Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump wrapping himself over the flag at CPAC on Feb. 29, 2020.Photo: Tasos Katopodis (Getty Images)

Polling has shown that Republican voters, by and large, buy Donald Trumps repeated and baseless claims that social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are systematically trying to hound right-wingers off the internet. But it isnt clear what exactly they think is going on behind the scenes beyond a gut feeling that something nefarious is happening.

Gizmodo went to the belly of the beast, Conservative Political Action Conference 2020 (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, to ask conservatives whether they think social media companies are biased against them and what, specifically, they think they cant say online anymore. We received a range of answers, ranging from the anecdotal and apocryphal to complaints about poor user support and enforcement of policies against misgendering and hate speech. We also looked into some of their accounts to see if we could figure out what the hell is going on. (Some of the interviews have been condensed for brevity.)

So, CPAC attendees, what cant you say online anymore?

I understand the argument that they are [censoring conservatives on social media], because it seems like a lot of conservative stuff gets shut down. But a lot of it, I guess to an extent they are, but a lot of it too is how conservatives talk. I know people that, friends, well known friends that Im not going to name, that get suspended from Twitter, etc. and stuff. But it is because its the way they present the stuff. Im retired NYPD, so I know how to talk to people, and I know how to, you know, smooth talk people and still get my point across. I agree that something is going on in the algorithms... But theres something that works against conservatives on social media. Theres no question about it. But like I said, some of the people that complain Oh, Im being shadowbanned, oh, I lost a hundred followers last night on Twitter. Now, I take my Twitter feed very seriously and curate it. If youre a porn bot, a buxom young lady with ample chestitude well call it, Ill investigate, but then I block those things so I dont lose followers. So when people say, Oh, well, I lost all these followers. Yeah, but if you let her! I have 35,000 followers on Twitter. If I let everybody follow me over here that ever follows me? I put it being easily a hundred thousand.

Mhm.

And so if they want to, if Twitter goes through once around, cleans out the porn bots, lets say, or the other whatever nonsense is going. Yeah. If you dont watch who follows you when Twitter decides to clean out the garbage, you dont lose followers. Dont whine to me that youre losing followers when theyre all fake accounts with buxom young ladies in the profile, you know what I mean? But I have no doubt that there is maybe like a certain algorithm bias against. Surely I dont doubt that some people get shut down automatically.

[...]

Yeah. Do you think its selectively enforced to add followers on one side, more on the other?

I have no doubt that its selectively enforced up to a point because it does seem a lot of lets just say left of center stuff, is allowed to happen.

You know, yappity yap, whatever kind of B.S. pinko commie sons of bitches say on it, and it seems to affect the right side more. Because we know there is a human element in there somewhere. Once in awhile, theres somebody comes out, a whistleblower or whatever comes out and says, I worked at wherever and this is what they do. So you start to see behind the curtain. It is what it is, its a private businesses that can do whatever the hell they want. But they should be clear about what they will permit and not.

... I was banned for a tweet in which I said [Minnesota Representative] Ilhan Omar was anti-Jewish. And I posted a tweet after she was elected, and they said that it was hate speech for me saying she was anti-Jewish.

Uh huh. That was the specific wording that you used?

Yeah. That she is pro-Sharia and anti-Jewish.

Oh, OK. So you said something Islamophobic.

So its Islamophobic to point out Jew hatred?

No, its Islamophobic to accuse her of being pro-Sharia just because-

She is. She is pro Sharia. The use of hijab displays the fact that she is pro-Sharia. Shes upholding Islamic law.

So you dont think that you can, you know, just say that on Twitter anymore.

There is nothing wrong. Its completely factual. And she pals around with Linda Sarsour.

[Loomer once handcuffed herself to the Twitter offices in an unsuccessful attempt to get her account back. Representative Omar does not support the imposition of Sharia law.]

I absolutely do. Its my firm belief that the distortion of the truth comes right from their keyboards. I believe the leaning liberal left, the socialist movement, for whatever reason, is trying to stop conservative beliefs and capitalism in business and basically just give the web and the country away. Lets let everybody in. Everybody gets free stuff and we can ride a unicorn, I dont agree with that at all.

But what specifically do you think you cant say on Facebook or Twitter anymore?

