Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Black Lives Matter
- Boca Chica Texas
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Chess Engines
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Donald Trump
- Elon Musk
- Ethical Egoism
- Fake News
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Life Extension
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- National Vanguard
- New Utopia
- Online Casino
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Proud Boys
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: October 23, 2019
Posted: October 23, 2019 at 9:46 am
China is exporting its social values, political ads are an important part of free expression and the definition of dangerous speech must be kept in check, Facebooks CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued today in a speech at Georgetown University.
He criticized how American companies that do business with China were becoming influenced by the countrys values. While our services like WhatsApp are used by protestors and activists everywhere due to strong encryption and privacy practices, on TikTok, the Chinese app growing quickly around the world, mentions of these same protests are censored, even here in the U.S.! Zuckerberg said. Is that the Internet that we want?
Because Facebook couldnt come to an agreement with Chinese censors and thereby doesnt operate in the nation, Now, we have more freedom to speak out and stand up for the values that we believe in and fight for free expression around the world. While he didnt mention Apple, the NBA and Blizzard, which are amidst scandals about cowing to Chinese policy, the shade thrown at them was clear.
Zuckerberg spoke today for 40 minutes at Georgetown University and then did a Q&A to share his thoughts on speech and how we might address the challenges that more voice and the internet introduce, and the major threats to free expression around the world. He discussed how We want the progress of free expression without the tension, leading people to advocate for pulling back on free expression. Where do you draw the line?
Zuckerberg says that Facebook now has 35,000 people working on security, and the companys security budget is higher now than the whole revenue of the company when it IPOd, which was $5 billion in 2012. Facebook removes or downranks content that is objectively dangerous. Still, he says that he doesnt want to let the definition of what is dangerous expand beyond whats absolutely necessary.
Coining a new phrase, Zuckerberg noted that People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society.
On allowing political ads on Facebook even if they carry misinformation, Zuckerberg argues that political ads can be an important part of voice, especially for local candidates, up and coming challengers and advocacy groups that the media might not otherwise cover. That way they can get their voice into the debate. While that may be true, the same system allows whichever group or candidate has the most funding to dominate the narrative.
I recently argued that Facebook should drop all political ads until regulation to prevent their use to spread misinformation was passed. President Trump is spending more than many of his Democratic party rivals combined while using lies about them planning to remove the second amendment to raise money.
Still, Zuckerberg argues, Banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media chooses to cover. He did not address who spends the most or how Facebook could still offer free expression of candidates to their own followers even if it banned political ads. He essentially drew no distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of reach aka paid amplification through ads. Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri echoed this sentiment, equating ads and speech, tweeting I believe that people deserve to hear what politicians are saying and make up their own minds. After some discussion, though, Mosseri admitted I often wish we could ban political ads, but said it would be complex to define what did and didnt qualify as one.
Relying on favoring incumbents argument ignores how President Trump has spent $4.9 million on Facebook ads this year compared to $9.6 million spent by the 23 Democratic candidates combined, and that Trump had outspent them all put together as of March. Banning political ads wouldnt prevent candidates from saying what they want and being judged, but it would stop richer candidates speech from having more weight.
Overall, Zuckerberg sounded more passionate and empathetic than in his recent testimonies on Capitol Hill. He seemed to take on some of the cadence and tone of former President Barack Obama, pitching up his voice to stress the urgency of challenges facing democracy. However, the speech format allowed Zuckerberg to avoid immediate pushback on his points, such as why political advertising favors challengers if its incumbents with the most money to spend. Zuckerberg did hold a Q&A after his speech, but the stream of that wasnt broadcast from his Page like the prepared remarks, and he mostly reiterated points from the speech.
Zuckerberg drove home one important theme threaded throughout the talk, though. He attempted to link the idea of U.S. companies potentially policing free expression to protect safety and elections with how China censors speech. And while other companies like the NBA and Blizzard that do significant business with the country try to downplay its influence, Zuckerberg spoke up about how the tentacles of Chinas values are choking off speech far beyond its borders.
See the rest here:
Zuckerberg on Chinese censorship: Is that the internet we want? - TechCrunch
Report On Global Social Media Censorship Shows Russia, India, And Turkey Are Still Leading The Censor Pack – Techdirt
Posted: at 9:46 am
from the and-all-these-US-companies-are-giving-them-a-boost dept
Millions of people around the globe are using blogging services and social media platforms created by US companies to communicate with each other. Unfortunately, these US companies have been helping censorial governments shut their citizens up by complying with a large variety of content removal requests.
