Category Archives: Censorship

When we receive a valid legal request, we review it under both the Twitter Rules and local law. If the content violates Twitters rules, the content will be removed from the service, the spokesperson said. If it is determined to be illegal in a particular jurisdiction, but not in violation of the Twitter rules, we may withhold access to the content in India only.

Some advocates have slammed the companies for complying with the order, citing Facebooks partnership with the Global Network Initiative, a coalition that seeks to limit online censorship by autocratic governments, and Twitters stated mission to serve the public conversation.

Facebook, Twitter, and other technology companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, including right to free speech, said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, in an email interview. Online censorship can have a debilitating effect on dissent. It is important for companies to protect the human rights of their users and not censor information in violation of international standards.

Despite the Indian governments order, the companies should interpret and implement legal demands as narrowly as possible, to ensure the least possible restriction on expression, notify users, seek clarification or modification from authorities, and explore all legal options for challenge, Ganguly said.

But the choice by social media companies facing government demands isnt only a moral one but a business decision, too. India has more than 755 million internet users second in the world only to China making it an attractive market for U.S. companies. Modis use of the countrys digital regulation laws places the companies in an unenviable position.

Visit link:
In India, Facebook and Twitter walk censorship tightrope with government - Roll Call

Former President Donald Trump told Fox Business on Thursday that Rudy Giuliani was "the greatest mayor in the history of New York and a great patriot. (April 29) AP Domestic

One of the nations largest states is taking on Big Tech.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into lawa bill that would prevent social media companies Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube from deplatforming politicians such as former President Donald Trump.

The bill was approved Thursday by the Republican-controlled state Legislature.

It would ordersocial media companies to publish standards with detailed definitions of when someone would be censored or blocked and makecompanies subject to as much as $250,000 daily fines for deplatforming a Florida candidate. The bill would requirea social media company to notify users within seven days that they could be censored, giving them time to correct posts.

Republican lawmakers in Florida said legislation is needed to curb the influence the nations leading social media companies have over the national conversation.

"What this bill is about is sending a loud message to Silicon Valley that they are not the absolute arbiters of truth," state Rep. John Snyder, a Republican from the Port St. Lucie area, said Wednesday, according to NBC News.

Trump and Capitol attack: When Trump started his speech before the Capitol riot, talk on Parler turned to civil war

Censorship or conspiracy theory?Trump supporters say Facebook and Twitter censor them, but conservatives still rule socialmedia

"What this bill does is send a loud message that the Constitution does not have an asterisk that says only certain speech is free and protected," he said.

The legislation is likely to face industry opposition.

This bill abandons conservative values, violates the First Amendment, and would force websites to host antisemitic, racist, and hateful content. Content moderation is crucial to an internet that is safe and valuable for families and Floridian small businesses, but this bill would undermine this important ecosystem, Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of trade group NetChoice, said in a statement to USA TODAY.

Szabo argued that the legislation would make it more difficult for conservatives to get their voices heard.

He told Florida lawmakers this monththat conservative speech has never been stronger.

No longer limited to a handful of newspapers or networks, conservative messages can now reach billions of people across multiple social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Gab, Parler, Rumbleand MeWe, Szabosaid. Weve seen the rise of conservative voices without having to beg for an op-ed in The Washington Post or New York Timesor a speaking slot on CNN. Social networks allow conservative voices to easily find conservative viewers.

Donald Trump was booted off social media after the Capitol riot by a mob of his supporters Jan. 6.(Photo: AP)

Conservatives intensified attacks on social media companies after the ejection of Trump and other conservatives in response tothe attack Jan. 6 on the U.S. Capitol.

DeSantis, a Republican and a Trump ally,condemned the oligarchs in Silicon Valley for deplatforming Trump and other conservatives.

Without citing evidence, DeSantis said Facebook, Twitter and YouTube use their size, advertising power and global reach to influence thought and play favorites being tougher on those who comment from the political right than left.

DeSantis revived his criticism after a roundtable he held in March was taken down from YouTube because the governor and scientists he invited were accused of airing COVID-19 misinformation.

Now accepting reader submissions: Creating a gaming community at USA TODAY

If conservatives want to remain on social media platforms, they should follow the rules, State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, an Orlando-area Democrat, told NBC News.

"There's already a solution to deplatforming candidates on social media: Stop trafficking in conspiracy theories. That's the solution. Stop pushing misinformation if you're a candidate or an incumbent elected official. Stop retweeting QAnon. Stop lying on social media," Smith said.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/04/30/facebook-youtube-twitter-florida-ban-censor-trump-politicians/4897949001/

See more here:
Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians - USA TODAY

As thousands of people die each day, the Modi government is cracking down on people criticizing it online.

Posted on April 29, 2021, at 5:05 p.m. ET

A worker adjusts a funeral pyre of those who died from COVID-19 during a mass cremation at a crematorium in New Delhi on April 29, 2021.

India, a country with 1.4 billion people, has been gripped by a deadly second wave of the coronavirus pandemic. But even as its healthcare system gasps for breath and its crematoriums burn with thousands of funeral pyres, its leaders are scrambling to censor the internet.

