Archive for February, 2020

Could Mbali Ntuli save the DA? – News24

Ntulis decision to join the partys leadership contest is timely. She has the credentials to help it return to its liberal roots, writes Imraan Baccus.

There are serious questions about whether the DA will recover.

Despite the leadership of John Steenhuisen, the DA has a significant presence of right-wing zealots who, like Helen Zille, have decisively moved from the South African liberal tradition embodied by Helen Suzman, towards a version of the libertarian wing of American alt-right politics.

Mbali Ntuli has entered the leadership race at a critical time in the DAs history.

She joins when there is likely to be no black constituency for a right-leaning DA.

Ntuli represents the kind of steady momentum that could spring a few surprises come the next elections

The recent draft policy document of the DA reads: Individuals, when free to make their own decisions, will not be represented in any and every organisation, sector, or level of management according to a predetermined proportion. The DA, therefore, opposes race, gender and other quotas.

It is clear that we now have the race denialism of Zille and DA policy head, Gwen Ngwenya and their ridiculous fantasy that non-racialism is a liberal concept that they now embody.

Zille, Ngwenya and others in that camp engage in a form of race denialism that masks enduring racism and functions to legitimate ongoing white domination.

It comforts the powerful and afflicts the oppressed.

In a country in which poverty is a deeply raced and gendered phenomenon, to pretend that race and gender are no longer relevant considerations in policymaking and public discourse is to implicitly endorse the status quo.

It is clear that the party has collapsed into forms of reactionary politics.

In this regard, Zille will go down in history as the person who both extended the DAs reach after Tony Leons time at the helm, and then, after her turn to the right, destroyed everything that she built.

Time will tell, but she may go down as the person who finally broke the liberal tradition in South Africa, despite her courageous past.

So if ever the party needed refreshed leadership it is now. Ntuli offers the opportunity for the DA to reconstruct itself.

She has steadily risen through its ranks from baptism as a youth activist through to councillor, seasoned parliamentarian and senior party worker.

Credit must go to her for fearlessly building the DA brand in Durban townships as well as in the northern reaches of the KwaZulu-Natal province closer to her St Lucia home base.

The latter is a region the Inkatha Freedom Party considers its domain and one that the ANC also prizes.

Her father Big Ben Ntuli was considered the boss of taxi bosses. His untimely demise shook up the young Mbali

Ntuli worked her way into a deeply hostile and patriarchal environment, frequently facing personal danger.

There must be something coded in her genes when it comes to the gangster swagger and signature nail art.

Her father Big Ben Ntuli was considered the boss of taxi bosses.

His untimely demise shook up the young Mbali. Then came the family feud for control of his taxi empire.

It was a storyline straight out of a political thriller complete with charges of poisoning.

For Ntuli, having survived both the taxi underworld and a nasty family feud, liberal politics sound like walking a poodle.

Her schooling was a training ground that the traditional DA cognoscenti dare not scoff at.

She went to a posh girls school followed by the bastion of white liberalism Rhodes University in Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape.

So she is not someone plucked out of the township with rough edges as some might want to paint her.

Her entire makeup is that of a good South African success story of a streetwise young black woman who has chosen an unconventional path into politics.

It surely could not have been easy for her meandering the dizzy minefield of DA politics over the past decade especially.

Unlike the fallen from grace Mmusi Maimane and embarrassingly eager Bongani Madikizela, Ntuli has held her own as a freethinking, sometimes undisciplined spirit.

At this moment in time the DA could very well do much worse than Ntuli

At this moment in time the DA could very well do much worse than Ntuli.

That is not to say that there are not enough bright cadres to attend to its immediate dilemmas.

Steenhuisen for one is as bright as a button but his clear shortcoming is that he cannot take the DA beyond hollering from the opposition benches.

In his personal choices at volatile moments, Madikizela has hitched his wagon too close to the Zille runaway train headed to the cliffs edge.

Ntuli has the right kind of hunger to have a go at what is still the second prize in South African politics.

A decade of building a challenge to the dominance of the ANC was wasted by Zille and Maimane in the main.

Ntuli represents the kind of steady momentum that could spring a few surprises come the next elections.

