Category Archives: Transhuman News

Bitcoin proponents often talk about the many benefits the decentralized currency can offer the world, and one of these attributes is bitcoins censorship resistance. This week news.Bitcoin.com chatted with, Firas Zahabi, a well known Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) grappling trainer from Canada who decided to use bitcoin as an incentive to promote online grappling events.

Also read: Markets Update: Bitcoin Cash Rallies for Three Solid Days

Firas Zahabi has trained many champion MMA fighters and is the founder of Tristar Gym, a grappling martial arts training center located in Quebec, Canada. The gym is well known as one of the worlds top MMA training camps, and grappling fights are very popular in the region. However, Zahabi tells us over a phone conversation that the local governments in Canada have deemed holding MMA events illegal. Grappling martial arts itself is legal in the region, but MMA events are not allowed, which gives young Canadian fighters less of an opportunity to compete and show their skills. So Zahabi decided to create online events on Youtube which he calls the Pure Victory Championship and fighters compete for bitcoin prizes. Zahabi believes the act of hosting events online decentralizes the playing field and bitcoin leaves the middle man out of the equation.

Bitcoin.com (BC): Can you tell our readers about the Pure Victory Championship?

Firas Zahabi (FZ): Recently they made grappling events illegal where Im from here in Quebec, and then they made events illegal in Ontario. Quebec is a hotbed for grappling talent, and the biggest MMA event in the world called the Abu Dhabi Combat Club (ADCC) is happening soon, and two of my students are attending this year. So grappling in Quebec is really popular, but the local governments made it illegal because there was bickering back and forth between event promoters that were calling the cops on each other. They were trying to cancel each others events and corner the market.

Law enforcement got tired of all these calls, and now we are not allowed to have grappling events. Grappling is perfectly legal still, but holding grappling events here is illegal. Alongside this, Canada recently declared bitcoin as a commodity, and to the government, its not money, not a currency. So Im not allowed to hold events and give out prize money, but we are allowed to film and upload ourselves fighting online. And now the fighters get bitcoin, and its kinda like them getting a free t-shirt or swag, because I am giving them a commodity as a prize for participation. We thought it was an excellent idea and the viewers can tip the fighters as well and our grapplers have been making money during an event. The grapplers are also enthusiastic about competing again in the future and the audience absolutely loves it.

Its been all positive feedback and people are following the events. We only have four episodes so far and the fifth episode should launch next week. Its really creating a great buzz with just four episodes.

BC: How much bitcoin have the fighters been getting?

FZ: Theyve been getting roughly $100-300 dollars in bitcoin between winnings and tips. Dont forget that theyre getting bitcoin and that could be worth a lot in the future. This is only after one match, and when you grapple you have to pay to compete, so it helps the fighters earn. Further, these episodes could still give fighters some earnings, and after twenty videos it will create a fishnet effect. I think the fighters havent finished collecting and once they get more and more popular they create a bigger following, and the prizes will get bigger.

BC: What gave you the idea to include bitcoin into these events?

FZ: The politics and the government. They need to let young fighters have a place to release their energy. If these kids cant find anything to do they will likely find some trouble and grappling is such an amazing outlet for the youth. Not only are they getting fit but they are exercising their minds, and they are building a whole community. We are a thriving community, and they just came and shut us down. Could you imagine if they made baseball events illegal? I dont understand it, these kids need an outlet rather than being in the pool halls and the streets. Martial arts is one of the most constructive things a human being can do, especially in their youth.

So I said lets decentralize jiu-jitsu. If we cant have grappling events how can we monetize our skills? The middleman is just such a problem, hes always sticking his hands in our pocket and always bullying us. So lets decentralize our jiu-jitsu, lets make it so the audience can see the competitors compete, pay them in cryptocurrency and remove the middleman.

So my next phase for Pure Victory Championship will be global and what Im going to do is let fighters film their match, and if your game is good enough I will air it, and the winner will get $300 in cryptocurrency. Which is a lot for fighters just starting off, and the internet is hard to stop.

BC: Did the government give a formal explanation to why they made grappling events illegal?

FZ: No they told us if you have any more grappling events they will come and shut us down, and they have already. One major grappling event was canceled with hundreds of competitors. So what Im hoping to do is put the power back into the competitors hands.

BC: Have the fighters mentioned anything about receiving cryptocurrency as a prize?

FZ: They love it, every fighter loves it. Look at the price of bitcoin right now. The guy who recently got $100 worth of BTC is pumped as its worth about $300-400 right now.

The world loves MMA and its a very popular sport and grappling enthusiasts are going to hear an awful lot about cryptocurrency this year.

