that they usually take a stand [when] they address these issues in their work. They initiatedtheboycott in order to increase the pressure on local authorities to provide a safe environment for theAichiTriennale to reopen the exhibition. It is important to observe that during this crisis, for every space that had closed, other spaces opened, thanks to the artists initiative. As a result to their constant commitment, we were able to overcome censorship and the exhibition is now back to its full, original version.

Minouk Lim

Japan has an important role in the international art scene. I hope that the decision to reopen reflects their great will to protect freedom of expression rather than to blame the victims and artists. This is why the reopening of the section is significant on a symbolic level.

However, I cannot just simply say that I am happy due to the fact that my work has become the target of aggression and the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs decision to cut down the subsidies for the Triennale. Still, I am grateful for Japanese artists who courageously took risks to speak against the closure and further promoted more freedom of expression for the future.

Javier Tellez

We celebrate that Governor Hideaki Omura and the Aichi Triennale finally re-opened the censored works, but we wish it would had happened earlier, and not 10 days before the exhibition closes and with limited access. Nonetheless it is a significant gesture that could lead to a open discussion of issues of conflict-related violence and historical memory in Japan. It is a shameful event that neo-natinalist Nagoya Mayor Takashi Kawamura staged a sit-in protest to oppose the reopening and the Agency for Cultural Affairs decided to withdraw the subsidy for theAichiTriennale, an unacceptable form of institutional blackmail. The struggle continues. Freedom of expression matters!

Claudia Martnez Garay

The organizers told us [the exhibition would] reopen just few days ago, and our work will reopen too, because we removed it in solidarity with the censorship.We are now happy, because all this time we were trying to support the closed exhibition and the artists, but it was very painful process. [Next to the reopened work] is a red sign saying Now Open and our solidarity letter. It is very important for usthat there is a register of the removal because the audience may not be aware of the complicated situation it was: the position of the artists, and how and when we make the decision to pause in order to support the colleagues, while trying not to affect the triennial.

Although we worked together and were communicating openly with the triennial, it was very difficult for them to reopenthe exhibition because of threats and bureaucracy. It was not possible for them to open it faster, and we thought in the end it was never going to open, that the exhibition would end with all our works taken away. They were very respectful of our decision, and helped us reopen. All of us, as artists, want the same things: freedom, respect for our memories, and being able to speak our minds while being considerate of each other.

It is very important to support the triennial now, because the government is punishing them now with threats of cutting the funding of the triennial, which is very important for the city and brings a lot of visitors, economic value, and diversity of cultures to the city. If they cut these funds, they will win. There will be no need for protests no place to express anything.

Regina Jos Galindo

I am very satisfied with the fact that an agreement has been reached to open the censored exhibition which obviously results in the opening of our works as well. In my case, I had worked with many people and for a long time, and I think it was important to talk about the situation of migrants in Japan. I hope that the situation regarding the payment of the subsidy will be solved positively, because I do not quite understand the scope that this dire decision could have.

See the rest here:
Following Censorship Controversy at Aichi Triennale, Artists Discuss Why They Removed Their Workand Then Reinstated It - - ARTnews

What happens when Chinas enforcers come after Winnie-the-Pooh?

Will we reluctantly hand over Pooh Bear? Really sorry about this, Winnie, but Chinas an important market!

Winnie-the-Pooh has been banned in China online and at movie theaters because snarky commentators have suggested that he resembles the portly President Xi Jinping. But these days Xi doesnt want to censor information just in his own country; he also wants to censor our own discussions in the West.

Thats the backdrop to Chinas hysterical reaction to a tweet by Daryl Morey, the Houston Rockets general manager, sympathizing with Hong Kongs pro-democracy demonstrations.

When the N.B.A. moved into China in the early 2000s, it made a plausible argument that engagement would help extend our values to China. Instead, the Communist Party is exploiting N.B.A. greed to extend its values to the United States.

China is also forcing American Airlines to treat Taiwan as part of China, and it bullied Mercedes-Benz into apologizing for quoting the Dalai Lama. It made Marriott fire an employee for wrongfully liking a tweet by an organization that favors Tibetan independence.

