Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law on "Online Platforms and Market Power" in the Rayburn House office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on July 29, 2020.

Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

The House Judiciary Committee held an antitrust hearing on Wednesday with the CEOs of four of the largest U.S. technology companies Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google to determine whether they have grown too large (i.e., are "too successful"), and therefore, should be broken up.

Democrats on the Committee suggested that these companies' success threatens the free market and even democracy itself. Numerous Republicans raised concerns about their alleged political bias as well as their size.

Meanwhile, in China, the government is taking an opposite course. Instead of attacking its "national champions," China is showering them with government subsidies and discriminating against "would-be" competitors to great effect.

Ten years ago, nearly all of the top technology companies and start-ups in the world were American. Now, China has nine of the top 20 technology companies and four of the top 10 start-ups. And this trend appears likely to continue.

China recently passed the United States in the number of global patent applications and is on track to eclipse U.S. research and development spending in the next two years, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

As policymakers on the Right and Left increasingly proclaim the importance of out-innovating China in critical technologies, their comments during yesterday's hearing raise an important question which companies will they actually let play that role?

Ten years ago, nearly all of the top technology companies and start-ups in the world were American. Now, China has nine of the top 20 technology companies and four of the top 10 start-ups. And this trend appears likely to continue.

Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are not the only important U.S. technology companies, but they spend a disproportionate amount on research and development in key areas like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and robotics. They are also leaders on privacy and security technology, an area where China poses a particular threat, and they provide communication alternatives to less secure Chinese competitors. Mere search engines and social networks they are not.

Moreover, all four companies are uniquely American. They were built from the ground up by hard-working middle-class entrepreneurs, they revolutionized their industries, and they provide platforms to expand American influence and ideals like free speech around the world.

So rather than tear down our most innovative and most American of companies, let's build them up and others like them to stay ahead of China. How to begin?

First, let's stop attacking success to score political points. Policymakers should always question potential monopolistic behavior and make sure that a diversity of opinions are allowed to thrive online, but much of Big Tech's recent scrutiny appears populist in nature either intended to bolster "anti-corporate" credentials or to admonish the political views of their CEOs and employees.

The consequences of this "loose talk" is real it threatens American jobs at these companies, discourages other would-be risk-takers from setting out on new ventures, and provides cover for other countries to target U.S. business. After all, if U.S. policymakers are attacking Big Tech, why shouldn't their counterparts in China and Europe do the same? Instead of needlessly hurting our most innovative companies, let's champion their ingenuity and encourage others to replicate it.

Second, let's use the size of these companies and the unique skill sets of their workers to the government's advantage. Let's harness their cross-cutting strengths through public-private partnerships and joint R&D programs in critical technologies so the United States (and the U.S. military) remains the global leader. When policymakers consider their options for a modern U.S. industrial policy, working with and further strengthening these American champions is exactly what they should be doing.

Third, let's tread carefully when it comes to circumscribing the activities of these and other U.S. companies abroad. There are areas where our companies should not be permitted to engage, such as helping China improve its military capability. But one of the best ways for America to stay ahead of its global competition is for our companies to sell more in markets like China so they can spend more on innovation in the United States.

Fourth, let's forcefully back these companies against unfair practices abroad, whether it be unacceptable pressure from China to censor their activities or opportunistic targeting from France for tax revenue. Such pressure is very difficult for companies to combat alone, and they shouldn't be criticized for trying. Rather, the U.S. government should stand by their side and help them to compete fairly in these crucial markets, not encourage them to disengage.

Finally, as we continue to push back against the unfair practices of others, let's not emulate them ourselves. Censorship and higher taxes are not the way to create more Apples, Amazons, Facebooks, and Googles. And using anti-trust tools for political purposes a trick right out of the Chinese playbook will certainly not help win the defining global competition of our time.

Clete Willems is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the former Deputy Director of the National Economic Council (2018-2019), and proudly represents innovative U.S. tech companies.

See original here:

Op-ed: Censorship and higher taxes won't create more Apples, Amazons, Facebooks and Googles - CNBC

Vice President Mike Pence said Tuesday the Trump administration is continuing to "lean into"investigatingthe claimsocial media and other tech companies are censoring content and opinions contrary to liberal doctrine, promising to preserve the freedom of speech and freedom of press on the Internet.

Speaking with Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow on SiriusXM's "Breitbart News Daily," Pence addressed in broad terms the actions of tech companies such as Facebook, Google and particularly Twitter.

Last week, Twitter removed a Breitbart's livestream news conference of the medical group America's Frontline Doctors held on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding what it said was misinformation on the novel coronavirus.

It was also removed from YouTube.

Twitter claimed the livestream was a violation of its "COVID-19 misinformation policy," Breitbart News reported. Among the claims made by some of the participants of the event was the promotion of the half-century old anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as possible treatment for the novel coronavirus.

The group's website has been removed by the tech company squarespace.com.

"We're going to do our very best every day between now and election day and for four more years after that to make sure that we preserve the freedom of speech and freedom of the press on the Internet," Pence said.

Marlow also said one of Breitbart News' Twitter accounts was "shuttered" until the video of the press conference was deleted.

Pence said the Trump administration was working to ensure freedom of opinion on social media platforms, which have enjoyed liability protection under the 1996 Communications Decency Act by claiming they are merely "passive bulleting boards" of information.

He referred to last week's action by President Donald Trump, which formally requested the Federal Communication Commission reinterpret the law particularly in regard to social media companies which selectively choose which user content to allow and which to block, edit or censor.

"Well, freedom of speech is the bedrock of American democracy, that's why our founding fathers enshrined the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, in the first amendment of the constitution and I want all your listeners to know as they've seen this president and our administration take action to prevent online censorship in the past, that we're going to continue to lean into this effort," Pence said.

"As you know, last summer the Department of Justice launched a broad antitrust review of big tech, that's ongoing. The president this summer signed an executive order that set into motion a series of actions that launched a tech bias reporting tool at the White House and called on the FTC to consider action whenever is appropriate to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts affecting commerce, etc."

2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read the original post:

Pence Says Administration Will 'Lean Into' Issue of Tech Censorship - Newsmax

GreatFire, an anonymous China-based organization dedicated to monitoring and circumventing Chinas internet censorship system known as the Great Firewall, has announced the release of an app creator for the Android market.

The GreatFire AppMaker is meant to allow third parties blocked in mainland China to build apps that will bypass those restrictions.

According to the announcement, one such organization, the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) has already made use of the GreatFire AppMaker to create its own app. This means that while the website of this group dedicated to human rights and freedoms remains inaccessible to users in China, they can now see that content by installing the app built using the GreatFire AppMaker.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

GreatFire which says it has in the past directed Chinese internet users more than 13 million times to censored news stories about government corruption, politics, scandals and other sensitive issues explained how organizations, media outlets, and individual bloggers can make use of the new tool free of charge.

They are invited to visit the GreatFire AppMakers website and compile their app following a number of steps, such as naming it, providing the homepage of the website it will draw content from, etc. The app will be branded both with theirs and GreatFires logo and downloadable as an APK file.

As for how it works GreatFire said a censorship-circumventing browser is included in it, while this evasion of Chinas restrictions is happening using multiple strategies, including machine learning.

The app creator and the apps it builds are not limited to the Chinese market, the organization said, and can be used anywhere where internet restrictions similar to those in China have been put in place.

GreatFire offers several products and services, such as FreeBrowser, FreeWeChat, FreeWeibo, GreatFire Analyzer, among others, aimed at providing access to blocked pages and restoring deleted content.

GreatFire said the appmaker project was inspired by its FreeBrowser app that allows users in China access to censored stories.

The organization said that it appeared on the scene in 2014 with the support and funding of the Open Technology Fund (OTF), including to develop AppleCensorship.com, which is tracking Apples censorship of app stores around the world, including Hong Kong.

Read this article:

GreatFire introduces app maker to bypass Chinas censorship - Reclaim The Net

A pro-Trump ad was removed from Facebook after claims that it contained false information, Fox News has learned.

AmericaFirst Action PAC on Tuesday told Fox News that Facebook removed one of its ads, titled "On Hold,"which was placed in Arizona, Pennsylvaniaand Wisconsin on July 24. The ad was flagged by Politifact on July 29, according to the PAC.

"Facebook's decision to take down this ad shows its anti-conservative bias,"America First Communications Director Kelly Sadler told Fox News. "America First Action has logged an appeal, but the threat of anti-conservative bias, targeting, and censorship remains ahead of Election Day in November and we must be vigilant inholding big tech, like Facebook accountable."

TWITTER EXEC IN CHARGE OF FACT-CHECKING MOCKED TRUMP SUPPORTERS, CALLED MCCONNELL 'BAG OF FARTS'

Sadler, during an interview on FoxBusiness on Tuesday, added that this "is just more bias from these social media companies."

"We're going to file an appeal, but there's really little we can do about it," she told host Stuart Varney."These social media giants are monopolies, and ultimately they make the decision of what runs on their platform."

Facebook confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday that the ad had, in fact, been fact-checked. A Facebook spokesperson told Fox News that ads that are fact-checked and found to contain false information are not eligible to run as a paid ad on the social media platform.

The spokesman added that the videos can, instead, run as original content on the group's page.

America First Action, though, said certain versions of the ad were removed in particular states, but the Facebook spokesman said that once the ad was fact-checked as false, all versions would be removed from the platform.

The Facebook spokesperson said that if any version of the ad was still running on the platform, it would be due to a lag in Facebook's fact-checking system.

The ad in question was titled On Hold, and shows a woman calling 9-1-1 and being put on hold. The ad moves to show Democratic nominee former Vice President Joe Biden saying yes, with a "defund the police?" banner.

