Monthly Archives: April 2017

Opposition supporters take part in an unauthorized anti-corruption rally in central Moscow on March 26.

Alexander Utkin/AFP/Getty Images

When you hear the words Russia and internet, you probably think of Kremlin-backed hacking. But the internet is also a powerful tool for Putins opposition. Last month, the internet helped spark Russias largest anti-government protests in five years. Russia respondedby blocking access to webpagesthat promoted demonstrations.

This is part of a larger story. Just a few years ago, Russians had a mostly free internet. Now, Russian authorities would like to imitate Chinas model of internet control. They are unlikely to succeed. The Kremlin will find that once you give people internet freedom, its not so easy to completely take it away.

I lived in Moscow in 2010 after spending years researching internet activism in China. I quickly found that Russia and China had very different attitudes toward the web. The Great Firewall of China blocked overseas sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. In Russia, by contrast, you could find almost any information online. This was largely because Russian authorities didnt view the internet as a serious political threat. That changed in late 2011 and early 2012, when Moscow was the site of the largest anti-government protests since the end of the Soviet Union. Social media helped organize those demonstrations, and President Vladimir Putin took note. A law that took effect in late 2012, to give just one example, granted Russian authorities the power to block certain online content.

Moscow clearly admires Beijings approach. Last year, former Chinese internet czar Lu Wei and Great Firewall architect Fang Binxing were invited to speak at a forum on internet safety. The Russians were apparently hoping to learn Chinese techniques for controlling the web. Russia has already taken a page or two from Chinas playbook. While Facebook and Twitter remain accessible in Russia, at least for now, a Russian court ruled to ban LinkedIn, apparently for breaking rules that require companies to store personal data about Russian citizens inside the country. This could be a warning to companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook, which risk being blocked in Russia if they refuse to follow such rules.

Both Russia and China have made clear that they wish to regulate the internet as they see fit, without outside interference. Chinese President Xi Jinping has stressed the importance of internet sovereignty, which essentially means that individual countries should have the right to choose their own model of cyber governance. Putin has taken this idea one step further by calling the internet a CIA project. By this logic, Russia needs to proactively protect its own interests in the information sphere whether by cracking down on online dissent or using the internet to spread its own version of events.

Russia internet expert Andrei Soldatov, author of the book The Red Web, says the Kremlin certainly looks for something close to the China approach these days, mostly because many other things failedfiltering is porous, global platforms defy local legislation and are still available. Soldatov says that the government would like to have direct control of critical infrastructure such as the national system of domain distribution, internet exchange points, and cables that cross borders. He adds that this approach, which may not even be successful, would be more of an emergency measure than a realistic attempt to regulate the internet on a day-to-day basis.

Chinas method has worked because Beijing has long recognized the internet as both an economic opportunity and a political threat. Chinas isolated internet culture has given rise to formidable domestic companies. It was once easy to dismiss Chinas local tech players as mere copycatsSina Weibo imitating Twitter, Baidu imitating Google, and so on. But now, some of these companies, notably Tencents WeChat, have become so formidable that we may soon see Western companies imitating them. In the meantime, Chinese internet users arent necessarily longing for their Western competitors.

In Russia, however, American sites like YouTube have become very powerful. The recent demonstrations were in part sparked by an online report by opposition leader and anti-corruption blogger Aleksei Navalny, who alleged that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev had amassed a fortune in yachts, mansions and estates. Navalnys video on YouTube, viewed more than 16 million times, detailed this alleged corruption. Navalny called for protests after his demands for investigating official corruption was denied by the Russian Parliament. According to Global Voices, the Russian prosecutors officerecently requested the blockingof a YouTubevideo calling on young people to rally.

Russian blogger Elia Kabanov believes that YouTube is now too big to block. I doubt the Kremlin will go there, he said. They blocked LinkedIn mostly because it was a niche site in Russia and nobody cared. And of course the government propaganda machine is using YouTube a lot, so it wouldn't make any sense to block it. If they try to take down protest announcements on platforms on YouTube, Kabanov says, new ones will appear. I really cant see the way for the Kremlin to implement the Chinese model now: Everything is too connected, their own agencies are using all these services.

Russia does have its own domestic social networks, of course. VKontakte (VK), for example, is far more influential than Facebook. Soldatov notes that VK played an unusually big role in the recent protests.But Facebook still has a devoted Russian following, especially among political activists.

No government can entirely control the flow of information. Even in China, those determined to find information can find a tool, say a virtual private network, to jump over the firewall. Russian censors will face a similar challenge. In recent years, there has been an ongoing increase in Russian use of Tor, a browser that can be used to circumvent censorship. As a 2015 Global Voices article noted, the increase in censorship closely mirrors the upward trend in interest towards Tor.