Theres a lot of stuff that you cant say. Theres a lot of stuff that would get you banned or barred or thrown off. I do not handle any of my Twitter accounts. Theyre handled by a specialist and my personal accounts, I stay very guarded. I dont curse, use religious slangs, or you know, you cant use any color remarks. You know, people, you know, down at the street level, regular guys, were all hanging out. Martin and Jeff. And you do that on Facebook or something, you get barred or get suspended for breaching your belief or saying what you want.

What do you mean by saying what you want?

Well, theres people out there. I see they get thrown off every month. They go to so-called Facebook jail, you know, for making a comment about your dogs ugly or I dont like Ford, or whatever it is. You know, and you see it more and more, its become more prevalent. Ten years ago, it wasnt like that.

Yeah but, do you say like, an example of [such] a comment is Your dog is ugly?

Lets use gun rights. In other words [...] nobodys got a right to take my Second Amendment away, you know, free speech. And then somebody on the opposing side can say the exact same thing, but the conservative gets barred.

But not for saying that they support gun rights.

Oh, you know, fighting, fighting and bitching and hollering about the government. You know, people have to learn how to write comments again. They have to learn to write correctly again so theyre not so offensive.

Well, just the other day theres the guy. Theres um, on Twitter there, I dont know if you ever heard of this musician, Zuby? Hes like a pro-Trump guy. I think hes always lived in Ghana or something, Nigeria. Nigeria. But he basically like, he just said, like, OK dude, to like a reply that was like coming after him, insulting him or something. And then he got reported for misgendering the person, you know, it wasnt even like supposed to be about the gender.

Like stuff like that thats just like, like, politically correct madness.

So do you think that misgendering people is politically, er, a policy against it-

Well it wasnt misgendering at all! Like I call people dude all the time. It doesnt matter what gender they are. Just like, just like hypersensitivity, anything like just assuming like the worst about peoples motives. Thats stuff that like I cant stand.

[Zubys website says he lives and was born in England, grew up in Saudi Arabia, and attended Oxford. The user he was responding to, data scientist Emily Gorcenski, says she is regularly misgendered on social media; Twitter prompted Zuby to delete the tweet but did not suspend his account.]

I absolutely do. You know, me as a conservative, browsing through Facebook and Twitter I see, you know, almost nothing except for these liberal advertisers, for these Democratic candidates campaigns and such, when, you know, you see on other platforms on the internet itself how it will tailor its advertisements to the things you look at, the things you do, the things you browse.

But it just so happens that on social media, thats not the case. You know, whereas everywhere else on the internet, that is exactly what happens. Therefore, I can only see that as a kind of bias where they want to show everybody these different liberal advertisements.

Do you think that theyre censoring conservatives in other ways? Like, theres users that complain about bans, stuff like that?

Absolutely. You know, you see on Twitter all the time users that are tweeting these pro-gun, anti-abortion tweets, getting banned from Twitter, for terms of use violations when its perfectly fine and not a violation of any sort of terms of service to glorify the killing of infants, and the killing of babies and infanticid and such like that.

Can you provide any specific examples of a tweet that youve seen somebody get in trouble for? Like, what was the specific wording there?

I can I can absolutely provide the example of a user whos had his tweets taken down. Matt Walsh, tends to have some tweets taken down, a writer from the Daily Wire, has had several tweets taken down. As far as actual wording, you know, I want to say that its more so his anti-abortion tweets, saying that somebody that is against abortion or somebody that is pro abortion, sorry, is in the wrong, and it is the same thing as murder and killing somebody.

Absolutely, yes.

How so?

I personally know. Now I will tell you, I am not on social at all, personally. But I do know people who are. And I know cousins and friends and relatives who have had posts taken downFacebook, YouTubethat were conservative in nature and not offensive. Not really, to anyone with half a brain. Yeah.

Can you be a little bit more specific by what you mean by not offensive?

Well, yeah. For example, last year at CPAC 2019. This is not a personal friend of mine, but there is a little gal, Millie [...] She, I dont know how old she is now. She used to be, you know, eight, and nine, and ten, I dont know. But I dont know how old she was last year at CPAC. But it was a little gal expressing at CPAC, 10 years old, whatever she was. She was expressing her support for Donald Trump. And then she went on to say why she likes Donald Trump. She likes his policies. She likes his policy on immigration. She likes it. Heres this little gal. And shes explaining very nicely why she likes President Trump.