The ad is currently marked on Facebook with a label saying: "False Information. Checked by independent fact-checkers."

Facebooks fact-checking comes as members of the Trump administration and prominent Republicans have claimed that social media platforms have censoredright-leaning viewpoints.

Attorney General WilliamBarr told Fox News in June that social media platforms are "engaged in censorship"and are acting more like "publishers."

"They originally held themselves out as open forums where people, where the third parties could come and express their views and they built up a tremendous network of eyeballs,"Barr said on "Special Report"in June.

"They had a lot of market power based on thatpresentation," the attorney general added. "And now they are acting much more like publishers because they're censoring particular viewpoints and putting their own content in there to diminish the impact of various people's views."

Twitter, earlier this summer, slapped a warning label on one of President Trump's tweets for the first time, cautioning readers that despite the president's claims, "fact checkers" say there is "no evidence" that expanded, nationwide mail-in voting would increase fraud risks -- and that "experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.

Within minutes, Trump accused Twitter of "interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election,"that the platform "is completely stifling FREE SPEECH"and vowing: "I, as President, will not allow it to happen!"

Two days later, the president signed an executive order that interprets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as not providing statutory liability protections for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct. It also cuts federal funding for social media platforms that censor users' political views.

See more here:

Facebook removes pro-Trump ad aimed at Joe Biden, claiming false information - Fox News

Facebook users are noticing that a hashtag with the phrase Save the Children (#SavetheChildren) appeared to be banned or censored on Facebook. Although statuses with the hashtag could still be posted, clicking on the hashtag didnt reveal any results or, instead, came with a warning about community safety guidelines. After a couple of hours, it appears the hashtag may be restored. It works for Heavy, but some Facebook users are telling Heavy that the hashtag is still censored for them.

While you could still post using the Save the Children hashtag (and Facebook automatically suggests adding a donation button when you do so), the hashtag itself appeared to be banned or censored on Facebook searches. Now it appears to be working again as of 12 a.m. Eastern on Thursday, August 6, but its not clear if thats a permanent or temporary change. The ban was first noticed on the evening of August 5.

Clicking on the hashtag on desktop revealed the following error message: This Content Isnt Available. This may be because of a technical error were trying to fix, or because the content was removed.

A different error message popped up if you tried to click on the hashtag on mobile. On mobile, a message appeared that read: Keeping Our Community Safe. Posts with #SavetheChildren are temporarily hidden here. Some content in those posts goes against our Community Standards.

At this time, an official reason why the posts were hidden had not been confirmed. Some people said they were reporting disturbing photos and pages that theyd seen to Facebook and tagged them with #SavetheChildren to spread the word and ask others to report the pages too. The hashtag may have been auto-censored because of the photos that were tagged with it.

In the Facebook screenshot below, one person said they had edited their photos later because of the disturbing nature of the images that were connected to the hashtag they had shared.

Others thought it may have been because some posts with the tag were reported to Facebook as violating standards, and an auto-censorship may have kicked in. Heres one example where the hashtag appeared with a photo claiming Tom Hanks was a pedophile:

Facebook has not yet announced a reason for censoring the hashtag as of the time of publication.

Some commenters told Heavy that they had previously run into issues reporting disturbing Facebook pages or groups involving children. One person told Heavy that they personally had reported a disturbing page to Facebook and were later told that the page didnt violate Facebooks standards. Heavy has blurred out the name of the page so as not to advertise it.

The commenter told Heavy about the page they reported, asking that their name not be included: Its so sick I cant even write it. Looked to be a young person being made to do something to an adult . And then I got freaked out that I was even on the link to report it, and jumped out fast.

They were later told by Facebook, as shown in the screenshot above, that the page didnt violate Facebooks standards. Several other people came to Heavy sharing that they too had reported disturbing groups to Facebook that they were concerned may have involved minors, but the groups had not been removed yet. Heavy has not verified those pages or groups, but has reached to Facebook for comment.

People are talking about the ban on Twitter too.

Most of the tweets are anger about the hashtag being censored, as quite a few people were using it to try to bring attention to child trafficking.

Some suggested that because the hashtag was also associated with QAnon, that might have been why it was censored.

Some people are simply sharing the hashtag because theyre not sure why it was censored.

Heavy has reached out to Facebook for comment.

READ NEXT: The latest COVID-19 deaths, cases, and updates

Continued here:

#SavetheChildren Ban? Facebook Censors 'Save the Children' - Heavy.com

Russia plans to create a data service to tackle 'fake news,' the country's media watchdog Rospechat said on Tuesday. US social media giant Facebook has also attempted to construct a similar system but progress has been slow.

The automated editor's job description will include comparing as many news-related facts as possible and finding the wrong ones, Rospechat's deputy chief Ilya Lazarev wrote in a letter to the Ministry of Communications, which was quoted by Moscow business daily RBK on Tuesday.

Rospechat expects the counter-misinformation aggregator to be completed by 2023 and hopes to make it available to both organizations and individuals. In order to get the project moving, the watchdog has requested 94.3 million rubles ($1.3 million) from federal authorities.

Previously, Human Rights Watch - an American lobby group bankrolled by George Soros - has claimed that the Russian government has been building an entire arsenal of tools to reign over information, internet users, and communications networks which could further suffocate independent media in the country.

Rospechat's fake news filter is somewhat similar to a tool Facebook has been attempting to create. In 2016, its founder Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to develop a 'misinformation' filter but four years later, there is still no sign of it. Zuckerberg admitted then that the problems were complex, both technically and philosophically.

Russia has significantly expanded laws and regulations tightening control over internet infrastructure, online content, and the privacy of communications.

If carried out to their full restrictive potential, the new measures will severely undermine the ability of people in Russia to exercise their human rights online, including freedom of expression and freedom of access to information.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

See the article here:

Censorship or fighting disinformation? Russia to use AI to create controversial fake news filter, as Facebook efforts stall - RT

Italy is still in love with Diletta Leotta, the sexiest sports journalist in the transalpine country, who is also popular and known worldwide for her activity on Instagram, where she has more than seven million followers who in the last few hours has delighted with a suggestive bikini-clad posing the censorship of the aforementioned social network.

The first bath is never forgotten, wrote the DAZN reporter next to the photo, in which she appears in a bikini on a boat with the sunset in the background. Diletta Leotta begins her vacation after the end of Serie A, and celebrates it with her first dip in the Mediterranean Sea.

Diletta Leotta has been in focus for several years, but there was an episode that ended up catapulting her to fame. Surely, she does not remember it with a good taste in her mouth, because she must have had a bad time when some hackers stole videos and photos of sexual content from their mobile phone and published it on the Internet.

The hackers illegally accessed his phone and collected the necessary data to expose a sexual video with his partner, with whom he was in the kitchen house playing risqu games with cream, etc. At the moment, those responsible for this illegal act have not been found and the videos and photos have become so viral that it is still possible to find them online.

Continue reading here:

The Italian journalist sets fire to Instagram bordering on censorship with her first bath - Explica

By its own admission, Facebook has nearly 2.5 billion active users, so its clear that it serves the entire world, rather than just the US market.

Yet during a global crisis and turmoil such as the multi-month coronavirus pandemic the way it dishes out coronavirus disinformation censorship, Facebook went with imposing the rules of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on its users.

The CDCs position, for example, is that hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treatment of Covid-19 patients. Facebook and other social media giants dutifully follow this line, regardless of the fact that many countries are already officially using and recommending hydroxychloroquine as efficient medicine.

This could easily be seen as a case of digital imperialism, where these corporations give themselves the right to impose one countrys agencys rules onto the rest of the world. All the more so, since a recent study by Sermo a global social network for physicians shows what the rest of the world is up to, in a bid to cure Covid patients.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

This company, that says it is the largest healthcare data collection, carried out a 3-day poll with participation of 6,200 physicians from 30 countries, to, among other things, find out that hydroxychloroquine is one of the three most commonly prescribed treatments for the disease (33%). Only analgesics (56%) and the drug Azithromycin (41%) are used more frequently overall, the study has shown.

It might seem strange to Americans, where the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine has been relegated to a hoax and even a conspiracy theory by mainstream media and Big Tech, that there are countries in the world like Spain and Italy among the hardest hit initially, but that, according to the study, seem to be doing well in this second coronavirus wave where hydroxychloroquine is by far the most used anti-Covid drug (72% and 49% respectively).

And while in the US giant social media are taking down content promoting this medication as dangerous disinformation the drug is among the most commonly prescribed (in double digits percentage-wise) in Mexico, Canada, Germany, France, and Brazil.

Not only that, but hydroxychloroquine has been overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters): 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the US, and 13% in the UK.

See more here:

Facebook censors hydroxychloroquine praise, even in countries where its an official treatment - Reclaim The Net

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos the world's richest man, making his long-awaited first-ever appearance before a congressional hearing faced no questions at all for nearly two hours, before offering an inconclusive answer on whether the company uses data to undermine its third-party merchants. Amazon is still facing allegations that one of its executives misled Congress about that same issue last year.

The virtual testimony comes at a time of rising legal jeopardy for the major tech companies, who are the subject of antitrust and consumer-protection probes in Washington, multiple U.S. states and Europe.

Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) set the tone early, with an opening statement vowing to check the power of the "emperors of the online economy." But so did Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the full Judiciary panel, who laid out a long series of alleged slights against conservatives by top social media companies and later got into a shouting match after a Democrat accused him of promoting fringe conspiracy theories.

See live highlights from the hearing below.