In the short term Russian street protests may fizzle out, especially as Moscow cracks down on dissent. But the story wont end there. The internet on its own will not cause a revolution in Russia, but it can be an effective tool for organization. Beijing figured this out a long time ago, but the Kremlin is learning it too late.

This article is adapted from the forthcoming Attacks on the Press: The New Face of Censorship, a book from the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Future Tense is a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Follow this link:
Russia Is Trying to Copy China's Approach to Internet Censorship - Slate Magazine

What I think the political correctness debate is really about is the power to be able to define. The definers want the power to name. And the defined are now taking that power away from them.Toni Morrison

Never trust anyone who says they do not see color. This means to them, you are invisible.Nayhyirah Waheed

Not Steven. Not Stephen. Certainly not Steveareno.

Its a preference. My preference. My choice. And if people want to be in my good graces, theyll comply with my wishes.

Theres nothing strange or unreasonable about this. We do it all the time usually when were being introduced to someone.

Nice to meet you, Steve. Im Elisha.

Elisha? What a beautiful name!

Please. Call me Steve.

Is there anything wrong with that? Does that stifle conversation? Does it stop people from talking freely to each other?

No. Certainly some names are hard to pronounce or in my case remember. But overcoming those hurdles is just common decency. Its not too much to ask especially if youre going to be dealing with this person for an extended length of time.

The idea that allowing people to define themselves somehow shuts down conversation is rather strange. But its the essence of opposition to political correctness.

Political correctness is tyranny with manners, said conservative icon Charlton Heston.

I wonder if he would have felt the same if wed called him Charlie Hessywessytone.

A more fleshed out criticism comes from President George H. W. Bush who said, The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.

Is that true? Is political correctness really censorship? Thats the conflation made by many conservatives and even some liberals. After all, popular Left-wing comedian Bill Maher sarcastically calls his HBO show Politically Incorrect, and he often rails against the practice.

Theres a kernel of truth to it. We are asked to change the way we speak. Were asked to self-censor, but we already do this frequently without wailing against a loss of free speech.

Human beings are subject to various impulses, but as adults, we learn which ones we can act on and which we shouldnt. I may think it would be hilarious to run into a crowded movie theater and yell, FIRE! However, I know that doing so while possibly funny to a certain kind of person would result in injuries and trauma as moviegoers stampede out of the theater. So I dont do it. Is that censorship? Maybe. But its censorship with a small c.

The Hestons, Bushes and Mahers of the world seem to think political correctness is more like Capital C Censorship. But this is demonstrably false.

That kind of Censorship is the act of officials, possibly agents of the government, a corporation or some other formal bureaucracy. But political correctness has nothing to do with officials. There are no censors. There are only people who ask to be named a certain way.

A censor looks at a news report of military operations in Iraq and deletes material that would give away the armys location. Political correctness is nothing like that. It involves someone asking others to refer to themselves THIS WAY and not THAT WAY.

The penalties for violating Censorship are official. Ask Chelsea Manning who until being pardoned by President Barack Obama - was serving a 35-year prison sentence for doing just that. The penalties for violating political correctness are social. You may be criticized, condemned or disliked.

If you criticize Manning for releasing classified documents to Wikileaks, youre not violating political correctness. Thats your opinion, and youre entitled to it. However, Manning is a trans woman who is going through hormone replacement therapy. If you refer to her as him you are violating political correctness. Youre naming her in a way that violates her wishes. The penalty is not a prison sentence. Its a sour look.

So political correctness is not Censorship. In some ways, the confusion comes from the term political correctness, itself.

Though its origins are hard to pin down, it appears to have been coined by the Soviets to mean judging the degree of compatibility of ones ideas or political analysis with the official party line in Moscow. At least thats what the International Encyclopedia of Social Studies says.

The term came to prominence in the United States in conservative writer Dinesh DSouzas book Illiberal Education. He disparaged affirmative action as a kind of political correctness that gave preference to (what he saw as) unqualified minority students over whites in college admissions.

So the first mention of the term in the USA was simply to disparage liberal political policies. It was a ham-handed way of comparing the Left with the Soviets. Yet somehow this term has become the handle by which we know simple civility. Its kind of hard to feel positively about a concept that begins with a mountain of unearned negative connotations.

Conservatives know the power of getting to name something. Its their go-to propaganda tactic and lets them control much of the debate. For instance, thats why the Right loves to call Social Security an entitlement. Theres truth to it because youre entitled to getting back the money you pay in, but its full of unearned negative connotations as if these people were somehow demanding things they dont deserve.