While it is generally a best practice to follow local laws when offering services in foreign countries, it's always disappointing when US companies respect laws that have been created solely for the purpose of stifling dissent, silencing critics, and putting marginalized people at the risk of even greater harm.
Paul Bischoff of Comparitech has compiled information from a number of companies' transparency reports to produce an easily-readable snapshot of worldwide censorship as enabled by US tech companies. And the countries you'd expect to be demanding the censorship of the most content are the ones you'll see taking top spots at various platforms. Russia, Turkey, and India all top the charts, both in the number of demands made and the actual amount of memory-holed content.
Russia must be home to one of the last large Blogger userbases, considering how often the country targets this platform. Russia alone accounted for 53% of the 115,000 removal requests received by Google, which also covers search engine listings and YouTube. Russia's takedown demands have been steadily escalating over the past half-decade, jumping from 2,761 in 2015 to 19,192 in the first half of 2018 alone. Most of Russia's requests are supposedly "national security" related, but that still leaves plenty to spread around to cover other things the government disapproves of, like nudity, drug abuse, and defamation.
Turkey comes in at a very distant second. It too likes to claim stuff is either defamation or a threat to national security, but it prefers to perform its vicarious censorship on a different social media platform: Twitter.
Turkey jumps into the top spot here, accounting for 55.23 percent of the overall number of requests (54,652). Russia is a distant second with 21.17 percent of the overall number.
But Russia is gaining ground
[T]he largest number of content removal requests came last year with 23,464 (an 84% increase on the previous year). [...]Russia and Turkey... made up 21.25 and 59.67 percent of the requests in 2018, respectively.
Yes, Twitter is Turkey's playground. The easily-offended head of state (and all of his easily-offended officials) love to use content removal requests to silence critics and bury unflattering coverage. Unfortunately, Twitter has been all too helpful when it comes to Turkey oppressing its citizens via third parties. Sure, much of the blocking only affects Turkey, but that's where dissenting views are needed the most.
Bischoff's report is worth reading in full. It breaks down the raw data of transparency reports into easily-digestible chunks that show which platforms which countries censor most, as well as the type of complaints these countries are sending most often.
You'll also see why one of the biggest censors in the world barely shows up in these reports. China doesn't need third parties' help to control what its citizens see online. It begins this censorship at home by blocking content across multiple platforms (and, often, the platforms themselves), some of which are homegrown services far more popular with Chinese users than their American equivalents. A lack of data doesn't mean China is taking a hands-off approach to content moderation. It simply means the Chinese government rarely has to put its hands on anything outside the country to achieve its aims.
One of the more minor players in the global takedown playground is Wikimedia. Outside of the occasional DMCA takedown request, Wikimedia rarely gets hassled by anyone, much less world governments. But the requests it does get are far weirder than the run-of-the-mill censor-by-proxy requests delivered to social media platforms. Wikimedia is one of the few American entities that has told the Turkish government to beat it when Turkey asked for negative (but apparently factual) content to be removed. It also had to explain to members of an unnamed political party how Wikipedia -- and the First Amendment -- actually work.
A lawyer reached out to us on behalf of a lesser-known North American political party that was unhappy with edits to English Wikipedia articles about the party and one of its leaders. Her clients apparently wanted previous, more promotional versions of the articles restored in place of the later versions. To better engage in discussions with the community, we encouraged them to familiarize themselves with Wikipedias recommendations on style and tone and the policy restricting use of promotional language. We also advised that one of the best ways to resolve their concerns is to engage with the community directly.
And it has only removed one piece of content ever that wasn't the result of a valid DMCA takedown request:
According to Wikimedia, a blogger visiting Burma/Myanmar posted a redacted photo of his visa on his website. Somehow, a version of his visa picture without his personal information removed ended up on an English Wikipedia article concerning the countrys visa policy.
He wrote to us, asking to remove the photo, wrote Wikimedia. Given the nature of the information and the circumstances of how it was exposed, we took the image down.
