Mediaboss Marketing

Facebook mistakenly removed a photo of chained Aboriginal men from the 19th century, citing it violated decency policies. The user who posted the photo was refuting claims by Prime Minister Scott Morrison that there was no slavery in Australia, which was hindered by Facebooks removal of the image.

In a radio interview on Thursday morning, the Australian prime minister said with a strong conviction that there was no slavery in the country. His claim started a heated debate on social media on the history of slavery in Australia.

So, one strong opponent of the PMs claim went to Facebook and posted the photo of the Aboriginal men wearing loins with chains around their necks captured in 1896 outside Roebourne Gaol.

The photo, also featured in articles covering the PMs remarks, extracted from the state library of Western Australia, shows the men were prisoners.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

The Facebook user accompanied the photo with a caption saying, Kidnapped, ripped from the arms of their loved ones, and forced into back-breaking labor: The brutal reality of life as a Kanaka worker but Scott Morrison claims there was no slavery in Australia.

Facebook not only removed the post but also suspended the account. The social media company said that it included nudity, which is against the platforms community standards.

On Friday, the PM retracted his claims and admitted that indeed there was blackbirding in Australia. Blackbirding was a form of slavery where people were tricked or kidnapped from their native countries and taken to distant lands to work for free or on meager pay. The term mostly refers to the extensive abduction of Pacific Islanders who were taken to the then European colonies such as Queensland, Samoa, Fiji, New South Wales, and Mexico.

Scott Morrison explained that his earlier comments were based on the fact that when the New South Wales colony was established, slavery was abolished.

Facebook restored the post and account on Friday after The Guardian Australia inquired if it was a mistake. Facebook acknowledged that its automated flagging system mistakenly removed the post and the company apologized to the user for the error.

However, even this weekend, Facebook was still preventing users from sharing stories that featured the photo and even the article about Facebooks censorship of the photo was removed by Facebook.

View original post here:
Facebook apologizes for censoring photo of aboriginal people in chains, then does it again - Reclaim The Net

UK MPs have joined the call for President Trump to be censored from social media platforms due to his incendiary tweets about the US anti-racism protests currently underway.

Despite the fact that the statement in question where Trump deployed the historically racist phrase when the looting starts, the shooting starts has been widely broadcast by TV networks and newspapers across the world, MPs who were grilling reps from Twitter and Facebook at the latest online harms parliamentary committee meeting yesterday were concerned about the words being allowed to remain on Twitter and Facebook.

Following Labour MP Kevin Brennans spluttering incredulity over head of product policy and counterterrorism at Facebook Monika Bickerts claim not to have seen the the New York Times letter penned by disgruntled Facebook employees, Bickert responded that the post had been allowed to remain up because its the platforms policy to allow discussion of government use of force.

We think if governments are talking about using force, people should be able to discuss that [] frequently, there could be a safety reason that people would want to know what governments are planning, saidBickert.

Twitter which allowed the tweet to remain up but amended it with a notice and blocked the retweet function was probed on the same issue. Now that youre imposing scrutiny on President Trumps tweets, are you a platform, a publisher? asked Tory MP and DCMS chair Julian Knight. Or do you recognise you are what many people believe you are, which is a hybrid of both?

I totally agree with the premise. I dont think the traditional dichotomy really works anymore, replied Nick Pickles, director of public policy strategy at Twitter, saying the platform is now seeking to provide extra context for tweets (to be supplied by journalists, experts, academics, third parties).

Has there been any discussion at all within your organisation of suspending President Trumps Twitter account? Knight asked.

Pickles clarified that the Twitter decision on Trumps account was taken because the public debate about that tweet is important to protect.

In a botched attempt at a gotcha moment, SNP MP John Nicolson described an account on Twitter that posts exactly the same words as Trump, declaring triumphantly you suspended his account for violating your standards.

I think this is the system working as intended [] In both cases, we said the tweet broke our rules, replied Pickles, noting that according to a public policy the firm announced last year, that if an account breaks the rules but meets the criteria of being verified, having more than 100,000 followers and being operated by a public figure, then we may take the option, that in the public interest, we want that tweet to be available. In the case of the Trump tweet, he said: One of those accounts meets those criteria; one of those doesnt.

MPs also returned to their favourite internet bugbears: online anonymity and encryption. Its the opinion of some MPs that anonymity online couldnt possibly serve any useful purpose.

Pickles offered two examples of where anonymity would actually be pretty useful: in both the current political moment in the US (where people have testified on Twitter about the threat to their career of publicly being a vocal supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement online) and Hong Kong, where for obvious reasons protesters may want to shield their identity. Other examples, of course, include people who are posting in authoritarian countries, those seeking to avoid the attention of stalker or abusive ex-partners, whistleblowers, or parody accounts whose primary purpose is humour.

