The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: January 2022
Sensitive Words: Top 10 Censored Terms of 2021 – China Digital Times
Posted: January 17, 2022 at 9:02 am
CDT Editors Note: As we enter 2022, CDT has compiled a special series of features for our readers, offering a look back at the people, events, controversies, memes and sensitive words that defined the past year. Some of this content is drawn from the CDT Chinese teams year-end series, with additional content added by the CDT English team. We hope that CDT readers will enjoy this look back at the busy, complex and fascinating year that was 2021.
We started with the CDT editors picks for favorite CDT posts and writing on China in 2021, CDT English top ten most-read posts of 2021, the Chinese internets top ten memes of 2021, and a look back at some of the civil society groups, bloggers, and media outlets that said goodbye in 2021. The following is a translation and contextualization of CDT Chineses Top 10 Censored Words of 2021.
1. Sprinkle Pepper
Related censored terms: indiscriminately + sprinkling pepper
February 25 was Xi Jinpings big day to celebrate Chinas triumph over poverty. But as he read out his florid victory speech, he flubbed one of his lines. Describing the governments poverty alleviation work, he read that we stress fact-based guidance and strict rules, not flowery fists and fancy footwork, red tape and excessive formality, and performative going-through-the-motions, and we resolutely oppose indiscriminately sprinkling pepper.
His long pause and the contrived earthiness of the phrase, which Xi uses to describe ineffectual work, offered rich fodder for those who suspect that Xis two Tsinghua University degrees (awarded under dubious circumstances) simply paper over his lack of formal education. He has stumbled over complex, and not so complex, phrases a number of times in the past. In 2016, CDT published two leaked censorship directives on a case in which Xi misread lenient to farmers as loosen clothing.
Censors immediately aimed to mute discussion of the pepper-sprinkling verbal blunder. The word pepper was completely censored on Weibo for eight days after the speech, and searches for video of the speech returned no results. The word remains sensitive today: posting sprinkle pepper on Weibo can result in deletion of the offending account. Former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle once incorrectly instructed an elementary school student to spell potato with an appended e, eliciting widespread mockery across the United States, but no censorship.
2. Nomadland
Related censored terms: Nomadland + release date/cancelled release, Nomadland / Chloe Zhao + humiliate China, Nomadland + block, cancel + Oscar , 93rd + Oscar Awards, Oscar + live stream + cancel, Chloe Zhao + Oscar, Nomadland + Oscar, Oscar for Best Director
When Chlo Zhao won Best Director at the 2021 Academy Awards for her film Nomadland, nobody in China, the country of her birth, was watchingat least not via officially sanctioned media. Coverage of her historic achievement was blacked out after nationalist commentators dug up a 2013 interview in which Zhao said China was a place where there are lies everywhere. Her namealong with the terms Nomadland, Oscar, and Best Directorwere all censored. Millions still found a way to watch and discuss through the adoption of code words like Settled Sky, an inversion of the films Chinese title.
Zhaos other films also seem to be banned in China. A Marvel film she directed, Eternals, never aired in China, although other possible factors in that decision include state-approved homophobiathe film shows a kiss between a male superhero and his husband. Other Hollywood personages with family ties to China have been subject to similar political scrutiny. An encore of the Zhao controversy engulfed Canadian actor Simu Liu after nationalists posted screenshots of an interview in which he recalled that his parents memories of growing up in China included stories of people dying from starvation.
3. Support Xinjiang People
Related censored terms: support + Xinjiang People, Support + Uyghurs, support + Uy people
In March, the Communist Youth League set Weibo afire when it accused Swedish fast-fashion brand H&M of lying about labor abuses in Xinjiangs cotton industry, and actively encouraged Chinese citizens to boycott H&M products. Amidst the sound and fury of nationalist support for Xinjiang cotton, some Chinese citizens spoke out in support of the people of Xinjiang: Dont just support Xinjiang cotton, support Xinjiang people! Support allowing them to stay in hotels, support them traveling abroad, support them finding work, support them walking down the street without having their phones & IDs checked. Those posts were quickly censored. But as the government fanned the flames of the boycotts, many netizens began to ask, What is really going on in Xinjiang?
The censored Weibo posts are an indication that international condemnation of Chinas human rights violations in Xinjiang may be capable of influencing Chinese public opinion, despite the Chinese governments assertions to the contrary. In the meantime, nationalistic boycotts over Xinjiang continue. The latest targets are Intel and Walmart.
4. Accelerationism
Related censored terms: China + accelerationism, Accelerator-in-Chief ()
From China Digital Space:
The concept that Xi Jinping is hastening the demise of the Chinese Communist Party by doubling down on his authoritarian rule, often referenced by the mock-title Accelerator-in-Chief. In its original sense, accelerationism holds that strengthening the growth of the techno-capitalist state, not resistance to it, will bring sweeping social change. While [the term] jiasuzhuyi is used satirically, in the West this fringe political theory has become closely tied to white supremacist groups, which hold that violence and discord will topple the current political order and pave the way for their vision of the future. [Source]
There was a brief moment on Baidu when searches for Accelerator-in-Chief returned results for Xi Jinping, but that is no longer the case. Bot accounts, the famed internet water army, have flooded Twitter with Chinese-language posts connecting accelerationism to America. These patently inorganic posts seem designed to drown out criticism of Xi in Chinese-language spaces on the global internet:
5. Guonan
Related censored terms: married ass, little dick, little dock
Guonan, a homophone for national male formed from characters that share a radical with maggot and cockroach, is a derogatory term for Chinese men. The term is used by some radical feminists to criticize what they see as pervasive chauvinism in Chinese society. A similar term exists for women in traditional heterosexual marriages: married asses. Censorship of guonan and related terms increased after Xinhuas May 31 announcement, The Three-Child Policy Is Here, which raised fears of another round of invasive government involvement in womens reproductive choices. The censorship of guonan seems mild in comparison to the mass shuttering of feminist groups and the arrest of #MeToo journalists. Even less overtly political expressions of feminism can be grounds for official censure. When the comic Yang Li posed the question, How can he look so average and still have so much confidence? she was accused of inciting gender oppositionwhich Weibo now uses as grounds for censorship.CDT was also accused of this by Global Times in December.
6. Liedownism
Related censored terms: involution, Luo Huazhong
Lying down is not acceptable, according to state media. In an effort to escape the perceived involution of Chinese society, Chinese youth are lying downmuch to the chagrin of the Chinese government. The Cyberspace Administration of China mandated that products branded with lie down, liedownism, involution and the like be removed from e-commerce sites. Yet the art of liedownism slouches on: an image of the actor Ge You reclining on a sofa has become a popular meme, even making the list of CDT Chineses Top Ten Memes of 2021.
