Mediaboss Marketing

Sina and Tencent, which own Weibo and WeChat respectively, did not respond to requests for comment.

While Liu's case is an outlier in terms of the intense efforts to wipe out all mention of the deceased activist, it is in keeping with trends in Chinese online censorship that have been building since Xi assumed power in 2012.

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology did not respond to faxed requests for comment.

This month saw new bricks added to the wall, as Beijing went after two means of bypassing its controls.

That would be an extreme step, as VPNs are also used by many companies to enable secure networking and file sharing between offices.

Previously Beijing has tolerated commercial services offered to foreigners to allow them to access banned sites like Facebook and Twitter while they're in China --international hotels in major Chinese cities have also been known to offer this service.

Lokman Tsui, an expert on censorship at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said it was "possible that some of the newer developments we have seen are experimental in nature, e.g. let's try and float this to see how well it works ... and see what public reaction we get."

Even if the VPN ban does not pan out, Tsui said, the direction things are going in is clear, and it's not positive.

It was one startlingly at odds with the free and open network expounded by the internet's inventors. In Xi's view, sovereignty, not freedom or communication or sharing, was the most important factor in online policy.

"Cyberspace is not a domain beyond the rule of law," Xi said. "Greater efforts should be made to strengthen ethical standards and promote civilized behavior."

Instead of the world wide web as we know it, countries would each maintain their own national internet, by force if necessary, with the border controls and immigration standards they see fit.

Peter Micek, general counsel for Access Now, which lobbies in favor of an open internet, said Chinese officials and technicians are increasingly working to water down protections for online freedoms at the United Nations and other bodies which oversee internet standards and governance.

"More and more Chinese engineers and engineers from Chinese companies are proposing and developing and adopting standards," he added.

Technical bodies like the International Telecommunication Union, the World Wide Web Consortium and others have huge influence on how the global internet operates, but sometimes with little transparency and limited democratic input.

"That's one place where quietly there is a more concerted effort (by China) to take control of what the internet actually is," Micek said.

China's efforts to influence global internet policy are largely designed to legitimize -- and prevent other countries from complaining about -- Beijing's existing controls on expression online, but they could have far-reaching consequences.

"A lot of governments would like to follow China's lead, and exercise if not complete control then effective control over the boundaries of what people can say and do online," Micek said.

Nor is the situation likely to improve anytime soon in China, said CUHK's Tsui.

"Other governments have definitely gotten worse at pushing back at Chinese censorship," he said, pointing to a push by the UK, US and others to water down encryption protections in the name of fighting terrorism.

"This allows China to say 'what we are doing is not so different'," he said. "Overall the trend is towards more censorship .. so the bar is getting lower, meaning it is easier for China to go even lower."

Back in China, controls are expected to ramp up even further as the country nears the all-important Communist Party Congress, the once every five years handover of power, at which the next Politburo Standing Committee, which runs the country, will be chosen. Some have suggested there may be a corresponding relaxation following the meeting, but experts CNN spoke to were skeptical.

Charlie Smith, co-founder of censorship watchdog GreatFire.org, said it was a mistake "to tie any crackdown on internet freedom in China to specific events or characters."

"Things started trending in the wrong direction when Xi Jinping took power," he said. "Regardless of what meetings are on the horizon, the authorities have been instructed to entirely control what people say, read, watch and hear on the internet."

Tsui said new trends like the WhatsApp block and crackdown on VPNs will either continue "or they are filing this knowledge away for future reference, to try again at some later date."

"The (Party Congress) is not the cure for the situation, it's not even a pain killer" Badiucao said. "I see no hope or willingness for the CCP to make a positive change."

More here:
China internet censorship: WhatsApp crackdown only scratches the ... - CNN

Censorship is demeaning.

When the New York Times finds a professor of psychology to tell us that hold on to your seats words can actually hurt, and therefore certain speakers should be prohibited from campuses, it is arguing that the vulnerable students need protection from authorities on high.

When the U.K.s Advertising Standards Authority proposes to ban harmful traditional gender roles from all advertisements, it makes clear that it doesnt believe women can handle a depiction of a mother cleaning up after her family. Even if women are not bothered, they must be protected: They may not recognize harm because certain negative stereotypes are so normalised.

Lisa Feldman Barrett, the aforementioned professor of psychology, demeans us with science. On Sunday, she wrote, If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech at least certain types of speech can be a form of violence. This allowed her to conclude that its reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school and that we should halt any speech that bullies and torments.

Barretts conclusion does not follow from her premises. As Jesse Singal notes in New York, the studies that Barrett cites are mostly about chronic stress, attributable to prolonged and sustained emotional neglect or verbal abuse during childhood. They has nothing to do with attending a college at which a loathsome person happens to be giving a speech that can be protested or simply ignored. Yiannopoulos, stupid as he is, is not going to physically damage your brain by speaking on your campus.

Barrett surely knows this, which is why she adds that Yiannopoulos is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. Therein lies her sleight-of-hand: On the one hand, he can be banned because his words are literally violent, but on the other, it is acknowledged that his words dont actually cause physical harm, but only contribute to the larger campaign of abuse that can be claimed, without any evidence, to have equivalent effects to sustained verbal abuse during childhood.

