Unnecessary Censorship in Smite part 7
Follow me on Twitch @ http://twitch.tv/n0r3st Twitter - @n0r3st Facebook - http://on.fb.me/NNuqlW Osiris, Neith, Nemesis, Chaac.
By: Doomshroom
Read the original:
Unnecessary Censorship in Smite part 7 - Video
Singer Barbra Streisand and the governments of Turkey and Pakistan have little in common. But there is one thing: All have tried to censor the Internet, and all have failed miserably.
In a new paper, Zubair Nabi, with IBM Research's big data and analytics research group in Ireland, details how the so-called "Streisand effect" plays out over and over again when authoritarian governments try to censor information online, either by blocking or partially blocking "offensive" websites, throttling access speeds, or out-and-out manipulating content. Increased knowledge about the futility of censorship could help activists and researchers fight back against it and force regimes to rethink their censorship actionsor at least thats the hope.
The Streisand effect took its name when the Funny Girl star unsuccessfully sued to have an aerial photo of her Malibu beach house removed from the website of a photographer who had posted it along with thousands of other images of the California coastline. (He was actually aiming to document coastal erosion.) Prior to her lawsuit, only a few people had seen the image of Streisands house. After the ensuing lawsuit-related publicity, hundreds of thousands of people saw it.
A similar phenomenon played out in Turkeyone of the most connected nations in the worldearlier this year, when the government blocked access to SoundCloud to stop access to leaked recordings implicating the Turkish prime minister and other officials in corruption. Two months later, in March, the government also blocked access to Twitter and YouTube, also related to leaked recordings.
All of these efforts seemed to have failed, Nabi shows. Alexas rankings of website popularity show that YouTube stayed in the top 10 most-visited websites in Turkey during the censorship period. Google Trends showed that searches for the Twitter handle "Haramzadeler," which initially began uploading leaked recordings earlier in 2013 to no fanfare, spiked significantly when the government blocked SoundCloud in January 2014 and stayed high through late March. At the same time as the censorship events, searches for anti-censorship tools like "Tor," "Spotflux," "Ultrasurf," and terms like "unblock" and "proxy" also spiked, showing that people were actively working to get around the censors.
Last, Nabi analyzed YouTube statistics to see whether people searching for blocked content were actually able to access it. This was difficult in many cases because many videos were later taken down and because YouTube only shows graphs, not the actual data. However, Nabi was able to pinpoint YouTube stats for one video, which reveals the Turkish prime minister discussing construction permits with a business tycoon friend and was among the videos causing Youtube to be blocked in March. "It is clear from the graph that even though the video was uploaded in February 2014, its popularity spiked in March, after YouTube was censored," he writes.
More than 60 countries around the world today censor the Internet in some form, according to the paper. However, Nabi cautions that this Streisand effect does not manifest itself in all instances of censorship. Its existence in some cases only underscores the need for political activists and citizens to continue to develop and disseminate tools, such as VPNs and proxies, that circumvent censorship, he says.
The study also shows the Streisand effect at work in recent censorship episodes in Pakistan. However, it's also difficult to prove in many cases where data the data that companies like Google and Alexa provide is not granular enough or put into context. Nabi calls on more companies to open up more data to help the cause of anti-censorship activists.
"While the Streisand Effect is a handy instrument to keep censorship in check, it is only one of the many means to an end, not an end in itself. The end being an open, universally accessible Internet," he writes.
[Illustration: Daniel Salo]
Go here to see the original:
Government Internet Censorship Isn't Just Ineffective: Here's Proof It Backfires Horribly
Twenty years after the genocide that killed 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, the situation in Rwanda is now seen as largely stable. But that stability has a price: many journalists still can't work freely and critical reporting is often suppressed - even though press freedom and freedom of information are basic rights in Rwanda's constitution.
That is the conclusion that the most recent report by the New York-based NGO Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reaches. The report (published on December 8, 2014) was written by Anton Harber who runs the journalism program for the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and heads the South African Freedom of Expression Institute.