Theres not much we can do about a dictator like Xi bullying his own citizens, but we should not let him stifle debate in our country.

Let me interrupt this diatribe, however, for important context. Those of us who criticize Xi must also have the humility to acknowledge that child mortality is now lower in Beijing than in Washington, D.C., that China has established new universities at a rate of one a week and that Shanghais public schools put our own school systems to shame.

So, yes, lets stand up to Chinese bullying and speak up when China detains at least one million Muslims, in what may be the biggest internment of people based on religion since the Holocaust. But lets also note that China has helped lift more people out of poverty more quickly than any nation in history. With China, its always helpful to hold at least two contradictory ideas in our heads at the same time.

Xis anxiety about the internet, religion, Hong Kong protesters, even Winnie-the-Pooh underscores his own insecurities. Xi seems terrified that real information will infiltrate the Chinese echo chamber, undermining his propaganda departments personality cult around a benign Uncle Xi.

We can exploit Xis fear to gain leverage and maybe to chip away at Chinese nationalism just a little bit with three steps.

First, raise Chinas blocking of outside news sites and social media platforms as a trade issue before the World Trade Organization. In a new book, Schism, about China and global trade, Paul Blustein explains how the U.S. could join with other countries to make such a trade case based on the W.T.O. agreement. Trade experts arent sure the case would succeed, but its worth trying.

A second step the United States should take is to invest more in internet circumvention technologies to help ordinary Chinese vault the Great Chinese Firewall and read uncensored news. The U.S. spends more than $700 million a year on broadcast programs to sometimes-obscure parts of the world, but only tiny sums to help citizens of closed countries access the free internet.

Richard Stengel, a former under secretary of state who was involved in these programs, told me that he generally agreed that the U.S. should invest more in circumvention technologies. It aligns with American values, he said. Id be in favor.

Some American officials Ive spoken with worry that this would enrage Xi. Yes, it might. Frankly, its also not clear that many Chinese want to access the outside internet, for they dont much use tools like Ultrasurf and Psiphon that already enable them to do so (with a bit of difficulty).

Those are fair concerns, but I worry even more about the rise of nationalism in China inculcated in part by the Communist Partys education system and propaganda machine. Ive seen over the decades how a freer flow of information eventually can liberate minds and peoples, and the world would be better off if that process unfolded in China.

Then theres a third step, still more delicate and dangerous: The American intelligence community should gather information on the corruption in the Xi family that has allowed it to amass a huge fortune with a hint that if China undertakes a brutal crackdown of Hong Kong or an assault on Taiwan, this information will slip out. This is what Xi fears most, and we shouldnt pass up that leverage.

I love China and believe in engaging it. We should try to work out a trade deal and cooperate on issues from climate change to drug trafficking. But lets push back when Xi tries to stifle free discussion not only in China but also in America.

Otherwise, if American business continues to kowtow, some day there may be a knock on the door, and therell be Uncle Xi sternly asking us to hand over Pooh Bear.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Read more:
Lets Not Take Cues From a Country That Bans Winnie the Pooh - The New York Times

Theres a unifying factor between companies; it brings people of all political ideologies together, unites the left, the right, and everything in-between. Executives and shareholders alike may not agree with one another on abortion, or human rights, or freedom of speech, or social welfare, or pretty much any divisive issue you can imagine, but they can most certainly agree that one thing is more important than all the concerns of the little people: the profit margin.

Blizzard, the creator of massively popular games such as World of Warcraft and Hearthstone, proved exactly that this week. Chung Ng Wai, a Hong Kong-based player who is known by the name Blitzchung, won a game in the Hearthstone Grandmasters tournament and gave an official interview. In the interview, he said Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time, which is the standard protest slogan in the city. He was also wearing the goggle and face mask combo used to protect Hong Kong protesters from facial recognition and tear gas.

Blizzard has a rule against expressing a political opinion that displeases any portion of the public, so this was clearly against the rules. However, rather than empathize with a young man in a struggle for his human rights, they chose to take a leaf out of the Chinese governments book and respond with full force. They suspended him for a year, took back all his winnings for the year, condemned him on social media, and even fired the two casters who were simply interviewing him. To use the colloquial term, shit hit the fan. Longtime supporters of Blizzard, including myself, were outraged. How could an American company take such a harsh stance against free speech? Not the kind of free speech where you say slurs, either literally the most important form: criticizing an authoritarian government.