Barrett poses as a faithful interpreter of scientific evidence, determined to protect students from the words endangering their telomeres. But in reality, her argument would pave the path to the criminalization of unpopular speech. Violence is dangerous, after all, and it merits state violence to subdue and prevent it. By her logic, any controversial speaker could be grouped with a campaign of some sort and thus made into a contributor to something akin to physical violence in its effects.

Consider what the results would be of treating this argument seriously. Take Linda Sarsour. Among her other activities, she delights in claiming that Zionists have no place in the feminist movement. So whats stopping me from saying that, while not physically harmful in themselves, Sarsours bullying statements join a larger campaign of abuse against Jews, and therefore deeming her speech responsible for causing chronic stress? Should she on these grounds be prohibitedfrom criticizing Zionism?

In Britain, you can be arrested for speech, even if its only an offensive Facebook post. This is all for the safety of the public, of course. On Tuesday, Britains Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published a new report, pushing Britain further into the free-speech abyss. The report presented an evidence-based case for stronger regulation of ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics which might be harmful to people.

The report will form the basis of new standards to be created for 2018 by the ASAs sister organization, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP). Together, the ASA and CAP self-regulate the advertising industry, a power they have been granted by the British government. Advertisers cannot opt out of their advertising codes unless theyd like to face sanctions as severe as criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and confiscation of financial assets.

This means that, for example, ads that depict men as stereotypically inept at performing housework or women cleaning up after a mess they did not make themselves will be prohibited. Ella Smillie, the lead author of the ASA report, says she hopes to ensure that modern society is better represented. I would have no problem with that, but it is not what Smillie has recommended. She has sought to forbid the representation of anything but modern society, whatever that means. So just like that, Britain will essentially make it illegal to depict my father and mother in advertisements.

To depict a man struggling with an old vacuum cleaner while a woman succeeds with a newer product would supposedly restrict the choices, aspirations, and opportunities of children, young people and adults. But again, this has nothing to do with expanding womens range of choices. Rather, the new proposals aim to promote one choice and forbid the representation of another.

The ASA claims its report is backed by a major independent research study by GfK, the German market research firm. But if you care to read the report in full, you will find its evidence laughably sparse. Free speech and liberty to offend does not correspond with a right to cause harm, its authors assert, unaware of how broad a claim they have just made. On this logic, one could call for the banning of a million books and the suppression of a thousand columnists for causing harm.

But the report continues, As the evidence links the depiction and reinforcement of stereotypes to unequal outcomes and real-word harms for men and women, it could be argued that the right to offend does not apply. But just a few lines earlier, the authors state that the literature is not conclusive on the role advertising plays in constructing or reinforcing gender stereotypes. In any event, these harms are suspect, relying on value judgments about men and women that the British people never authorized their advertising regulators to make. And the report uncritically presents very controversial claims about them, including about so-called stereotype threat. This is the contested idea that people will perform more poorly when they feel at risk of conforming to a stereotype.

Of course the media can encourage conformity, and of course the British regulators pose as advocates of choice and liberation from conventions. They cast themselves as protectors of women everywhere, vulnerable to have their ambitions crushed by ads for home appliances. However, this is just a pose. In reality, the regulators only offer a different, more modern conformity, casting traditional practices as not only unjust, but bad for your health.

In suppressing free speech, the paternalistic censors in Britain and at the Times cannot claim to be on the side of freedom or the little guy. Long past destroying the old orthodoxies, they seek to create new ones. While claiming to watch out for your interests, they pursue social engineering.

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

Follow this link:
Censorship: It's Always for Your Own Good - National Review

With the threat of a single gateway still looming over the heads of netizens, the recent dust-up over limiting access to Facebook content deemed inappropriate by the government, a future internet chock-full of stringent government controls still seems an inevitable reality.

While the government has asserted in the past that its motivation for any restrictions to the kingdoms internet access is cybersecurity, it would also seem that term covers blocking content it feels is not in its best interest which was recently the case when it requested the Thai Internet Service Provider Association, or TISPA, to engage Facebook in an attempt to get specific content blocked.

To be clear, its common practice for companies such as Facebook and Google to block content from specific countries such as Thailand if presented with a valid court order. From a social media platform perspective, its better to stay in business in a country by blocking some content than to be blocked altogether as has happened in China or North Korea.

What is not common practice though is for companies to take down content all together. That means, even when blocked, it remains accessible to people outside of the blocked country.

The issues related to a single gateway span far beyond the goal of preventing cybercrime or far more draconian attempts to limit access to information it can have a direct impact on the economy.

Given the economic policies being spearheaded under the Thailand 4.0 initiative and growth of tech startups in the past decade, shifting to a single gateway or regularly blocking social media content could undermine much of the intended progress.

With Thailand focused on moving toward a digital economy with the Thailand 4.0 initiative, its going to have to balance its concerns over digital content it deems illegal with the impact on platforms that many firms will leverage to do business.

Sure, finding ways to block content and take legal action against social media platforms might give the government more control over what it deems inappropriate or just doesnt want to see but also threatens to slow down content delivery to local users, making their experience less enjoyable. And if you are trying to grow a digital economy, creating an unpleasant online experience as the norm is not a positive feature.