Last week, Indias IT ministry ordered Twitter to block more than 50 tweets from being seen in the country. Days later, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Times of India reported that Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube had also taken down posts that were critical of the government. Over the last week, ordinary people running WhatsApp and Telegram groups to help people find medical oxygen and hospital beds have complained of threats demanding that they shut them down, and police in the state of Uttar Pradesh filed a complaint against a man who asked for medical oxygen for his dying grandfather on Twitter, claiming that he was spreading misleading information. On Wednesday, posts with the hashtag #ResignModi disappeared from Facebook for a few hours. And even though the company restored it and claimed that the Indian government didnt ask for it to be censored, it didnt provide details about why the hashtag had been blocked.

These incidents which happened within days of each other as criticism of Indias government reached a fever pitch highlight the shrinking space for dissent in the worlds largest democracy. As social unrest against an increasingly authoritarian government grows, it has cracked down on social media, one of the last free spaces remaining for citizens to express their opinions. New regulations have given the government broad powers to restrict content, forcing US tech platforms, which count India as a key market, to strike a balance between growth and free expression.

This isnt the first time that an Indian government has attempted to censor speech online. In 2012, before Modi came to power, Indias United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government ordered internet service providers to block more than a dozen Twitter accounts, including those belonging to people from the right wing.

In February, Indias government ordered Twitter to take down more than 250 tweets that criticized how the government handled protests over new agricultural laws. Although Twitter blocked most of the accounts, it unblocked the ones belonging to journalists, activists, and politicians, despite jail threats from the Indian government.

Indias current internet censorship ties directly into social criticism of the governments policies.

But now, there is an increase in the frequency and scale of the censorship that is being demanded, Apar Gupta, director of digital rights organization Internet Freedom Foundation, told BuzzFeed News. Indias current internet censorship ties directly into social criticism of the governments policies.

Over the weekend, Indias IT ministry attempted to explain its reasoning in an unsigned Word document it shared with the press, and which was accessed by BuzzFeed News.

The [g]overnment welcomes criticisms, genuine requests for help as well as suggestions in the collective fight against COVID19, the note said. But it is necessary to take action against those users who are misusing social media during this grave humanitarian crisis for unethical purposes.

The ministry cited a handful of the 53 tweets that it ordered to be blocked as examples of problematic content. There are four tweets that call the coronavirus pandemic a conspiracy theory, and four more containing old and unrelated visuals of patients and dead bodies. At least two of these four instances are genuine examples of misinformation, fact-checkers from Indian outlets Alt News and Newschecker who examined the images told BuzzFeed News.

In an example of how thin the line between removing dangerous rumors and censoring political expression can be, the ministry offered no explanations for any other content ordered down. A BuzzFeed News examination of the rest of the restricted tweets showed that at least some of them appeared to make legitimate criticisms of Indias prime minister. One of the restricted tweets, for instance, belongs to Moloy Ghatak, a minister from the state of West Bengal. He accuses Modi of mismanaging the pandemic and exporting vaccines when theres a shortage in India.

Neither Ghatak nor the IT ministry responded to requests for comment

One of the tweets restricted in India belonged to Pawan Khera, a national spokesperson of the Indian National Congress, Indias main opposition party. The tweet, which was posted on April 12, shows pictures from the Kumbh Mela, a religious Hindu gathering held earlier this month during which millions of people bathed in a river even as coronavirus cases were rapidly rising. Both ordinary Indians and the global press have criticized Indias government for allowing the gathering to happen. In his tweet, Khera contrasts Indias lack of reaction to the Kumbh Mela with an incident last year, when members of a Muslim gathering were accused of spreading the coronavirus when the country had fewer than 1,000 confirmed cases.

Why was my tweet withheld? Khera told BuzzFeed News. Thats the answer I need from the government of India.

What laws am I violating? What rumors am I spreading? Where did I cause panic? These are the questions I need answered, said Khera, who sent a legal request to the IT ministry and Twitter this week.

If I dont hear back from them, Ill take them to court.

If I dont hear back from them, Ill take them to court, he said. I need legal relief to protect my freedom of expression.

Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.

Experts said the ministrys note didnt provide sufficient justification for ordering social media platforms to censor posts. Since when did the government start sending takedown notices for misinformation? asked Pratik Sinha, editor of Alt News. And why have just these tweets been cited [out of 53]?

Social media platforms havent been the only places seeing a crackdown. Over the last few weeks, volunteer-run networks of WhatsApp and Telegram groups amplifying pleas for help, and getting people access to medical oxygen, lifesaving drugs, and hospital beds have sprung up around the country. But over the last few days, some of them have disbanded. According to a report on Indian news website the Quint, volunteers running these groups received calls from people claiming to be from the Delhi Police asking them to shut them down.

The Delhi Police denied this, but by then, people were spooked. A network of WhatsApp groups run by more than 300 volunteers disbanded days ago even though they didnt get a call. We decided not to take a chance, the founder of this group, who wished to remain anonymous, told BuzzFeed News. [I felt] frustration and anger.

Experts said one of the biggest problems in this situation is a lack of transparency from both the government and the platforms. Last week, Twitter revealed the details of the IT ministrys order on Lumen, a Harvard University database that lets companies disclose takedown notices from governments around the world. But Facebook, Instagram, and Google havent commented on alleged censorship in one of their largest markets, either to the public or to BuzzFeed News when asked.

They didnt even put out a public statement about this, said the Internet Freedom Foundations Gupta. The primary duty of transparency lies with the government, but there has been absolutely no transparency by the platforms.