Employees staged a walkout, covering up two of the eight core values of Blizzard which are engraved outside their HQ think globally and every voice matters. US senators have condemned the companys action, citing China leveraging access to its vast market as a way to reduce free speech globally. The former team lead Mark Kern, who helped spearhead the original World of Warcraft, began accelerating a scattered boycott by cancelling his subscriptions. He tweeted an emotional thread. He is ethnically Chinese and lived in Hong Kong for a time. He spoke of the corruption of Chinese gaming companies, claiming that they offer bribes for big budget titles and saying they tried to ruin his career with planted press stories because he refused kickbacks. Chinese money now dictates American values, he said, and I have to agree with him.

In China, every movie, game, app or book has to go through the General Administration of Press and Publication in order to be released to the public. it has strict censorship protocols, in which nothing negative can be said about China, past horrors committed by the government cant be mentioned, and the publication cannot offend the culture of China. This means a big no-no on blood and gore, which means games censor bones, blood and guts. Blizzard actually does this, releasing censored versions of their games in China.

American companies comply with these ridiculous rules to get access to the colossal Chinese market. The NBA is experiencing this right now: the manager of the Houston Rockets simply stated his support for Hong Kong, and China blacklisted the Rockets from being shown on Chinese television. The country can cut your access at any time, for pretty much any reason they deem appropriate. Such as a player of your game expressing support for a rebelling territory.

'Chinese money now dictates American values,' Mark Kern said, and I have to agree with him

I can understand from a business perspective why Blizzard would cave, and undoubtedly the Chinese government explicitly asked it to heavily punish everyone involved. Blizzard gets up to 12% of its revenue from Asia, and presumably a huge portion of that is from China. Losing that much of your revenue tonight could destroy your company by tomorrow. So is it justified? Was Blizzard just making the smart business decision?

Perhaps, but we should all be deeply worried about how tied up western companies have gotten with authoritarian regimes. They, and they alone, put themselves in a position where the Chinese government can gut their company at their leisure. Every company that willingly aids Chinese government repression should be deeply ashamed. We all know that its really corporations that run the world, and these corporations could cut their margins by a few per cent and stand up for values such as freedom of speech, but they wont, because they dont care about the little people.

Oh, theyll throw the people a bone every now and then. Theyll make characters gay, theyll make their conferences accessible to those who are hard of hearing, theyll use buzzwords like diversity and inclusion, theyll invent company values like every voice matters and lead responsibly, but when the rubber hits the road and they have to actually stand up and fight for basic human rights at the expense of investor profits, they fall, and they fall hard. Had Blitzchung said Fuck Trump on a Blizzard livestream, do you really think he would have received the same punishment? I doubt it. Try saying Xi Jinping looks like Winnie the Pooh and see how far you get.

Its easy for ordinary people to feel that they are powerless. But we can all do something small, and the small gestures from thousands or millions of us will add up. I loved Blizzard; up until two days ago I was playing Classic World of Warcraft daily. Ive spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours in its games. However I couldnt, in good faith, continue giving it a single cent of my money. Its actions and complete disregard for human rights have disgusted me, and the entire community that plays its games.

Its sad, its unfortunate, but I think we should all cancel our WoW subscriptions. Delete Battle.net from your computer, uninstall Hearthstone, delete your account, it doesnt matter. Stop giving this company money. When youre cancelling your subscription, mention Hong Kong, mention Blitzchung, condemn Blizzard on every medium you know. Get your friends to cancel their subscriptions, encourage each other to stop playing, find something new. Find a company that hasnt picked profits over freedom, and give it your money instead.

What Blizzard gains in revenue from China, it must lose from the rest of the world. Gaming is normally a medium used to escape from a harsh world, but sometimes you have to stick to your principles and say No, Diablo 4 isnt going to fix this. The company wont change unless you do. We have to speak in the only language it knows: money.

Read more from the original source:
I'm a Blizzard gamer. I am boycotting them over their Hong Kong censorship - The Guardian