But the MPs present appeared to remain stubbornly impervious to the idea that there could be any reason for wanting to be anonymous online other than being a troll, demanding to know why Twitter had not carried out research looking at whether more factually inaccurate information was disseminated by anonymous accounts.

I think one of the problems is that people are focused on anonymous accounts as a disproportionate part of the problem than is actually the case, said Pickles. He noted that when South Korea trialled removing anonymity from the internet, it didnt find a connection between anonymity and abuse.

Asked whether Facebook still intends to introduce encryption across all user communications across its platforms, Bickert said: We are still planning to implement end to end encryption, but were still in the investigative stages at this point.

Yvette Cooper took up the charge, demanding to know how child sexual abuse material would be caught by Facebook if everything was encrypted. How can it be safe if nobody can see the content? asked Cooper.

The Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance, featuring the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, is reportedly in the midst of staging a legal challenge against Facebook over its plans for encryption, ostensibly for the protection of children.

Continued here:
MPs grill Twitter and Facebook over Trump censorship issue - NS Tech

A GOP congressional candidate is accusingFacebook of "censorship" after the social media giant took down acampaign video that shows herholdingan assault rifleand warningAntifa to "stay the hell out of northwest Georgia."

Marjorie Greene, abusinesswoman running inGeorgia's 14th District, posted the ad on Facebook Tuesday. By Thursday, Facebook told her campaign the videowascoming down because it violated companypolicies against promoting the use of firearms.

The video is still running on Twitter, and Greene has bought air time to run the ad on broadcast and cable TV in advance of the Tuesday primary.

Greene said the decision by Facebook reeks of adouble-standard.

"Facebook lets Antifaorganize terrorist attacks on America and allows videos of innocent Americans being brutally attacked, butpulls my post down," she told Fox News."America is a country of law and order -- not anarchy. Telling Antifa thugs to stay out of northwest Georgia is not a violation of Facebook."

GOP CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE BLOWS UP 'SOCIALISM' IN NEW TV AD

Greene's Facebookad reached more than 2 million people before being deleted.

"Big Tech censorship of conservatives must end," Greene said.

Facebook stands by itsdecision.

"We removed this ad, which advocates the use of deadly weapons against a clearly defined group of people, for violating our policies against inciting violence," Facebook said in a statement to Fox News.

Facebook told Greene's campaign that she can't have ads "promoting the brandishing of firearms," according to an email reviewed by Fox News.

During the ad, Greene takes on Antifa, the anti-fascist protest movement that the Trump administration contends isa domesticterrorist groupresponsible for the violent uprisings against police in recent days.

CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PUSH DIVERSE SLATE OF GOP HOUSE CANDIDATES IN EFFORT TO TAKE BACK LOST GROUND

Tens of thousands of peaceful protesters have demonstrated against police brutality in the wake of George Floyd's death after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on the unarmed man'sneck for more than eight minutes. But an organized fringe element has sought to hijack the protests, destroy property andunleash violence, government officials say.

In her ad, Greene is armed with an AR-15 on the front porch of a local Georgia business when she issued her warning to Antifa activists.

"You wont burn our churches, loot our businessesor destroy our homes," she declares.

REPUBLICAN REVENGE: RECORD GOP FIELD FORMS, ON 2020 MISSION TO TAKE DOWN 'SOCIALISTS'

This isn't the first time Greene has campaigned with firearms. In her first ad, she literally blows up "socialism." Facebook didn't pull that ad.

Greene faces a crowded primary race against John Cowan, a neurosurgeon;Clayton Fuller, a former prosecutor;John Barge, former state schools superintendent; and Ben Bullock, an Air Force veteran.Also runningin the GOP primary areKevin Cooke, a state representative;Bill Hembree, a former member of the Georgia legislature; Andy Gunther andMatt Laughridge.

Read more:
Facebook pulls ad from gun-toting Georgia candidate taking on Antifa: 'Big Tech censorship of conservative... - Fox News

Having criticized Twitter for poking the bear, Facebook seems to be adopting a more nuanced approach to policing its platform.

Twitters decision to censor President Trump was an astounding mistake. Of course nobody, no matter how powerful, should be exempt from its policies, but if youre going to single out one of the most powerful people in the world, you had better make sure you have all your bases covered. Twitter didnt.

Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg recognised Twitters mistake immediately and announced during an interview with Fox News that Facebook shouldnt be the arbiter of truth of everything people say online. Even his choice of news outlet was telling, as Fox seems to be the only one not despised by Trump. Zuckerberg was effectively saying leave us out of this.

Twitter boss Jack Dorsey responded directly with the following tweet thread, which at first attempted to isolate the decision to censor Trump to him alone, but then proceeded to talk in the first person plural.

Within a couple of days Zuckerberg posted further clarification of his position on, of course, Facebook. He noted the current violent public response to a man dying in US police custody served as a further reminder of the importance of getting these decisions right.

Unlike Twitter, we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician, wrote Zuckerberg. We have been in touch with the White House today to explain these policies as well.