Amazon is making more money from sellers fees because more third-party sellers are using its services, CEO Jeff Bezos told lawmakers, countering the idea that his company is unfairly profiting from the merchants.

But the Amazon CEO acknowledged that the marketplace algorithm may indirectly favor those who pay the company to fulfill orders.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) cited a new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance that found Amazon brought in nearly $60 billion from seller fees last year 21 percent of Amazons total revenue and that the e-commerce giant keeps about 30 percent of each sale. That amount is up from 19 percent of each sale five years ago.

Bezos said the increased amount is because sellers are spending more money with Amazon by using additional services such as Fulfillment by Amazon, where the company stores and ships products on behalf of third-party sellers.

When you see these fees going up, sellers are choosing to use more of our services we make available, he said. Previously they were shipping their own products from their own fulfillment centers so they would have had costs doing that. Now they are doing that through Fulfilment by Amazon.

Bezos also acknowledged that the Buy Box which preselects the seller for when a user clicks on a product indirectly favors sellers who use the Fulfilled by Amazon services.

Indirectly, I think the Buy Box does favor products that can be shipped with Prime, he said. The Buy Box is trying to pick the offer that we predict the customer would most like. That includes price, that includes delivery speed, and if youre a Prime member, it includes whether the item is eligible for Prime."

In response to questions from Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ill.) about stolen and counterfeit goods, Bezos said he believes that Amazon requires sellers to provide a real name and address, but wasnt sure whether a phone number is required. He also said he didnt know how many resources Amazon devotes to seller verification.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos took a rare swipe against a core feature of his Silicon Valley competitors late in todays hearing, singling out social media as destructive for free expression.

What I find a little discouraging is that it appears to me that social media is a nuance destruction machine, Bezos said. And I dont think thats helpful for a democracy.

Bezos offered his critique while testifying by videoconference, alongside the head of social media giant Facebook.

He was responding to House Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who was invoking the idea of cancel culture and the notion of online mobs that shout down unfashionable opinions. The lawmaker was assessing whether lawmakers were concerned about the polarizing idea, which some question as overblown.

I am concerned in general about that, Bezos told Jordan.

Other tech CEOs also appeared sympathetic to Jordans cancel culture worries.

Apple CEO Tim Cook noted he wasnt all the way up to speed on the idea but expressed concern: If youre about where somebody with a different point of view talks, and theyre canceled, I dont think thats good. I think its good for people to hear from different points of view and decide for themselves.

Im very worried about some of the forces of illiberalism that I see in this country that are pushing against free expression, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Jordan, without identifying specifics.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai simply noted the interest in building platforms to allow freedom of expression. John Hendel

The Chinese government steals U.S. technologies, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said making him the only one of the four tech CEOs willing to say that plainly in response to a question from Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.).

I think its well-documented that the Chinese government steals technology from American companies, Zuckerberg said.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he had no personal knowledge about Chinese technology theft.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai initially followed Cooks line, but later corrected the record to confirm that in 2009 China stole Google information in a well-publicized cyberattack.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who answered last, acknowledged that he had read many reports about technology theft by Beijing, but had no first-hand experience beyond knock-off products sold on Amazon.

All four CEOs passed on the opportunity to suggest how Congress could better help defend U.S. companies abroad, against either technology theft or excessive regulation. Leah Nylen and Ryan Heath

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who heads the Houses probe into tech giants, accused Facebook of tolerating a fountain of misinformation that benefits the companys engagement-driven business model even on topics as deadly as the coronavirus.

Theres no competition forcing you to police your own platform, the House antitrust subcommittee chairman told CEO Mark Zuckerberg. During the greatest public health crisis of our lifetime, dont you agree that these articles viewed by millions on your platform will cost lives?

The lawmaker cited articles that drew millions of views on sites like Facebook while making claims about Covid-19, including those describing President Donald Trumps musings about placing disinfectants inside the body or allegations that coronavirus hype is a political hoax.

Cicilline said Facebook allows such content to reap advertising dollars. But Zuckerberg countered that this kind of noxious material is not helpful for our business.

It is not what people want to see, and we rank what we show in Feed based on what is going to be most meaningful to people and what is going to create long-term satisfaction, Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg defended Facebooks policy of taking down bogus information that could cause imminent harm and its attempt to highlight authoritative guidance. But Cicilline brought up a Monday video from the conservative website Breitbart, which dismissed the necessity of masks and called hydroxychloroquine a Covid-19 cure and which experienced soaring Facebook traffic over several hours before Facebook removed it.

A lot of people shared that, Zuckerberg said. And we did take it down because it violates our policies.

After 20 million people saw it after a period of five hours? Cicilline countered. Doesnt that suggest, Mr. Zuckerberg, that your platform is so big that even with the right policies in place, you cant contain deadly content? John Hendel

Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks via video conference during the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law hearing. | Graeme Jennings/Getty Images

Apple didnt consider the impact on its own parental control app when it removed some of the most popular apps that limit screentime from its App Store, CEO Tim Cook told lawmakers.

Apple introduced its own Screen Time app, which allows parents to limit how much time kids spend on their phones, in September 2018. After that, the company removed a number of competing apps. Qustodio and Kidslox, two of the leading parental control apps, have filed a complaint with the European Commission about their removal.

Cook said Apple removed the apps because of privacy concerns.

We were worried about the safety of kids, Cook said in response to questions by Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.).

Demings asked Cook why the company removed many of the most popular screentime apps but not Absher, an app created by the Saudi Arabian government that uses the same technology.

It sounds like you applied different rules to the same apps, Demings said.

Cook said he wasnt familiar with Absher, but said the App Store has about 30 parental control apps after it changed its policy last year. Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who returned to the issue later in the hearing, noted that Apple eventually allowed the apps back into the App Store after six months without requiring major changes.

We apply the rules to all developers equally, Cook said. I see Screen Time as just an alternative. Theres vibrant competition for parental controls out there. Leah Nylen

Facebook has certainly adapted features from competing services, CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged Wednesday, but he denied it has threatened to copy start-ups if they wouldnt sell to his company.

But Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) expressed skepticism about his answer, reading from text messages between Zuckerberg and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom and messages between Systrom and a venture capitalist. She asked Zuckerberg whether he threatened Systrom and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel by saying he would clone their products if they didnt sell to Facebook. The company bought Instagram in 2012, but Snap rebuffed offers to sell to the social network.

The House subcommittee also posted those documents to its website Wednesday.

Im not sure what you would mean by threaten, Zuckerberg said, referring to the companys effort to build an app called Facebook Camera. It was public we were building a camera app at the time. That was a well-documented thing.

It was clear this was a space we were going to compete in one way or another, he said. I dont think those are a threat in any way.

Jayapal reminded Zuckerberg he was under oath while testifying.

In closing her questioning, Jayapal said she didnt believe threats should be a normal business practice.

Facebook is a case study in monopoly power, in my opinion, because your company harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on your competitors and copy, acquire and kill rivals, she said. Youve used Facebooks power to threaten smaller competitors and ensure you always get your way. These tactics reinforce Facebooks dominance. Leah Nylen

House Judiciary Democrats lost a big potential GOP ally if they had any hopes of bipartisan recommendations to update antitrust law as part of their probe into tech giants.

I have reached the conclusion that we do not need to change our antitrust laws, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the antitrust subcommittee, said hours into the hearing on alleged bad behavior by Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook. Theyve been working just fine. The question here is the question of enforcement of those antitrust laws.

The subcommittees probe has been led by Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who has been preparing a report to conclude the long investigation. GOP buy-in would strongly bolster its conclusions, including potential recommendations for updates to antitrust law.

Notably, Sensenbrenner seemed to support the probe itself and said hes been working with the chairman for over a year on this bipartisan investigation. His support runs counter to some Republicans who have disparaged Democratic handling of the probe.

But Congress shouldnt toss out a century of precedent, added the retiring House Republican. He said lawmakers should instead pressure antitrust regulators like the Federal Trade Commission, an agency that has faced accusations of going lightly on companies like Facebook and Google. John Hendel

Tempers flared more than two hours into the hearing after Rep. Mary Scanlon (D-Pa.) began her questioning with a dismissal of what she called fringe conspiracy theories of House Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

That prompted an outburst from Jordan, who had just pressed Google on whether its biased toward Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and said he had internal evidence of the search giants interest in encouraging Latino voters in 2016.

The only problem: It was no longer Jordans time to speak, as Democrats immediately reminded him as they shouted him down.

Mr. Jordan, you do not have the time! antitrust subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) declared amid gavel slamming.

When someone told him to wear a mask, Jordan sought to bring up the unmasking in the surveillance sense of former Trump White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.

When someone comes after my motives for asking questions, I get a chance to respond, Jordan said before letting the hearing proceed.

For the record, Google CEO Sundar Pichai maintained that his company is apolitical. John Hendel

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said the company is still investigating whether employees may have used data it acquires from its third-party sellers to launch competing products an issue that has prompted allegations that the company misled House lawmakers a year ago.

We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business. I cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated, Bezos said in response to questions from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose district includes Amazon headquarters. If we found someone violated the policy, we would take action against them.

The Wall Street Journal reported this year that Amazon employees frequently looked at seller data to help determine what products the company should offer, contrary to what an Amazon executive told the House a year ago. Jayapal also quoted a former Amazon employee as telling the panel that seller data is a candy shop. Everyone can have access to anything they want.

Bezos also acknowledged that while company policy might prevent employees from looking at a specific sellers information, they could look at aggregate data. Jayapal and The Wall Street Journal story noted that Amazon workers took advantage of that by pairing a successful seller with one who had little business to gain insights into particular products.