Whether the DA grandees, funders or rank and file are ready for a youthful, savvy black woman remains to be seen.

Baccus is a senior research associate at ASRI, research fellow in at the University of Kwa-Zulu-Natals School of Social Sciences and academic director of a university study abroad programme on political transformation

View post:
Could Mbali Ntuli save the DA? - News24

Why #NeverTrump Conservatives Shouldn’t Back the Democrats in 2020 – Caffeinated Thoughts

Former Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL)pledgedto back the Democratic nominates even if its socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Walsh is the latest in many prominent #NeverTrump Republicans to declare that hell back the Democratic nominee. Former Dan Quayle Advisor Bill Kristolrecently proclaimed, But for the time being, one has to say: We are all Democrats now.

Walsh, Kristol, and many other #NeverTrump conservative leaders have been willing to take a hard stand in opposing President Trumps many misdeeds and his debasing of American institutions. I respect that. However, I disagree with backing the Democrats for the following four reasons.

Many of us have decided against remaining in the GOP. Ive been saying our country needs a new political partyfor some time. #NeverTrump leaders like Kristol hung onto the GOP label so they could undermine the president and criticize the president as members of the presidents party. They didnt seek to wrest control of positions within State and Federal parties. They just saw to use the affiliation to give credence to their criticisms with groups likeRepublicans for the Rule of Law.

Republicans for the Rule of Law began as an effort to push the Mueller Investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. Trump-opposing Republicans like Kristol saw the Mueller investigation as the vehicle that dispose of Trump or at least weaken him to the point that a primary challenge might have a chance. This failed mainly due to the over-hyping of potential findings by Mueller. The Mueller investigation may have found several possible obstructions of justice, but it couldnt match the over the top hype that Trump was directly working for the Kremlin.

Also, Trump-skeptical Republican leaders began to back Democrats. Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie took a Trump-like turn when running for Governor of Virginia, engaging in a healthy amount of race-baiting in the 2017 Virginia Governors race, and Kristol backed his opponent. Trump critics like columnist George Will urged for voters to hand control of Congress to the Democrats. Both strategies succeeded as Ralph Northam was elected Governor of Virginia, and Democrats took the House.

On the plus side, House Democrats have made efforts to hold the president accountable.

However, their partisan motives undermined the credibility of their investigations. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) took the lead on impeaching President Trump. Schiff was skating on thin ice credibility-wise due to his overselling of the Mueller and Russia investigations. Evenmany conservativeswho favored impeachment thought the Democrats flawed processed doomed it. The Democrats botched the investigation of Ukraine due to a politically driven Impeachment by Christmas timeframe. This led to an impeachment case whose only hope of success was Republican Senators having a sense of honor and duty that exceeded House Democrats. Of course, Senate Republicans showed they didnt.

Also, the Democrats political gains have driven more conservatives into the arms of Trump. Ralph Northam pushed a radical pro-abortion agenda thatcountenanced infanticidedespite being touted as a moderate. With the new Democratic Majority in the House, we saw the rise of the radical squad of four far-left Democratic Congresswomen. Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed helpless to reign them in. Pelosi has refused to stand up Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over Omars bigotry. Stopantisemetism.org named OmarAnti-Semite of the Year. Well done, House Democrats, and those who helped bring you to power.

For three years, those on the right who opposed Trump have spent their influence on a strategy that leaves challenging Trump to prosecutors and Democrats. Its time to ask that classic Doctor Phil question: Hows that working for you?

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won the popular vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. However, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg won more delegates and therefore won the Iowa caucus. Former Vice-President Joe Bidens campaign is on life support as he finished fourth and fifth in the first two contests. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is fading, and neither Buttigieg nor Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has jumped into the lead anywhere based on their early state performances. The most likely candidate to stop Sanders is a late entry, billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

At present, theres an eighty percent chance the Democratic nominee will be either Bloomberg or Sanders. Both candidates are comparable to Trump in their own ways.

The definition of a race between Trump and Bloomberg is as follows: One candidate is a wealthy New York oligarch with authoritarian tendencies, ahistory of racially insensitive remarks,problems respecting women, and whodefended Russias invasion of the Crimea.The other candidate is Donald Trump.