From that post we can see that Zuckerberg is still in favour of censorship, but sets the bar higher than Twitter and doesnt see the point in half measures. Worryingly for Zuckerberg, many Facebook employees have taken to Twitter to voice their displeasure at this policy, apparently demanding Facebook does censor the President.

Its worth reflecting on the two forms of censorship Twitter has imposed on Trump. The first was simply to fact-check a claim he made about postal voting, which contained a hyperlink to a statement on Twitter saying his claim was unsubstantiated according to select US media consistently hostile to Trump.

The second superimposed a warning label over the top of a Trump tweet which promised repercussions for rioting. The label reads: This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the publics interest for the Tweet to remain accessible. Note the capitalization of Twitter Rules and the clear admission that Twitter considers itself the arbiter of what is in the public interest. Clicking on the label reveals Trumps hidden tweet, which features the phrase when the looting starts, the shooting starts.

That was apparently the bit that was interpreted as glorifying violence, and yet a subsequent Trump tweet, using exactly the same phrase, has not been subject to any censorious action by Twitter. That discrepancy alone (not to mention the fact that the labels dont survive the embedding process) illustrates the impossible position Twitter has put itself in. There are presumably millions of other examples of borderline glorifications of violence, let alone direct threats, that it has also let pass. Such inconsistent censoring can easily be viewed as simple bias, seeking to tip the scales of public conversation in your favour.

For many people censorship is a simple matter of harm reduction. Why would anyone want to allow speech that could cause harm? The mistake they make is to view harm as an objective, absolute concept on which there is unilateral consensus. As Zuckerbergs post shows, the perception of harm is often highly subjective, and the threshold at which to censor harmful speech is entirely arbitrary.

There is clearly a lot of demand for extensive policing of internet speech nonetheless, but social media companies have to resist it if they want to be able to claim theyre impartial. Theres just no way to keep bias out of the censorship process. If they dont, they risk being designated as publishers and thus legally responsible for every piece of content they host. This would be calamitous for their entire business model, which makes it all the more baffling that Dorsey would so openly risk such an outcome.

Read the rest here:
Facebook attempts to walk the tightrope on censorship - Telecoms.com

Its official: criticising Black Lives Matter is now a sackable offence, even here in the British Isles, thousands of miles away from the social conflict currently embroiling the US. As protesters again fill the streets of a rainy London on Saturday, as part of a now internationalised backlash against the brutal police killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, those who criticise them do so at their peril as two men have recently found out.

Stu Peters, a presenter on Manx Radio, has been suspended, pending an investigation, for an on-air exchange with a black caller. He said nothing racist, you can read the transcriptfor yourself. What he did was rubbish the idea of white privilege: I've had no more privilege in my life than you have. And he questioned the wisdom of staging a protest on the Isle of Man against a killing in Minnesota: You can demonstrate anywhere you like, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

For this, he has been taken off air. ManxRadio has even referred the exchange to the Isle of Mans Communications Commission to assess whether any broadcast codes have been broken. And for what? He took issue with the idea that skin colour confers privilege, regardless of any other consideration: a mad ideology whose adherents will actuallyreadily say that white homeless people enjoy white privilege.

And he wondered out loud if a protest against US cops on a small island in the Irish Sea is, well, a bit pointless. If Peters has broken any code it is a very new and unwritten one, and hes not the only person to fall foul of it in recent days. MartinShipton, chief reporter for the Western Mail, has been asked to step down as a judge of the Wales Book of the Year competition over some tweets he posted about the BLM protests in Cardiff. He said they were exercises in virtue-signalling and expressed concern about the effect they might have on the spread of Covid-19. He also got into some robust exchanges with people who told him that, as an old white man, he should just shut up.

How did we get here? In the space of just a few days, Black Lives Matter, its tenets and adherents have become almost unquestionable. No one worth wasting breath on disagrees with the literal message of the movement. But those who dare criticise a lot of the identitarian ideological guff that unfortunately accompanies the movement now risk being treated as heretics. Even criticising these mass gatherings for breaking lockdown remember when sitting too closely on a beach was a scoldable offence? is treated as alarming evidence of non-conformity or perhaps even racism.

This is all a neat demonstration that censorship is not exclusively about state clampdowns. The suspension of Peters and the sacking of Shipton are examples of what John Stuart Mill called the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them. If expressing an opinion, even one as mild as I support the sentiment, but Im not sure these protests are a great idea, the resulting backlashcan cost you your job or social status.

But this is also profoundly worrying not only for free speech but also for the quality of our discussion about racism and how to defeat it. We are being compelled to have a conversation about race, but one in which any dissent from the most extreme and absurd positions such as that Western society is still racist to the core and that dirt-poor white folk benefit from it, even if they dont realise it are treated as suspect. This is a recipe for censorship, division and neverending culture war and nothing else.

See the original post:
The march of progressive censorship - Spectator.co.uk