That was posted on YouTube and then it was taken down.

Do you know why specifically it was taken down, what she said?

I do not know exactly, but shes little eight year old girl or whatever how old she was, there was nothing offensive in there, I can guarantee that.

[Caldwell appears to be referencing Millie March, who went viral in 2017 for videos in which she supported Donald Trump and, rather unfortunately interviewed GOP Alabama Senate candidate and accused pedophile Roy Moore. Its possible that a video of March was removed at some point, but searches for her name come up immediately in YouTube search results, including a video with over a million views.]

I most certainly do think that. I was on Twitter, this is a year or two ago, and I had my account suspended for being under 13. I was 17 at the time and I submitted a complaint on Twitter about it. I have received over a thousand followers on Twitter, and I, thats like, someones tweets, I guess, blow up. But then my account was suspended and they said theyd get back to it momentarily.

Six months later, they come around. My accounts finally reinstated after I made another one because I couldnt get, reach anyone at Twitter. And I know people who are like, such as Jacob Wohl*, who are just like completely banned from Twitter. And its so blatantly obvious how tech companies, these are pushing the agenda of the left sometimes, and trying to... they are covert about it but theyre also very, its very obvious when you start looking into it how many conservatives are silenced on social media.

So with the whole thing your account was banned for, maybe it had an underage birthday or something listed with it. I dont know. But how do you know that has anything to do with you being a conservative?

Well, I cant say thats immediate, like, like 100 percent tied to it. But I think that its a part on Twitter, at least, its not. Im not going to say that Twitter did that just because I posted conservative stuff. I am willing to come out and say that its because, that, because of my conservative views, it took them so long to reinstate my account. I had completely given up on that until I got an e-mail one day about that.

And you mentioned seeing other people get banned for posting stuff here. What kind of stuff did they say?

It was stuff that might be considered offensive to liberals, people on the left.

Mhm.

But its things such as like, just supporting President Trump, and conservative candidates for Congress, such as Laura Loomer. It was just...

Yeah. But was it stuff that was specifically offensive?

I cant, I dont know what it was thats offensive, that got them... Its like these random, like little things that they get, that people get offended by it. And theres this shadow banning tests that you can do for Twitter, like see if your account shows up and stuff.

And even president, sometimes I search POTUS, and it just doesnt show up. And its things like that that are irritating.

Thats because his handle is realDonaldTrump. Or do you mean the official [Presidential] one?

Yeah, the official one.

Yeah, I have actually seen that problem.

Yeah.

*[Jacob Wohl, a conspiracy theorist, was banned from Twitter after admitting that he ran a network of fake accounts that he used to promote various scams like a plot to smear former FBI director Robert Mueller as a rapist. Before he was banned from Twitter, he became the youngest person to ever be banned from futures trading.]

... There are some conservatives that are very socially conservative on transgender issues, people that are even in favor of transgender people having rights and, you know, calling people by the pronouns that they want. But even some people saying men are men and women are women.

And just by saying that or addressing someone by the biological pronoun they have, say, if you disagree with someone on that issue, youre having people getting banned as a result of that quick. People with thousands upon thousands of followers with good hearts and just a difference of opinion being deplatformed from platforms that are meant to be about free discussion and open dialogue to go in with that.

I see where youre going with that, but that would be against the platforms policy on misgendering people.

Right. And theyve adopted that policy because they are biased.

I definitely see some of that with Twitter. Facebook, a while back, definitely, I saw some stuff not popping up in my newsfeed anymore that I had. You know how, like, Facebook has that thing where you can set like see post first or whatever? Right. And like, I had, you know, a handful of people that I followed set to that. And then I stopped seeing them in my newsfeed. I went back and I still had that selected. And they had been making posts. I just wasnt seeing it.

That seems to be fixed now in the most part. So like, yeah, I mean, that definitely is something that Ive experienced. Now, again, Im not the most technical person on the planet but knowing that so many other people have had that experience, you know.

Could you point to any specific examples of, like, somebody that was censored?

Yeah, Ben Shapiro was someone that I follow. I stopped seeing a lot of his posts.

On Facebook?

Yeah, on Facebook. And I like I dont really follow... whats his face, Louder with Crowder. I used to, like, look at some of his stuff. I dont really do that so much anymore. But definitely him on Twitter and Facebook. He just disappeared off the face of the earth for a little while.