You have access to data that other sellers do not have, Jayapal said. The whole goal of this committees work is to make sure that there are more Amazons, that there are more Apples, that there are more companies that get to innovate and small businesses get to thrive. ...That is why we need to regulate these marketplaces so that no company has a platform so dominant that it is essentially a monopoly. Leah Nylen

The first batch of questions saw the CEOs collectively struggle to directly answer lawmakers, who came armed with well-researched questions and strong opinions a shift in gear from previous congressional tech hearings.

The one exception was Jeff Bezos, who escaped all questions for the first hour.

As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his companys management of Instagram, citing the Federal Trade Commissions original decision not to challenge the companys 2012 merger with Instagram, hearing chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) dismissed Zuckerberg, saying the failures of the FTC in 2012 do not alleviate Facebooks current antitrust challenges.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai tried to fend off questions by citing examples of individual vendors using Google to grow their business, before Cicilline cut him off for not answering the question.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) reeled off a list of possible links and alignment between Google and the Chinese Communist Party, leaving Pichai to say only that Google had only a very limited presence in China. He repeated that answer to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who repeated charges by tech investor Peter Thiel that Googles China links are treason, and concerns from Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said in 2018 that Googles artificial intelligence work in China puts the U.S. military at a competitive disadvantage. Ryan Heath

Apple CEO Tim Cook rejected allegations that the companys App Store rules for developers are enforced arbitrarily and argued that the company must compete with rivals to interest developers in building apps for its iPhone and iPad.

We treat every developer the same. We have open and transparent rules, Cook said under questioning from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). Those rules apply evenly to everyone.

Cook said the majority of apps sold through the App Store, 84 percent, pay no fees. The remainder pay either a 30 percent or 15 percent commission, he said.

Johnson noted that Amazon has an agreement with Apple to allow users to bypass the iPhones in-app payment service, and its 30 percent fee, and instead use the credit card on file in their Amazon account for the Amazon Prime Video app. Cook said that would be available to anyone meeting the conditions, though he didnt outline what those conditions are.

The Apple CEO also argued that the company must compete to attract developers, who could offer apps for Googles Android, Microsofts Windows or XBox or Nintendos Playstation.

Theres a competition for developers just like theres a competition for customers, Cook said. Its so competitive I would describe it as a street fight for market share in the smartphone business. Leah Nylen

Were starting to see some fruits of the subcommittees year-plus investigation, and its got Zuckerberg on the defensive.

The Facebook CEO and New York Democrat Jerry Nadler went back and forth over internal company emails in which, Nadler said, Zuckerberg told a colleague back in 2012 that it was buying the photo-sharing Instagram because it could meaningfully hurt us without becoming a huge business.

Zuckerbergs thinking at the time could become a critical piece of evidence if it bolsters the idea that Facebook was abusing its dominance and deep coffers to eliminate budding rivals. Facebooks buying up of Instagram has become a key focus for critics of the company, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others saying the deal should be unwound. Thats a threat for Facebook: Instagram has become wildly popular in its own right, and is central to Zuckerbergs plan to keep a toe hold with younger generations who are otherwise flocking to sites like TikTok.

Did you mean that consumers might switch from Facebook to Instagram? Nadler asked.

Congressman, started Zuckerberg, attempting to make the case that no one at the time saw Instagram has a general social network app, rather than a really good photo-sharing app. Nadler pressed on: Yes or no: Did you mean that?

Then Nadler went for the kill, asking what Zuckerberg meant when he wrote that what were really buying is time, adding, Mr. Zuckerberg: Mergers and acquisitions that buy off potential competitive threats violate the antitrust laws.

Zuckerberg tried again, insisting that the Federal Trade Commission knew how Facebook was thinking about Instagram back when it signed off on the merger almost a decade ago. Thats when antitrust subcommittee David Cicilline (D-R.I.) jumped in: I would remind the witness that the failures of the FTC in 2012 of course do not alleviate the antitrust challenges that the chairman described.

Translation: Dont think this is over just because that agency down the road said it was.Nancy Scola

A top House Republican used his questioning to press Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a recent content moderation squabble involving Donald Trump Jr., the presidents son, with Twitter.

It was reported that Donald Trump Jr. got taken down for a period of time because he put something up on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. Although Sensenbrenner said he wouldnt take the medication, the lawmaker said, I think this is a legitimate matter of discussion.

Why has that happened? Sensenbrenner asked Zuckerberg.

Congressman, first, to be clear, I think what you might be referring to happened on Twitter, so its hard for me to speak to that, the Facebook CEO said. But I can talk to our policies about this.

Zuckerberg said Facebook would take down any claim a proven cure for Covid-19 exists when there is none, given the potential imminent risk for harm, although he said the social platform would allow free discussion about drug trials and what people may think more generally about a treatments prospects.

Our goal is to offer a platform for all ideas, Zuckerberg told Sensebrenner. Frankly I think weve distinguished ourselves as one of the companies that defends free expression the most. John Hendel

Google CEO Sundar Pichai denied that the search giant steals content from other websites and rejected reports alleging that the company steers users to its own products and sites rather than sources elsewhere on the web.

We have always focused on providing users the most relevant information, Pichai said in response to pointed questions from House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee chair David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who said the panel had seen evidence about Google taking content from other websites and placing more ads on its search results. The vast majority of queries on Google, we dont show ads at all.

Cicilline cited an investigation by The Markup that showed Google has devoted more space on the first page of search results to its own products -- which earn the company more revenue that if users go to other webpages. Pichai said that Google only shows ads when consumers are seeking to buy products and argued that they compete with other e-commerce platforms, like Amazon, where consumers often go directly to try to find products.

When I run the company Im really focused on giving users what they want, Pichai said. We see vigorous competition, whether it be travel or real estate, and we are working hard to innovate.

The Federal Trade Commissions investigation into Google in the early 2010s found Google scraped content from other websites, including Yelp and TripAdvisor. The company agreed to allow other companies to opt out of having their content scraped through 2017. Leah Nylen

One surprise so far in the hearing: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who generally likes to stick fairly religiously to a script in his public appearances, went far afield from his written testimony including strongly arguing that his 2-billion-member social network is an underdog when you look at the behemoths hes testifying alongside.

Go here to see the original:

Theft, censorship and the emperors of the online economy: Tech CEOs go on defense - POLITICO

The recent high-profile departures at theNew York Timesof editorial page editor James Bennet andopinionwriter Bari Weiss have left some on the business side of the news industry scratching their heads.Both exited amid ideological turmoil that Weissdetailedin a letter of resignationtothe Timesspublisher A.G. Sulzberger, describing the hostile work environment she endured at the hands of fellow editors and staffers. They were wholly intolerant, she said, of her role as acentrist at the paper. Bennet, said Weiss, had led the effort after President Trumps election in 2016 to bring in voices that would not otherwise appear in theTimes.

But what of Sulzberger, whose prime duty is toNew York Timesshareholders and therefore to the papers bottom line? How does the top executive justify alienating swathes ofTimes customers and potentialsubscriberswho may be sympathetic to, or even merely curious about, ideas beyond what Weiss described as our 4,000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world?

Theoverlookedtruth is that there is considerable financial incentive for theTimesto limit the scope of discussion.This business angle may foretell what to expect from theTimesgoing forward.

Its a product of how the business of news has evolved in recent years. Advertising revenue has been hurtling downhill for some time and the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated that decline. In the first quarter of this year, the Timess ad revenue fell 15.2 percent year-over year. In May,theTimesannouncedthat it expects advertising revenue in the second quarter to fall even more dramatically, bybetween 50 and 55 percent.

And yet the companys stock price continues to climb. It is now priced in the $46per sharerange. Its all time high of $52per share, set in 2002, is within reach. This steady climb marks a remarkable recovery from a low of about $4per sharein 2009.

These strong numbers are a product of theTimesssuccessful digital subscription business, which hasgrownrapidlyin recent years. Last year, the publisher announced the goal of reaching 10 million subscribers by the end of 2025. In February the paper announced it had hit the halfway mark a year early. In the first quarter of this year theTimes added an impressive 587,000 new digital subscribers, bringing its total subscriber base to more than six million, some 85 percent of which are online-only.

In the past, when advertising was the main driver of revenue, the goal was to reach the widest possible audience. Now, though, the business model demands the paper focus on catering to a narrow but passionate segment of the readership base. Thatsegmentincreasingly accounts for the bulk of theTimess income and it prefers a narrow, left-wing editorial line.

A 2017 study of datafrom hundreds of major media sites conducted by Piano, a leading provider of metered paywalls for the news industry,foundthat for most media outlets the bulk of digital subscription revenue isdriven by a small percentage between 2 and 12 percent of readers. Piano calls them super-fans, super-users, direct and dedicated, the invested, and loyalists.

Being able to serve and monetize this relatively small part of the audience now makes all the difference between success and failure,the study concludes.

WhiletheTimessloyal subscriber base grows, its overall readership is growing even faster.The rapid increase in subscriber numbers means that, if anything, an even smaller percentage of the audience is driving the bulk of the revenue, says Mark Thompson, CEO of theTimes.

This relatively small base of loyalists, who are so fundamental to theTimess business model, stand largely on the left of the political spectrum.

TheTimess public editor, Liz Spayd,addressedthe questionof the papers political leanings in a 2016 column. She was unsuccessful in uncovering the official proprietary numbers on the ideological breakdown of theTimess subscriber base, butnotedthat on most days, conservatives occupy just a few back-row seats in this giant liberal echo chamber.

Should the paper write off conservatives and make a hard play for the left and perhaps center left, Spayd asked, or has that already happened?