In essence, political correctness shouldnt be political at all. Its just kindness. Its just being a decent human being. Dont purposefully call someone by a name they wouldnt appreciate. Respect a persons ownership of their own identity.

And for some people thats hard to do. Their conceptions of things like gender, sexuality, race and religion are extremely rigid. The only way to be a man is THIS WAY. The only way to be spiritual is THAT WAY. But if they give voice to these ideas in the public square especially in the presence of people who think differently they will be frowned upon.

But is this really so dissimilar to the crowded movie theater? Refusing to acknowledge someone elses identity is harmful to that person. It tramples the soul,similarly to the way their body would be trampled in a stampeded exit. So you shouldnt do it.

The result is an apparently much more tolerant society. Its no longer okay to use racial, cultural, gender and sexual stereotypes in public. Youre forced to give other people consideration or else face the consequences of being disliked. And on the surface, thats a much more inviting world to live in.

However, there is a glaring problem. In some ways, this has made public discourse more antiseptic. People dont always say what they mean in the public square. Its not that theyve changed the way they think about the world. Theyve just learned to keep it to themselves until theyre around like-minded individuals. They reserve their racist, classist, sexist language for use behind closed doors.

This is why when Im at a party peopled exclusively by white folks, some partygoers may let racial epithets slip out. And we all laugh nervously to be polite. Or maybe its more than politeness. Maybe for some its to relieve the tension of such refreshing candor like taking off a girdle. Fwew! Here, at least, I can say what I really think without having to worry about people looking down on me for it!

Since such reactions occur mostly in homogeneous groups, it makes the world look much more enlightened than it really is. Pundits and policymakers look around and cheer the end of these social ills when they havent ended at all. Theyve merely gone underground.

And so we have an epidemic of colorblind white people who cant see racism because of the gains of political correctness. Somehow they forget those unguarded moments. Somehow they havent the courage to examine their own souls. Or perhaps they dont care.

And so we have the conundrum: which is better to live in a world where all individuals have the right to name themselves or to live in a world where our most basic prejudices are on display for all to see?

Personally, I pick political correctness, and heres why.

Words are important. We think in words. We use them to put together our thoughts. If we continue to respect individuals names in word, eventually well begin to do so in thought and deed.

This isnt mind control. Its habit. Its recognizing an ideal and working toward it. As Aristotle taught, the way to become a good person is to act like one. Eventually, your preferences will catch up with your habits.

I think thats whats happening today. Look at the children. Theyre so much less prejudiced and racist than we, adults. This is because theyve learned political correctness first. They didnt have to unlearn some archaic white-cisgender-centrism. This is normal to them, and I think thats a good thing.

Obviously some people will balk at this idea. They will look at this ideal as reprehensible. They want to return to a world where women were little more than property, a world where black people knew their place, where sexual identity was as simple as A or B.

But I think most of us recognize that this is not a world where wed want to live. Modern society can be scary and confusing but trying to respect everyone as a person isnt a bad thing. Its consideration, concern, warmth.

Perhaps the best way to love your fellow humans is to call them by their proper names.

A similar version of this article originally was published on my Website.

Link:
Political Correctness Isn't About Censorship It's About Decency - Huffington Post

Professors are also getting it in the neck. Mike Jensen, an adjunct professor at the University of Northern Colorado, was hauled before campus authorities last year after one of his students filed a complaint with the campus BRT. Jensens crime? Encouraging students to debate controversial issues such as transgenderism.

According to a recording of the meeting, which Jensen gave to Heat Street, he had asked his class to read Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoffs seminal Atlantic article The Coddling of the American Mind. This would be hilariously ironic if it wasnt kind of sad, Jensen told the BRT official. He was threatened with an investigation, and for reasons undisclosed was not invited back to teach the next semester.

Though BRTs are described as support mechanisms, aimed at resolving unpleasant incidents and fostering campus diversity, Jensens experience reveals the more sinister reality. The FIRE report notes that most of the BRTs surveyed only purported to provide education to the offender, rather than punishment. But this, in itself, is deeply coercive. Not least because 42 per cent of investigations surveyed involved campus law enforcement. This is modern campus censorship at its most militarised.

Another irony here is that, as two professors pointed out in an article for the New Republic, BRTs are hitting the very subjects devoted to discussing issues of racial and sexual discrimination. Even a discussion about racism could be lodged as a bias incident. Fighting discrimination (no matter how illusory) has become the defining obsession of campus politics, and yet students are being encouraged to avoid learning about it or discussing it frankly.