One of Bloombergs supporterssaid, at an event this weekend, that she was aware of his issues with women, but he should be given a bye because the alternative is four more years of Trump. Republicans used the same argument in 2016 to back Trump.

Sandershas a long history of backing authoritarian regimesin places like Cuba and Nicaragua. He even spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. Many #NeverTrumpers have been shocked at the hatefulness of Trump-supporting groups like Turning Point USA, as well as the many racist and alt-right groups that embraced Trump. Bernies most extreme backers, known as Bernie Bros, arejust as bad.

You can make an argument over whether Trump is worse than either candidate. However, that is a debate over degrees, not a debate over kind. If youre concerned by the type of person Donald Trump is, Michael Bloomberg is the same kind of person. If youre worried about the type of anger and hatred that Trump inspires in others, Sanders is the same kind of candidate. Supporting either Bloomberg or Sanders in the name of getting rid of Trump damages the credibility of anti-Trump conservatives.

With two men who are older than the president being the Democratic frontrunners, President Trumps re-election chances look good. The best opportunity for either Bloomberg or Sanders to win is an economic collapse or foreign policy fiasco. Barring that, with prosperity at home and relative piece abroad, I see little chance that the country will vote for either Bloomberg or Sanders.

So Walsh and Kristol are not only asking Trump-opposing conservatives to compromise our values and our credibility to stop Trump, theyre asking us to do it in whats most likely a doomed effort. While theres an 80 percent chance that Bloomberg or Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, theres a 20 percent chance that someone else does. Biden may make a comeback. All those editorial board endorsements could do more for Amy Klobuchar than they did for John Kasich four years ago. A brokered convention might nominate Michelle Obama even though she doesnt want to be president. These would still not be great outcomes, but at least they wouldnt be bad in the same way Trump is. Kristol and others are trying to influence the Democrats to such a result.

It was equally possible after Donald Trump won three of the first four contests in 2016, that #NeverTrump Republicans could stop Trump. In the case of 2016, I felt obliged to try to save my then-party from Donald Trump against all the odds. As an independent, its not my job to protect the Democrats from themselves, and efforts to do so are likely pointless.

To some, Donald Trumps political career is the white whale; they are determined to kill at all costs. However, Trump is only a symptom of much larger problems in American politics. Voting for either Trump or his opponent will only make these problems worse. Spending the next eight months bickering over who would make America worse is like debating which venomous snake you want to bite you.

In his famous Give Me Liberty speech, Patrick Henry said the battle didnt belong only to the strong, but to the vigilant, the active, the brave. America needs a conservative Independent challenger to inspire voters to reject all venomous partisans. An excellent independent showing could serve as the foundation of a new major party and would be far healthier than trying to pick which of two evils is worth supporting.

Read the rest here:
Why #NeverTrump Conservatives Shouldn't Back the Democrats in 2020 - Caffeinated Thoughts

A Jordan Peterson Biographer Missing the Mark – Merion West

Jim Prosers new biography on Jordan Peterson portrays him as a Christlike figure plagued by personal demons. Yet the real devil here is in the details.

What does one say about Jim Prosers new biography of Jordan Peterson, Savage Messiah: How Dr. Jordan Peterson Is Saving Western Civilization? The first thing is that its not a biography, at least not in the modern sense of Boswells Life of Samuel Johnsona text thats extensive leveraging of archival records, eye-witness accounts, and interviews effectively bestowed the genre with a veneer of objectivity thats defined it ever since. By contrast, what Proser offers us hereas can be inferred from the titleis essentially a Christ allegory: one in which Peterson is portrayed as being the lone individual capable of saving Judeo-Christian Enlightenment values from the vipers of postmodern neo-Marxism, resurgent since the anti-Western movement of Occupy Wall Street. And should one dispute Petersons candidacy for comparison with Christ on the grounds that the latter was put to death for his sermons whereas the former has become rich off of them, Proser constantly reassures us of the mental anguish Peterson has endured on account of neo-Marxist aggression, which at one point, literally surrounded him, invaded his classroom, threatened his career and the future stability of his family.