Tech advances have accelerated the pace of global censorship. When you're dealing with the world's greatest communication tool -- the internet -- you kind of have to take the good with the bad. Geoblocking content to stay in the good graces of foreign governments may seem like the "lesser of several evils" approach, but even if it's the approach that will result in the least amount of collateral damage, it's still something that encourages authoritarians to continue being authoritarian.
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, india, russia, studies, turkey
Posted: at 9:46 am
If youve somehow managed to browse the internet without hearing about the Blizzard debacle, let me catch you up: Blizzard Entertainment is a gaming company that runs Hearthstone, an online card game with competitive tournaments. A Hong Kong-based player named Ng Wai Chung (alias Blitzchung) used a pro-democracy slogan during a post-match interview that was being live-streamed, and Blizzard suspended Blitzchung for six months, withholding his prize money to appease the Chinese government.
It may sound like a small incident, but it created a huge online backlash culminating in a boycott, which led to Blizzard reducing Blitzchungs suspension and returning his prize money. A large-scale boycott may seem like a disproportionate response, and, if this event had occurred in isolation, it would be disproportionate.
But Blitzchungs ban did not occur in isolation. This is just one of many recent cases in which other countries have changed their policies to appease the Chinese government, and these policy changes have affected people outside China. In July of last year, several American airline companies changed their websites to make it look as if Taiwan were not a sovereign country, at the request of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The NBA recently groveled to the CCP because a team manager criticized the Chinese government on Twitter. Apple recently pulled an app from its app store that helps Hong Kong protesters track the police, although this move was recently reversed. Over and over again, CCP censorship has insinuated itself into global business by leveraging the lucrative Chinese market. The Blizzard boycott was just the tip of the censorship iceberg.
We can set up the problem like this: The Chinese government will never budge on censorship, but Western consumers will raise hell when they feel they are being subjected to it and this, in turn, has been at least partially effective, as is evident in the cases of Blizzard and Apple. So far, the trend has been Western companies walking a very thin line between losing access to the Chinese market and losing their customer base everywhere else.
This cant last forever. The Chinese government will not be content with repeated incidents of this kind, and Western consumers will prove allergic to CCP censorship. Moreover, the U.S. government is showing itself increasingly willing to challenge China economically. The U.S.-China trade war has exacerbated all of this a great degree. Something has to give.
A full geopolitical examination of the U.S.-China relationship is far, far beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say, the current state of economic conflict is not entirely due to the Trump administration. This confrontation was a long time coming, and the reasons for it go far deeper than Trump.
So when you hear a dispatch from the White House saying America is reaching the first phases of a trade deal with China, dont be fooled this is far from over. The United States, even if it hammers out a deal with China, will still make policy changes to decouple its economy from Chinas. This conflict is far more profound than the election of a hotheaded American president, and it will continue long after hes out of office.
There are three factors: the stubbornness of the Chinese government, the stubbornness of Western consumers, and the trade war and deeper economic conflict between the American and Chinese governments. Of those three factors, something has to give. Either Western consumers must accept a certain amount of CCP censorship, the CCP must cease its efforts to promote its own interest via censorship (and other underhanded means), or economies that do not wish to bend the knee to the CCP must decouple themselves from China. Ill discuss each in turn.
Keep in mind that these are extreme outcomes. Various mixtures of each are possible. Each one is a kind of limit scenario, a pure outcome relating to one of the three factors giving way. I do not expect any of these three to pan out exactly as described, but this is useful for illustrative purposes.
First possibility: With the rise of China, commonly prophesied among economists and geopolitical pundits, it may be that Chinas economic power becomes so overwhelming that foreign companies will be unable to resist CCP censorship. If the Chinese economy is so dominating that no multinational can compete without access to it, then all multinationals are effectively subject to China.
The world would live under de facto Chinese censorship. You and I and other private individuals may be able to criticize the Chinese government on our own time, but no person who is remotely prominent would dare to say a word against the CCP, since doing so could easily result in the loss of ones career.
This may sound like doom-mongering, and I will concede that it is unlikely, but its also not impossible. This is what happens if the first factor, Western stubbornness, fails.
Second possibility: With China suffering from the trade war and the United States in a hurry to decouple itself from the Chinese economy, it may turn out that the foretold pax sinica was a mirage all along. If thats true, then Chinas various economic problems, such as its (most likely permanent) status as a net importer of food, the demographic time-bomb of its aging population, and civil unrest such as that seen in Hong Kong, will all come home to roost just as the West begins to crank up the heat.