User experience is a vital part of any digital business, and at a time when the digital economy is being pushed to the forefront of economic policies, it seems shortsighted to enact mechanisms that will ultimately hamper the proliferation of businesses that travel down this path.

If economic growth in all digital sectors is a target for Thailand, then policies such as content blocking and the single gateway will surely hinder not help that effort.

Read more here:
Net Censorship Undermines Opportunities of 'Thailand 4.0' - Khaosod English

Newly appointed White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci has voiced support on social media for strong gun-control laws, which would be a major departure from the positions of President Trump.

After the Sandy Hook shootings at a Connecticut elementary school in December 2012, Mr. Scaramucci tweeted, I have always been for strong gun control laws.

In August 2012, he wrote on Twitter, We (the USA) has 5% of the worlds population but 50% of the worlds guns. Enough is enough. It is just common sense it apply more controls.

The gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety, led by Trump foe Michael Bloomberg, seized on Mr. Scaramuccis past comments.

Scaramuccis comments underscore recent national polling data: Gun violence prevention is not a partisan issue, said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. A vast majority of Americans including gun owners, NRA members and Republicans overwhelmingly support common-sense gun laws.

She added, While NRA leaders may have a seat at the table in Trumps White House, there are millions of Americans standing on the side of gun safety, possibly including the new White House Communications Director. Its time for the entire White House and current administration to join us in speaking out against gun violence and eradicate the gun lobbys guns everywhere, for anyone agenda.

Excerpt from:
Trump's new White House communications chief has voiced support for gun control - Washington Times

Chinese authorities have implemented measures this week to further tighten control over the online space and wall off access to content it deems undesirable to its citizens.

At least one telecoms carrier, Guangzhou Huoyun Information Technology, has received a directive to start blocking virtual private networks (VPN) used to circumvent the Great Firewall, China's Internet censorship mechanism, reported Reuters on Thursday.

VPN services are used by Chinese Internet users to access overseas search engines such as Google and social media websites like Facebook that are banned in China.

Online news and livestreaming platforms also came under closer scrutiny this week as China extends control of its cyberspace, which it believes should have limits similar to real-world borders and subject to its sovereign laws.

Filtering by Chinese telecoms - required under a law that will take full effect next March - means more overseas VPN services are likely to become unusable in the months ahead.

Observers say this is a tactic to ensure social stability, with a top-level government reshuffle at the 19th Party Congress expected to take place by October.

On Tuesday, Beijing Internet regulators gathered representatives from the country's top online news providers, including Tencent, Baidu and Toutiao, and ordered them to strengthen self-censorship of offensive content, such as reports that "distort the history of China and the (Communist) Party, misinterpret policy directives and promote abnormal values".

Tighter media and Internet controls have also preceded past Communist Party congresses, which take place every five years.

NOV 2012: 18TH CONGRESS

Two months before the big event, over 4,000 media and education-related microblogs were shut down. The authorities said the accounts impersonated well- known media personalities and real media outlets such as CCTV, and were used for extortion and fraud.

In October, a state agency used a meeting of top provincial Internet information officers to warn news and commercial websites of their duty to report "responsibly and positively" on the party congress, and that the authorities would "resolutely investigate and deal with harmful information, spreading of rumours and vulgar information".

OCT 2007: 17TH CONGRESS

Half a year before the congress, Beijing released a top-level circular stressing the importance of "strengthening the construction of Internet culture".

The state regulator for news and Internet publications interpreted this as the need for "civilised online publishing and to purify the online publishing space".

In June that year, China announced that a joint operation by the Ministry of Public Security, the Central Propaganda Department and other agencies had taken down more than 100 websites that spread pornography and "other harmful information".

On the same day, China's top cyberspace agency and its anti-pornography office said they will increase oversight of livestreaming platforms to prevent the Internet environment from being "polluted by unhealthy or illegal information".

The latest clampdowns come after two days of partial WhatsApp blockage in China following the death of Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo last week.

Lianhe Zaobao's website was also blocked by the Chinese firewall during the same period, although it is now back to normal. Experts see a link between events deemed politically sensitive by Beijing and tighter Internet and information control in China.

Associate Professor Fu King-wa, an expert on Chinese media with the University of Hong Kong (HKU), noted that the WhatsApp outage came after users began to circulate pictures related to the Chinese dissident on the platform.

"In 2014, Instagram was similarly blocked after people began posting pictures of the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong, which people in the mainland could see," he told The Straits Times.

The measures also come on the heels of multiple Internet-related regulations such as on procurement of critical network infrastructure and the controversial new Cybersecurity Law that took effect last month.

More than 90 per cent of Chinese netizens access news through their mobile phones, according to a survey by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences last year.

The new laws show that China's vision of centralised cyber control is coming together, said Mr David Bandurski, an editor at HKU's China Media Project.

"We can be sure that as the news in China increasingly goes digital, and as television goes mobile, the Cyberspace Administration of China's power will grow," he wrote on his blog.

Read more from the original source:
China extends control over its cyberspace - The Straits Times