7. Zhang Xianzhong
Related censored terms: Zhang Xianzhong, Xianzhongology, Xianzhong gist, Xianzhong, Xianzhong incident, Xianzhong behavior, everywhere Xianzhong, no different from Xianzhong
A 17th-century rebel famous for slaughter so indiscriminate that he left Sichuan depopulated centuries later is perhaps an unlikely candidate for a memenonetheless, Zhang Xianzhong has become one online. His name has become a stand-in for two unrelated topics: the mass deaths that followed Maos Great Leap Forward and other fanatical Communist policies; and those who take revenge against society by following Zhangs (likely apocryphal) injunction to Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. In a famous recent case, an impoverished man in rural Fujian murdered his wealthy neighbors, with whom he had a long-running property dispute, and then fled into the mountains. Despite his grisly crime, his plight garnered widespread sympathy, and a few even expressed admiration: If the dead and injured were from the village tyrants family, then Id admire this Ou guy for being a real man. The now-suspended WeChat account @ sought to explain the attitude underpinning the Chinese internets adoption of Zhang Xianzhong as an anti-hero: The bottom rung of society is like a stagnant pond that grows more suffocating by the day. People are on their last nerve, and theyre feeling desperate. Thats why they want someoneanyone, for whatever reasonto show up and destroy the social order, to smash everything, and to hell with the consequences, so that they can vent their outrage.
8. Zhao Wei
Related censored terms: evil-doing artist, Henry Huo, Kris Wu, Zheng Shuang, Fan Bingbing
A profound transformation is underway in Chinas entertainment industry. The government has cracked down on both celebrity behavior and fandoms. Zhao Wei was erased from the internet for reasons that remain unclearperhaps due to her connection with former Alibaba CEO Jack Ma. CDT Chinese created a chart of the most sensitive celebrities and the extent to which they are censored across Chinas largest video platforms: red=total censorship, yellow=targeted censorship, green=uncensored.
The top row lists artists (from left to right) and their reported offenses: Zhao Wei (offense unknown), Henry Hou (serial cheater), Kris Wu (rape), Zheng Shuang (surrogacy and tax evasion), Fan Bingbing (tax evasion). The left column list the various platforms (from top to bottom): iQIYI, Youku, Tencent Video, Mango TV, Migu Video, Bilibili, Douban
9. Fragile
Related censored terms: Wee Meng Chee, Kimberley Chen + Fragile, Fragile + humiliate China
It is not difficult to understand why Fragile, by Namewee (Wee Meng Chee) and Kimberly Chen, was banned in China. The lyrics mock Xi Jinping, little pinks and their love of saying your mom is dead (NMSL), the ban on Taiwanese pineapples, and all the rest. The song is so sensitive that even criticizing it brings on censorship:
Even this Weibo post calling Namewee a bastard is censored
Namewee, meanwhile, has reportedly struck it rich by selling non-fungible tokens (NFTs) tied to the song.
10. Peng Shuai
Related censored terms: Peng Shuai, ps, Eddie Peng + Shuai, Pu Shu, Vice Premier Peng, Peng Dehuai, Zhang Gaoli, Usury Zhang, Gaoli, zgl, Zhuge Liang, Kang Jie, State Council vice premier, melon, eat melon, big melon, jumbo melon, tennis, The Prime Minister and I, Diamond Cup, Yibin Guesthouse, Womens Tennis Association, WTA, tennis association + leave/stop/suspend, Womens Tableless Ping Pong Association, Steve Simon
On November 2, in a Weibo post on her personal account, Peng Shuai accused former Standing Politburo Committee member Zhang Gaoli of sexual assault. Before an hour had passed, her accusation was deleted. A scorched-earth campaign of censorship followed. Peng herself also disappeared from public view, sparking an international outcry that eventually led to her forced reappearance. The fallout inspired the Womens Tennis Association (or the Womens Tableless Ping Pong Association, as one censorship-dodging Weibo user dubbed the WTA) to suspend all future tournaments in China. The breadth and intensity of the censorship of Pengs accusation is unmatched by any other event this year.
Read more from the original source:
Sensitive Words: Top 10 Censored Terms of 2021 - China Digital Times
Posted in Censorship
Comments Off on Sensitive Words: Top 10 Censored Terms of 2021 – China Digital Times
This year, Russia’s internet crackdown will be even worse – Atlantic Council
Posted: at 9:02 am
When Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law in 2019 allowing the state to isolate the internet within Russia in the event of a security incident, international media outlets extensively covered the development, with many (incorrectly) likening it to Chinas Great Firewall. The spotlight quickly swiveled back to Beijings grip on online content and dataeven though a Kremlin campaign continues to ratchet up pressure on US technology giants, and could soon create a disruptive playbook for other states.
While Moscow made headlines after throttling Twitter and coercing Google and Apple into censoring opposition leader Alexei Navalnys election app last year, Western media coverage of internet repression and security threats still tends to focus on China. This penchant persists despite Russian developments that impinge on both the internet ecosystem and human rights in the countryand which constitute broader cyber threats and efforts to undermine the global internet.
In no small part, this pattern stems from the fact that Russian state control of the internet differs from that in China: It relies less on technical measures and more on traditional, offline mechanisms of coercion such as harassment, intimidation, and vague and inconsistently enforced speech laws. Notably, Russias domestic efforts to control the internet quite closely parallel its efforts overseas to shape information and to both weaponize the internet and undermine its global nature.
As the world watches Putins moves in and around Ukraine, these developmentswhile of course not comparable to the possibility of large-scale armed conflictare worthy of attention, given their impact on the Russian cyber and internet landscape more broadly.
The more the Kremlin cements its control over the internet, the more it can potentially suppress dissent and control information and data flows at home. And the more it slowly works on implementing the domestic internet law, the more it centralizes its control of the architecture of the internet in Russiawhich could also affect Russian cyber behavior abroad, such as by encouraging more assertive operations against global internet infrastructure. Though US policy debates often separate Russian internet governance and technology policy at home from Russian cyber behavior abroad, there is actually great interdependence and entanglement between the two.
As the Kremlin demonstrates and further develops a model of internet and information control that appeals to states without Chinas technical capacity, Moscows techniques may portend the future of internet repression elsewhere. Several recent, but largely overlooked, developments signal that the Kremlin may crack down on the internet more than ever in 2022while US tech companies and the US government increasingly have little room to push back.
Last year was a stifling one for Russian internet freedom. When citizens took to the streets to protest state corruption and the Kremlins jailing of Navalny, the government sent censorship orders to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, VKontakte (Russias leading social network, also known as VK), and other domestic and foreign tech firms. Many caved and removed protest-related content. When Twitter refused to comply, the government leveraged newly deployed deep packet inspection capabilities to throttle it from within Russia. That was only partly successful, as many other websites were inadvertently affected by the traffic slowdown, but it still demonstrated to foreign technology firms that Moscow was expanding its censorship capabilitieswhich it also threatened to use again as desired.