As in his account was suspended or you just didnt see?

I dont think it was suspended. I mean, I dont know, maybe it was for a period of time or something. But Im not, Im not on Twitter enough to like to, like, know if he got suspended or not. I just know I just stopped seeing him in my newsfeed as well. So this would be like two specific cases I could think of.

I would like to say that, like, Im not like some of the other people here. I think its a private company, if they want to change their rules to say that we like, you know, have a right to censor whoever, or like stop promoting someone that we dont like, I think as a private business, they have the right to do that. Its just if they if they say that its an open platform for everyone, but not really, thats kind of what I would have issues with.

Yes, I do believe that they do censor conservative voices online.

How so? Can you point to any specific examples?

Well, Im friends on Facebook with Live Action, and I know that they get pushed off Facebook quite often.

Like, their account gets suspended?

Yes, yes. Or videos, they uh, their videos get blocked. Do you know who Live Action is?

Is that abortion, uhh, anti-abortion?

Yes.

Do you know why theyre getting kicked, or?

Um... I guess because theyre pro-life, I mean.

[Live Action was banned from Pinterest for spreading conspiracy theories that vaccines are made from aborted fetuses. It has, however, complained about restrictions on running abortion-related ads on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.]

Go to hell. Gizmodo! Youre not a reporter. Stick your head in a bucket.

[Gorka did not respond to a follow-up inquiry as to what kind of bucket.]

Original post:
I Went to CPAC to See How Conservatives Think Big Tech Is Censoring Them - Gizmodo

Last January, a New England woman was inspired to design a new beanie, commemorating the construction of President Donald Trumps planned US border wall. Her knitting pattern spelled out Build the Wall with a brick motif. Deplorable Knitter, as she calls herself, then posted the pattern on Ravelry, the internets largest collective of knitters and crocheters.

The response was vitriolic. Everyone was so angry about it, she says.

But Deplorable Knitter, whod previously just used the site to browse patterns, was fired up. When Trump announced he was running for reelection last June, she designed a Trump 2020 Keep America Great cowl. That one blew up, she says, describing threats and bullying that have forced her to remain anonymous. Her cowl pattern got flagged for hate speech, and on June 21, Deplorable Knitter was banned from Ravelry.

She was not alone. On June 23, the site banned support of Donald Trump and his administration. In a statement at the time, Ravelry said: We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.

The ban tore Ravelry apart, with opponents of the policy making a bitter exit while liberal supporters offered a flood of patterns featuring pride flags, donkeys, and anti-Trump phrases. It has also splintered the knitting world at large, with new, overtly political (and many right-wing) sites springing up to fill the gap.

But the infighting in one of the internet's most niche communities is about more than just politics and knitting. Its a glimpse of how otherwise ignored populationshere, predominantly older womenare using online platforms to organize and make their voices heard. And the Ravelry falling-out highlights questions other platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, have tiptoed around: What constitutes hate speech, and how should censorship work online?

A decade of pattern-sharing

Ravelry boasts about 8.5 million registered users. Half a million of these are considered active, and there are 40,000 subgroups. The site is pretty ugly: its tab structure, font, and blocky formatting recall an earlier, simpler time on the internet when chat rooms reigned. It hasnt updated its design since it launched in 2007.

The site originally started as a platform for knitters and crocheters to share their works in progress, swapping tips and selling patterns. Soon groups formed around other common interests. Some were silly; others focused on things certain users had in common, like being from a similar region or being a fan of a cult TV show. The most volatile and active groups, however, were political.

Unsplash: John Cameron

For some, the politicization of knitting groups started in earnest with the Womens March in 2017. Thousands of women knitted pussy hats to protest the grab em by the pussy comment the president was revealed to have made in 2005. Nearly 5,000 knitters were active on Ravelrys dedicated subgroup for the march. Three years later, a majority remained active, says Sandra Markus, a professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology. Together with Ioana Literat, a professor at Columbia University Teachers College, she published a paper last year that chronicles online craftivism and how politics has grown with it.