Original post:
COVID-19 Is Devastating India. Its Government Is Trying To Censor Social Media. - BuzzFeed News

The next time someone smugly tells you there is no legitimate use case for cryptocurrency, or asserts that it has no redeeming social value, shove this story in his or her face:

Meduza, a Russian news outlet, is soliciting donations in cryptocurrency (along with traditional payment methods) after the government labeled it a foreign agent, CoinDesks on-the-ground correspondent, Anna Baydakova, reported Thursday.

This article is excerpted fromThe Node, CoinDesk's daily roundup of the most pivotal stories on cryptocurrency and the future of money. You can subscribe to get the fullnewsletter here.

Meduza is now required by law to post a notice of its foreign agent status in a typeface bigger than the text of its articles. As a result of this scarlet letter, Meduza lost many of its advertisers and is running out of money, the team behind the publication said. Apparently, it hasnt been deplatformed by traditional financial institutions because it is also taking donations by bank card and PayPal. But the reasons Meduza gave for including the crypto option were telling.

If people are afraid to send us money from their bank accounts, and they might well be, they can send us crypto, said Meduzas editor-in-chief, Ivan Kolpakov.

A skeptic might note that donors who send bitcoin (BTC), ether (ETH), or BNB to Meduza would leave a permanent record of their actions on the blockchains, or public ledgers, of these assets. But such a record would show only the address, a random-seeming string of numbers and letters, that sent the money, not the person behind it. An address may or may not be tied to donors real-world identity, depending on how they acquired the crypto and what steps they took to protect their privacy, whereas their bank and PayPal accounts definitely are.

The age of weaponized banking

Further, if recent history teaches us anything, it is that financial intermediaries cannot be relied upon to stand with dissident or unpopular voices.

We saw this more than a decade ago with the blockade of WikiLeaks by PayPal and other large financial institutions that caved to extra-legal pressure from U.S. politicians.

We see it today whenpayment processorsandcrowdfunding sitesbootcontent creators,fundraisersorpariah-friendlyinternet platforms, not because they are breaking any laws but because their speech offends activists. I, too, find the content in many of these cases unsavory. But I dont mind that it exists, and I dont want to prevent those who want to read, watch or hear it from doing so. Thats a basic small-l liberal principle. Orwas.

To quote a locked Twitter account, whom I will not name out of respect for the persons privacy: If I cover my ears because I dont want to hear from you, its not censorship. If I cover your mouth or someone elses ears because people want to hear you, its censorship.

I can already hear the bien pensants say, Its only censorship when the government does it. But even if you accept only that narrow legal definition of the word, it surely describes what the Russian government the very regime whose influence in the U.S. many of those same bien pensants spent the last four years hyperventilating about is trying to do to Meduza.

Crypto might thwart that attempt, or at least hinder it, by enabling individuals to transfer money to a publisher without permission from third parties that can be strong-armed or politicized.

Downsides

By all means, lets talk about the copious amounts of electricity required to secure Bitcoin and other proof-of-stake networks although describing this intensive computation as wasteful is a subjective value judgment. (TikTok and hair dryers are wasteful in my book. Should those things be banned?)

By all means, lets acknowledge that cryptocurrencys openness to all comers makes it attractive to criminals although the blockchains trail of crumbs also helps law enforcement catch the crooks who use these systems.

See also: Daniel Kuhn Bitcoin, Warts and All

By all means, lets pay attention to how terrorists, foreign or now, were told, domestic, might take advantage of this technology. But if were going to blame anyone or anything other than the terrorists for their actions, remember it was not Satoshi Nakamoto who destabilized the Middle East or hollowed out Middle America.

When tallying the social costs of censorship-resistant money, do not ignore the benefits for the Meduzas of the world.

See more here:
Financial Censorship Is a Thing. Bitcoin Fixes It - CoinDesk - CoinDesk

EDMONTON A lawyer for an Alberta pastor accused of violating COVID-19 rules says the province's health agency decided to penalize the church leader as a way to censor him.

EDMONTON A lawyer for an Alberta pastor accused of violating COVID-19 rules says the province's health agency decided to penalize the church leader as a way to censor him.

James Kitchen told the trial of James Coates that his client was charged the same day he preached a sermon criticizing Alberta's leadership on the pandemic.

Coates was ticketed Dec. 20 under the Public Health Act after health inspectors said he held services at GraceLife Church in Spruce Grove that ignored capacity limits, physical distancing and masking.

Kitchen argued it's not a coincidence that the same day Coates had preached a sermon critical of how Premier Jason Kenney's government was handling the COVID-19 crisis.

"He (had) just preached a sermon that's critical of the government, which is different than the other Sundays that RCMP and (Alberta Health Services) has shown up," Kitchen told the trial in Edmonton on Tuesday.

"The best explanation for why that ticket was issued that particular Sunday after the sermon was preached because it's meant to impose a chilling effect on pastor Coates. It was to send a message ...'You better stop criticizing the government for what they're doing.'"

Provincial court Judge Robert Shaigec said he needs a few weeks to reach a decision and adjourned the case until June 7.

He said he needs to determine whether the pastor's rights were infringed upon and, if so, whether the government's health restrictions are reasonable.

Shaigec heard that health inspectors monitored at least three GraceLife services before Dec. 20 and noted violations of COVID-19 regulations in their reports.

Kitchen told the court that inspectors were also at the church on the morning of Dec. 20, before Coates gave his sermon, but it wasn't until after he was done preaching that RCMP returned to ticket him.