The crackdowns hardly ended there. The government demanded that foreign tech companies set up local offices in Russia, and the Foreign Ministry called in the US ambassador to complain that US tech firms were not complying with the Kremlins censorship ordersdecrying the companies behavior as election interference and describing them as tools of the American state. The government blocked access to the website for TOR (short for the Onion Router), an anonymizing browser often used to bypass government restrictions when surfing the web. It also blocked access to six major virtual private network (VPN) websites, where citizens were accessing software to circumvent online censorship; set up a registry to track tech company compliance with censorship orders; blocked many other websites, including those for Navalnys campaign; and used its foreign agents designation to crack down on numerous online media.
As more and more Russians get their news from social media, and as internet mobilization and outreach become more important to protesters and opposition figures, the states crackdown on the web means citizens will have an even harder time accessing and sharing news that criticizes (or merely reflects poorly on) the Putin regime.
Several recent developmentsincluding official pressure on Google, the expansion of domestic software and a push for domestic internet, as well as local office requirements for tech firmsillustrate how both economic and security motivations drive Russias new campaign to control and shape the domestic internet environment. They also underscore just how wide-ranging this campaign is.
In September, when Apple and Google refused to delete Navalnys election app from their platforms, the Russian government threatened their employees in Russia and sent armed thugs to Googles Moscow office; both companies then removed the app. Since then, the State Duma (Russias lower house of parliament) met with Google to issue even more demands (for example, edit Google Maps in Russia to show illegally annexed Crimea as part of Russia), while a Moscow court fined it $40,400 for not removing content the Kremlin deemed illegalthen fined it a record $98.4 million for not complying with state censorship orders. Google was targeted again just last month, when another Moscow court upheld a ruling from last April that found Google-owned YouTube must restore the account for Tsargrad, the TV channel owned by sanctioned Putin ally and oligarch Konstantin Malofeev. Though unsurprising, the ruling nonetheless gives the state another reason to increase its pressure on Google.
Meanwhile, a recently published BBC analysis found that between 2011 and 2020, the Russian government had filed more than 123,000 individual requests to Google search or YouTube to delete contentmany times more than the number issued by Turkey (14,000), India (9,800), the United States (9,600), Brazil (8,000), Israel (2,000), or China (1,200). Moscow continued issuing those censorship orders in 2021, mostly focused on removing content related to Navalny. The Russian governments commitment to fining Google a percentage of its annual revenue in Russia for not removing content signals increased Kremlin frustration at Google not bending the knee and suggests the pressure will ramp up even further.
Google matters as a stand-alone issue here because YouTube is the most widely used social media platform in Russia. It also provides cloud and other services to Russian citizens, while opposition leaders have used Google services as wellsuch as when the Navalny campaign used Google Docs to share a list of opposition candidates. Moreover, how the Kremlin treats Google, and its mixed record of compliance with the Russian government, could foreshadow how the state will treat other foreign tech companies facing similar demands.
The Russian government has increasingly been pushing the development and use of domestic software. Driven by economic and security factors, Russia aims to replace Western software with its Russian versions where possible. (However, if forced to choose between those two considerations, security would likely win out: While the Russian government doesnt want to undermine the operations of Russian tech firms, the Putin regime has demonstrated increasing concern about Western espionage through Western technologies.)
Moscow has been making this push on multiple fronts. For one, it has been updating its domestic software registry, established in 2015, which lists government-approved software that state bodies and companies should use when replacing foreign software. It also implemented a law requiring that smartphones, laptops, smart TVs, and many other consumer devices sold in Russia have state-approved, Russian software preinstalled. This is primarily economically drivena way to theoretically give domestic firms a leg up against foreign software developers and big US tech companiesbut security factors (like Moscow wanting to secure backdoor access to Russian phones) may play a role as well.
The Russian government also updated its tax incentives for domestic technology production, making Russian companies with at least seven employees and 90 percent or more of their revenue from information technology (IT) eligible for reductions in their social security and corporate profit taxes. Given broader issues in Russian tech production (such as the quality of domestic hardware and the brain drain of IT talent to foreign countries), the effectiveness of this initiative seems questionable.
Overall, there has been mixed success in Moscows push to develop domestic tech. While some Russian companies have made small gains as Western technology is expelled from government and business systems, in many cases Chinese firms take slightly more market share in Russia. Chinese telecom company Huawei Technologies, for instance, has played into Kremlin fears of Western espionage to accelerate expansion in Russia.
It remains to be seen whether Russias increased use of domestic software will better protect the state against espionage or end up undermining the cybersecurity of Russian citizens and the Russian internet ecosystem.
On January 1, a new law came into effect requiring any foreign internet company with five hundred thousand daily Russian users to open an office in Russia. This is a blatant tool of coercion which fits neatly into the Russian governments internet control model. Technical measures play a part, but traditional forms of physical, offline coercionsuch as stalking and intimidation by the security services, including the Federal Security Service (or FSB, the KGBs successor) in the digital sphereare a means of scaring citizens, keeping tech firms in check, expanding surveillance, and generally controlling the shape of internet conversation.
The Kremlin demonstrated the power of this tool when it sent armed, masked thugs to Googles Moscow office: When a company has employees on the ground, those are people who can be stalked, harassed, intimidated, threatened, jailed, or even killed. As of a few months ago, Google and Apple had complied with the local-office law; other major companies with users in Russia, such as Facebook and Twitter, have not.
Russian authorities have said they will not begin fining companies immediately for noncompliance if they demonstrate they are working on setting up an office. The list of companies which are required to open offices is notable: Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, Zoom, Pinterest, and Spotify. It will be key to watch if they complyand whether doing so would create any new legal or jurisdictional challenges amid any Kremlin censorship or data-access requests.
In December 2021, a law came into effect mandating that only Russian entities can own cross-border communications lines. While many telephone and internet cable systems in Russia are already owned by Russian entities (and, often, by state-owned firms such as Rostelecom), its unclear what this means for the undersea cables that link the Russian internet to the global internet and are owned by multiple companies, some of them foreign.
The government also set up a registry of autonomous systems (routing internet traffic) that would be critical to the operation of the planned domestic internet, as well as mandated that internet providers work on countering Kremlin-defined threats on their networks.
In short, the Russian government continued building out components of the domestic internet law this year and has slowly started centralizing control over internet infrastructure in Russia.
While its a very different internet and political environment, Western tech companies are at least generally familiar with a similar story in China: Companies wanted to enter the market and remain in the country to provide services and make moneyyet they all reached a point at which the Chinese government was cracking down harder on the internet, and at which compliance with Beijings demands was simply too much. Many US tech companies exited the market, or at least closed their local offices. The Russian government has far less technology leverage than Chinas vis--vis market size and power, as well as its chokehold on the global tech supply chain; but it has also demonstrated a considerable willingness to use outright force against foreign companies.