Sign up for The Download your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology

The whole [pussy hat] project emerged in six weeks from Thanksgiving to New Years, and it was all online, Markus says. There was a level of effectiveness because people were dismissive of knitters as little gray-haired ladies. But when older women transgressed these boundaries with their knitting, the optics of police up against gray-haired women with balls of knitting were not good. Women were advocating and effective in online spaces.

Much of the organization behind the scenes for the Womens March and the pussy hats took place in the unmoderated spaces of Ravelry, where no entity controlled who saw what content. Unlike Facebook groups, which vet membership, Ravelrys groups (used to) let anyone in. This meant the dialogue gets much more controversial and contentious much faster, says Markus.

But with the ban on Trump-related content, many of those voices moved elsewhere. In the eight months since the ban, a slew of right-leaning Ravelry copycats have sprung up. Deplorable Knitter launched her own site, subtitled The Adventures of a Politically Incorrect Knitter, where shes gained a cult following and is currently hosting a knit-along of a hat and cowl emblazoned with Women for Trump. Theres the independent 18,000-strong Fiberkind, whose threaded chat layout most resembles Ravelry. And theres Trump-supporting Freedom Knits, where artistic freedom is respected. It has grown to 400 members in the two months since it launched.

The increased politicization of the online knitting world has come as part of a demographic shift. While the community still skews older and mostly female, it is fast diversifying. Millennialswho are generally more politically active and came of age in the AIM chatroomare now signing up to Ravelry and its offshoots. Theyve been awakened in this particular moment to capitalize on their identity, Literat says.

And its no longer just about the knitting patterns: sites like Ravelry offer a safe space for discussing politics. Deplorable Knitter and Medora Van Denburgh, who leads a 239-member Bernie Sanders group on Ravelry, both said that they live in regions that typically lean in the opposite political direction from their own, and Ravelry allowed them to feel less alone.

Its something we will see more of, Literat predicts. Other niche groups shes studied, such as Fortnite players and fan fiction sites, have created active subgroups around political conversation in much the same way. Typically, people feel safe engaging around the core interest first (in Ravelrys case, knitting or crocheting), but increasingly delve into political discussions over time.

Online communities that are hyperspecific to certain hobbies also help engender dialogue across the political dividea key point in a polarized political environment where people spend much of their time in ideological bubbles, says Literat.

You get a much wider spectrum of opinions in these spaces, she says. You see people who are already politically engaged, but also people who arent coming to these places, at least at first, because of politics.

Censorship vs free speech

Or they werent. Ravelrys equation of Trump support with white supremacy is a controversial move, even for supporters of the ban. (Ravelry declined to comment for this story, and cofounder Cassidy Forbes told me in an email that the company [doesnt] really do press that isnt part of the yarn industryits not a new policy or anything, just something weve done for the last 13 years.)

Pam Mauser, the founder of Freedom Knits, says she founded the site because she was insulted by Ravelrys stance. I knit a Trump 2020 hat, and they took it down with no notice, says Mauser, an Indiana native. They just sent me a message that its no longer acceptable. But whats acceptable on the site is stuff that says F--- Trump. Its political.

Mauser says her site welcomes both liberals and conservatives. If you want to post about Obama, thats perfectly fine, she says. Its not political. Its Freedom Knits. I dont believe in censoring people who dont believe the way you believe.

On the other side of the aisle, Van Denburgh says the ban on Trump support wasnt something that sat comfortably with her either. I truly was stymied by the conflict between my principles [of free speech] and my grudging admission of the fact that Ravelry had done the right thing in enacting the ban, she says.

The controversy shines a light on the future of political organizing: ultra-niche, small-but-vocal online communities built around an otherwise nonpolitical hobby or interest. For Literat, Ravelrys ban presents a litmus test for the future of niche-site censorship and whether its best to forge a single, politically homogenous community or to splinter fringe users off.

It is also giving women a new way to become politicized online. For Amy Singer, the founder of another knitting site, Knitty, thats good news.

The one thing that crafts have always done is bring solace, she says. It gives us a way to express whats upsetting us, hope for change, and bring comfort. Knittings not for grannies. Were not scared any more.