While the shrinking of the Chinese economy will cause economic problems worldwide, it would have at least one positive effect: The CCP would no longer have a big enough bargaining chip to enforce its censorship on foreign countries. Perhaps it would be possible to convince the CCP to do this without removing Chinas economic clout, but Im pessimistic about that possibility and cannot see the Chinese government removing its censorship. This is what happens if the second factor, Chinese stubbornness, fails.
Third possibility: If the trade war ends in long-term decoupling without terminal economic problems for either side, then a simple economic decoupling may defang the CCPs influence on foreign companies without forcing it to drop its censorship. This seems unlikely, given the interconnectivity of the world in the information age. On the other hand, much of that exchange of information sits on an underlying economic entanglement, which, in this scenario, would drop out.
As I said before, these are three extreme scenarios, and in the short to medium term, none can manifest purely without admixture of the others. In the long term, however, I do think the overall geopolitical situation will be strongly characterized by one of these three. The only question is, which one?
Caleb Beers is an older millennial writer living in Ohio, who writes on topics including politics, philosophy, and literature. In his spare time he self-publishes novels and plays the guitar.
Posted: at 9:46 am
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, operates on a more liberal compass heading than much of the South. But it carries the unfortunate distinction of having hosted the Dixie Classic Fair since 1956.
The word Dixie, NPR reported, offends enough locals (and one assumes outsiders) that the city is censoring it out of existence.
Some local skeptics questioned whether the name Dixie Classic Fair should be stripped from history, puzzled that next to go might be Dixie Cups. For good measure, lets throw in Dixieland, Dixie Mart, Winn-Dixie, and the Dixie Chicks. These all may somehow offend, and the absurdity of changing them won't be enough to pause hit the "pause" button on the non-stop movie of censorship.
Censorship has long been the first refuge of scoundrels, and history isnt always forgiving of their cause. Stalin erased Nikolai Yezhov from a now-famous official propaganda photo, which only served to keep the functionarys name alive well beyond his historical due. The salting of Carthage after the Third Punic War one of Romes more memorable mop-up operations might be the only thing keeping Carthages name alive two millennia later. And who can forget about Galileo? His name lives on, whereas that of Pope Urban VIII, who tried to silence him, is almost forgotten.
Taking offense to words and symbols is as natural as breathing. Censoring them out of existence is operating on a far grander scale. When I was growing up in California, a group of atheists decided that places with Christian saints names had to go, ostensibly for violating the separation of church and state. But this was really because, as atheists, they just hated Christianity.
Think of the audacity: the logistics of changing every offending name, from San Anselmo to San Francisco to Los Angeles, and every Zion in between (thats every persons drivers license, every official document, every newspaper masthead, etc.). It would have bankrupted many of these municipalities and all just for the fun of it. The coup failed, but not without extravagant legal fees, paid mostly by the citizenry. Every time I pass the highway sign at Grass Valley that reads, San Francisco, 143 Miles my heart sings, not simply because Im going back to the city of my birth, but because, despite a tiny few ill-intentioned and censorious atheists, it is still San Francisco.
Most recently, and coincidentally, was the San Francisco Board of Educations decision (these are educators mind you) to censor an anti-racist mural in a local high school. The Life of Washington, painted in 1936 by an avowed left-wing agitator to depict the evils of slavery and exploitation in the founding of the nation, is ironically the very thing todays leftists would trip over themselves to erect in public. Its depiction of slaves and Native Americans could not be more poignant.
But because the very liberal Board of Education has become hyper-sensitive to the supposed hyper-sensitivity of students, this piece of history had to go. This time, the censors won, but not without embarrassment since some in the media were actually watching and wondering, This is What Educators Do?
By the way, student attitudes towards the mural before, during, and since the controversy remained decidedly apathetic. So much for the little dears' sensitivity.
Meanwhile, as the grievance industry pursues its metaphorical March to the Sea with all of Sherman's subtlety, its worth revisiting someone whose legacy has a dog in this fight: Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He may not have known he belongs in the censorship battles, but he does.
King, deeply a son of the South, was unequivocal about the pasts eventual reckoning. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice, he said, and liberals like to quote him on that. But one may ask if, for King, that means all of history or just some selections from a drop-down menu that suits the tenor of the current era.