The Kremlins escalating pressure on Google portends a growing intolerance of Western technology companies that dont comply with its demands. Importantly, the states will and ability to crack down will not apply equally or identically to all firms. Twitter, for instance, has been resisting the Russian governments local office requirementwhich meant the Kremlin had no Twitter employees in Russia to threaten when it wanted the company to censor protest content in March 2021. Still, companies are likely to face even more Kremlin pressure in 2022, and there is increasingly little that they can do to push back.
Filing appeals in the Russian courts is not a viable option, nor is looking for market leverage to negotiate with Russian officials. The US government is likewise in a tricky position, because any efforts to support Internet freedom in Russia will only exacerbate Moscows accusations, as conspiratorial and deluded as they are, that the internet and US tech firms are tools of the CIA and American subversion. If the Russian pressure campaign on tech companies ramps up further, as appears highly likely this year, it may prompt some (especially smaller) foreign tech companies to contemplate exiting the market altogether.
Many factors will influence whether and how the Kremlin will act, including traditional political considerations. Tech-company actions or inactions that intersect with high-priority issue areas for the Russian government, such as election opposition and mass demonstrations, are likely to continue receiving Kremlin attention (and therefore more coercive force). Conversely, it remains to be seen if historically lower-priority areas, such as enforcing Russias 2015 data-localization law, will get any more buy-in amid the domestic internet push.
Website or platform popularity and the reach of particular content may also be factors in the Kremlins response. YouTube, for instance, is the most widely used social media platform in Russia (with 85.4 percent penetration versus VKs 78 percent penetration), whereas Twitter is much less popular among Russians. Even if Russian tech companies can functionally operate without YouTube in the Russian market, a severe crackdown on it would still be a serious decision given the platforms immense popularity with Russians.
Notably, this campaign marks a departure from years past, when laws were enacted (such as on encryption, source code inspections, or data localization), but not necessarily enforced with high-level political buy-in. So while the pressure now seems like a means for the Kremlin to achieve compliance with its wishes, there is no guarantee it will stop there. Companies may find themselves facing a regime willing to use these tools for outright punishment as well.
Justin Sherman is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Councils Cyber Statecraft Initiative. Follow him on Twitter: @jshermcyber
Wed, Jan 12, 2022
UkraineAlertByHarley Balzer
While Russia has attempted to reduce its dependence on the SWIFT payment system, it remains vulnerable to a sanctions cut-off in the event of a new Kremlin offensive in Putin's eight-year undeclared war against Ukraine.
Image: Russians attend a rally to protest against tightening state control over internet in Moscow, Russia, on March 10, 2019. Photo by Shamil Zhumatov/REUTERS
More here:
This year, Russia's internet crackdown will be even worse - Atlantic Council
Posted in Censorship
Comments Off on This year, Russia’s internet crackdown will be even worse – Atlantic Council
‘Gonnae no dae that’: ‘Woke’ BBC responds to criticism for censoring Chewin’ The Fat – HeraldScotland
Posted: at 9:02 am
The BBC has responded to criticism over editing some scenes of the legendary comedy show Chewin'' the Fat so that they do not offend modern audiences.
The hit BBC Scotland comedy series has been re-edited for repeat showing which are occasionally broadcast on the BBC Scotland channel.
The public broadcaster confirmed they edit every episode before they put it on the air, and this involves them removing some of the more risque sketches.
Chewin The Fat launched the careers of Ford Kiernan and Greg Hemphill who went on to write the sitcom Still Game.
Co-star Karen Dunbar discovered that the show had fallen foul of the censors while filming a new documentary on comedy in todays woke world.
She was shown how decisions were made on what to cut from the show before a repeat was broadcast last year.
Chewin The Fat started out as a radio show on BBC Radio Scotland and later ran for four series on television between 1999 and 2002, initially on BBC One Scotland. Favourites from the sketch show included the Big Man, Ronald Villiers and the woman who can smell "s***e," or a lie, from miles away.
It also featured characters such as Dunbars randy Auld Betty, the chain-smoking family who use voice boxes. It also features an infamous scene involving an female ice-cream van worker lifting her skirt up to two young boys.
Some of the material deemed unacceptable will be revealed in the documentary Karen Dunbar: The Comedy of Offence which is set to be broadcast later this year.
In the wake of the controversy, the BBC responded: The BBC regularly reviews older content to ensure it meets current audience expectations. This is part of our process when repeating archive content including comedy.
Scots comedian Leo Kearse, who appeared in the documentary, criticised the cuts and called on the BBC to stop censoring art.
"He said: "Now they're editing Chewin' The Fat - a fun, apolitical, good hearted comedy - in case it offends modern sensibilities. Would we put a mullet on the Mona Lisa or a Banksy over the Sistine Chapel?"
Ms Dunbar told the Cultural Coven podcast: The week we went down [to London for the documentary] Chewin' The Fat was going to be repeated at the weekend so they brought up sketches and they were asking me if I thought it was going to be kept or cancelled.
The BBC review every repeat that goes out and will take out the bits that arent acceptable today. The result of that was Chewin The Fat went out on the Saturday but it went out with bits taken out of it that would have been in the original 20 years before it.
Series three and four of Chewin' the Fat plus highlights from the first two series have been broadcast across the UK. The show has been regularly repeated on the BBC Scotland channel since it launched in 2019.
Last year, Mr Kiernan said that he did not think Chewin' The Fat would be made today because it would be deemed too offensive. He said: The likes of Karen pulling her skirt up I dont think you could do. We did get letters at the time and somebody wrote in and said As funny as the nation thought that sketch was, would that sketch work if it was two wee lassies at the van and it was a man? Me and Greg went No it wouldnt be as funny. So the point was made, Dont write any more sketches like that so we didnt. Another thing is dirty Auld Betty. You couldnt have her on the telly now.
Last year censors slapped an offensiveness warning on classic 'Allo 'Allo episodes in case viewers are upset by characters taking the rise out of French and German accents.
The BBC comedy, which ran from 1982 to 1992, coined a multitude of catchphrases that proved popular for decades.
The BBC have also attached an 'offensive language' warning on iPlayer episodes of classic prison sitcom Porridge.
Follow this link:
'Gonnae no dae that': 'Woke' BBC responds to criticism for censoring Chewin' The Fat - HeraldScotland
Posted in Censorship
Comments Off on ‘Gonnae no dae that’: ‘Woke’ BBC responds to criticism for censoring Chewin’ The Fat – HeraldScotland
Flawed diamonds may be the key to quantum internet – MINING.COM – MINING.com
Posted: at 9:02 am
Imagine trying to connect an Altair, an early personal computer developed in 1974, to the internet via WiFi. Its a difficult, but not impossible task. The two technologies speak different languages, so the first step is to help translate, the researchers said in a media statement.
Having noticed this issue, they decided to develop an interface approach to control the diamond nitrogen-vacancy centers in a way that allows direct translation to quantum devices.