What do you think about FirasZahabis Pure Victory Championships? Let us know in the comments below.

Images via Pixabay, Bitcoin.com,FirasZahabis, and Pure Victory Championship

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

Read the original:
Grappling Championships Use Bitcoin To Circumvent Censorship ... - Bitcoin News (press release)

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Tech Censorship of White Supremacists Draws Criticism From Within Industry Wall Street Journal (subscription) The debate intensified over whether the growing number of tech companies that blocked white supremacists and a neo-Nazi website on the internet have gone too far, as a prominent privacy group questioned the power a few corporations have to censor. and more »

View original post here:
Tech Censorship of White Supremacists Draws Criticism From Within Industry - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

A general view of Kings College Chapel, Cambridge. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA

The censorship row involving the worlds oldest publishing house and its most powerful one-party state has exposed the increasingly authoritarian turn China has taken under Xi Jinping, the editor of the journal at the centre of the controversy has said.

Criticism of Cambridge University Press intensified on Sunday over its controversial decision to comply with a Chinese request to block access to more than 300 articles from the China Quarterly, a leading China studies journal, so as to avoid having other publications targeted by Beijings censors.

Some vowed to boycott publications produced by CUP - which printed its first book in 1584 during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I - until the step was reversed.

Speaking to the Guardian, Tim Pringle, China Quarterlys editor, said he hoped Chinese authorities would scrap their instruction to block more than 300 articles they deemed objectionable. He also hoped CUP chiefs would use meetings at a Beijing book fair this week to tell the Chinese government that the move represented a significant step backwards in terms of academic freedom.

However, Pringle, who is a senior lecturer at Londons School of Oriental and African Studies, admitted he was pessimistic about the chances of a Chinese change of heart. I cant see this being rolled back anytime soon, although we will lobby for that to happen. I think this is more about the configuration of the current leadership. It is a reflection of the Xi Jinping era. Its a stronger shade of authoritarian government that is less pragmatic, or certainly appears to be less pragmatic [that the previous administration].

Pringle described Chinas previous leaders, president Hu Jintao and premier Wen Jiabao, as authoritarians who had nevertheless been willing to take on views from an emerging and at times buoyant civil society and to respond pragmatically to some of those views.

That changed dramatically after Xi became the Communist partys general secretary, almost five years ago, in November 2012, and instigated a dramatic clampdown on opposition voices. Targets have included academics and journalists who have been ordered to toe the party line; human rights lawyers and their supporters who have been disappeared or jailed; and, now, the worlds oldest publishing house.

Pringle said: If you look at the foreign NGO law, if you look at the measures taken against various sectors of civil society, the feminist five, labour activists being sentenced and detained starting in December 2015, if you look at the very serious clampdown on lawyers since July 2015, [and] also journalists - this is an excluding of external and critical voices.

Pringle said he believed China Quarterly had been targeted because it contained the kind of critical material that was no longer welcome under Xi. We are outside the system [and] outside party control ... If there is one thing worse than an external voice its an external voice talking about things you dont want to hear.

In a biting open letter Georgetown Universitys James Millward accused CUP of showing a repugnant disdain for Chinese readers who now only had access to a misleading, neutered simulacrum of its journal, shorn of articles about politically-sensitive topics such as Tibet, democracy and the Tiananmen Square massacre .

Cambridge University Presss current concession is akin to the New York Times or The Economist letting the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] determine what articles go into their publications something they have never done. It would be unimaginable for these media to instead collaborate with PRC party censors to excise selected content from their daily or weekly editions.

Millward, a specialist in the far-western region of Xinjiang who has been repeatedly denied visas to visit China, noted that those news outlets had refused to produce incomplete, scissored-up, CCP versions because of pressure from Beijing. Cambridge University Press, on the other hand, is agreeably donning the hospital gown, untied in the back, baring itself to the Chinese scalpel, and crying cut away!

In an interview, Millward, whose name appears once on the list of censored China Quarterly articles, said he believed CUP had been far too quick to acquiesce to Chinas demands. They should have said, China Quarterly is a package deal: take it or leave it and not have worried that CUP products across the board would be banned from China.

I really doubt there was some sort of explicit threat that was delivered to them, Millward added. I rather think that they were leaping to that conclusion, that if they didnt comply then they would be retaliated against, and I think that conclusion is a false one.

Were we still in the paper-bound journal age, then there would be huge holes in these journals. And for Cambridge just to say, OK, we are just going to cut these out of the virtual version of the journal is really kind of appalling.