Follow this link:
How a ban on pro-Trump patterns unraveled the online knitting world - MIT Technology Review

from the exactly dept

We've already pointed out that Facebook's latest moves to say it's okay to strip away Section 230's protections are all about giving Facebook more power and harming competitors -- and now the author of Section 230, Senator Ron Wyden, has put out quite an op-ed in the Washington Post explaining just how much damage would be done in chipping away at Section 230. In particular, he highlights two key reasons why we shouldn't do it: (1) It would lock in the most powerful companies like Facebook and Google (even as misguided critics seem to think taking away Section 230 protections will harm them), and (2) It will enable the Trump administration to increase online censorship of marginalized voices.

On the first point, the argument is the one I made regarding Facebook's new stance, though Wyden expresses it succinctly:

Some have argued that repealing Section 230 would punish Facebook and Google for their failures. Thats simply not true. The biggest tech companies have enough lawyers and lobbyists to survive virtually any regulation Congress can concoct. Its the start-ups seeking to displace Big Tech that would be hammered by the constant threat of lawsuits.

He notes, as we have in the past, that most of the lobbying to gut 230 is being lead by industries that failed to adapt to the internet, and are now using 230 as a hammer to try to stay relevant.

The argument about speech is equally as important:

Im certain this administration would use power to regulate speech to punish its enemies and protect its allies. It would threaten Facebook or YouTube for taking down white supremacist content. It would label Black Lives Matter activists as purveyors of hate.

Again, this is exactly what we've warned about. Section 230 has created spaces online for the most marginalized to speak out -- and they will be the first to be silenced. Indeed, that's exactly what we've already seen post SESTA. The law that was passed in the name of "protecting sex trafficking victims" has actually put sex workers at risk. Wyden points out that the law appears to have done the opposite of what its backers promised:

Backpage was shut down before SESTA even went into effect. And sex workers have been driven to the dark Web or the streets, where sex trafficking has increased dramatically. The most vulnerable group bore the brunt of this law.

And the same is likely for any other attempt to attack 230 as well.

What's really incredible in all of this is how little those looking to modify or remove 230 seem to even understand 230. They seem to blame all sorts of societal problems on 230, even though all 230 has done is allow people to express themselves. And from there, the complaints against 230 are often contradictory. Some are worried that two much speech is silenced through moderation, while others complain that not enough speech is silenced. But neither is a 230 problem. They are all just representations of the impossibility of pleasing everyone when it comes to moderation policies. But taking away 230 or even modifying it won't change any of that. All it will do is lead to much greater censorship, and much more power for the biggest internet companies.

As is often the case, it would be nice if others in Congress actually listened to Ron Wyden on this -- as he's been right since the very beginning, and every time people ignore him, they end up looking foolish. Unfortunately, I fear that they will end up looking foolish yet again.

Filed Under: censorship, competition, free speech, ron wyden, section 230Companies: facebook

Go here to see the original:
Ron Wyden: Modifying Section 230 Will Give More Censorship Power To Trump; And Lock In Facebook's Dominance - Techdirt

The report provides strong confirmation that conservatives face a hostile campus.

Among students who self-identify as liberals, some 10 percent said they hear disrespectful, inappropriate, or offensive comments about foreign students at least several times a semester, 14 percent said they hear disparaging comments about Muslims, 20 percent said they hear such comments about African Americans, 20 percent said they hear such comments about Christians, 21 percent said they hear such comments about LGBTQ individuals, and 57 percent said they hear such comments about conservatives. Among moderates, 68 percent said that they hear disrespectful, inappropriate, or offensive comments about conservatives at least several times a semester.

Out conservatives may face social isolation. Roughly 92 percent of conservatives said they would be friends with a liberal, and just 3 percent said that they would not have a liberal friend. Among liberals, however, almost a quarter said they would not have a conservative friend. Would UNC be a better place without conservatives? About 22 percent of liberals said yes. Would it be a better place without liberals? Almost 15 percent of conservatives thought so.

Lee C. Bollinger: Free speech on campus is doing just fine, thank you

Self-identified conservative students do in fact face distinct challenges related to viewpoint expression at UNC, the authors conclude. They urge a conversation about how the campus can become more accepting of conservative students as well as more willing to hear and engage with conservative ideas. After all, they ask, who would dispute that universities should be places where each idea is considered on its own terms, and not prejudged? Where sincerely held conclusions can be offered up for vigorous and civil contestation? Where students are assumed to be arguing in good faith and where they feel valued and respected, even should they turn out to be wrong?