To realize the quantum internet, a quantum interface is required to generate remote quantum entanglement by photons, which are a quantum communication medium, Hideo Kosaka, one of the studys authors, said.
According to Kosaka, the promised quantum internet is rooted in more than a centurys worth of work in which researchers determined that photons are both particles and waves of light simultaneouslyand that their wave state can reveal information about their particle state and vice versa.
More than that, the two states could influence each other: pinching the wave could bruise the particle, so to speak. Their very nature is entangled, even across vast distances. The aim is to control the entanglement to communicate discrete data instantaneously and securely, he said.
The scientist pointed out that previous research has demonstrated this controlled entanglement can be achieved by applying a magnetic field to the nitrogen-vacancy centers, but a non-magnetic field approach is needed to move closer to realizing the quantum internet.
His team successfully used microwave and light polarized waves to entangle an emitted photon and left spin qubits, the quantum equivalent of information bits in classical systems. These polarizations are waves that move perpendicular to the originating source, like seismic waves radiating out horizontally from a vertical fault shift. In quantum mechanics, the spin propertyeither right- or left-handedof the photon determines how the polarization moves, meaning it is predictable and controllable. Critically, according to Kosaka, when inducing entanglement via this property under a non-magnetic field, the connection appears steadfast against other variables.
The geometric nature of polarization allows us to generate remote quantum entanglement that is resilient to noise and timing errors, Kosaka said.
The researcher and his team now plan to combine this approach with a previously demonstrated quantum information transfer via teleportation to generate quantum entanglement, and the resulting exchange of information, between remote locations. The eventual goal is to facilitate a connected network of quantum computers to establish a quantum internet.
The realization of a quantum internet will enable quantum cryptography, distributed quantum computation and quantum sensing over long distances of more than 1,000 kilometers, the expert said.
See the original post:
Flawed diamonds may be the key to quantum internet - MINING.COM - MINING.com
Posted in Quantum Computing
Comments Off on Flawed diamonds may be the key to quantum internet – MINING.COM – MINING.com
GOP bill setting free speech rules, punishing colleges that violate them moves forward – Wisconsin Public Radio News
Posted: at 8:59 am
A bill aimed at punishing colleges and universities for violating free speech and academic freedom rules set by Republicans has passed a legislative committee by a party-line vote. This comes after a GOP author amended the legislation to remove provisions that were potentially unconstitutional.
The bill, introduced by state Rep. Rachel Cabral-Guevara, R-Appleton, and Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Greenville, bars technical colleges and universities from enforcing time, place or other restrictions on free speech events happening anywhere on campus except classrooms.
The legislation also requires colleges to survey students annually about First Amendment rights, academic freedom, whether they feel there is perceived political bias at their school or the "campus culture promotes self-censorship."
If anyone feels a college or university violated their rights, the bill allows them, a district attorney or state attorney general to sue the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents or a technical college district board. If a judge rules against a college, the court must award a minimum of $500 in damages and a maximum of $100,000 in damages to plaintiffs.
In addition to financial penalties, if a school violates the bill's regulations, it will be required to notify incoming students that it has "violated the free speech or academic freedom provisions in the Wisconsin statutes."
The bill passed by the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee on Thursday looked different from the original legislation introduced Dec. 2.
An amendment offered by Rep. Cabral-Guevara removed aspects that were potentially unconstitutional, including a provision that would have allowed legislative committees, like her own, to rule on alleged violations. The amendment also removed a proposal to block state grant funding for scholarships from going to schools found to have violated free speech rights.
Stay informed with WPR's email newsletter.
During a Dec. 8 public hearing on the bill, an attorney with the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council said lawmakers giving themselves judicial authority "very well could be subject to separation of powers issues" and that "it's kind of questionable" whether a legislative committee could restrict financial aid to colleges.
During a meeting of the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee on Thursday, Rep. Katrina Shankland, D-Stevens Point, said the legislation is unnecessary because First Amendment protections already exist at the federal and state level. She also pointed to a 2017 UW Board of Regents policy that punishes students for repeatedly violating free speech rights of others.
"So, at the end of the day, I do think at least some of the bill authors were more interested in putting forward a bill that was designed to be political and furnish political talking points during the year 2022, to which you can conclude pretty reasonably that it has more to do with outside the building politics than it certainly does within making laws," said Shankland.
Cabral-Guevara pushed back, saying the legislation is needed due to genuine concerns from constituents who said they feel campus environments stifle free speech rights of conservative students or teachers.
"I hope that students and instructors will have a platform in the future, no matter what side you stand on and where you stand, to speak freely their passions and their desires (and) their concerns on the campuses that are supported here in Wisconsin," said Cabral-Guevara.
State Rep. Clint Moses, R-Menomonie, said the majority of professors and instructors at state colleges are "great, great people."
"But there are some that are abusing their position where they're supposed to be encouraging free thought and open discussions," said Moses.
Read more from the original source:
GOP bill setting free speech rules, punishing colleges that violate them moves forward - Wisconsin Public Radio News
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on GOP bill setting free speech rules, punishing colleges that violate them moves forward – Wisconsin Public Radio News
Free speech, Whole Foods, and the endangered apolitical workplace | TheHill – The Hill
Posted: at 8:59 am
Jeff BezosJeffrey (Jeff) Preston BezosFree speech, Whole Foods, and the endangered apolitical workplace Space: One important thing that might retain bipartisan focus Virtual realities may solve Fermi's paradox about extraterrestrials MORE has always told his staff tostart with the customer and work backward. That could now change in a dispute betweenAmazon-owned Whole Foods and both Black Lives Matter and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). NLRB lawyers are arguing that Whole Foods must allow workers to wearBlack Lives Matter masks at work, suggesting in effect that Bezos should start with the worker and work forward by allowing them to advocate for social change. The company is arguing that such a rule would constitute a violation of its own free speech rights.
Whole Foods is fighting for the right to maintain a workplace free of political slogans or demonstrations.
In herconsolidated complaintagainst Whole Foods Market, Inc., San Francisco Regional Director Jill Coffman declared that the company is violating the rights of workers in 10 different states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Washington, Indiana, and California). Coffman maintained that through this complaint, we hope to enforce the Act and protect workers rights to speak up about these important issues.
The problem is that there are speech interests on both sides.
The complaint also highlights an increasingly incomprehensible position on corporate speech for many on the left. Democraticpoliticians(includingPresident Biden) have called for more censorship and interventions from social media corporations to protect customers from their owndangerous proclivities in reading material.When some of us have objected to such censorship,advocates have insistedthat these private companies have every right to limit speech under the First Amendment.Of course, the First Amendment argument in support of corporate censorship ignores that the amendment is not the exclusive measure of free speech. These companies, and their government supporters, have created the largest system of censorship in history and its impact on political and social speech is enormous.