A basic reading of the man offers a simple answer. For King, the pastor and prophet, the linearity of Christianity promises redemption and salvation, but one must live within human history to get there. The problem of this history is both our fate and our calling. It is not a trifle.
How dare you invoke King, some will say, and not without good intention, though certainly fueled by emotion and mistrust. Those who defend censorship in the name of soothing bruised sensitivities would do well to recognize that King himself was as much a maker of history as he was its victim. The glory of King cannot exist without the shame of the past. Yin and yang are inseparable. Destroy one, you destroy the other.
Two quotes in a teachable moment are always better than one. George Santayanas all-purpose cheer for history Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it itself always bears repeating. Would King subscribe to an updating of his own words? "The arc of history is long, but it bends towardscensorship?"
Daniel Keefe is a writer in Montclair, N.J.
See the article here:
The night the censors drove old 'Dixie' down - Washington Examiner
Posted: at 9:46 am
KOLKATA: West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar on Tuesday wondered whether some sort of censorship was in place in the state after district officials refused to meet him citing ongoing administrative tour of the chief minister. Governor Dhankhar termed the refusal of the district officials to attend a meeting called by him as "unconstitutional".
He had last week expressed his desire to hold meetings with district magistrates, bureaucrats and elected representatives of North and South 24 Parganas districts, a tour of which he has begun from Tuesday.
However, the office of the Governor on Monday evening received letters from the district magistrates of the two districts mentioning that the officials would not be able to attend his meetings as they will be busy with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's ongoing tour of north Bengal, Raj Bhavan sources said.
However, the officials said that other arrangements for his tour will be made, the sources said.
"I am astonished to receive the letters from the district officials in which they have expressed their inability to attend the meetings, that too four days since my intimation. I do not know whether some sort of censorship is in place in West Bengal," the Governor told over the phone.
"Despite this, I will continue my tour of the districts," he added.
Dhankhar has been at the loggerheads with the state government over several issues - ranging from his seating position at the Durga Puja carnival to comments on his security - since he rushed to Jadavpur University on September 19 to 'rescue' Union minister Babul Supriyo who had been gheroed by a section of students.
Posted: at 9:46 am
Ever since Mark Hamill announced that Luke would appear as a Force ghost in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, fans have wondered if anyone else would join him from the Jedi afterlife. However, one pesky rumor making the rounds online seems to have some Star Wars fans worried Lucasfilm will remove Force ghosts entirely, due to Chinas strict standards for distributing movies made beyond its borders.
Since the Chinese box office is usually a huge source of international revenue for Hollywood studios, fans speculated that theyd been removed to appease Chinese moviegoers. While its unclear how the rumors got started, Star Wars fans were beside themselves wondering whether Chinas apparent (and false) hatred of ghosts and spirits would somehow affect the story of The Rise of Skywalker. Well, not only are the rumors false, but the notion of Chinas wholesale opposition to the depiction of ghosts on film simply isnt true.
The knowledgeable u/Yazman took to Reddit to make clear that any and all rumors about Chinas power over the final cut of The Rise of Skywalker are simply untrue. Not only that, but they stem from ignorance of the culture and the history of high-grossing movies in that market.
In fact, Chinese culture allows ghosts in film when its just ancestors, wise spirits, benign/friendly ghosts, or the story is a family-friendly one, the redditor notes. What the Chinese government bans are portrayals of violent ghosts, or spirits who intend to harm the living. As an example, Disneys Coco was well-received in China, grossing more than $17 million in its opening weekend. The Pixar film revolves around spirits, the dead, and the afterlife. Clearly, the ghost ban has been overstated.
Then, of course, theres the fact that the latest Star Wars trilogy (and Solo, for that matter) has not been a financial success in China, especially compared to other American films. Star Wars has been a huge element of American popular culture since the 70s, but the original trilogy wasnt even released in cinemas there until 2015, to drum up excitement ahead of The Force Awakens. The Chinese filmgoing audience doesnt have the same decades-long attachment to these characters that we do.
When Star Wars: The Force Awakens dropped in China, it grossed around $124 million. Thats not a bad number, sure, but then along came The Last Jedi, which included Force ghost Yoda (and yes, he remained in the film).