Censorship is always, on some level, anti-intellectual. It presupposes that certain truths are best unchallenged, that certain opinions are better left unsaid, and that people are either too easily led or too easily shaken to participate in public life fully. BRTs make this plain. Whats more, they show that PC censorship has become a thoroughly neocolonial endeavour, devoted to looking after those black, brown, gay or trans folk deemed too wretched for the cut and thrust of academic debate.

The rise of BRTs remind us just how hollowed-out intellectual life on campus has become. As colleges have become bureaucratised, as services have swelled while academic staff have been squeezed, theyve drifted further away from their intellectual mission. Diversity is now the defining value, an article of faith. Tragically, this preoccupation has if anything made campus life more tense and fractured. Encouraging students to snitch every time they spy a racist tequila party is hardly going to make students from different backgrounds feel more chilled out around one another.

But this is not an internal coup by diversity-crazed bureaucrats - academia itself has a lot to answer for. For decades, victim feminism, critical race theory and Frankfurt school blather about the harm in speech, the power structures created by images, the idea that words act upon women and minorities, has laid the groundwork for the BRT craze. These ideas, which have so long gone unchallenged, have lent campus bureaucracies a moral mission, a justification for their bloat and meddling.

Its unclear whether BRTs are run by card-carrying ideologues or mere jobsworths, desperate to keep offended students happy and racist professor headlines out of the press. But whats clear is that campus authoritarianism isnt just a figment of civil libertarians imagination. Colleges have created vast byzantine bureaucracies which encourage students to snitch on their peers, which haul professors before committees for making off-the-cuff remarks, all in the name of protecting students from themed parties, sexist signage and, worst of all, debate. And they call us hysterical.

Tom Slater is deputy editor at spiked. Tom Slater is deputy editor at spiked. Unsafe Space: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus, edited by Tom, is published by Palgrave Macmillan. Follow him on Twitter: @Tom_Slater_

Later this year, spiked is launching Unsafe Space, our US programme aimed at remaking the case for free speech on campus, with a tour of college campuses. Are you a US student? Want to find out more? Email the team today.

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

View original post here:
Bias Response Teams: campus censorship at its most sinister - Spiked

President Trump has no time for political correctness. What about you?

Beginning with the very inception of the country, conservative censorship has dominated the United States of America as a way to moderate public opinion. Beginning in the twenty-first century, however, a new kind of censorship dominated the headlines, schoolrooms, and workplaces of America: liberal political correctness. With the rise of right-wing ideals and isolationism, will we witness

This new liberal PC mentality seemingly accentuated a widespread shift from a traditional, religion-based outlook to the more contemporary inclusive, modern toleration-based outlook.

Political correctness has been criticized recently. From comedians to politicians, the doctrine is criticized for limiting free speech, overacting to even slightly offensive comments, and overall, acting as the thought police. The most obvious, essentially unmissable advocate against political correctness is, of course, President Donald Trump. At the first GOP debate, he stated that he has no time for political correctness, after replying to questions demanding why he has called women pigs and dogs in the past.

This societal censorship did not have liberal origins, however. Many forget that conservative-based censorship was ubiquitous in the twentieth-century. In 1918, for instance, the Sedition Act was enacted, effectively making it impossible to speak out against the United States government. The act barred any type of anti-government criticism that was profane, scurrilous, or abusive language. The penalty for such an offense? $10,000 and/or twenty years in prison. Eugene V. Debs, a prominent American socialist, was imprisoned for making an anti-war speech in 1918 under a similar law.

Even in 2013, almost one hundred years later, right-wing censorship is prevalent. Neil Gaimans book, Neverwhere, was banned in a New Mexico school after a parent complained of a sex scene and The F-word.

The Harry Potter series has come under attack for promoting witchcraft. One of the most thought-provoking and moving works of literature in recent memory, Brave New World, was also criticized for its anti-religion and anti-family values.

Literature has not been the only thing censored. The Pentagon Papers, published in part by The New York Times in 1971 were released after the government threatened to punish the company under the same law the aforementioned Eugene V. Debs was put up against. The Times later stated the papers were a great example of the widespread lying and censorship enacted by the Johnson administration.

The public-school superintendent in Georgia, Kathy Cox, was proposing banning the word evolution so as to not offend more conservative parents. The absurdity of this proposal is simply astounding.

However, with the growing backlash against liberal PC, we may see a retreat to conservative-based censorship. The pendulum of political influence may very well swing back to these kinds of restrictions. This development is doubtlessly influenced by the retreat of globalization and the possibility of the end of democracy as we know it.

See the original post here:
Choose Wisely: Political Correctness Or A Retreat To Conservative Censorship? - The Pavlovic Today