Spaydnotesa 2014 Pew Research surveywhich found that 65 percent ofTimesreadersleaned to the left, and only 12 percent leaned to the right. Considering the heightened polarization in media today, its likely that those numbers now skew even further left, and that the loyalist subscribers are drawn from that audience. Spayd was on to something.Herjob at theTimeswas subsequently eliminated.

The phenomenon of leftward drift and loyalists came starkly to light after President Trumps election in 2016, which triggered a new surge in subscriptions. In 2017, Times executive editor Dean Baquet acknowledged in a CNN interview the impact Trump has on revenue. Every time he tweets, it drives subscriptions wildly, Baquet said. In 2018, the Financial Times reportedthat theTimeswas still riding the high of the so-called Trump Bump.

***Get a digital subscription toThe Spectator.Try a month free, then just $3.99 a month***

The President often belittles the paper as the failingNew York Times. The Timesoften returns fire.TheVox columnistJeff Guodescribed this approachas a great way to pile even more liberals onto the Timess subscriber bandwagon.

In recent years Thompsonhastried to push back against the contention that subscriptions are driven by opposition to Trump, citing diversification among subscribers geographically and also in terms of race and ethnicity. But he has provided no evidence of any political diversification.

Inherresignation letter,Bari Weissconfirms that stories arechosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences.Sulzbergers apparent comfort with the departures of Weiss and Bennet affirms why this is the case.FortheNew York Times, what Weisscallsself-censorship has been good for business. As long as the stock price and paid subscriber numbers keep rising, expect that newspapers ideological transformation to proceed apace.

Dovid Efune is editor-in-chief and CEO of theAlgemeiner, the international Jewish newspaper.

Read the original post:

How the New York Times profits from self-censorship - The Spectator USA

As the US got engulfed in civil unrest after the death of George Floyd, the internet became consumed by new waves of cancel culture.

On one hand, some of the ire was directed toward Facebook as the largest social media network that was not doing enough to moderate and censor content that Black Lives Matter supporters disapproved of as hate speech and on the other, individuals, small businesses and corporations became aware of the importance of not finding themselves on the wrong side of this tidal wave of activist outrage.

Thats how the Facebook boycott campaign was born, as a way for companies, big and small, to punish the platform by depriving it of some of its advertising dollars. But although joined by true behemoths like Disney, Unilever, and Volkswagen, it was limited in duration to just one month, and therefore looked like a performative, good press-seeking ploy, rather than a case of authentic wokeness.

As the boycott is expiring, The Guardian is looking at what it really means and ways in which its participants could prove their action is anything but a PR stunt.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

One way would be to expand the boycott, and the paper has found several past and current (anonymous) content moderators that spoke in favor of this. One said that Facebooks lost revenue due to the boycott was negligible, and that while they supported scrutinizing Facebooks policies in this way, the giant was now retrenching, making it hard to say what, if any, long-term results the campaign will have.

These moderators are employees of third-party companies that Facebook outsources to do its dirty work not just in terms of having to act as censors, but also because they are not allowed to censor as much as some believe they should.

When it comes to our mental health, we would feel much better if we could delete more. One of the stressing factors is that we have to leave on the platform things that we think are harmful and plain evil, said one current moderator.

The accusation that Facebook isnt taking proper action to protect mental well-being and improve working conditions for workers of companies it hires as contractors, has been present for a while.

Former moderator Chris Gray, who is suing Facebook because he says he developed PTSD, had this to say about the one-month boycott:

Millions and millions of small businesses are going to have to pay for adverts: thats all they can do. Mark Zuckerberg doesnt care. Hes on record as saying theyll be back. So Ive got no faith that it will achieve anything.

See the original post here:

Some Facebook mods support the ads boycott, call for more censorship - Reclaim The Net

South Park is well known for its crude and controversial material, however, some episodes have caused such an uproar that they are now banned.

South Park is well known for its crude and controversial material;however, there are some episodes that have caused suchan uproar that they are now banned from Comedy Central, South Park Studios website, and any streaming platform that airs the show. While there are five episodes banned in total, season 14 episodes "200" and "201" sparked an enormous outcry from Middle-Eastern terrorism groups over their planned depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

Released in 1997,South Park became known for its crude animation and subject matter, before pivoting to more political, current-events-based satire. Still, despite its offensive material, the show has earned itself an array of awards and accolades, such as Primetime Emmy Awards, and its success has not waivered, remaining one of Comedy Central's most-watched shows.

Related:Why Winnie The Pooh Is Banned In China

Censorship was at the heart of episodes "200" and "201," with series creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone taking a strong stance against it. The episodes upon airing, however, were censored; even the dialogue at the end of "201" was completely bleeped. The creators weren't happy with the network's decision (as per a statement South Park Studios released), which was no doubt increased by the fact that an image of Muhammad had already aired in 2001 during season 5 episode 3's "Super Best Friends."

Ross Douthat of The New York Timesstated thatthe move to censorSouth Park was a result of the Danish newspaper,Jyllands-Posten,running unflattering images of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005, which lead to global riots and death threats. In Islam traditions, the Prophet is not allowed to be depicted in any way. Despite this, the newspaper ran the images, and even with outcries from several prominent Muslim groups, the paper did not back down.

In the United States, tensions were high between the West and Islamic people due to the 9/11 terrorist attack. While US news outlets covered the controversy, they did not reprint any of the depictions of Muhammad, even though the US values freedom of speech and the press. For the US, religious sensitivity along with a larger population of people of the Islamic faith was a more important factor.

Episodes "200" and "201" revolve around pastSouth Parkepisodes, storylines, and controversies, with Trey Parker and Matt Stone pushing the boundaries of censorship, especially in the case of Muhammad. Irritated that they could show Jesus and other religious icons, the inability to display Muhammad becomes a focal point of the episode. Throughout the story, past celebrities, angered by the town of South Park for continually ridiculing and mocking them, want to steal the powers Muhammad has to not be shown or insulted.

Related:South Park: Every Celebrity Guest Star

After episode "200" aired, threats were leveled against both creators of the show and Comedy Central if they depicted the image of Muhammad further. Revolution Muslim, a group known for advocating the end of western imperialism, had an author post to Twitter wishing death and Hell for both Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Additional threats and veiled references were made comparing the creators to Dutch director Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered after a film he made portrayed violence against women in some Islamic societies.

While Trey Parker and Matt Stone continued to advocate against censorship and defended their work, Comedy Central heavily censored the episode in order to protect its employees. Further, they went back and removed "Super Best Friends" from the South Park lineup, as well as censored "Cartoon Wars Parts 1 and 2." WhileSouth Park has released episodes in the past that have pushed the boundaries enough to warrantcensorship, episodes "200" and "201" are notable due to their focused plot points, as well as the threats that were leveled against both show creators before the episodes even aired.

More:Is South ParkOn Netflix, Hulu Or Prime? Where To Watch Online

Agents of SHIELD Has Wiped Itself Out Of The MCU's Timeline

Jeff lives and breathes TV shows, movies, and video games. He's built his own media/gaming PC to house all of his media. Trained as a Screenwriter, Jeff dreams of being a Showrunner one day. His encyclopedic knowledge of TV shows allows him to write on a wide array of topics. Recently, he's been exploring Screenwriting for Virtual Reality. He draws from his love of science fiction, horror, drama, fantasy, and real-world politics/religion to craft his stories. In addition to writing, he has a passion for teaching, as well as Technology, Science, and Space Exploration.

Read more:

South Park: Why Episodes "200" and "201" Were Banned - Screen Rant

EducationAcademic freedom within British universities could be in danger as academics with right-leaning or pro-Brexit views feel they have to censor what they teach, research and discuss, a report has warned.

Monday, 3rd August 2020, 7:30 am

The Policy Exchange think-tank argues that higher education institutions and government must do much more to ensure that all lawful speech is protected on university campuses.

The paper, entitled Academic freedom in the UK, suggests there is a structural discriminatory effect against the minority of academics at British universities who identify as being on the right politically.

Hostile or just uncomfortable attitudes signal to those subject to such discrimination that they should conceal their views and narrow their research questions to conform to prevailing norms, if they wish to progress and enjoy a positive workplace experience, it warns.

A YouGov poll, of 820 both current and former academics, found more than one in seven said there was a hostile climate towards people with their political beliefs in their department but the figure is higher among those who identify as being right-leaning, or among those who voted to leave the EU.

Just over half of respondents said they would feel comfortable sitting with a colleague who is a Leave supporter at lunch, in a meeting or in the staff room.

Meanwhile, more than a third said they would feel comfortable sitting with a colleague who opposes admitting transwomen to womens refuge centres.

But more than four in five said they believed academics who were pro-Remain would feel comfortable expressing their views to colleagues, the poll found.

The report suggests that right-leaning academics are more likely to choose to self-censor compared with colleagues who are centrists or on the left.

Some pro-Leave social sciences and humanities academics said they had refrained from publishing or airing views in research and teaching for fear of consequences to their careers, according to the think-tank paper.

It warns: The challenge today is that a serious threat to academic freedom may now, in addition, arise from within universities.

This internal threat derives from the way that some in the university-both students and faculty members-relate to others on campus, being willing to penalise them on the basis of their perceived or actual political views.

In a foreword to the report, Ruth Smeeth, former Labour MP and chief executive of Index on Censorship, says: It does the country no good if our educators, our academics, our scholars and most importantly our students feel that they cant speak or engage without fear of retribution.

The report calls on the UK government to make it explicit in law that universities have a direct duty to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Read the rest here:

Free speech risk as university staff feel need to censor pro-Brexit views - The Scotsman

Censorship and "abuse" from Big Tech companies seem to only skew towardconservatives, "The Greg Gutfeld Show" host Greg Gutfeld stated Wednesday.