Given the apocalyptic sense of importance Proser assigns to Peterson, many readers may be curious as to just who he is. In 2016, Peterson first attracted widespread notoriety for his publication of a video on YouTube, Professor Against Political Correctness: Part 1. The video, which featured Petersons voiceimagine Kermit the Frog trying to evince the air of a truth-telling patriarchdubbed over a handful of black-and-white PowerPoint slides, was austere. It was also factually dubious: in it, for instance, Petersona Canadian, who currently teaches at the University of Torontoconfuses Canadian jurisdictions, waxing on about the threat posed to academic freedom by the Canadian governments effort to legislatively protect gender-nonconforming individuals seemingly unaware that his own vocation falls under provincial mandate. Naturally, few noticed, and Petersons was able to parlay his burgeoning star as a professor capable of legitimating the intellectual pretensions of the alt-right into a best-selling book two years later, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. 12 Rules for Life, which builds on Petersons efforts to map Jungian archetypes onto neuroscience in his earlier book Maps of Meaning isat bottoma pop psychology book sprinkled with a few inchoate philosophy references (Peterson succeeds in misreading numerous thinkers throughout the book, including Heidegger and Derrida). However, by this point, the question of Petersons academic bona fides was largely a moot one. His nonstop polemicizing against the leftwhose ideology he coined the neologism postmodern neo-Marxism to describe, sloppily compounding differences a more rigorous thinker wouldve bothered to delineatesupported by his nonstop lecture tours, had already resonated with a mass audience. 12 Rules was just the tour souvenir.

That Petersons elevation to fame occurred relatively recently poses a distinct problem to Proser as a biographer. Jordan Peterson is 57 years oldhardly an upstart. Yet as he was not a public figure prior to his fiftieth year, writing a genuinely comprehensive biography wouldve required undertaking substantial research to supplement Petersons own accounts (part of the appeal of Petersons books and lectures lies in the way he frequently recounts stories supplied from personal experience). But whether out of laziness (or whether out of a desire not to impinge upon the soupcon of prophecy Peterson has built up around himself), Proser instead elects to use the books first half to furnish his readers with an assemblage of chronologically organized anecdotes about Petersons life derived from none other than Peterson (and virtually all readily available elsewhere). The best thing that can be said about this part of the book is thatin so far as the events in question occurred prior to his transformation into the public intellectual par excellence of the Rightits impossible to say categorically that theyre wrong (though one does get the sense that taking them at face value would be a bit like seeing a long cut of Purple Rain and mistaking it for authentic biography). The worst thing that can be said is that Proser here does the exact opposite of what a biographer should do, inflating Petersons personal mythology rather than slicing through it.

The word mythology is not used here loosely. Peterson, who believes that the world is not made of matter but out of what mattersdeep, brohas in his past works compared his travails to those of mythological and religious figures. Given that Peterson makes clear in Maps of Meaning that he believes there is a symmetry between neurobiological structures and mythic archetypes, it can be argued that this is less preposterous than it seems (even as this argument itself is complicated by the fact that the mythological examples Peterson makes to use it are disproportionately Western). For Proser, however, it is not enough that Peterson simply be an avatar of common experience. Instead, his stress on Petersons world-historical confrontation with SJWs (social justice warriors) infuses even his relaying of the events of Petersons early life. When Peterson refuses to go to church and rejects religion, he, may have felt something like Dantes Inferno. When he experienced depression as a young man, he was, Odysseus traveling through the land of the dead to learn of his future. To top it all off, in Prosers account, Peterson was dogged as a youth by none other than Satan (!) himself, who decided to,be patient with the young man who was so bright and seemed so enthusiastic. Not that his patience was infinite: after Peterson interrupts a college drinking party by shouting about God and war and love and other things he didnt know a lot about, the, Prince abandoned his drunken prospect to suffer in his well-deserved vomit. These kinds of descriptions, coupled with the books title, make you wonder if Proser hasnt forsaken the vocation to which he wouldve been best disposed: that of a metal lyricist.