The lawyer called the ticket a form of censorship. He added that health orders meant to curb the spread of COVID-19 violate other charter rights in relation to freedom of expression, assembly and worship.

"We know how important this is to Christians as soon as you look at any history in the Middle Ages or Roman times when the church was born ... gathering in person was fundamental."

By forcing the pastor to remove 85 per cent of his congregants from services, Kitchen added that churchgoers are unable to express themselves the way they would in person.

A Crown prosecutor, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, argued that no one stopped Coates or his congregants from worshipping. She said the church previously livestreamed services when two members tested positive for COVID-19.

"By Mr. Coates being allowed to operate with 15 per cent capacity, he was still able to practise all of those broad protected Charter of Rights. He still was able to practise his religion. He's still able to have multiple services. He's still able to go online," the Crown said.

On the first day of the trial Monday, the health inspector who issued the ticket to Coates testified she observed many "risky" behaviours at the church during four inspections in November and December.

Janine Hanrahan said during one service about 200 congregants were seen cheering, clapping and standing shoulder to shoulder. Typically, the church can fit more than 600 people in its building, but a 15 per cent capacity limit allows 92 inside.

Coates, 41, also testified that the church had 37 Sunday services without any positive cases before health officials closed it and fenced it off in early April.

In February, Coates was also held in custody for violating a bail condition not to hold services. He was released 35 days later, after pleading guilty, and was fined $1,500.

Lawyer Lieghton Grey, who is also representing Coates, said the time the pastor spent in jail was unjust as he lost 10 pounds. He said harassment Coates has faced has also taken a toll on his mental well-being.

"Thats time he can't get back and also the psychological harm is irreparable."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 4, 2021.

----

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

Fakiha Baig, The Canadian Press

Originally posted here:
'A chilling effect:' Lawyer argues Alberta government wanted to censor church pastor - North Shore News

EDMONTON - A lawyer for an Alberta pastor accused of violating COVID-19 rules says the provinces health agency decided to penalize the church leader as a way to censor him.

James Kitchen told the trial of James Coates that his client was charged the same day he preached a sermon criticizing Albertas leadership on the pandemic.

Coates was ticketed Dec. 20 under the Public Health Act after health inspectors said he held services at GraceLife Church in Spruce Grove that ignored capacity limits, physical distancing and masking.

Kitchen argued its not a coincidence that the same day Coates had preached a sermon critical of how Premier Jason Kenneys government was handling the COVID-19 crisis.

He (had) just preached a sermon thats critical of the government, which is different than the other Sundays that RCMP and (Alberta Health Services) has shown up, Kitchen told the trial in Edmonton on Tuesday.

The best explanation for why that ticket was issued that particular Sunday after the sermon was preached because its meant to impose a chilling effect on pastor Coates. It was to send a message ...You better stop criticizing the government for what theyre doing.

Provincial court Judge Robert Shaigec said he needs a few weeks to reach a decision and adjourned the case until June 7.

He said he needs to determine whether the pastors rights were infringed upon and, if so, whether the governments health restrictions are reasonable.

Shaigec heard that health inspectors monitored at least three GraceLife services before Dec. 20 and noted violations of COVID-19 regulations in their reports.

Kitchen told the court that inspectors were also at the church on the morning of Dec. 20, before Coates gave his sermon, but it wasnt until after he was done preaching that RCMP returned to ticket him.

The lawyer called the ticket a form of censorship. He added that health orders meant to curb the spread of COVID-19 violate other charter rights in relation to freedom of expression, assembly and worship.

We know how important this is to Christians as soon as you look at any history in the Middle Ages or Roman times when the church was born ... gathering in person was fundamental.

By forcing the pastor to remove 85 per cent of his congregants from services, Kitchen added that churchgoers are unable to express themselves the way they would in person.

A Crown prosecutor, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, argued that no one stopped Coates or his congregants from worshipping. She said the church previously livestreamed services when two members tested positive for COVID-19.

By Mr. Coates being allowed to operate with 15 per cent capacity, he was still able to practise all of those broad protected Charter of Rights. He still was able to practise his religion. Hes still able to have multiple services. Hes still able to go online, the Crown said.

On the first day of the trial Monday, the health inspector who issued the ticket to Coates testified she observed many risky behaviours at the church during four inspections in November and December.

Janine Hanrahan said during one service about 200 congregants were seen cheering, clapping and standing shoulder to shoulder. Typically, the church can fit more than 600 people in its building, but a 15 per cent capacity limit allows 92 inside.

Coates, 41, also testified that the church had 37 Sunday services without any positive cases before health officials closed it and fenced it off in early April.

In February, Coates was also held in custody for violating a bail condition not to hold services. He was released 35 days later, after pleading guilty, and was fined $1,500.

Lawyer Lieghton Grey, who is also representing Coates, said the time the pastor spent in jail was unjust as he lost 10 pounds. He said harassment Coates has faced has also taken a toll on his mental well-being.

Thats time he cant get back and also the psychological harm is irreparable.

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 4, 2021.

----

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

More here:
Alberta government wanted to censor church pastor on trial: lawyer - TheRecord.com

Victoria Knight

In early April, YouTube took down a video featuring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and a group of controversial scientists at a March 18 coronavirus roundtable. The online video platform, owned by Google, cited as its rationale that the video contained false statements about the efficacy of childrens mask-wearing.