However, in an interviewon"Fox & Friends,"Gutfeld pointed out that perhapsTwitter's 12-hour suspension of Donald Trump Jr.'s accountwould have a reverse effect than the one intended.

TRUMP JR. BASHES TWITTER OVER SUSPENSION: 'THIS NEVER HAPPENS TO...THE LEFT,' 'IT ONLY HURTS CONSERVATIVES'

"What happens when you censor if you call this censoring; I guess you can everybody wants to see it," he said. "I want people to censor my bookbecause I know then it will sellmore."

"If you say to like,Hey ... you can do whatever you want,but whatever you do, do not lookin that box under my bed. You know the first thing hes going to do is look in that box under mybed where hell find Gwyneth Paltrows head," Gutfeld remarked, in an apparent reference to the 1995 blockbuster "Se7en."

"Yes, its perfect. So, its like, everybody wins with this," he added.

On Tuesday, Twitter penalized the youngerTrump forposting misinformation about theanti-malaria drughydroxychloroquine.

Tweets with the video are in violation of our COVID-19 misinformation policy, Liz Kelley, a spokeswoman for Twitter, later told The Washington Post.

In an interview on"Tucker Carlson Tonight"the same evening, Trump Jr. asserted that California-based tech giants had "been tryingto do this for a while."

"I've been talking about the deplatforming, that demonetization of people that are preaching conservative values," he noted, "because you have to note, thisnever happens to someone sayingsomething that benefits theleft.It only hurts conservatives."

Gutfeld said that he shared Trump son's concerns.

"And, by theway, this stuff wouldn't alarmme except all of the censorship,all of the abuse goes one way. It's always kind of towardsconservatives," he said.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

"Meanwhile, the left canperpetrate or spread any kind of hoax thatthey want on any social mediaplatform. But, everybody mysteriouslyis OKwith that," Gutfeld told the "Friends" hosts.

"No one seems to be bothered bythe fact that they can saywhatever they want.It's only when it comes from theright that it's a problem," he concluded.

Original post:

Greg Gutfeld on conservative censorship: 'Abuse only goes one way' - Fox News

Peter Olson,Goonengerry

It is one thing to have social distancing, but it is another thing altogether, to unjustly inflict total media censorship, in the very mistaken belief, that doing so will save lives or prevent rioting: quite the opposite is the actual case.

The elimination of freedom of speech, under the pretext of protecting people from the new virus, is a clear sign of tyranny being imposed.If invaders had come to bring tyranny through a military invasion, thousands would fight for freedom, but when such tyranny comes in the disguise of public health, no one even notices.

The elimination of evidence-based, rational and reasonable dialogue, solely on the grounds it conflicts with the official government narrative, is not in the public interest. At the first sign of infection, democratic power was rapidly transferred from those elected, to unelected health professionals, who have substantial financial conflicts of interest: trillions of dollars are at stake in expensive drug treatments.

At the event 201 rehearsal of this pandemic (on YouTube), they said the government should suppress all conflicting views; that has now happened. We could have this medical tyranny for the next 20 years will we ever have freedom of speech again?

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week or maybe more we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.

Read the original here:

Censorship and the pandemic - Echonetdaily

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos the world's richest man, making his long-awaited first-ever appearance before a congressional hearing faced no questions at all for nearly two hours, before offering an inconclusive answer on whether his company misled Congress about a strategy of undercutting its own third-party merchants.

The virtual testimony comes at a time of rising legal jeopardy for the major tech companies, who are the subject of antitrust and consumer-protection probes in Washington, multiple U.S. states and Europe.

Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) set the tone early, with an opening statement vowing to check the power of the "emperors of the online economy." But so did Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the full Judiciary panel, who laid out a long series of alleged slights against conservatives by top social media companies and later got into a shouting match after a Democrat accused him of promoting fringe conspiracy theories.

See live highlights from the hearing below.

The Chinese government steals U.S. technologies, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said making him the only one of the four tech CEOs willing to say that plainly in response to a question from Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.).

I think its well-documented that the Chinese government steals technology from American companies, Zuckerberg said.

Both Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai said they had no personal knowledge about Chinese technology theft. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who answered last, acknowledged that he had read many reports about technology theft by Beijing, but had no first-hand experience beyond knock-off products sold on Amazon.

All four CEOs passed on the opportunity to suggest how Congress could better help defend U.S. companies abroad, against either technology theft or excessive regulation. Leah Nylen and Ryan Heath

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who heads the Houses probe into tech giants, accused Facebook of tolerating a fountain of misinformation that benefits the companys engagement-driven business model even on topics as deadly as the coronavirus.

Theres no competition forcing you to police your own platform, the House antitrust subcommittee chairman told CEO Mark Zuckerberg. During the greatest public health crisis of our lifetime, dont you agree that these articles viewed by millions on your platform will cost lives?

The lawmaker cited articles that drew millions of views on sites like Facebook while making claims about Covid-19, including those describing President Donald Trumps musings about placing disinfectants inside the body or allegations that coronavirus hype is a political hoax.

Cicilline said Facebook allows such content to reap advertising dollars. But Zuckerberg countered that this kind of noxious material is not helpful for our business.

It is not what people want to see, and we rank what we show in Feed based on what is going to be most meaningful to people and what is going to create long-term satisfaction, Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg defended Facebooks policy of taking down bogus information that could cause imminent harm and its attempt to highlight authoritative guidance. But Cicilline brought up a Monday video from the conservative website Breitbart, which dismissed the necessity of masks and called hydroxychloroquine a Covid-19 cure and which experienced soaring Facebook traffic over several hours before Facebook removed it.

A lot of people shared that, Zuckerberg said. And we did take it down because it violates our policies.

After 20 million people saw it after a period of five hours? Cicilline countered. Doesnt that suggest, Mr. Zuckerberg, that your platform is so big that even with the right policies in place, you cant contain deadly content? John Hendel

Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks via video conference during the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law hearing. | Graeme Jennings/Getty Images

Apple didnt consider the impact on its own parental control app when it removed some of the most popular apps that limit screentime from its App Store, CEO Tim Cook told lawmakers.

Apple introduced its own Screen Time app, which allows parents to limit how much time kids spend on their phones, in September 2018. After that, the company removed a number of competing apps. Qustodio and Kidslox, two of the leading parental control apps, have filed a complaint with the European Commission about their removal.

Cook said Apple removed the apps because of privacy concerns.

We were worried about the safety of kids, Cook said in response to questions by Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.).

Demings asked Cook why the company removed many of the most popular screentime apps but not Absher, an app created by the Saudi Arabian government that uses the same technology.

It sounds like you applied different rules to the same apps, Demings said.

Cook said he wasnt familiar with Absher, but said the App Store has about 30 parental control apps after it changed its policy last year. Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who returned to the issue later in the hearing, noted that Apple eventually allowed the apps back into the App Store after six months without requiring major changes.

We apply the rules to all developers equally, Cook said. I see Screen Time as just an alternative. Theres vibrant competition for parental controls out there. Leah Nylen

Facebook has certainly adapted features from competing services, CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged Wednesday, but he denied it has threatened to copy start-ups if they wouldnt sell to his company.

But Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) expressed skepticism about his answer, reading from text messages between Zuckerberg and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom and messages between Systrom and a venture capitalist. She asked Zuckerberg whether he threatened Systrom and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel by saying he would clone their products if they didnt sell to Facebook. The company bought Instagram in 2012, but Snap rebuffed offers to sell to the social network.

The House subcommittee also posted those documents to its website Wednesday.

Im not sure what you would mean by threaten, Zuckerberg said, referring to the companys effort to build an app called Facebook Camera. It was public we were building a camera app at the time. That was a well-documented thing.

It was clear this was a space we were going to compete in one way or another, he said. I dont think those are a threat in any way.

Jayapal reminded Zuckerberg he was under oath while testifying.

In closing her questioning, Jayapal said she didnt believe threats should be a normal business practice.

Facebook is a case study in monopoly power, in my opinion, because your company harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on your competitors and copy, acquire and kill rivals, she said. Youve used Facebooks power to threaten smaller competitors and ensure you always get your way. These tactics reinforce Facebooks dominance. Leah Nylen

House Judiciary Democrats lost a big potential GOP ally if they had any hopes of bipartisan recommendations to update antitrust law as part of their probe into tech giants.

I have reached the conclusion that we do not need to change our antitrust laws, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the antitrust subcommittee, said hours into the hearing on alleged bad behavior by Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook. Theyve been working just fine. The question here is the question of enforcement of those antitrust laws.

The subcommittees probe has been led by Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who has been preparing a report to conclude the long investigation. GOP buy-in would strongly bolster its conclusions, including potential recommendations for updates to antitrust law.

Notably, Sensenbrenner seemed to support the probe itself and said hes been working with the chairman for over a year on this bipartisan investigation. His support runs counter to some Republicans who have disparaged Democratic handling of the probe.

But Congress shouldnt toss out a century of precedent, added the retiring House Republican. He said lawmakers should instead pressure antitrust regulators like the Federal Trade Commission, an agency that has faced accusations of going lightly on companies like Facebook and Google. John Hendel

Tempers flared more than two hours into the hearing after Rep. Mary Scanlon (D-Pa.) began her questioning with a dismissal of what she called fringe conspiracy theories of House Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

That prompted an outburst from Jordan, who had just pressed Google on whether its biased toward Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and said he had internal evidence of the search giants interest in encouraging Latino voters in 2016.

The only problem: It was no longer Jordans time to speak, as Democrats immediately reminded him as they shouted him down.