The Last Jedi only grossed a measly $42.5 million. Thats a huge drop in box office numbers. In fact, the Chinese market is so uninterested in Star Wars films that even Skyscraper, the forgettable Dwayne Johnson action flick, made far more money. Theres nothing to worry about when it comes to China banning Force ghosts because, simply put, they just dont care.
This anxiety among fans likely has a lot to do with ongoing leaks about the film. Consider this your spoiler warning: the next paragraph will discuss leaks about the films final act.
A couple months back, Making Star Wars claimed the Force ghosts of Anakin, Luke and Leia whom we know will die in the film would return in the final act of The Rise of Skywalker. Fans even speculated Obi-Wan Kenobi could also turn up. While none of the trailers have shown any Force ghosts, we wouldnt be surprised if the filmmakers kept him a secret. (Even the most accurate spoiler-mongers didnt predict Yoda would be in The Last Jedi.)
Other factors may have influenced director J.J. Abrams decision to remove the Force ghosts, if he actually did so. Recent news of reshoots is just one example. Theres also the editing process. Its possible Abrams may have cut the Force ghost scenes for time, or even to help the flow and pacing of Episode IX. We wont really know for sure if the Force ghosts made it into the film until its release in December, but whatever the reason for their potential removal, China is not to blame.
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker hits theaters December 20, 2019.
Go here to read the rest:
China Star Wars censorship: Why the rumors aren't true - Inverse
Posted: at 9:46 am
A defamation suit from Mossack Fonseca is thrown out of Connecticut court on the eve of the release of the Steven Soderbergh film.
The law firm of Mossack Fonseca was no more successful in attempting to halt Netflix's release of The Laundromat as they were three years ago in attempting to lock down more than 11 million of the firm's documents. Just before the Steven Soderbergh film began streaming on Friday, a federal judge decided thatMossack Fonseca had no business bringing a defamation and trademark suit over the movie in Connecticut court.
The 2016 leak of documents belonging to Mossack Fonseca known by the "Panama Papers" revealed how the world's powerful attempted to shelter their money. The scandal inspiredThe Laundromat, which stars Meryl Streep investigating the death of her husband and discovering the firm's allegedly shady dealings.
Earlier this week, Jrgen Mossack (played by Gary Oldman) and Ramn Fonseca (Antonio Banderas) filed suit over the film. They claimedThe Laundromatfalsely cast them as criminals and illicitly used the firm's logos. As American prosecutors continue to investigate associates and clients of Mossack Fonseca, the two named partners at the firm sought to stop distribution with concern that the movie's release could shape public opinion and potentially interfere with their rights to a fair trial should they ever be arrested.
In response, Netflix called the suit "laughable," and an "affront to established First Amendment principles," but the move from the streaming giant that most immediately dodged a requested restraining order was bringing a jurisdictional challenge.
On Thursday night, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Arterton recognized that neither of the parties had much connection withConnecticut and that the plaintiff hadn't sufficiently established why the state's long-arm statute provided cause to adjudicate the dispute there. As such, the case was transferred to California.
Here's the full order.
Netflix was pleased by the ruling and used the firm's failed censorship attempt as an opportunity to promote the film.
Said a spokesperson, "This lawsuit was a frivolous legal stunt designed to censor creative expression. Steven Soderberghs film tells an important story about the exploitation of innocent people and the misuse of the worlds financial system. Fortunately, you can now watch The Laundromat the film that Mossack and Fonesca tried to censor on Netflix.
Read more from the original source:
Netflix Dodges Bid to Halt Release of 'The Laundromat' - Hollywood Reporter
Posted: at 9:46 am
The I&B ministry is mulling censorship regulations, according to a government official
Will this be a huge, expensive and time-consuming exercise for the Indian OTT players?
Karnataka High Court has asked the ministry to speed up the action on online content regulations
India is thinking of potential censorship on OTT streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, a senior government official was quoted as saying by Reuters. In the report, the official stated that the film and TV certification bodies are already moderating content, but this is happening in an uneven manner. The government could look to create same rules for all content whether digital or non-digital.
While most OTT players have agreed to self-moderate content, some political groups are not quite satisfied with this. Many have called for censorship of OTT platforms in India similar to the censor board for broadcast video and movies.
The self-regulation isnt the same for all, which is raising a concern. The directions are clear, we have to see how to address the problems.