Given that support for corporate censorship, you would think that Whole Foods would have support in limiting speech for its actual workers. Its not censoring its customers, but rather keeping the company neutral on political issues as customers shop for wild caught salmon or organic avocados.
Whole Foods, it seems, does not want to follow social media companies like Twitter and effectively write off whole groups within its customer base.
In claiming workers have the right "to speak up about these important issues, the NLRB complaint does not grapple with the obvious problem: Can employees wear "Blue Lives Matter" or pro-life or pro-choice masks? How about Proud Boy or MAGA masks?
This week, American Airlinesissued a public apologyfor a pilot who had aLets Go Brandonsticker on his personal luggage. If the pilot had a BLM sticker, would the NLRB consider it protected?
The NLRB complaint also does not state if workers can wear hats or other garments to proclaim political viewpoints. Some companies like McDonalds require actual uniforms. Would those uniforms now be subject to important messaging by workers or do companies like Whole Foods have to require actual uniforms to prevent divisive messaging?
Finally, if workers can wear items espousing political viewpoints, can they demonstrate in other ways? Can they say their piece or take a knee at Starbucks before handing over a doubleFrappuccino? The complaint really does not say. It just wants BLM masks to be protected but does not address the slippery slope that such a rule creates.
The fact is that many customers and companies may support the principle of black lives matter, but not the organization. Indeed, Whole Foods might object that BLM called upon customersto boycott Whole Foods and other "white-owned" businessesrecently. Others object to theMarxist viewsof some of the BLM founders, theanti-police rhetoric, or apparentquestioning the nuclear family.
The controversy raises obvious comparisons to the NFL controversy. While widely debated among fans and commentators,there was not a credible argument that players had a "right"to demonstrate at the workplace any more than Whole Foods workers could periodically demonstrate in the middle of the store on any political issue.
The Supreme Court has pushed back on federal agencies trying to regulate speech. In 2017, inMatal v. Tam,eight of nine justices rejected the use of the Lanham Act's disparagement clause to bar the trademarking of a name considered offensive. The question in the Whole Foods case is whether the government can require companies to allow speech deemed unacceptable or offensive.
Last February, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughsdismissedsuch a challenge involving a Whole Foods in Cambridge, Mass., after employees claimed that the company was selectively enforcing its dress code by banning "Black Lives Matter" face masks. In heropinion, Burroughs found that this long-standing policy was not strictly enforced until recently, including instances where employees wore "LGBTQ+ messaging, National Rifle Association (NRA) messaging, the anarchist symbol, the phrase 'Lock Him Up' and other non-Whole Foods messaging," including a SpongeBob SquarePants mask. The Court ruled that these allegations did not amount to race-based discrimination under Title VII and the law does not protect free speech in a private workplace.
The position of the NLRB would negate corporate policies requiring uniformity in appearance and apolitical workplace environments. Whole Foods wants customers to focus on produce, not politics. Employees can cover their cars with slogans and engage in any protests outside of work. However, Whole Foods has every right to dictate the appearance of its stores and staff.
There is an inescapable irony in targeting this corporation despite its$10 million in donations to social justicecauses and groups.The Whole Foods, Whole People, Whole Planet slogan highlights the common ground with its clientele. Of course, what constitutes good produce is not without some political elements. Whole Foods, for example, markets its selection of food fromindigenous groups and local farms. Those causes, however, are tied to how food is raised and where it comes from.
It is not surprising that the company wants to reinforce common interests in organic food rather than contemporary politics. It remains focused on produce-related causes.
What is surprising is that the NLRB would radically alter the right of companies to make such decisions in the appearance and messaging in the workplace.
That, of course, could change the minute an NLRB lawyer shows up wearing a MAGA hat.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.
See the original post here:
Free speech, Whole Foods, and the endangered apolitical workplace | TheHill - The Hill
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Free speech, Whole Foods, and the endangered apolitical workplace | TheHill – The Hill
Hate speech in the time of free speech – The Hindu
Posted: at 8:59 am
It is important that specific and durable legislative provisions be enacted to combat hate speech
The rising frequency of hate speech in India has not gone unnoticed. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition on the events organised by the Hindu Yuva Vahini in Delhi and by Yati Narsinghanand in Haridwar on December 17 and 19, 2021, respectively, wherein calls to violence were made against Muslims. But the laws dealing with hate speech are ineffective and deficient. So, the Supreme Court has been asked to review hate speech laws and various High Courts have been called upon to provide interpretation of ingredients of hate speech. The lack of clear legislative guidance has meant that we are seeing discordant judicial outcomes. Nevertheless, this growing incidence of hate speeches, especially those targeting minorities, in combination with the judicial ambiguity has provided an opportunity to chart legislative reforms.
Hate speech is neither defined in the Indian legal framework nor can it be easily reduced to a standard definition due to the myriad forms it can take. Blacks Law Dictionary has defined it as speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. Building on this, the Supreme Court, in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), described hate speech as an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group and one that seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.
Editorial | Striking fear: On Haridwar hate speech and legal action
The current legislative set-up has several provisions to criminalise offences which can be characterised as hate speech. The High Court of Karnataka, in Campaign Against Hate Speech v. The State of Karnataka (2020), was of the opinion that the Indian Penal Code illegalises speeches that are intended to promote enmity or prejudice the maintenance of harmony between different classes. Specifically, sections of the IPC, such as 153A, which penalises promotion of enmity between different groups; 153B, which punishes imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration; 505, which punishes rumours and news intended to promote communal enmity, and 295A, which criminalises insults to the religious beliefs of a class by words with deliberate or malicious intention, contribute to combating hate speeches. The Supreme Court has upheld the view that the objective behind such provisions is to check fissiparous communal and separatist tendencies and secure fraternity so as to ensure the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation.
The Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004), emphasised the need to sustain communal harmony to ensure the welfare of the people. In the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan case, the Supreme Court underlined the impact hate speech can have on the targeted groups ability to respond and how it can be a stimulus to further attacks.
The Madras High Court has on several instances dealt with the issue of hate speech, characterising it as small spark capable of merely lighting a lamp to destroying a forest. In G. Thirumurugan Gandhi v. State (2019), the Madras High Court explained that hate speeches cause discord between classes and that responsibility attached to free speech should not be forgotten. Summing up these legal principles, in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that hate speech has no redeeming or legitimate purpose other than hatred towards a particular group.
Despite judicial guidance from the Amish Devgan case, uncertainty around interpretation of hate speech has resulted in the adoption of varying standards. The Madras High Court, in Maridhas v. State (2021), quashed an FIR alleging hate speech involving targeting of minorities by holding that the YouTuber is entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and distinguished this case from the application of the Who? What? Where? test laid down in the Amish Devgan case. Per contra, the Madras High Court, in the case of Fr. P. George Ponnaiah v. Inspector of Police (2022), gave no relief to the petitioner by holding him to be a person of influence. By doing so, the High Court has failed to appreciate that a YouTuber with more than 4 lakh subscribers and a periodic record of publishing motivated content would have more influence than a priest with a limited audience from an isolated incident. It is trite that statements made by persons with influence having the mere likelihood of breach of peace have to be construed to constitute hate speech.