Petersons reception during the early stages of his academic career, was, as Proser explains, not much different than the one he encountered assailing besotted college students with his philosophic theses at house parties. At least so far as his colleagues were concerned. After serving as an assistant professor at Harvard for five years, Peterson failed to acquire a tenured position there due to, in his own words, a lack of presence of mindwhatever that means. Even at the University of Toronto, a prestigious albeit considerably less prestigious institution, Peterson was nearly rejected by the psychology departments search committee on the grounds that he was too eccentric. Throughout his description of these events, Proser is so committed to portraying Peterson as a concentrate of titanic significance that he fails to countenance the possibility that his academic work just might not be that good. But while hardly a model of intellectual rigor, whats also clear from this part of the book is the way that Petersons indisputable skills as an orator furnished him with opportunities well above his academic station. At Harvard, he purportedly built up a cult following among his studentswho also nominated him for the Levenson Teaching Award in 1998, which he subsequently won. And a few years into his stint at the University of Toronto, he landed a gig delivering lectures on Maps of Meaning for a publicly-funded broadcaster, TVOntario (which also invited him to frequently serve as in interlocutor on The Agenda with Steve Paikin). Predictably, Proser fails to notice the irony thatwhile Peterson frequently rails against the oppressive diktats thrust upon him by politically correct government apparatchikshe is also a product of government, having received a quotient of support throughout his career denied to many of the postmodern neo-Marxists whom he regularly decries.

Its at this point in Prosers bookas Petersons public visibility begins to increasethat it degenerates into deep nonsense. Absent extensive research, and unmoored from the coming-of-age narrative that undergirds its first half, the latter part of Savage Messiah is a mess of phrases copied verbatim from public websites, tidbits of Petersons lectures, and Prosers crass polemicizing. Much of it is, moreover, factually inaccurate. The competition for the worst burst of prose in Savage Messiah is a fierce one. But in Prosers description of the political ascent of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we seem to have found a winner:

Arriving just in time, young Justin ascended quickly to the leadership of the NDP. Then riding the wave of progressive outrage over the repeated defeat of their agenda and the rise of traditionalist voices like Jordan Peterson, he led the Liberal Party to a sweeping national victory in 2015. The Liberal Party went from third place with 36 seats to a dominating 184 seats, the largest increase by a party ever in a federal election. He was sworn in as prime minister of Canada on November 4, 2015.

To be clear, the Liberal Party and NDP (New Democratic Party, though Proser elsewhere refers to it in the text as the National Democratic Party) are, in fact, completely different political organizations. Nor is this the only example of Proser sloppily conflating different political traditions: at another point, he declares that Sartre and French pro-fascist writer Louis-Ferdinand Cline as exponents of different forms of Marxism (though perhaps Cline is indicted here because he actuallyunlike Peterson or Prosertook the time to read Capital). And for the coup de grace, we learn that anti-fascist Antifa fighters are none other than the modern-day version of the violent Black Shirts, the voluntary, paramilitary wing of Benito Mussolinis Fascist Party of Italy. Oh, and in case you wondering: the cause of the violence of Antifa is possibly the theory of toxic masculinity.

Whats disturbing about these kinds of claimsapart from the fact they made it by an actual copy editoris that its not clear that describing them as errors fully does justice to the mind in question. Some may be oversights. But one also harbors the suspicion that Proser is so in the thrall of a conspiratorial vertigo that he thinks hes offering up the unvarnished truth. This speaks to the fundamental flaw of Savage Messiah: that it never even momentarily allows the facts to stand alone. Of course, narrative structuration is the essence of biography, and it would be unreasonable to expect any author to not bring some kind of predisposition to a project dedicated to a figure as divisive as Peterson. But if Prosers goal is to honor Petersons work, his exaggeratedly hagiographic approach actually has the opposite effect. If Petersons brilliance is so self-evident, why is it necessary for Proser toin arguably the most surreal moment in a book rife with themcite student ratings on ratemyprofessor.com in order to attempt to discredit one of his ideological opponents? Moreover, one gets the sense that Proser, who identifies openly as a follower of Petersons work, has not even fully assimilated it. Where Peterson, for instance, has criticized the adoption of identity politics by both the right and leftalbeit been more severe in his condemnations of the latterProser is alarmed by an Amazon.com product review that refers to a two-decade-old journal as, seeking to abolish the white race. Likewise, where Peterson couches his misogyny in improperly applied statistical data, Proserwhos elsewhere described women as having a last fable dayis hardly so discreet. For him, should we examine the subtext of one of Petersons lectures, it is clear that its not right-wing authoritarians, but women who most wanted to control speech.

