Mediaboss Marketing

There is no censorship in Ukraine. Ukraine has an open society.

The economy of Ukraine is stable and will continue to be so as long as this administration is in power or until the end of time, whichever comes first.

There is absolutely no corruption at the highest echelon of Ukrainian government. The existence of high-level corruption is a myth.

If you believe those statements to be true, I have hectares of prime farmland in the Chornobyl dead zone to sell you. In the administrations Orwellian-speak, black is white and white is chartreuse.

In fact, the official pronouncements often make the famous Twilight Zone seem as normal as Sunday morning pancakes and kefir. The truth is out there, perhaps hidden in a far-off black hole, but there. The sad thing is that at times the administration seems so earnest in its feel-good proclamations that one would think they actually believe it themselves.

It reminds me of some Ukrainian advertising contests, where the agency that bought first place convinces itself it won first place. Otherwise, why would they have been handed the gold-plated statuette?

I think this whole very translucent spin game is a remnant of the Soviet era. I was once in a meeting with the late Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in Moscow in which he earnestly proclaimed interest in a nuclear arms limitation treaty (SALT II). He was passionate about it.

Four months later, the USSR invaded Afghanistan, thereby ensuring that the treaty, negotiated by several administrations, would not even be brought up in the U.S. Senate.

What sparked this discourse was the silent protest at the World Newspaper Congress in Kyiv recently where some 16 editors and journalists held signs reading: Stop Censorship and Media Oligarchs Serve the Authorities during President Viktor Yanukovychs address.

The irony is that as the president boasted about Ukraines open society and asserted that it was free of censorship, his security guards were trying to take away the protest signs, knocking around a couple of journalists in the process.

Read more here:
Back Story: Orwellian-speak

Photo moderators for Facebook and other popular websites are contracted out, some of those negotiations even crossing international boundaries, according to article in The Daily Beast.

The Daily Beast launched an investigation on Facebook censorship after the popular social media website banned The New Yorkers page for containing a cartoon of a naked man and woman where the womans breasts were represented as two black dots.

Eventually, Facebook lifted the ban, calling it a mistake.

On first thought, the words Facebook moderators sound appealing. The site is so popular, so some form of regulation needs to be in place. Remember when users were exposed to image after image of women breastfeeding? People do not want to see that.

That being said, things are going to get tricky when Facebook employs a staff of moderators who hail from several different countries.

Those moderators are going to have varying codes of ethics, which will only lead to a confusing array of guidelines about whats permissible to post and whats not. In fact, moderators from the same country even could have different definitions of whats appropriate.

Finally, its understandable that The New Yorker faux pas occurred. The moderators have to sit there, sifting through photo after photo after photo, most of them probably tasteful. Then something slightly questionable such as The New Yorker cartoon pops up, and the moderators see reason to label it inappropriate. Also, the moderators probably didnt even realize the image was from The New Yorker. After clicking through so many photos, theyre probably not paying much attention to where those photos are coming from.

Looking forward, it will be interesting to see if Facebook comes up with any new tools to identify what content is and isnt appropriate. However, it seems unlikely that the company will ever be able to eradicate every inappropriate post on its site.

See the original post:
EDIT: Facebook Censorship

The venerable New Yorker is the latest casualty in Facebook's senseless war on boobs. The Facebook page for the New Yorker's cartoon department was temporarily disabled after they posted the cartoon above featuring a topless lady, according to a blog post by New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff.

After the ban, the cartoon was even redrawn by its author, Mick Stevens, to feature a clothed couple, though "the gain in clothes caused too great a loss in humor," Mankoff writes.

Mankoff believes Facebook temporarily axed the New Yorker's cartoon page because the cartoon broke content guidelines that prohibit "naked 'private parts' including female nipple bulges and naked butt cracks." (We obtained and published Facebook's detailed content guidelines earlier this year.) This would make sense. The social network mercilessly hunts down and censors pictures of bare breasts like Iranian computer scientists going after Stuxnet, even when they appear in the innocuous context of breastfeeding.

However, Facebook has voiced acceptance of artistic representations of breasts. Last year an art school got banned for posting a nude sketch. After a public outcry Facebook admitted they made a mistake and said they had an "unwritten policy that allows drawings or sculptures of nudes." So why did The New Yorker's cartoon department get heat for posting a minimalist cartoon featuring breasts? Who knows. Maybe one of the poorly-paid Third World moderators who help police Facebook just didn't get it.

[Cartoon via The New Yorker]

Excerpt from:
The New Yorker Got Temporarily Banned From Facebook for Posting Cartoon Boobs [Censorship]

Tunis The internet censorship, more known under the name of "Ammar 404" is henceforth no longer set in Tunisia, asserted Information and Communication Minister Mongi Marzoug denying the social network information on the return of the internet censorship.

In his meeting with the media, the Minister said that the Revolution allowed to put an end to censorship in Tunisia underlining the interim government's commitment to facilitate access to information and promote freedom of expression.

Launching, on September 4, 2012, of the National Forum of Internet governance is "the end Ammar 404", he said.

The Minister said that Tunisia will announce, tomorrow Friday, its membership to joint action for freedom of expression on the Internet "Freedom online", which holds its second session, on September 6-7, 2012 in Nairobi, Kenya.

On the fringes of its participation in this event, Tunisia will apply for hosting the 3rd edition of this conference, said the Minister.

In another connection, Mr. Marzoug presented the programme as well as the main objectives of the 2012 ICT 4 all forum due to be held on September 17-20, 2012 in Hammamet.

This event aims to give a new image of Tunisia as a country leader in the field of ICTs and freedom of expression and boost the country's role in this sector on the Maghrebi, Arab and African levels.

Copyright 2012 Tunis Afrique Presse. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.

See the original post:
Tunisia: Govt Drops Internet Censorship

Home > News Selectmen fear censorship at Saugus TV By Matt Tempesta / The Daily Item

SAUGUS A first draft of the rules and regulations handbook for Saugus Community Television Station has some selectmen concerned about censorship, but Christopher Peatridge, president of the SCTS Board of Directors, said the board is not in the censorship business.

As long as Im here ... nobody will ever be (prevented) from saying their opinion, said Peatridge, as he submitted a draft of the handbook to selectmen Tuesday night. But if somebodys point of view is illegal, amoral or something like that ... I think you people would probably be the first to act.

Selectmen Vice Chairman Steve Castinetti said Wednesday that hes concerned about a section of the handbook that prohibits improper material.

My concern is that any controversial programming, such as weve experienced over the last couple of years, may find opposition from the Board of Directors or the Board of Selectmen, Castinetti said. Im concerned that the evolution of SCTV to SCTS was the direct result of some controversial programming.

Castinetti questioned the subjectivity of inappropriate programming, asking, Just because you dont like what somebody says does it mean they cant say it?

I said last night that I am troubled, and I am, Castinetti added. I dont always agree with the commentary of the people who appear on Saugus cable, but what I do agree with is that they have the right to say it.

Peatridge on Tuesday night said the handbook is just a draft and is in progress, but noted its 90 percent complete.

It will be fine-tuned and we will make sure the final draft is proper, the First Amendment is protected, Peatridge said. That whole paragraph we will fine-tune once the lawyer looks at it.

Peatridge did, however, say that regarding programming, the board doesnt want to see any shenanigans.

Follow this link:
Selectmen fear censorship at Saugus TV