This story also ran on PolitiFact. It can be republished for free.

The decision has drawn public blowback on social media and from DeSantis himself.

DeSantis held another public roundtable on April 12 (which is currently available on YouTube), along with three of the same scientists who participated in the March 18 session, during which he blasted YouTube for taking down the earlier video, calling the action censorship.

He said Google and YouTube have not acted as repositories of truth and scientific inquiry throughout the covid pandemic but instead as enforcers of a narrative.

What were witnessing is Orwellian, DeSantis said. Its a Big Tech corporate media collusion.

And when polled by DeSantis during the second roundtable, the scientists defended the video, saying it should have been left up so that it could contribute to scientific debate. We checked with DeSantis office for more information and were referred to an April 12 press release, which summarized the events of the days roundtable.

In an emailed statement, a YouTube spokesperson pointed to the platforms policies on medical misinformation about covid: We removed this video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. We allow videos that otherwise violate our policies to remain on the platform if they contain sufficient educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context. Our policies apply to everyone, and focus on content regardless of the speaker or channel.

The video, though no longer on that platform, can still be viewed on The Florida Channel, a website that posts recordings of Florida governmental proceedings.

So who exactly are these scientific panelists and what was said during the roundtable? And have social media companies ramped up efforts to crack down on medical misinformation recently?

Lets break it down.

DeSantis Panel Reflected Controversial Herd Immunity Movement

The scientists who spoke at DeSantis roundtable and gave their opinions about masks and lockdowns were Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University.

Three of the scientists, Gupta, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, were the primary authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a contentious document that circulated in October. In it, the scientists argued that lockdowns should end, most people should resume their daily lives and only the most vulnerable should take precautions against covid. The document asserted that members of the public who resumed normal lives would then build up their immunity to covid through exposure to natural infection.

The Great Barrington Declaration received immediate criticism from scientists, including the top U.S. health official, Dr. Anthony Fauci; World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus; and the United Kingdoms health secretary, Matt Hancock.

Atlas was part of President Donald Trumps White House covid team and was reported to have promoted herd immunity views to the former president. After the reports about Atlas, Trump and his press team later walked back the idea that the White House was considering any type of herd immunity strategy to combat the pandemic.

Atlas tenure at the White House was also dogged by other controversies, including Twitter removing one of his tweets because it contained false information about face masks, and his urging of Michigan residents to go against Gov. Gretchen Whitmers public health recommendations. Atlas stepped down from the White House team in December.

The Panels Factual Mistake and Why YouTube Took It Down

During DeSantis almost two-hour March 18 covid roundtable, the governor and the scientists discussed a range of topics, including the efficacy of lockdowns and face masks for children.

According to YouTube, the video was removed because it violated the companys policy on medical misinformation. YouTube says it doesnt allow content that poses a serious risk of egregious harm, such as videos that contradict the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks.

The clips YouTube cited as violating its medical misinformation policy involved specific instances in which DeSantis and the scientists said face masks were not necessary for children statements the platform said were contrary to recommendations from U.S. public health authorities. Here are the specific clips in the format provided by YouTube:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children 2 years old and older wear masks. The agency also recommends that children wear masks in schools, child care settings and any environment when they are around people who dont live in their home.

We know children of all ages are at risk for being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are capable of transmitting the virus. This is particularly true of older children, especially middle-school and high-school aged kids, Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at KFF, wrote in an email. We also know that masking, when employed widely and effectively, helps reduce the risk of transmission of the virus.

Studies back this up.

The CDC published a study in February showing that different types of masks block cough particles and double-masking is the most effective at doing so. Another experiment from that study showed that a person in a mask emits fewer aerosol particles that can be passed on to an unmasked person. A multitude of reports also show, generally, that mask-wearing is effective at reducing the risk of spreading or catching other respiratory diseases.

Other studies have shown that children carry almost as much coronavirus in their upper-respiratory tract as adults, despite often having no or mild symptoms. And it is possible for children to pass the virus on to adults.

Also, multiple studies of schools that reopened in fall 2020 and had high compliance with mask-wearing have been shown to have low numbers of covid transmission. And the American Academy of Pediatrics said mask-wearing will not make it more difficult for children to breathe, nor will it interfere with a childs lung development.

Are Tech Companies Actually Increasing Their Crackdowns?

DeSantis protests regarding the removal of his roundtable from YouTube echo those of Trump, who railed against tech companies and their policies during his presidency.

Trump was eventually de-platformed from other online entities such as Twitter and Facebook, among others, following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Conservatives have since complained theyre being censored on social media platforms.

After the YouTube video removal, DeSantis used the opportunity to promote censorship bills that are moving through his states legislature and would prevent social media companies from blocking politicians from their platforms in Florida. (State attempts to regulate social media companies will face constitutional hurdles, including First Amendment protections, the Tampa Bay Times reported.)

Social media platforms including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have introduced covid misinformation policies since the pandemic started, and even updated those policies in the past couple of months to take a harder line in removing posts and notifying users. However, the companies state that they arent targeting certain users when removing content, but rather anyone who spreads misinformation.

