Mediaboss Marketing

Inage Credit: WWE via Bleacher Report

More than two decades after Right to Censor debuted, it remains one of the most memorable groups in WWE history.

The stable, led by Steven Richards, was a fitting foil to the overall product at the time, as the company was in the thick of the Attitude Era.

In a recent interview with Chris Van Vliet, Richards explained how the group defied the odds by lasting as long as it did. He also reflected on how this portion of his career was beneficial, as it allowed him to tap into new aspects of his abilities as a performer.

The interesting thing about the Right to Censor was, I dont think it was supposed to be for the long term, and I dont think it was supposed to turn into what it did, said Richards. It was obviously supposed to be a political statement against the Parent Television Council. It was supposed to really be something of a middle finger and an FU to that.

But also at the same time, it gave me the opportunity to really look at myself and have people look at me in a completely different light, that I can talk, and I can talk in this vein, not just the silly comedy.

RELATED:Stevie Richards On Goldberg vs. Undertaker Being Designed To Fail, His Best Runs

Richards also explained how most characters or storyline elements that are based on politics tend to fizzle out in roughly a month, but Right to Censor was presented as more of a cult to prolong its longevity. He also argued that the group could have lasted longer, as it could have set up its members for success. Plus, Richards shared his idea that the stable could have explored getting The Godfather and Val Venis back to their uncensored gimmicks.

Theres a lot of things I think that Ive done that had more legs, said Richards. And I look at this in the vein of getting babyfaces over. I dont look at it as a run of getting myself over. The heels are strictly there to really, in the end, get babyfaces over.

We could have gotten a lot more babyfaces over. It felt a lot longer than a year because we were out there so much on everything. And it was really only about a year, maybe a year and a couple months. I think it could have had a really good two-year run where we could have figured out how to get Godfather back from the Good Father, how to get Val back to a porn star, if we could do it politically, obviously, with ads and stuff.

I think we could have gone another year, just to springboard everybody into a different position.

The full interview is available here:

Read this article:
Stevie Richards On Right To Censor: I Dont Think It Was Meant To Last, It Could Have Had A Two-Year Run - Wrestlezone

Facebooks very own independent content oversight board has testified about the social media behemoths content moderation shortcomings!

Michael McConnel, the Co-Chairman of the panel, followed by the bodys decision to indefinitely ban former President Donald Trump, said that Facebooks rules are a shambles and there is no transparency, nor any consistency.

McConnel, on Fox News Sunday said that the independent body gave a series of recommendations to Facebook on making the rules clearer. And now it is being anticipated that the company will take the new few months to implement and apply the same in a straightforward way.

The social media behemoth suspended Trumps account after he encouraged his loyal supporters to storm the Capitol, an event which became a deadly attempt to overturn the counting of the Electoral College votes in favour of Joe Biden. The ban was originally only a temporary measure, but its status was turned to indefinite on the following day.

According to McConnell, Trumps posts were a plain violation of Facebooks rules, which state that one must not praise dangerous individuals and organisations during a time of violence. During the riot on January 6th, even though Trumps statements seemed like he was asking for peace, he was mostly egging them on to continue.

After Facebook went on and banned the former President, members from both parties in the U.S Congress called for breaking up large tech companies by arguing that they are exercising monopolistic powers on the marketplace by censoring voices and holding back innovations.

But McConnel, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University and a former federal judge, dismissed the concerns about Facebook violating Trumps First Amendment rights by leaving the ban in place by stating that the social media giant is a private company.

McConnel said that Facebook is not a government-owned entity, making Trump a customer and not a citizen of Facebook. But that being said, he mentioned that the lack of consistency and transparency around Facebooks content moderation rules do contribute to questions about unfairness and biases.

The Co-Chairman of Facebooks Independent Content Oversight Board said that fairness and consistency are the bedrocks of freedom of expression rules. Therefore, if Facebook simply let Trump off the hook, then it wouldnt exactly be called equal treatment as he is subjected to the same rules all other users of the platform operate under.

McConnel dismissed the concerns from Senator Hawley and others who have remarked that the oversight board members are simply toadies for the social media against as Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, appointed them.

For long Facebook has been facing criticism over its content moderation policies. In many other countries, such as India and Myanmar, the social media giant faced the heat for making moves against certain content that people felt was a biased approach to favour certain parties.