Savage Messiah is a colossal embarrassment. But if its most disquieting passages can credibly pass themselves off as analyses of Petersons work, is it solely Prosers? Petersons has mastered the art of disavowal: of selectively deploying statistical data in order to infer bigotries he then can subsequently distance himself from. This book is just another example: as Proser explains in the books epilogue, Peterson gave it his assentbut never in a way that would impede him from later disowning its contents. Maybe, then, its not Peterson but, rather, Proser who manifests the archetypal traits of the Messiah. Jesus, after all, let himself be pinned down.

Conrad Bongard Hamilton is a PhD student based at Paris 8 University, currently pursuing research on non-human agency in the work of Karl Marx under the supervision of Catherine Malabou. He is a contributor to the text What is Post-Modern Conservatism, as well as the author of a forthcoming book, Dialectic of Escape: A Conceptual History of Video Games. He can be reached at konradbongard@hotmail.com, and a catalogue of his writings can be found on Academia.edu.

Visit link:
A Jordan Peterson Biographer Missing the Mark - Merion West

US to treat Chinese state media like an arm of Beijing’s government – CNN

A senior State Department official said Tuesday that Xinhua, China Global Television Network, China Radio International, China Daily and People's Daily will be designated as "foreign missions," effective immediately, in accordance with the Foreign Missions Act.

The change in designation means these companies will now need US government approval to buy or lease office space and will have to register personnel changes, including new hires and staff departures, with the State Department just as foreign diplomatic missions do.

The official justified the step by saying the outlets are owned and effectively controlled by the government in Beijing and that each meets the definition of a foreign mission.

"They are part and parcel of the People's Republic of China propaganda machine," the official said. "The fact of the matter is each and every single one of these entities does in fact work 100% for the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party," the official added. "These guys are on the organizational chart."

None of the media outlets responded to CNN's requests for comment. The Chinese Embassy also did not immediately return requests for comment.

But on Wednesday, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang condemned the US decision and accused Washington of prejudice and hypocrisy.

"We deplore and reject the wrong decision of the US," Geng said, adding that media facilitate communication between different countries. "The US touts its press freedom. However, it is wantonly restricting and thwarting Chinese media outlets' normal operation there. This is totally unjustified and unacceptable. We urge the US to discard its ideological prejudice and Cold War zero-sum game mentality and stop ill-advised measures that undermine bilateral trust and cooperation."

Geng added that China would "reserve the right to take further measures in response."

In the same briefing, Geng announced that China is revoking the press credentials for three Wall Street Journal journalists in Beijing in retaliation for the paper's recent op-ed titled "China is the real sick man of Asia."

The State Department official, speaking on background, said the move was not meant to "put any constraint" on the work done by employees of the five firms, or change how they operate, but was intended to create some transparency. A second senior State Department official said the Chinese entities were informed Tuesday.

The Trump Administration is acting now, the first official said, because Chinese leadership has tightened its control over these media outlets while it has expanded their global reach in recent years. State control "has gotten stronger over time, and it's far more aggressive, their activities outside of China including here in the United States," the first official said. "Based on that, we decided it was time to act," they said.

This official also pointed to the 2017 National Security Strategy, which identified great power competition as a central focus and China as one of the US' main competitors, along with Russia.

No move against Russian outlets

Neither official could explain why Russian state-owned media outlets operating in the US were not being designated as well.

The move on the media companies comes as senior US officials have turned up the volume on their criticism of China on the world stage, even as they seek Beijing's cooperation on foreign policy issues from Iran to North Korea and wants its help in understanding and containing the novel coronavirus.

In Washington on Tuesday, the first State Department official said they would not speculate on China's response or possible retaliation against American journalists working in the country. "Western journalists already suffer very severe restrictions," the official said.

Neither official offered an answer when asked if the information about personnel could be used in counterintelligence efforts against China, a recent administration focus. The second official said that making the media entities register as foreign missions "helps improve our understanding of how these entities do operate in the United States." This official added that the administration doesn't currently have a list of the media companies' employees.