According to data shared by YouTube in March, the company has removed more than 800,000 videos containing coronavirus misinformation since February of last year. Facebook reported in February that the company and its sister platform, Instagram, had removed more than 1 million pieces of covid misinformation in the last three months of 2020. And last month, Twitter said it had removed more than 8,400 tweets and challenged 11.5 million accounts since the implementation of the covid guidance.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Go here to see the original:
Censorship or Misinformation? DeSantis and YouTube Spar Over Covid Roundtable Takedown. - Kaiser Health News

China's former Premier Wen Jiabao leaves after the fifth plenary meeting of National People's Congress (NPC), at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, March 15, 2013. REUTERS/Jason Lee

Chinese internet firms blocked users from sharing a lengthy article written by former Premier Wen Jiabao in tribute to his late mother, censoring a senior member of the ruling Communist Party, possibly because he spoke out of line.

The obituary-style article written by Wen about his mother, who died recently, appeared in a small weekly newspaper called the Macau Herald on Friday and was posted on a public account on Chinese chat app WeChat on Saturday, but was swiftly restricted.

The heartfelt tribute includes details of Wen's mother's struggle during periods of upheaval in China, including the second Sino-Japanese War and the political purges of the Cultural Revolution.

"In my mind, China should be a country full of fairness and justice, always with a respect for the will of the people, humanity, and human nature," said Wen's article, which did not directly discuss China's current political environment.

China's ruling Communist Party (CCP) has sought to tighten control over how netizens discuss history on the country's heavily controlled internet in the run-up to the 100th anniversary of the party's founding, in July.

Under President Xi Jinping, the space for dissent in China has narrowed, while censorship has expanded.

Wu Qiang, an independent political analyst in Beijing, said the article represented an "alternative voice from within the party" that is out of step with efforts of the last few years to stifle dissent.

"The power of this article by Wen is that it challenges that, and this is the main reason why it has been banned from being shared," he said, noting the party's sensitivity around its anniversary.

Last week, an arm of China's cyber regulator launched a hotline for netizens to report "illegal" comments that "distorted" the Party's historical achievements and attacked the country's leadership. read more

When users tried to share Wen's article, a notice appeared saying that the content went against WeChat's regulations and could not be shared, a common censorship measure in China that is one step below purging articles completely.

On Weibo, the Chinese social media site similar to Twitter, there was scant mention of the article, and comments and sharing functions had been disabled. Links to articles on Wen's tribute posted on Weibo returned "404" messages on Tuesday morning, indicating they had been deleted.

The operators of WeChat and Weibo, as well as China's internet regulator, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Former Chinese leaders and high-profile politicians rarely cultivate public personas or share detailed biographical information in their retirement, and are expected to slip gracefully from the limelight.

Since assuming power in 2012, Xi's signature policies have been cemented in the party constitution and term limits abolished, putting him almost on par with Communist China's founder Mao Zedong in the pantheon of its leaders.

Wen, who was premier under former Chinese leader Hu Jintao, was a leading figure behind the country's economic policies in the 2000s, and left office in 2013 when he was succeeded by current Premier Li Keqiang.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

See the article here:
China censors ex-premier's article ahead of Communist Party anniversary - Reuters

As China faces increasing global scrutiny on a slew of issues, including its inhuman treatment of Uyghur minorities in Xinjiang, it has launched an aggressive campaign to vigorously defend its policies in the region, and rubbish the allegations of repression being levelled against it.

Chinas Foreign Ministry last month issued the most assertive defence of its policies in Xinjiang to date, calling accusations of genocide in the region the lie of the century. The statement marks a stark shift in Chinas strategy to reshape the narrative regarding its treatment of Uyghurs.

Until now, China had been denying and dismissing the allegations of state-sponsored oppression of Uyghur minorities in Xinjiang. However, this has changed as Chinas strategy to counter such allegations has now evolved from outright denial to unabashed public defence. This hardened public posturing can be attributed to a growing sense of confidence in Beijing and its eager alacrity to be combative in taking on its critics in the West on issues ranging from COVID-19 cover-up, South China sea, its repression in Hong Kong or its subjugation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Chinas shift to belligerence was precipitated by the onset of the coronavirus outbreak that first emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, and from their spread across the world. The virus hit the Western nations particularly hard, with the death toll rising to hundreds of thousands. The outbreak also brought in its wake crippling lockdowns, causing indescribable economic hardships. It forced Western countries to reassess their relationship with China, which used its newly gained economic heft to browbeat nations that demanded an impartial inquiry into the origins of the virus.

Chinas menacing moves in the South China sea, its surreptitious activities in the greater Himalayan region bordering India, and its brutal crackdown of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong only served to embolden the several western nations to bell the cat and hold China responsible for its misdeeds that were so far swept under the rug, most glaringly its atrocities on the Uyghur population.

As a consequence, it drew a sharp response from Beijing, which then launched a propaganda campaign to control the narrative surrounding Xinjiang even as it staunchly denied the suppression of Uyghur minorities. State media reporters were hurriedly dispatched to Xinjiang to show that everything is hunky dory and to discredit the allegations of mistreatment of Uyghurs.

The glowing accounts of state media reporters were then firehosed on Chinese social media websites to disprove the allegations of the harsh treatment meted out on the Uyghur population and rally support from the Chinese masses against the Western nations, whom they accused of tarnishing the image of China.

The Chinese Communist Party also deployed censorshipone of the powerful tools that Beijing uses to control the narrative. Stories of Uyghur suppression by credible western media outlets were banned in China so that Chinese citizens do not have access to the articles that described in excruciating details Beijings cruel treatment of the Uyghur minorities.