Unfortunately, divergent decisions from constitutional courts expose the lack of established legal standards in defining hate speech, especially those propagated via the digital medium.
The Law Commission of India, in its 267th report, recommended the insertion of two new provisions to criminalise and punish the propagation of hate speech: Section 153C and Section 505A of IPC. Section 153C was drafted to cover an offence committed when any person uses threatening words which are intended to cause fear, or commends hatred for the purpose of inducing violence through words, spoken or written, visible representation or signs on the grounds of race, caste, religion, sex, gender identity and other characteristics. Section 505A was to include provisions penalising causing of fear, alarm, or provocation of violence. Furthermore, the 189th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in 2015, recommended the incorporation of separate and specific provisions in the Information Technology Act to deal with online hate speech. None of the recommendations have been acted upon and this has partly given rise to ambiguity in construing hate speech by various constitutional courts.
Much of the existing penal provisions deal with hate speech belong to the pre-Internet era. The need of the hour is specialised legislation that will govern hate speech propagated via the Internet and, especially, social media. Reference can be drawn to the Australian federal law called the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019, which imposes liability upon Internet service providers if such persons are aware that any abhorrent violent material, which is defined to include material that a reasonable man would regard as offensive, is accessible through the service provided by them.
Editorial | Incorporating limits: On IPC and hate speech
Action commonly taken against modern-day hate speeches have a whack-a-mole effect wherein the underlying objective of inciting communal disharmony or hatred, despite the detention of the offender, survives through digital or social media platforms for eternity. Thus, taking cue from best international standards, it is important that specific and durable legislative provisions that combat hate speech, especially that which is propagated online and through social media, is enacted by amending the IPC and the Information Technology Act. Ultimately, this would be possible only when hate speech is recognised as a reasonable restriction to free speech.
Manuraj Shunmugasundaram is Advocate, Madras High Court and Spokesperson, DMK. Inputs for the article were provided by Thiyagarajan B.
Read the original post:
Hate speech in the time of free speech - The Hindu
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Hate speech in the time of free speech – The Hindu
Opinion | Basic Income Guarantee is the best way to improve lives – TheSpec.com
Posted: at 8:58 am
We are concerned that the public is not sufficiently aware of what has been happening with regard to the Ontario governments Poverty Reduction Strategy launched over a year ago. An American consortium, FedCap, has been hired to replace the services previously offered by Employment Ontario in 12 regions of Ontario. This change began as a pilot in Peel, Hamilton Niagara and Muskoka-Kawarthas in October 2020 and was expanded to nine more regions in June 2021. Part of this organizations mandate is to help people receiving benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works find employment. The problem is this organization does not have a good track record, and advocates for people with disabilities are sounding the alarm.
The focus of the Poverty Reduction Strategy is to increase the number of people moving from social assistance to employment. On the surface this may seem like a positive goal but we are talking about many people who have been medically declared unable to work because of a disability. FedCap may be able to find a short-term job for some people with disabilities, but when the measure of success is simply the number of people placed in jobs, the incentive for this organization is to ignore the reality that many of these job placements are for very short-term work that will leave the recipient returning to social assistance again and again. And it is likely that people will be pressured to accept employment for which they are very unsuited.
It also appears that the government has determined that this model works before it has even been tested. The pilot, run in the three districts of Peel, Hamilton-Niagara and Muskoka Kawarthas was not completed or evaluated before the same model was rolled out in nine additional regions.
This model is similar to a failed program tried over two decades in Australia called Jobactive. A 2019 report to the Australian Senate entitled Jobactive: Failing Those it is Intended to Serve, made 41 recommendations including several that recipients of the services should be included and consulted in the planning process. Stakeholder consultation has not occurred in Ontario. Those who will rely on this program have not had an opportunity to comment or critique the changes to these services.Historically, we know that privatization in Ontario has not gone well. Think of the privatization of highway maintenance services, highway 407 itself and long-term care facilities. These things have not saved money in the long run and have resulted in inferior service delivery.
Social services should be provided by the government with the goal of providing services to those in need while maintaining dignity. The title Poverty Reduction Strategy sounds good. However, there is a much better doable, affordable solution to virtually eliminate poverty and to facilitate people being able to live in dignity in Ontario and Canada. It is a Basic Income Guarantee. Many studies have demonstrated that when people receive a Basic Income Guarantee they do not stop working or looking for work. In fact, in many cases, recipients use the benefit to upgrade their skills or education so that they can find better employment and improve their quality of life.
We encourage you to find out more about the changes to the delivery of these services to some of our most vulnerable citizens. Contact your MPP and ask where they stand on this important issue.
Colleen Cooper and Carol Stalker are members of Basic Income Waterloo Region.
Read the rest here:
Opinion | Basic Income Guarantee is the best way to improve lives - TheSpec.com
Posted in Basic Income Guarantee
Comments Off on Opinion | Basic Income Guarantee is the best way to improve lives – TheSpec.com
BTC likely to repeat Q4 2020 move 5 things to watch in Bitcoin this week – Cointelegraph
Posted: at 8:58 am
Bitcoin (BTC) starts a new week facing multiple hurdles but with strong internal support can old resistance below $50,000 finally fall?
A correction event now almost in its third month is frustrating many, but conditions may soon be right for a fresh charge against opportunistic bears, an increasing number of analysts are saying.
With inflation running hot and United States lawmakers set to make the Bitcoin mining debate public this week, there are plenty of potential pitfalls in store.
Nonetheless, its beginning to feel like Bitcoin is at the point where it is capable of producing a classic surprise when the majority of the mainstream economy least expects it.
Cointelegraph takes a look at five factors worth paying attention to when charting BTC price action over the coming week.
Bitcoin looks decidedly uninterested in tackling even local resistance levels as the week begins.
After a rangebound weekend with little unique price action, BTC/USD is putting in lower lows on short timeframes while avoiding key zones around $44,000.
With Wall Street closed for a holiday, Monday could shape up to offer more of the same before markets provide direction.
Bitcoin did, however, manage to close out the week at exactly the crucial point identified by trader and analyst Rekt Capital as useful for aiding bullish momentum.
A Weekly Close above ~$43100 (black) would be a good sign of confirmation for BTC to continue higher from here, he wrote Sunday alongside an accompanying price chart.
A subsequent dip took the largest cryptocurrency lower, with $42,337 on Bitstamp the local floor for Monday at the time of writing.
Also cautiously optimistic is fellow popular trader Crypto Ed, who is eyeing a potential replay of last weeks run above $44,000, something that bears subsequently quashed.