Mr. Jordan, you do not have the time! antitrust subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) declared amid gavel slamming.

When someone told him to wear a mask, Jordan sought to bring up the unmasking in the surveillance sense of former Trump White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.

When someone comes after my motives for asking questions, I get a chance to respond, Jordan said before letting the hearing proceed.

For the record, Google CEO Sundar Pichai maintained that his company is apolitical. John Hendel

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said the company is still investigating whether employees may have used data it acquires from its third-party sellers to launch competing products an issue that has prompted allegations that the company misled House lawmakers a year ago.

We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business. I cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated, Bezos said in response to questions from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose district includes Amazon headquarters. If we found someone violated the policy, we would take action against them.

The Wall Street Journal reported this year that Amazon employees frequently looked at seller data to help determine what products the company should offer, contrary to what an Amazon executive told the House a year ago. Jayapal also quoted a former Amazon employee as telling the panel that seller data is a candy shop. Everyone can have access to anything they want.

Bezos also acknowledged that while company policy might prevent employees from looking at a specific sellers information, they could look at aggregate data. Jayapal and The Wall Street Journal story noted that Amazon workers took advantage of that by pairing a successful seller with one who had little business to gain insights into particular products.

You have access to data that other sellers do not have, Jayapal said. The whole goal of this committees work is to make sure that there are more Amazons, that there are more Apples, that there are more companies that get to innovate and small businesses get to thrive. ...That is why we need to regulate these marketplaces so that no company has a platform so dominant that it is essentially a monopoly. Leah Nylen

The first batch of questions saw the CEOs collectively struggle to directly answer lawmakers, who came armed with well-researched questions and strong opinions a shift in gear from previous congressional tech hearings.

The one exception was Jeff Bezos, who escaped all questions for the first hour.

As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his companys management of Instagram, citing the Federal Trade Commissions original decision not to challenge the companys 2012 merger with Instagram, hearing chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) dismissed Zuckerberg, saying the failures of the FTC in 2012 do not alleviate Facebooks current antitrust challenges.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai tried to fend off questions by citing examples of individual vendors using Google to grow their business, before Cicilline cut him off for not answering the question.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) reeled off a list of possible links and alignment between Google and the Chinese Communist Party, leaving Pichai to say only that Google had only a very limited presence in China. He repeated that answer to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who repeated charges by tech investor Peter Thiel that Googles China links are treason, and concerns from Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said in 2018 that Googles artificial intelligence work in China puts the U.S. military at a competitive disadvantage. Ryan Heath

Apple CEO Tim Cook rejected allegations that the companys App Store rules for developers are enforced arbitrarily and argued that the company must compete with rivals to interest developers in building apps for its iPhone and iPad.

We treat every developer the same. We have open and transparent rules, Cook said under questioning from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). Those rules apply evenly to everyone.

Cook said the majority of apps sold through the App Store, 84 percent, pay no fees. The remainder pay either a 30 percent or 15 percent commission, he said.

Johnson noted that Amazon has an agreement with Apple to allow users to bypass the iPhones in-app payment service, and its 30 percent fee, and instead use the credit card on file in their Amazon account for the Amazon Prime Video app. Cook said that would be available to anyone meeting the conditions, though he didnt outline what those conditions are.

The Apple CEO also argued that the company must compete to attract developers, who could offer apps for Googles Android, Microsofts Windows or XBox or Nintendos Playstation.

Theres a competition for developers just like theres a competition for customers, Cook said. Its so competitive I would describe it as a street fight for market share in the smartphone business. Leah Nylen

Were starting to see some fruits of the subcommittees year-plus investigation, and its got Zuckerberg on the defensive.

The Facebook CEO and New York Democrat Jerry Nadler went back and forth over internal company emails in which, Nadler said, Zuckerberg told a colleague back in 2012 that it was buying the photo-sharing Instagram because it could meaningfully hurt us without becoming a huge business.

Zuckerbergs thinking at the time could become a critical piece of evidence if it bolsters the idea that Facebook was abusing its dominance and deep coffers to eliminate budding rivals. Facebooks buying up of Instagram has become a key focus for critics of the company, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others saying the deal should be unwound. Thats a threat for Facebook: Instagram has become wildly popular in its own right, and is central to Zuckerbergs plan to keep a toe hold with younger generations who are otherwise flocking to sites like TikTok.

Did you mean that consumers might switch from Facebook to Instagram? Nadler asked.

Congressman, started Zuckerberg, attempting to make the case that no one at the time saw Instagram has a general social network app, rather than a really good photo-sharing app. Nadler pressed on: Yes or no: Did you mean that?

Then Nadler went for the kill, asking what Zuckerberg meant when he wrote that what were really buying is time, adding, Mr. Zuckerberg: Mergers and acquisitions that buy off potential competitive threats violate the antitrust laws.

Zuckerberg tried again, insisting that the Federal Trade Commission knew how Facebook was thinking about Instagram back when it signed off on the merger almost a decade ago. Thats when antitrust subcommittee David Cicilline (D-R.I.) jumped in: I would remind the witness that the failures of the FTC in 2012 of course do not alleviate the antitrust challenges that the chairman described.

Translation: Dont think this is over just because that agency down the road said it was.Nancy Scola

A top House Republican used his questioning to press Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a recent content moderation squabble involving Donald Trump Jr., the presidents son, with Twitter.

It was reported that Donald Trump Jr. got taken down for a period of time because he put something up on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. Although Sensenbrenner said he wouldnt take the medication, the lawmaker said, I think this is a legitimate matter of discussion.

Why has that happened? Sensenbrenner asked Zuckerberg.

Congressman, first, to be clear, I think what you might be referring to happened on Twitter, so its hard for me to speak to that, the Facebook CEO said. But I can talk to our policies about this.

Zuckerberg said Facebook would take down any claim a proven cure for Covid-19 exists when there is none, given the potential imminent risk for harm, although he said the social platform would allow free discussion about drug trials and what people may think more generally about a treatments prospects.

Our goal is to offer a platform for all ideas, Zuckerberg told Sensebrenner. Frankly I think weve distinguished ourselves as one of the companies that defends free expression the most. John Hendel

Google CEO Sundar Pichai denied that the search giant steals content from other websites and rejected reports alleging that the company steers users to its own products and sites rather than sources elsewhere on the web.

We have always focused on providing users the most relevant information, Pichai said in response to pointed questions from House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee chair David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who said the panel had seen evidence about Google taking content from other websites and placing more ads on its search results. The vast majority of queries on Google, we dont show ads at all.

Cicilline cited an investigation by The Markup that showed Google has devoted more space on the first page of search results to its own products -- which earn the company more revenue that if users go to other webpages. Pichai said that Google only shows ads when consumers are seeking to buy products and argued that they compete with other e-commerce platforms, like Amazon, where consumers often go directly to try to find products.

When I run the company Im really focused on giving users what they want, Pichai said. We see vigorous competition, whether it be travel or real estate, and we are working hard to innovate.

The Federal Trade Commissions investigation into Google in the early 2010s found Google scraped content from other websites, including Yelp and TripAdvisor. The company agreed to allow other companies to opt out of having their content scraped through 2017. Leah Nylen

One surprise so far in the hearing: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who generally likes to stick fairly religiously to a script in his public appearances, went far afield from his written testimony including strongly arguing that his 2-billion-member social network is an underdog when you look at the behemoths hes testifying alongside.

Zuckerberg pointed out that Facebook competes with other companies that, too, have hundreds of millions or even billions of users.

Some are upstarts, said Zuckerberg, but others are gatekeepers with the power to decide if we can even release our apps in their apps stores to compete with them a seeming shot at Apple, with whom Facebook has no love lost. (Apple CEO Tim Cook was off-screen at the time.)

And its not just Apple, argued Zuckerberg, who added that Facebook has to battle with YouTube when it comes to video and Amazon when it comes to the online ads market.

In many areas were behind our competitors, said Zuckerberg. Thats not what youd expect a CEO to a multibillion-dollar titan to say, but its a direct rebuke to the very premise of the hearing that Facebook is so giant, so powerful, that Washington needs to step in. Nancy Scola

Read his prepared testimony here. POLITICO staff

Read his prepared testimony here. POLITICO staff

Just like the world needs small companies, it also needs large ones, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos told the antitrust subcommittee Wednesday while arguing that his online commerce giant is not all that large when considered as a percentage of the global retail market.

Bezos, the worlds richest person, also pointed to his humble origins, noting that my mom, Jackie, had me when she was a 17-year-old high school student in Albuquerque.

Read the rest of his prepared testimony here. Bob King

Ill just cut to the chase: Big Tech is out to get conservatives, Rep. Jim Jordan said at the hearing's outset a not-unexpected outburst from the top Republican on the full Judiciary Committee, who has become a public face of the complaints from some on the right that Silicon Valley is innately biased against them.

Jordan also brought up the fact that hed hoped to have Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter a frequent target of Jordan, President Donald Trump, and other Republicans testify at the hearing, a request shot down by Democrats.

Jordan also made a last-minute request to rope into the hearing another Republican member, whos not on the subcommittee, to dig into the alleged constitutional questions raised by the companies testifying. Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) wasnt having it a signal that he intends to keep the hearing on topic. Nancy Scola

The Republican leader of the House Judiciary antitrust panel became the first to raise concerns about conservative bias by the biggest U.S. tech companies.

In his opening statement, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) emphasized that a firms large size doesnt mean they are in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. Rather, how the problem is how they use that power.

Companies like Facebook, Googles YouTube and Twitter have become the public square of today where political debates play out in real time, Sensenbrenner said in his opening statement. Conservatives are consumers too and they need the protection of the antitrust laws. The power to influence debate carries with it remarkable responsibilities.