It now remains to be seen when and how Facebook plans to make amends in the content moderation and oversight policies. We will keep you updated on all future developments. Until then, stay tuned.

See the article here:
Facebooks Content Censorship Policies Are Broken, And It Must Be Fixed ASAP! - Dazeinfo

On Tuesday, a noted Palestinian-American journalist reporting live from protests near Jerusalem was suddenly and mysteriously silenced on Twitter with every single tweet replaced by the message @MariamBarghoutis account is temporarily unavailable because it violates the Twitter Media Policy. It was a mistake, the company quickly admitted, and her tweets were quickly restored.

But it turns out that one part of the incident was not a mistake. While Twitter may have taken action on this persons account in error, there actually is one particular situation where Twitter reserves the right to make your tweets disappear. And if you ask me its super, super dumb.

Twitter pointed me to this page and this specific image as an example of the policy, which seems like it could date back as far as October 2017:

There, the Requiring media or profile edits policy reads: If an accounts profile or media content is not compliant with our policies, we may make it temporarily unavailable and require that the violator edit the media or information in their profile to comply with our rules. We also explain which policy their profile or media content has violated.

Or, in plain English, if your profile picture, header image, or other picture you post doesnt meet Twitters standards, Twitter wont just censor that image it may censor your entire account until you fix it.

Why would Twitter need to notify people about a bad image on every single tweet from an author, instead of just omitting the image and perhaps providing an explanation? Over the past several years, weve seen many, many instances of Twitter choosing to place warning labels nearby offensive and damaging content, labels that still allow people to easily view those tweets.

When I raised this question, a Twitter spokesperson would only say that the policy is designed to better inform folks on the actions taken by Twitter. The company declined to say more.

The most generous explanation I can muster is that this is an old, antiquated policy that should have been retired long ago.

Twitter also initially restricted Barghoutis ability to tweet, retweet, follow and like for 12 hours, according to screenshots she provided to The Verge. Its not clear why her account was mistakenly censored to begin with; Twitter couldnt immediately say whether it was a human action or an automated system.

Go here to see the original:
The Twitter policy that could temporarily censor every single one of your tweets - The Verge

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson MP

Gavin Williamson said the Government's new bill would stop universities and student unions from "hounding out" speakers whose views they object to.

Announced as part of the Queen's Speech, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will place new legal duties on students' unions and universities to ensure free speech - with a regulator able to issue fines for any breaches.

South Staffordshire MP Mr Williamson told the Express & Star: "Freedom of speech is a right in this country, but sadly at our universities there have been some instances where it hasn't been available to all.

"We have an absolute right to articulate our views which others may find objectionable, providing they don't meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence.

"We've got to be able to protect that right in order to prevent the chilling effects of censorship on campus.

"Students and staff should always feel they are safe to put forward and debate new ideas, without fear of repercussions, even if these are sometimes controversial and unpopular.

"That's what this bill is going to be delivering.

"Universities should be amazing places where people can share ideas and thoughts.

"We can't be having a situation where student unions or universities decide they don't like a particular view and decide to censor it by hounding out people."

Mr Williamson said he had been written to by a large number of academics thanking him for pushing the legislation.

"What was so sad was that so many of them did not dare put their name and address on the letter because they were so worried about potential repercussions," he said.

"That for me is not the kind of free thinking university system we want to have."

There have been numerous instances in recent years when speakers perceived not to fit in with a left-wing worldview have been no platformed at university campuses.

Former West Midlands MEP Bill Etheridge was once banned from speaking at Sussex University having initially been invited by a body called the Free Speech Association.

Last year Bristol students' union demanded nearly 500 to pay for security at a talk by the Israeli Ambassador, despite charging nothing for a talk by his Palestinian counterpart.

And former Tory Home Secretary Amber Rudd also fell foul of leftists when her talk at the University of Oxford to mark International Womens Day was cancelled after students complained about her role in the Windrush scandal.

Under the legislation, speakers will be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffer a financial loss from a breach.

See more here:
Gavin Williamson in bid to end censorship on campus - expressandstar.com

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.

Read more:
In India, Facebook and Twitter walk censorship tightrope with government - Roll Call