Although its early but this looks like the start of continuation of last weeks move. Fingers crossed! hesummarizedin part of his latest Twitter update.
Last week, meanwhile, Cointelegraph reported on sentiment favoring an upside breakout as an eventual outcome of the current ranging behavior.
The stage is being set in more ways than one this week as the topic of inflation returns to haunt U.S. markets and politics alike.
Amid a fresh flurry of headlines about how inflation is hitting consumers, the highest consumer price index (CPI) print in 40 years is already hitting President Joe Bidens approval ratings.
Reining in the 7% year-on-year CPI increase could see the Federal Reserve enact no fewer than four key rate hikes in 2022 alone, Goldman Sachs forecast last week. This, in turn, places more pressure on weary consumers.
The stage is being set in the coming weeks, Pentoshi argued.
Closer to home, this week will see U.S. lawmakers discuss the alleged environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining.
With a significant chunk of the Bitcoin hash rate now coming from the U.S., any hostile policies will matter more than most when it comes to sentiment. A repeat of the China exodus from May 2021 and its knock-on effect for hash rate and network security will not be welcomed by anyone.
The hash rate, as Cointelegraph noted, is nowback at all-time highs, fully recovered from last years events.
The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing is due to take place on Thursday and is titled Cleaning Up Cryptocurrency: The Energy Impacts of Blockchains.
The hearing will be livestreamed in real time on the day.
Bitcoin volatility is plumbing multi-year lows encouraging for its acceptance as a mainstream asset, but not something many expect to last.
According to the Bitcoin Volatility Index, which calculates the standard deviation of daily BTC returns for the last 30 and 60 days, Bitcoin is at its least volatile since November 2020 at 2.63%.
Current price movements are thus similar to before BTC/USD entered price discovery after cracking its $20,000 all-time high from 2017.
For trader, entrepreneur and investor Bob Loukas, the stage is now set for a potential repeat of those events.
Remember when everyone was loading up BTC options in Sept/Oct for the super cycle. Those are probably down 80+%, he commented, noting that derivatives traders from before the current $69,000 all-time highs are likely more than disappointed.
While exciting price moves are yet to reappear after Decembers drawdown, however, they are now all the more likely thanks to Bitcoins supply becoming increasingly inaccessible.
With illiquid supply at ATHs for this cycle, Bitcoin is essentially a bonfire covered in gasoline, market commentator Miles Johalargued.
As Cointelegraph reported, BTC is being ferreted away into cold storage out of the grip of speculators.
Amid questions over the absence of retail investors even after a 40% price drawdown, new data shows that the sector has in fact had little interest in Bitcoin for an entire year.
Eyeing new entities appearing on the blockchain, Glassnode analyst TXMCshowed just how quiet Bitcoin has really been in terms of retail adoption since January 2021.
A look at the 30-day exponential moving average (EMA) of new entities coming on-chain reveals that the last major surge ended at the start of Q1 last year.
Since then, despite two new all-time price highs, new entity numbers have fallen and returned to standard rates normally seen after bull cycle peaks.
Bitcoin bull/bear markets have a distinct on-chain activity profile, TXMC explained on Twitter.
The data underscores how the average investor has all but forgotten Bitcoin, even as it swept new highs and institutional activity remained strong.
Interest levels from Google users have added to the trend, with search rates for Bitcoin worldwide at levels previously the norm in December 2020.
Miners, although being far from underwater at current price levels, are also getting less income from transaction fees than at any point since late 2020 just 1.08%.
This is an indicator that retail is not in yet... Although price is really similar to early 2021 When retail? Twitter-based on-chain analyst Blockwise queried this weekend, presenting further Glassnode data.
Bitcoins New Year extreme fear continues and if on-chain behavior is anything to go by, its set to remain the dominant sentiment force.
Related:Top 5 cryptocurrencies to watch this week: BTC, NEAR, ATOM, FTM, FTT
According to the Crypto Fear & Greed Index, which measures market sentiment via a basket of factors to assess just how traders are likely to act at a given price point, things have rarely looked bleaker.
Since late December, the Index has characterized the status quo as extreme fear, and so far, no price shifts have managed to alter it.
The same is true this week, with Fear & Greed at 21/100 well within the extreme fear bracket.
Similarly, data covering BTC moving at a profit or loss shows timidity among transactors, with precious little profiteering to be seen.
Such behavior is common during price dips and was seen last year during the summer as BTC/USD fell and bottomed at around $30,000.
This is the real Fear & Greed Index, popular Twitter account On-Chain College commented, uploading the data, which comes from Glassnodes realized profit/loss ratio indicator.
See original here:
BTC likely to repeat Q4 2020 move 5 things to watch in Bitcoin this week - Cointelegraph
Posted in Bitcoin
Comments Off on BTC likely to repeat Q4 2020 move 5 things to watch in Bitcoin this week – Cointelegraph
Bitcoin price news: Will the cryptocurrency hit ‘new highs’ this year despite it’s rough – MARCA.com
Posted: at 8:58 am
Bitcoin didn't have the best start of the year but the stats suggest it has finally stabilized this week and it might even be on its way to another massive rise. After adding 1% since last Sunday, the biggest cryptocurrency on the market is slowly recovering after dropping 12% during the initial week of 2022. If we take the first week of 2021 and compare it to this one, we can see Bitcoin last year made a massive gain of 15% and traded above $50,000 per coin. Although this week's improvement look minuscule, experts on the matter are convinced Bitcoin will be on the rise again over the next couple of weeks.
Currently, Bitcoin price sits at a "low" $42,000 per coin but experts are suggesting it might jump between $50,000 to $60,000 in the next few weeks. The reason for this jump, according to CEO of Panxora Gavin Smith, is the looming inflation. It's all about a "real" interest rate that will be adjusted for inflation. When the figure is negative, it only means that consumer prices will keep on rising faster than benchmark bond yields. As investirs keep effectively losing value by holding bonds and other fixed-income instruments. This dynamic encourages risk-taking amid the function of ultra-loose monetary policies put in place by all central banks around the world.
According to the U.S. Labor Department, the Consumer Price Index had risen 7% in December compared to 12 months prior to that. It went up from the 6.8% that was registered during the month of November. This is actually the fastest annual increase since 1982. Even though Bitcoin has already recivered after going below $40,000 on Monday, ths rebound pales in comparison to bitcoin standards. It is believed that if the cryptocurrency breaks $45,500 this year, there might be another sharp move higher than ever before in modern history. It might all happen during 2022.
Here is the original post:
Bitcoin price news: Will the cryptocurrency hit 'new highs' this year despite it's rough - MARCA.com
Posted in Bitcoin
Comments Off on Bitcoin price news: Will the cryptocurrency hit ‘new highs’ this year despite it’s rough – MARCA.com