But like his counterpart, panel chair David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Sensenbrenner said he hopes to examine the size and power of the U.S. four biggest tech companies.

Your companies are large. Thats not a problem. Your companies are successful. Thats not a problem either, he said. I want to leave here today with a more complete picture of how your individual companies use your size, success and power and what it means to the American consumer. Leah Nylen

Tech companies have become such a political flashpoint and exert such influence on our economy and society that dozens of interest groups are angling to get their issues into the record today, during a hearing whose stated topic is antitrust.

Data privacy and misinformation are two themes that many groups want to see raised.

Follow this link:

Theft, censorship and the 'emperors of the online economy': Tech CEOs go on defense - POLITICO

In environments where people share their personal, daily lives like Instagram, I dont believe interference is right, Aslan said. But on channels like Twitter, where people can easily be misled, to be honest, I think regulation is the right thing to do.

But Tugrul Calis, 62, disagreed. An avid social media user, Calis said he wouldn't want to break the law.

So what do you do? You automatically self-censor. And thats the worst: A person not being able to freely share his or her thoughts, to censor ones self, Calis said

Cyber-rights activist, lawyer and academic Yaman Akdeniz warned: These measures will have a chilling effect on Turkish social media platform users and people will be scared to use these platforms because Turkish authorities will have access to the users data.

Rights groups and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights came out against the bill Tuesday ahead of the vote, with Amnesty International calling it draconian.

If passed, these amendments would significantly increase the governments powers to censor online content and prosecute social media users. This is a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression online and contravenes international human rights law and standards," Amnesty International's Andrew Gardner said.

Read the original:

Turkey: Social media law's passage raises censorship worries - STLtoday.com

China censoredLeague of Legendssplash arts by editing their original artworks and some champion's skins. ARedditpost revealed that some skins and splash arts in the Wild Rift had been edited in China to lessen the seductive graphics of each skin.

(Photo : Screenshot from Twitter post of @PixelButts)League of Legends Splash Arts Censored in China: Who's Responsible, Riot or Tencent?

Also Read: League of Legends Spirit Blossom Festival's New Champion: Best Champs to Use to Rank Up Solo Queue This Season

According toMillenium's previous report, sexy aesthetic champions and characters' skins, are nothing new in the popular 5v5 strategic game. Some of the lady characters are wearing fewer clothes, display a sexy visual. If you're a fan of this awesome game, always check LoL's update on TechTimes. Also, check how Tyler1 experience how OP nerfed Aphelios is.

Also Read:[VIDEO] League of Legends: Tyler1 Left Saying 'OK' After Seeing Nerf Aphelios Fight in 1v5

It was explained that the game has been present in China. However, the government still decided to censor certain splash arts of Wild Rift. The edited images were first posted by a Twitter user under the name of "PixelButts."

"Also yes the Wild Rift splash art is censored," captioned the Twitter user.

"Many are tweaked slightly but a few have more significant changes such as janna and jinx is hard to see, but theres now bandages under their top," added PixelButts.

He said that although he is generally against censorship, sometimes there's nothing he can do with the edited champs.

It is common for some Asian countries to censor content that they find inappropriate. On theLeague of Legends Pacific Servers(PCS), Evelynn's original outfit was changed to lessen the character's skin exposure.

(Photo : Screenshot from Twitter post of @PixelButts)League of Legends Splash Arts Censored in China: Who's Responsible, Riot or Tencent?

China's action is comparable to this since Chinese authorities censored some of the Wild Rift's champion splash art. Some of the changes are just minimal. For example, Jinx got a strip of fabric on her chest as censorship.

Other champs were just changed, including Zed, who had additional designs on his armor, and Ahri, who received more decorations for her outfit. However, some champs had major changes. Janna's costume received additional fabric to cover her tummy, as well as Miss Fortune. Shyvanna's design was changed, as well as her dragon.

Some users defended China's action, saying that "making people have less revealing clothes is not censorship." And there are also some saying that it is censorship since the changes were based on Chinese regulations.

To keep you updated withLeague of Legendsnews this season, such as the upcoming new heroes, keep your tabs open on TechTimes.

Visit our website at https://www.techtimes.com/

Also Read: League of Legends Cinematic: Riot's Anime Short Reveals Yone, Yasuo's Demonic Brother: A Playstyle Guide

This article is owned by TechTimes,

Written by:Giuliano de Leon.

2018 TECHTIMES.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.

Read the original here:

China Censors League of Legends Champs Because of Seductive Visual Graphics; Here are the Edited Skins - Tech Times

OpinionImage courtesy of HBO.

You may have seen plenty of advertising lately for the fairly new streaming service, HBO Max, one of many streaming services flooding the market as television companies adapt to stream rather than broadcast.

Recently, HBO Max has taken some moves in censoring or altering the content in their library, the two most notable would be taking down Gone With the Wind and, strangely enough, giving the Looney Tunes character Yosemite Sam a scythe instead of his classic revolvers and rifle.

The first choice has its merits with re-educating people that racial stereotyping is wrong in this age where almost everyone is aware of that. A similar practice to this, (without removing, of course) was in the descriptions of older Disney Plus films, where there is a warning describing outdated cultural depictions into films such as Dumbo or Peter Pan for obvious reasons of racial stereotyping in their films.

HBO Max put the film back onto their service, with two videos that extend this beyond what Disney Plus did, having two videos alongside it to describe how the film brushes past issues of slavery. One could more so call it a thought-check before you watch the movie, then censorship. Everyone in this modern age can agree that slavery was wrong, and that the aspects of fantasizing that such an ugly detail of the civil war is wrong, so why would there be videos pouring into that detail? Does watching it without that context immediately make the viewer a victim of propaganda, or the streaming service racist?

Something that does not make sense to methough, is the exclusion of guns in the new Looney Tunes animation, exclusive to HBO Max. This could turn into a debate on media and mental health, or if violence is good to have on television, but it feels like this was more of a precautionary decision for backlash. Considering the issue of gun violence within the U.S., I would not be surprised if this kicked off the decision to axe cartoony lead-spitters. No one cares about the guns in Fortnite or any movie that Dwayne Johnson is in, so what gives? Feel free to give your input in the comments.

Image courtesy of HBO

Read this article:

HBO Max and Their Strange Streak of Censorship - Kirkwood Community College

According to YouTube itself, as many as 6.1 million videos have been deleted from the platform since the start of this year alone, mostly coinciding with an unprecedented wave of online censorship launched at the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

YouTube is not alone in this, as other major social networks started strictly policing speech of users in order to allow only information about the disease favored by governments and the World Health Organization (WHO), from whom most governments get their cues.

Things deteriorated even further when racial and social unrest hit the US later in the year, causing a surge in online cancel culture and grandstanding by big brands, who demanded even more censorship, this time of hate speech.

As things began to go from bad to worse, traditional corporate media didnt seem to mind very much at all. Now, however, some of them are looking at the price that the ramping up of censorship.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

But still, the likes of the Washington Post dont seem to care much about ordinary users entrusting their speech and data to social media giants: the concern is focused on what removal of such massive quantities of content, and the process by which this is done, cold end up doing to some activists and NGOs (at least, ones they like). And they argue in favor of deleted data to be publicly unavailable but retained for study.

Theres the example of the Syrian Archive, which is said to be dedicated to collecting information about human rights abuses in Syria and other countries. The group says that they and others are getting caught in the censorship dragnet that is supposed to be removing misinformation, as well as opposition voiced by users who disagree with the way these crises are being handled.

Its not exactly news, but tech giants overreliance on automated, machine learning-powered algorithms to get the job done is not working well. These algorithms are still effectively basic and really bad with understanding context, therefore resulting in unintended censorship.

The author of the report seems to think that more involvement from human moderators would fix the problem (and also, that they had to be sent home during the epidemic and were for that reason working less than usual?) However, its amply clear that moderators come with a set of their own problems, unique to humans: such as bias. So, maybe the answer is to pump the brakes on rampant censorship and not rely so heavily on either machines or moderators?

That, of course, is not an idea the Washington Post is willing to entertain. Instead, the Covid and civil upheaval era censorship is viewed as fully justified if only it could somehow bypass the Syrian Archive and other activists and journalists in war-torn regions.

But it isnt, since Facebooks moderation is apparently poor at telling apart documented war crimes and atrocities from users posting such content to promote it. However, Facebook says that in cases when accounts are deleted for this type of offense, they are also restored.

Syria-focused activists are not having a great time on YouTube either this year, saying that the number of deleted uploads has doubled. For its part, YouTube cited its infamous policy of allowing users to issue counter takedown notices, and claimed that human reviewers actually deal with this (not a statement many creators who have been burned in the process, without ever receiving even an explanation of what it was they had done wrong, would necessarily agree with.)

The Syrian Archive and more that 40 other groups have pleaded with social media giants not to permanently delete content related to human rights activism, and that data on content removed during the pandemic will be invaluable to those working in public health, human rights, science and academia.

Others are worried about YouTubes lack of transparency that leads to guesswork as to the overall extent of automated moderations effect on legitimate content.

The argument in favor of preserving data instead of deleting it was heard in April and boils down to keeping this data for future research into how online information can affect health outcomes and to evaluate the consequences of specific moderation practices like using heavy automation.

Another request from a letter sent to giant social networks was to be transparent about the way content is removed, how successful any appeals are, and the like. The signatories acknowledge privacy implications of long data retention and making it only available to a select group of researchers but add that the need for immediate preservation is urgent.

More here:

Social media censorship is hindering investigations, researchers say - Reclaim The Net