Besides, a whataboutery campaign was also launched where the Chinese officials raised questions on the state of human rights in the countries that dared to question Chinas poor human rights record. This was most evident against the United States as Chinese diplomats known for indulging in wolf warrior diplomacy questioned America on its treatment of people of colour in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement.

When it fails to control the narrative by propaganda and censorship, it uses disinformation to achieve its ends. A case in point is thedisinformation campaignsurrounding the origin of the coronavirus. A senior Chinese spokesperson publicly called the US military the source of the coronavirus. Soon after the Chinese spokesman ascribed the virus to the US military, all the arms of the media warfare coalesced to amplify the disinformation that the US military was responsible for unleashing the pandemic.

Censorship, Propaganda and Disinformation are the pillars of the Chinese Communist Partys strategy to control the narrative domestically, as well as globally. China has one of the worlds most restrictive media environments and it relies heavily on thesethree pillarsto add ballast to the growing dominance of the CCP and Xi Jinping over the Chinese people.

From the last few years, several reports have emerged detailing the cruel treatment subjected to Uyghur Muslims living in the restive province of Xinjiang. According to a 2017 report by the head of the Institute of Sociology at the Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing considers the increasing Muslim population in Xinjiang a threat to its political hegemony.

It took elaborate measures to contain this threat. The strategy of the Communist Party of China (CCP) was to strip Uyghurs of their religious and ethnic identity and assimilate them into the dominant Han Chinese ethnicity. While Uighur Muslims are often subjected to re-educational programs, forced labour, and digital surveillance, their children are indoctrinated in orphanages.

Areportby theAssociated Pressshed light on the reasons and measures taken by the Chinese State to ensure a demographic genocide of its Uyghur population. With several draconian measures in place, China ensured a significant decline in the birth rates of Uighurs (mostly comprising of Muslims).

The measures included regular pregnancy tests, sterilisation, abortion, forced insertion of IUDs (intrauterine devices), huge penalties, and incarceration in detention camps for having three or more children. Reportedly, the number of people held up in such camps range from hundreds and thousands of ethnic minorities to millions.

Another report published by The Intercept threw light on the lengths that China goes in not only scrutinising the minority Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang but also their relatives and friends, along with those who are living abroad. Artificial Intelligence, sophisticated surveillance systems, new-age technology and human intelligence are all employed by the Chinese Communist Party to track and monitor the Uyghur Muslims and those associated with them.

To counter these damning reports, the CCP scrubbed all the Western reports that detailed the horrors meted out on the Uyghurs in the internment camps. Multiple foreign journalists who reported on the forced incarceration of the Uyghurs were expelled from China, while academics, activists and survivors who sought to expose Chinas chicanery were denounced and harassed. Those who dared to speak against the illegal detention of Uyghurs inside China have been silenced or detained.

The crackdown against the Uyghur Muslims was accompanied by a propaganda campaign, where the internment campaigns were portrayed as vocational training education centres, with choreographed media tours for state outlets, who interviewed the graduates lauding the system. Simultaneously, the CCPs disinformation arm also swung into action, terming the persecution of Uyghur minorities as a figment of Western imagination and sowing confusion about the scale of the education centres and abuses experienced by the detainees, while also painting Beijing as the victim of violent extremism and Western propaganda.

Initially, the CCP was secretive about its concentration camps for Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. When the news about their existence started making the rounds in the global media, Chinas first response was to use censorship to limit its spread in the Chinese media and vehemently deny their existence.

When the mounting evidence to the contrary became irrefutable, China flip-flopped and launched a propaganda campaign to claim they were just education centres to impart valuable skills to the backward Uyghur people. The Chinese government portrayed the camps as humane and launched a disinformation blitz to paint the criticism as a Western conspiracy meant to vilify China.

Excerpt from:
From censorship to propaganda and disinformation: Heres how China seeks to reshape the narrative on the repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang - OpIndia

Liberation ends long period of industry restriction

There is a sentence from the Italian director Dario Argento which says: in Italy, the censor is very old and there are many judges and psychiatrists who analyze you. The filmmakers speech is important because his works and those of many others (and this list includes names like Federico Fellini and Bernardo Bertolucci) were somehow affected by the then current censorship of Italian cinema.

It was only recently that the Italian government banned legislation which gave public bodies, more specifically the Interior Ministry, the power to edit or ban films containing material deemed inappropriate. In a statement on the decision, the Minister of Culture Dario Franceschini underlined the new change where the system of control and intervention which still allows the state to intervene in the freedom of artists is definitively closed.

The practice of censorship in Italian cinema is very old, going back even before fascism. It was from May 1914, by Royal Decree No. 534 (at the time when the country was ruled by King Victor Emanuel III until the adoption of a republican model in 1946) that the objective To prohibit the public from watching: shows offensive to morality, public decency and private citizens; shows which are contrary to national reputation and decorum or to public order, or which may disrupt the good relations of international events .

Cinema was already a reality for Italy at the start of the 20th century

The Italian scenario of this type of decision, at the beginning of the 20th century, already provided somehow an adequate climate for such a decision to come into force in 1914. The processes of increased control of all cultural material produced had existed since 1910, where the mayors had the autonomy to regulate works deemed immoral. Ironically, as noted in Marco Grifos article The Early Phases of Film Censorship in Italy, the request for a regulatory office came from an unexpected source.