The Georgetown scholar said he did not believe Chinas leaders had issued a direct order to ban sensitive China Quarterly material. Rather, the instruction was likely to have been given by lower-level officials who were responding to the chilly political climate that has gripped China since Xi took power. Academic institutions and publishers around the world had been far too reticent about pushing back against such demands, he added.

Sebastian Veg, a Hong Kong specialist whose work was also on the list of blocked articles, admitted there was no ideal solution in a case like this, when you have to choose between doing the work of the censors for them or seeing your entire content blocked.

[However] I dont think its morally acceptable for a University Press to proactively censor its own content to gain access to any market.

Other foreign publishers and victims of Chinese censorship demands now needed to speak out. Resisting censorship requires naming and shaming.

CUP said last week that it would raise the issue with the agencies and the impending Beijing book fair. The issue of China and censorship is not a short-term issue and therefore requires a longer-term approach. There are many things we cant control, but we will take every opportunity to influence the agenda, CUP said.

The rest is here:
Cambridge University Press censorship 'exposes Xi Jinping's authoritarian shift' - The Guardian

A funny thing happened to me today. I had been waiting by the inbox for my invitation to the new crowd-funding site, Hatreon. After feeling the all-powerful hands of YouTube squeeze a little too tightly around my neck, I was seeking out a new home for my video content which, by all accounts, is mostly comedic with some political lecturing thrown in for fun. My YouTube channel also contains a historical record of all the rabble rousing I've done over the years in various suburbs in opposition to various elected bad actors. It's not as shocking or groundbreaking as I'd like to believe it is. It's pretty tame. But according to YouTube, it's becoming advertiser unfriendly. This is the death knell for any YouTube channel demonetization. And so I went looking for somewhere I could still get paid for the thousands of hours I put into creating content. I researched Patreon but realized that content creators to the right of Bernardine Dohrn are now getting booted off for "hate speech" as outlined in their draconian terms of service (TOS) which enforce speech codes. A few people suggested Hatreon, the so-called "alt-right" answer to Patreon. I immediately liked the name. If they're going to label us haters, we might as well laugh about it.

So my invitation to join Hatreon finally came (and why wouldn't it? After all, I am deplorable), but the joy quickly faded as I clicked the login link to find this waiting for me.

Are you freaking kidding me?

How is this happening? It's like the entire tech universe is conspiring together to keep us offline. Oh, wait. That's exactly what's happening. I confirmed on Twitter that this was a deliberate booting of Hatreon's account off DigitalOcean servers complete with self-serving virtue signaling from DigitalOcean crowing about what a good deed they did by denying service to a paying customer.

PJ Media reached out to Hatreon's founder Cody Wilson and interviewed the man Wired magazine once listed as one of "The 15 Most Dangerous People In the World 2012." He was the opposite of how I would expect someone to sound whose new project had just been tanked for no reason other than left-wing hysteria. Wilson's good mood and light tone made me feel a little bit better about being under the Big Tech Boot of Censorship. He seemed undisturbed. He cracked jokes. He made them seem ridiculous.

"What if I owned a bakery and someone asked me to make a transgendered, Islamic, gay-themed wedding cake and I said no?" He chuckled. "I think you know the answer."

Wilson was sure Hatreon would be operational again later that day, and as of 10:15 p.m. the site appeared to be back online. Clearly not a beginner in the highly censorious tech world, Wilson didn't put all his eggs in one basket. He counted on DigitalOcean's small profile to keep them safe from public scrutiny. What he didn't know was that the alleged white supremacist Daily Stormer website housed some data on DigitalOcean's servers, which made them the target of SJW lynch mobs on Twitter. (I say "alleged" because Google deleted them from the internet before I ever had a chance to see what they are or aren't. Having never read Daily Stormer myself, I refuse to take CNN's word on the matter as truth. They might be a white power news source or they might be just a poorly written weather fan site. No one knows now because they've been disappeared by Google and its henchmen.) When the SJW outcry began to take down Daily Stormer after the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville that ended in inexcusable violence and mayhem, everyone raced to the control room to start flipping the switch to "off" on any bogeyman they could find (or invent). Hatreon got caught up in the mad dash to purge the Internet of "Nazis." DigitalOcean shut off their service overnight with no notice and later claimed Hatreon had violated their TOS, but offered no proof of the violation. The TOS they supposedly violated was 3.2 and is so overbroad it might be a good test case for an enterprising lawyer who wants to get it declared void for vagueness.

See more here:
Alt-Tech Bad Boy Cody Wilson Explains Hatreon, an Alternative to Online Censorship - PJ Media