Guidelines about the the way information about the media outlets' foreign and American employees will be used will be laid out in a System of Records Notice on the State Department website and a notice about the change will be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, the second official said.

Asked what happens if the entities do not comply and provide the required information, the second official said, "We don't expect them not to comply."

Read the original here:
US to treat Chinese state media like an arm of Beijing's government - CNN

Safer social media means putting control in the hands of users – The Drum

The news that the watchdog Ofcom will have increased powers over social media platforms to act over harmful content has been met with a mixture of excitement and concern in the UK. Users, advertisers and social media firms themselves are asking how these powers will impact the platforms, the content shared on them, and how we interact with them every day. Right now we have no answer to that question.

However, we can begin to think hard about what the impact of Ofcoms regulatory powers over social media might be be that on users, advertisers, or public safety.

Over the last few years, we have seen social media firms take significant steps to eliminate bad actors, manipulative political content, and hate speech from their platforms. From Twitter experimenting with new solutions to remove toxicity from the platform to Instagram and Facebooks experiments to hide likes, the platforms have shown how serious they are about making their environments healthier and happier for their users.

Recently, Facebook stated that it has an army of digital police, made up of algorithms and AI, working alongside humans to create a safer and more transparent online environment. While this all sounds like a lot, its clearly not enough. Thats why Ofcom taking a more powerful role in keeping people safe online determining what content is harmful and how it should be handled can only be a positive step as part of a shared responsibility model.

Many politicians and business owners have been asking how big the role of regulators should be in determining what content is harmful and what is merely controversial. While its hard to define clear cut lines when it comes to how harmful a piece of content is, it is possible to educate users and the public as a whole about behaviours on social media. While technology and regulation can help, its only by teaching people to use social media responsibly that we stand a chance of limiting harmful content in the online world for good.

The platforms themselves could be the place to start. Gently educating users, particularly younger users, about how to behave on social media is a step in the right direction. Putting their money where their mouth is and launching a global campaign on this could be a big push that the industry badly needs. But the onus isnt on the platforms alone. Education initiatives do exist, for example, Safer Internet Day. A European initiative celebrated annually, Safer Internet Day aims to teach users about topics from cyberbullying to social media. Education systems, if they arent already, should also be including social media behaviour in their curriculum and governments should be encouraging this. In short, collaboration between the platforms, the educators and the governments is the right way forward.

Unlike with media such as radio, TV and print, the attempts made to regulate the early days of the internet didnt meet with much success. Even today innocent searches on the internet can expose users to content that makes them feel upset and confused, or has even worse effects.

Given the scale and open nature of the internet, cracking down on harmful content is an uphill battle for regulators and for users. However, where we have seen some success is in the implementation of greater user controls. By giving users control over the content they see, whether, through ad blockers, parental controls or URL filtering, the internet has become a safer, healthier place for users.

The same could easily be true for social media. If users were given more control over the content they and their children can see, the social world would undoubtedly feel like a safe place to inhabit. This shouldnt negatively impact brands rather, it would encourage brands to be more careful and inclusive with the content they share. Harmful stereotyping could be one example of creative advertising that this level of user control could stamp out. This can only be a good thing.

Yih-Choung Teh, group director of strategy and research at Ofcom, said that for most people the risks of social media "are still outweighed by the huge benefits of the internet. And while most internet users favour tighter rules in some areas, particularly social media, people also recognise the importance of protecting free speech which is one of the internets great strengths."

The move to give Ofcom greater power has the potential to see governments and platforms working hand-in-hand to remove harmful content and toxicity from the social sphere. We work with many of the largest brands in the world, and we know they get value from social media for reaching and engaging with their audiences. It has a positive impact on their business in countless ways, but no brand wants this to come at a cost of their brand reputation, customer loyalty, or worse. Brands want to be sure that they are investing their ad budgets into safe and trustworthy platforms, which are free from harm and toxicity.

While we shouldnt expect anything to change overnight, this move by Ofcom is a step in the right direction for both users and advertisers. Anything that makes social media platforms safer and more engaging is a win-win, both for the people using them and for businesses advertising on them.

Yuval Ben-Itzhak is chief executive officer of Socialbakers.

See the original post:
Safer social media means putting control in the hands of users - The Drum