As important, the authors correctly emphasize that the wrong way to interpret our report would be to see it as pitting liberals against conservatives, not only because many liberals and moderates harbor similar anxieties about sharing earnest views, but also because even though political hostility emerges disproportionately from the political left at UNC, that hostility comes from a minority, not a majority, of liberals. Tolerant students belong to a cross-ideological majority. While divided in their politics, both are ill-served by the minority faction of intolerant censors.

Self-censorship is among several significant reasons to believe that free speech remains under threat on American campuses, harming undergraduate education. I try to avoid talk of crisis, because I believe that free speech is perpetually threatened and requires constant vigilance to sustain. But however we label the status quo, Americas professors ought to be aware of these problems.

Originally posted here:
Evidence That Conservative Students Really Do Self-Censor - The Atlantic

The UK government has unveiled its proposals to tackle so-called online harms. It wants to regulate social media through Ofcom, which currently regulates the media and the telecoms industry.

Under the proposals, Ofcom will be empowered to ensure that tech firms adopt a duty of care towards users, especially children. This is to protect users, first, from illegal content, such as child pornography, which Ofcom will require tech firms to remove; and second, from harmful but legal content. In the second case, Ofcom will require tech firms to be upfront about what behaviour is acceptable and unacceptable on their sites, in the shape of transparently enforced terms and conditions. So, if a social-media platform states that promoting self-harm is unacceptable, Ofcom is empowered to ensure that stipulation is enforced. In addition, all companies will need to ensure a higher level of protection for children, and take reasonable steps to protect them from inappropriate or harmful content.

Failure to comply with Ofcoms demands could, or so at least one report suggests, result in executives at offending companies receiving substantial fines or even prison sentences.

Full details about the legislation and the powers it entails will be released this spring. But make no mistake: even as it stands this plan is a serious threat to internet freedom.

For one thing, these proposals dont just encompass the internets social-media behemoths, such as Facebook. Ofcoms writ will run to all sites that provide services allowing the sharing of user-generated content or user interactions. That means if you run a pressure group, or a political website, and publish material or comments from users, then you are potentially in Ofcoms crosshairs.

Whats more, quite apart from demanding that tech firms take down illegal material, Ofcom will require all sites featuring user-generated content to ensure their own terms and conditions are enforced. That is quite a burden. First, all sites will be forced to draft terms and conditions, and conceive of thresholds for harmful but legal content. They will then also have to come up with processes and systems to deal with complaints and allow for redress. And then they will have to take responsibility for enforcing the terms and conditions or face the potential wrath of Ofcom.

Empowering Ofcom to enforce sites own regulation of harmful but legal content could be disastrous. And you can bet that there will be plenty of people and pressure groups itching to use this new state power to suppress discussions they would rather not see take place.

Yes, the plan states that safeguards for freedom of expression have been built in throughout the framework. Hence the freedom to publish harmful but legal content as long as its clearly permitted in a platforms terms and conditions. But unfortunately, even this freedom is qualified by the imperative to respect the rights of children, and the corresponding demand that companies ensure there is a higher level of protection for children. From this, it could follow that there will be removal-of-content orders aimed at legal discussions of, for example, the morality of suicide, or anti-vaccination, because they are deemed too harmful to children.

Besides, the line between legal and illegal speech is pretty fluid anyway. Despite former policeman Harry Millers minor victory over an over-intrusive Humberside Police last week, the catch-all prohibition in section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 on grossly offensive material online is open to interpretation. It still means that any pungent or forceful statement that happens to annoy some interest group or other could give Ofcom reason to think it criminal and demand removal.

For all home secretary Priti Patels talk of needing to tame the Wild West of the internet in order to protect our children, it is clear what we have here: a plan for worryingly sweeping restrictions on what we can say, or allow others to say, online not to mention an enormous increase in bureaucrats power to snoop.

It is not even clear that any of this will be very effective. Even Ofcom accepts that it can only realistically intervene in sites in the UK. Depending on how the government responds to criticisms already made of its proposals, we shall have to see whether its plans merely prompt controversial sites to move abroad, or even to some convenient offshore jurisdiction, like the Isle of Man. If this happens, there will be precious little Ofcom will be able to do about them even if what they say is truly criminal. Even by Ofcoms curious standards, that would be a spectacular own goal.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

Picture by: Getty.

Read the original post:
This is state censorship of the internet - Spiked