When it comes to online streaming platforms there are no laws for censorship of content. The government is looking at this seriously, as several court cases and complaints had been filed to the police in recent months, alleging that some content is obscene or insulted religious sentiment, said the government official.
Show such as Netflixs Indian original series Leila and Sacred Games have come under the scanner from some groups in India and are facing court challenges over alleged offensive content and insulting remarks. Amazon Prime Videos original series such as Mirzapur and The Family Man have also raised similar concerns.
To put an end to this, the government might come up with a new set of regulations or measures, which means platforms might need to obtain content approval before making it live for viewers. In other cases, the content might be certified similar to how its done for movies screened in cinema halls and on TV. The government also showed its concern about disparity in how some content appearing on these streaming platforms, such as smoking and drinking scenes shown on Amazon or Netflix in India, do not carry the mandatory anti-tobacco and health warnings.
The increased use of mobile data and smartphones has elevated the popularity of on-demand video streaming service more than ever. According to a report by PwC, India is estimated to be a top 10 global OTT market by 2022 with projected market size of over $803 Mn (INR 5,500 Cr).
The ministry of information and broadcasting recently had planned to roll out certification for online OTT content. The I&B ministry along with the ministry for electronics and information technology (MEITy) had held a meeting with stakeholders to discuss regulating and certifying of online content, and this is where one of the biggest OTT platform Amazon Prime did not sign the petition and urged the other providers to refrain as well.
Further, the Karnataka High Court has also asked the government to speed up the action on online content. The video streaming OTT platforms that are under the radar include Hotstar, Voot, Zee5, Arre, SonyLIV, ALTBalaji, JioTV, Amazon Prime, Netflix, Eros Now and others.
Posted: at 9:44 am
A day after saying the White House press corps ought to be eliminated, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich co-hosted The View, where he and his fellow panelists collided over President Donald Trumps lynching tweet.
Gingrich is currently making the rounds to promote his new book, Trump vs. China: Facing Americas Greatest Threat, and after telling CBS there wouldnt be a White House press corps in the White House if he had his way, he took his media tour to ABC. Sure enough, things started off with a bang when Whoopi Goldberg asked Gingrich to respond to how Trump is likening impeachment a Constitutional process to lynching.
Its a word that nobody, you know, wants to hear, Goldberg said. This was not a good choice of words for him, do you think?
Gingrich defended Trump by comparing him to Clarance Thomas, who claimed he experienced a lynching when he was investigated during his Supreme Court confirmation process. The former speaker continued to excuse Trump by saying hes deeply frustrated by how he has been beaten up and investigated since the start of his presidency.
But doesnt he bring a lot of that on himself? Abby Huntsman asked, to which, Gingrich shrugged and said sure.
Listen, Newt, Golberg interjected as she jumped back in the conversation. When a giant six-foot white guy says Im being lynched here, you understand why its a little bit like, listen man, youre not being lynched here, you are being held to the standard were supposed to be holding every president to.
Gingrich continued to be pressed on the subject, with Sunny Hostin noting that his Trump-Thomas comparison is faulty since Thomas is black.
Im going to be very politically incorrect, Gingrich eventually said, pivoting. Most of the early American movies on lynching were about lynching white people.
Gingrich eventually acknowledged Goldbergs point that it wasnt appropriate for Trump to use the term, and he often uses words more clumsily than he should.
Ive been comfortable just calling it a witch hunt and a Kangaroo court and things like that, he said. I havent gone up to that next level.
Watch above, via ABC.
Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]
Posted: at 9:44 am
Meghan Daums The Problem With Everything. Simon and Schuster
Ive never been more afraid of writing a book, essayist Meghan Daum says in the self-aggrandizing introduction to The Problem With Everything. Ive never been more certain I had to. Subtitled My Journey Through the New Culture Wars, the best that can be said about Daums meandering tract is that its breezy, conversational tone goes down quick and easy. The worst that can be said is that it reads like a late-in-life coming-of-age story in which this straight, cis-gendered, able-bodied, (mostly) heterenormative white chick giggles whilst unloading politically incorrect knowledge-bombs on her New York peers.