The request to have a single central office to grant film releases was made by the producers themselves, in order to limit the financial losses they could suffer due to the individual tastes of the mayors. It was also a hope to restore order in a climate of confusion.

From 1913, this regulation was broadened with the bill of parliamentarian Luigi Facta in which a single office would have the power to censor or publish all Italian or foreign productions that would be shown to a wide audience. The following year, the real censorship process was put in place throughout the country, where the evaluations would be carried out by two committees made up of officials from the General Directorate of Public Security and politicians in general.

Enjoy watching:

1913 The Italian Parliament voted to adopt the first censorship measures

When Mussolinis fascist government rose in 1922, it initially kept the system of regulatory commissions in place until then with a few small introductions of new elements that should also be weighed. Roberto Gul, in his film Censorship during Fascism, gives an interesting perspective on the relationship of the then new fascist regime with the already established habit of censorship.

The parameters for evaluating films according to their merits remained unchanged: listeners continued to seek moral skills, the presence of violent, disgusting or cruel scenes even those that could incite hatred among different social classes . Part of the apparent lack of interest in the dawn of fascism in film censorship was that Mussolinis biggest concern was, as we know, more about controlling news and information than fiction films.

The author goes on to indicate that this apparent lack of interest was put aside from 1934 with the creation of the Under-Secretary of State for the Press and Propaganda, when the responsibility for the evaluation of audiovisual productions went to the Under Secretary of State who had his own film department.

The arrival of Mussolinis fascist government only intensified the control that already existed

According to Gul, the fascist censorship was different because it reinforced the so-called preventive censorship, that is to say in the pre-production phase, in particular by keeping control over the script; and the gradual transfer of powers that restrict review boards to older employees .

With this in mind, the state control machine worked with pre-visualized targets, that is to say that some works did not even need to go through commissions to undergo bans such as those coming from the United States. , France and the USSR. Indeed, the censors mainly targeted works containing messages that went hand in hand with the ideas defended by the government.

One example is The Great Illusion, a 1937 French film by Jean Renoir, which even won the award for best performing arts at the Venice Film Festival brought a story that criticized the idea that war is something that should be targeted (going against the thought of militarism fascism) and that which set up in central scene a camp of prisoners of war where the dialogue between soldiers of different nationalities dismantled the previous prejudices.

The Great Illusion brings a strong pacifist message

Another memorable case is what happened to the Great Dictator of 1940, Charles Chaplins definitive satire that explicitly ridiculed the Italian fascist and Nazi movements. Most of Europe will not have access to the work until after World War II, but in the case of Spain in particular, the work will not be published until after the death of dictator Francisco Franco in 1975. .

In this way, the end of the war marks a moment of reassessment of Italian censorship, even if it has not been eradicated. In the part of the country which had been occupied by the allies, care was taken to eradicate all works that would make excuses for fascism, while in the former Republic of Sal (located in the north of the country, which was the territory that Mussolini maintained control between 1943 and 1945) the structure of the existing enclosure has remained intact.

Even with the approval of new laws which in theory should reform the cinematographic evaluation system, the decree of 1945 which stipulated the creation of a new body called the Central Film Board was still living the habit that in Italy, it was necessary for the existence of a representative of the State to determine which films should be banned or shown; not showing much variation from what has been practiced since 1914 or 1922.

The film Chaplin remained banned in many European countries until after the war

It was in the confusion of the Italian power of the time that the Church entered as a sometimes decisive element of cinema. In the article It did indeed exist it was everywhere in the newspapers: the memories of the film censorship in the 1950s in Italy by the duo Daniela Treveri Gennari and Silvia Dibeltulo are indicated as the Vaticans control over the cinema consolidated.

This was only possible thanks to the centralization of power achieved by Giulio Andreotti who operated according to the wishes of the Vatican Andreotti reminds Montini of all the operations he has undertaken to consolidate the Catholic presence in Italian cinema. These interventions included a financial contribution to the Catholic Film Center; the presence of a Catholic representative in the jury of the Venice Film Festival

The estimation of works removed during the censorship period is discussed by Nick Vivarelli in his article Italy Abolishes Film Censorship, Ending Government Power to Ban Films for the Variety in Which He Believes, Through Source original from the Cinecensura portal, that 247 Italian films, 130 Americans and 321 works from other countries have been removed from Italy since 1944 (not counting the period prior to that year) and more than 10,000 works have been forced to cut scenes.

Despite the siege around creative freedoms, Italian cinema managed to thrive during the second half of the twentieth century; between the 1950s and 1970s, the country witnessed the flourishing of the best era of comedy with works such as The Eternals Unknown and Amarcord by Federico Fellini. It is also the period when the big names of the Italian audiovisual industry are born; not only from the aforementioned Fellini (who occupies the top of the names), but also from Sergio Leone (who would conquer Hollywood by reshaping the Western genre), Dario Argento (who combined the horror genre with a refined aesthetic sense), Roberto Benigni (reference in comedy) and many others.

In short, the official end of censorship in Italian cinema has considerable weight both practical (although many films historically banned a long time ago have already been seen by the public) and symbolic because it represents the sigh of relief of an industry that will now be able to determine for themselves which films are suitable for which segments and whose filmmakers no longer have to live the experience of seeing their works constantly edited and cut according to censorship.

Make sure to watch:

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL http: //bit.ly/CinePOP_Inscribe

Read more from the original source:
End of censorship Italian cinema free of restrictions - Designer Women