Internalised self-censorship
Harber spoke to over 25 Rwandan journalists, publishers and government representatives for his report. Many critical journalists complained that they were being harassed and their work impeded by public authorities, random police questioning and anonymous threats, Harber told DW.
"All the journalists I spoke to said there's a great deal of self-censorship," he said. "For many, it's an issue of survival. They feel that if they don't self- censor, then they will be harassed, closed down, threatened or driven into exile."
Rwandan journalists have become used to self-censorship
In his report, Harber quotes Fred Muvunyi, chairman of the self-regulatory Rwanda Media Commission: "Self-censorship is flowing like blood in the arteries and veins. There is no [direct] censorship, but there are things that journalists don't do because they are not confident of what will happen."
Journalistic hopes shattered
In the past few years, many people hoped there might be a liberalization in Rwandan journalism. After all, four years ago a critical report by the state authority for media pointed out that journalists were not free to carry out their work unimpeded. According to the government report, the Rwandan government officially stands for a liberal attitude towards free speech, but Rwanda's political culture is repressive when it comes to dissenting opinions. At the time, the report called for a change to this culture.
It was a demand that led to several reforms: The country introduced a duty of disclosure for the government. Journalists were also given an ombudsman to turn to if they are harassed.
See original here:
Rwanda: Censorship or self-censorship?
The Irish secretary of the National Union of Journalists, Samus Dooley, has given a guarded welcome to what the union believes are lamentably late draft guidelines covering media ownership in Ireland.
The guidelines, as I noted yesterday, will not be retrospective and therefore cannot alter the current media landscape in Ireland.
In a lengthy statement, Dooley said: Since the acquisition of Independent Newspapers by Tony OReilly in 1974 the NUJ has been demanding greater vigilance by the state in ensuring media plurality, in terms of ownership and editorial control.
While we welcome the publication of todays consultation document the words horse door and bolted spring to mind... We have witnessed the transfer of power from one baron to another in the face of appalling political cowardice.
The post-OReilly baron is a reference to Denis OBrien, the biggest shareholder in Irelands largest newspaper publisher, Independent News & Media (INM), and through his company, Communicorp, also Irelands largest commercial radio owner.
Dooley is concerned about the narrow time frame for consultation on the draft guidelines. Submissions must be made by 22 January 2015.
But he said that from an initial reading there is little in the guidelines that will disturb the tranquillity of dominant media players.
He complains that the communications minister, Alex White, has been given the task of introducing checks and balances after the harm has been done.
Dooley continues: Successive governments have allowed a small group of powerful people to gain control of the media and the draft is incapable of undoing that damage.
That said, the emphasis on the public interest and the recognition of the importance of plurality, diversity and editorial structures, rather than just competitive factors, is to be welcomed.
Continue reading here:
NUJ gives cautious welcome to Ireland's media guidelines
Media & Marketing
Fairfax Media: Expected to mount a full takeover of Metro Media Publishing Holdings. Photo: Michel O'Sullivan
Fairfax Media is expected to mount a full takeover of Antony Catalano's Metro Media Publishing Holdings before Christmas, a source close to the deal says.
Fairfax owner ofThe Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian Financial Review already owns half of the company that publishes weekly real estate and lifestyle magazines as well as a range of websites, includingreviewproperty.com.au.
It is understood the price-tag for the remaining 50 per cent stake, which Mr Catalano own with a handful of real estate agents, could fetch up to $75 million.
This would value the entire holdings company at $150 million, or 8.5 times earnings. MMP Holdings' earnings from its 70 per cent ownership of its subsidiary companies were about $17.5 million in 2014.
Advertisement
Fairfax paid $35 million for its stake in 2011 when MMP's earnings were about $4 million.
That deal also included merging Fairfax Community Network's newspapers, which included 32 titles, with MMP.
A source close to the deal said that Fairfax was genuinely interested in buying out Mr Catalano and the group of real estate agents and was expected to submit a formal offer before Christmas.
Read more here:
Fairfax to take full control of Anthony Catalano's Metro Media Publishing Holdings