Its not as if I didnt find myself nodding in agreement here or there; Daums book of essays isnt as willfully stupid as Bret Easton Ellis latest, even if their fed-up, cranky politics do dovetail at points. There should be room for uncomfortable conversations about whether the #MeToo movement has overstepped itself, or whether we need to tap the brakes on certain aspects of woke culture. But Daum, despite her own confidence, never steps up and proves why the world so needed this bookrather than a simple list of hyperlinks to the more robust Salon and New Yorker articles that informed it.
SEE ALSO: A Few Good Reasons Not to Read Bret Easton Ellis New Book, White
The Problem With Everything is at its weakest when it gets personal, when Daum weaves memoir into her retread of the recent sagas of Brett Kavanaugh, Aziz Ansari, Title IX debates, the outrage over whether women boarding a United Airlines flight were allowed to wear leggings, the overuse of the word badass in empowerment literature, etc. She positions herself as a proud representative of Gen X who has little or no patience for a younger cohort of feminists, especially the sort who are very online.
Conveniently, her targets are all straw(wo)men and caricaturesloony Social Justice Warriors who wear I DRINK MALE TEARS t-shirts while slaying on Twitter. Daum is the Amy Klobuchar of cultural critics: sane defender of the proud center. And certainly she is entitled to her opinions on sexism, racism and whatever else, it would just be nice if they were more enlightening; I swear Ive heard more eye-opening takes on some of these issues on an episode of Law & Order: SVU, or over the course of any five minutes of Dear White People.
Meghan Daum. Simon and Schuster
Often, the anecdotes sprinkled throughout the book are intended to convey a specific message: Men have always been pigs, but women havent always been so wilted and wounded over it. In 1995, our mandate was to laugh it out of the room, she says, of chauvinism. Todays young feminists, Daum wants us to believe, are all snowflakes masquerading as badasses. (Speaking of Ellis, its surprising that Daum doesnt borrow his lame coinageGeneration Wussto describe the fragile millennials shes so bored of.) By Daums account, previous decades knew how to handle it if some middle-aged clown decided to whip his cock out by the Xerox machinea scenario she borrows from the political novel Primary Colors. Daum measures the youngs and finds them lacking, insufficiently awed by toughness, a generation of oversized kids who refuse to be shamed by vulnerability.
Maybe its my natural temperament (and maybe this is proof that my temperament is fundamentally narcissistic) but theres no one Id rather blame for my misfortunes than myself, she writes, as if stumping for a keynote gig with Turning Point USA. Personal responsibility trumps victim culture, because it makes you strong: Its almost as if blaming myself strips the men of their power by rendering them too insignificant to even gripe about. This is how Daums friend reacted, circa the mid-90s, when she was working on Wall Street and a male colleague masturbated on her desk in the middle of the night (or, in the authors oddly delighted rendering, liquidated his holdings all over it.) This friend didnt call the police, or HR; she felt bad for the creep, spoke of him almost with an air of pity.
So to recap: Millennials are doomed in their brittleness; identity politics will destroy the left; Pussy Hats were lame; feminists say fuck too much; and Meghan DaumIm just guessing hereis the type of liberal who would have voted for Obama a third time but maybe wants to hear what the Charles Murray crowd has to say about evolutionary psychology on some edgy podcast. The breakdown of Daums marriage, and her relocation to New York, forms the background to a now-familiar narrative arc: Self-proclaimed NPR liberal has her eyes opened by the intellectual dark web; spends a lot of time online, alone, streaming YouTube videos. Theres something low-level sad about the Come to Jesus moment she has when these new friends enter her life, ready to battle against what Daum smugly dubs the wokescenti: John McWhorter, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, the shining stars of her beloved Free Speech YouTube.
Is Daum correct in asserting that liberals and leftists can be mired in a sticky groupthink in the age of Trump? Sure. But even when Daum makes a sensible point, she never justifies the apparent necessity of The Problem With Everything, which merely collects and annotates conversations that are still ongoing. She wants to cast herself as a minor martyr, daring to speak truth to powertruths like the fact that well-meaning white people, behind closed doors, dont always love Ta-Nehisi Coates as much as they claim to. Stop the presses! Her emphasis on the personal journey here is the real problem. Daums not an insightful guide, and her conversion story is a clich that shes mistaken for something singular. She calls this book an extended rumination, which is perhaps a fancy word for a self-righteous, 221-page Twitter thread. In which case: Unfollow.
See the original post here:
The Problem With Meghan Daums The Problem With Everything - Observer