Mediaboss Marketing

YouTube has been removing videos of a press briefing in which two doctors criticize the sweeping shelter-at-home edicts that governments have imposed throughout the world in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. One of the videos had over 5 million views before it was taken down.

The original videos were posted by an ABC news affiliate in Bakersfield, California. When the affiliate reached out to YouTube about the removal, a company spokesperson issued a statement that offered the following justification:

We quickly remove flagged content that violate [sic] our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local health authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance. (...) From the very beginning of the pandemic, weve had clear policies against COVID-19 misinformation and are committed to continue providing timely and helpful information at this critical time.

The claims of the physicians (Dr. Daniel W. Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi, owners of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield) have been the subject of furious debate. Many health experts and organizations have denounced their remarks as unscientific and reckless. Even fellow critics of shelter-in-place who agree with much of the rest of their analysis have questioned some of their statistical inferences.

Whatever the veracity of the doctors claims, YouTubes censorship of unorthodox ideas in the name of protecting the public from misinformation is misguided and counter-productive. Sheltering the public from ideas, even bad ones, only makes society more susceptible to dangerous error.

One of the censored doctors critiques of shelter-at-home provides an apt metaphor for the folly of censorship. Dr. Erickson said:

Id like to go over some basic things about how the immune system functions so people have a good understanding. The immune system is built by exposure to antigens: viruses, bacteria. When youre a little child crawling on the ground, putting stuff in your mouth, viruses and bacteria come in. You form an antigen antibody complex. You form IgG IgM. This is how your immune system is built. You dont take a small child, put them in bubble wrap in a room, and say, go have a healthy immune system.

This is immunology, microbiology 101. This is the basis of what weve known for years. When you take human beings and you say, go into your house, clean all your countersLysol them down youre gonna kill 99% of viruses and bacteria; wear a mask; dont go outside, what does it do to our immune system? Our immune system is used to touching. We share bacteria. Staphylococcus, streptococcal, bacteria, viruses.

Sheltering in place decreases your immune system. And then as we all come out of shelter in place with a lower immune system and start trading viruses, bacteriawhat do you think is going to happen? Disease is going to spike. And then youve got diseases spikeamongst a hospital system with furloughed doctors and nurses. This is not the combination we want to set up for a healthy society. It doesnt make any sense.

Just as local health authorities are ostensibly trying to protect the public from COVID-19 through shelter-at-home policies, YouTube is seeking to shelter the public from misinformation. The following characterizes the perspective of YouTube and the health authorities that YouTube is serving in a metaphorical nutshell:

This is in keeping with the policy that YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced days ago, that YouTube would remove any content that contradicts the World Health Organization on COVID-19.

Even assuming all the doctors ideas are indeed bad, such a policy doesnt work, and only makes things worse.

Just as human immune systems are built up through exposure to viruses and other pathogens (as Dr. Erickson explained above), our intellectual defenses against error are strengthened through exposure to bad ideas.

When you encounter a bad idea, what can conceivably happen? You can:

In the case of #1, there is no problem. Next, lets consider #4, since that is the outcome that censors are most trying to avoid.

What happens when you adopt and implement a bad idea in your life? In the worst-case scenario, it could destroy you. But that is far less common in life than scaremongers would have us believe. More often, we suffer but do not die. And that is a very memorable way to learn that the idea implemented was indeed bad. We learn from experience, from failure, from the school of hard knocks. That is one of the reasons why what does not kill you makes you stronger, as the saying goes.

But not everybody needs to suffer to benefit from the lessons of suffering. That brings us to #2: we can investigate the idea. Through investigation, we can discover the accounts (whether first- or second-hand) of experiments with the bad idea and their bad results. Ideally, these would be rigorously scientific experiments whenever possible.

Finally, we have #3, which is adopting the bad idea without implementing it. What would be the point of doing that? Well, it could mean adopting it just enough to advocate it. And arguing for an idea is one of the most efficient ways to investigate it (making #3 really a subset of #2). That is because argument elicits counter-argument. And true, effective counter-arguments are, by definition, antithetical to bad ideas. Even if the apologist of the bad idea holds fast to his belief, the counter-arguments that emerge can arm debate spectators against error.

In all of the above cases, exposure to bad ideas strengthens our defenses against bad ideas. We come away equipped with truthsfacts, information, and counter-argumentsdrawn ultimately from experience, whether our own or that of others. These good counter-ideas are like antibodies that we develop through exposure to bad ideas. Bad ideas are not just pathogens, but antigens. We thus develop immunity, not only to those specific bad ideas, but to similar ones, because we learn to recognize the basic logical fallacies that they share.

The mind, like our immune system and our muscles, is antifragile to use the term coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It grows stronger through exposure to adversity.

The flipside of that is also true. Just as sheltering from antigens can lead to immunodeficiency, sheltering from bad ideas ultimately makes us more susceptible to them.

When paternalistic censors seal us up in a sterile bubble of ideas for our own protection, they deprive us of the chance to develop through experience our own ability to identify and grapple with bad ideas. As soon as a bad idea penetrates our bubble, we have no defences against it. Our lack of experience with the responsibilities of intellectual independence has left us naive, credulous, and gullible.

The more that self-appointed gatekeepers like YouTube and its allied health authorities protect us from ideas they disapprove of, the more susceptible we will be to falsehood and error (including falsehoods foisted on us by our protectors themselves). This vulnerability will in turn be used to justify still more such protection. Such is the vicious cycle of sheltering.

Ironically, many secular leftists who support public-health influence sheltering probably fully understand the dangers of that practice in another instance.

The classic critique of a sheltered upbringing is that it deprives the child of experience grappling with potentially bad influences and so ultimately leaves her more vulnerable to them. The stereotypical example of this is a child raised in an exclusively religious and traditional environment, without exposure to non-traditionalist peers, popular movies and music, and tempting situations. Once this naif inevitably leaves home, perhaps to go off to college or the big city, she has no defenses against the wave of bad influences that she must then face all at once with little support, and so the wave engulfs her.

The same principle applies generally: sheltering backfires, whether the bad influences are cultural or medical.

This is one reason why open discourse is so important and censorship is so debilitating and disrespectful. We need to be allowed the responsibility and practice of identifying and guarding against falsehood to be any good at it.

Now, all of the above takes for granted, for the sake of argument, that the purported bad ideas are in fact bad, and that the censors are in possession of good ideas. However, that is often not the case. Heresies often turn out to be right, and orthodoxies often turn out to be wrong: and this includes scientific paradigms that wound up in the ash heap of history. Our protectors may be sheltering us from the truth and forcing falsehood upon us. Wrong orthodoxies are far more dangerous than wrong heresies, simply as a matter of the scale of the errors impact.

That is yet another reason why open discourse is so vital. For the sake of human welfare, orthodox falsehoods need to be overthrown, and heretical truths need to spread.

The remarks of the Bakersfield doctors are probably a mix of good ideas and bad, truths and falsehoods. Taking down the video does us a disservice regarding both sides of the coin.

To the extent that they are wrong, their errors should be aired out and refuted. Any mistake the doctors made will probably be made again, since the human mind tends to fall prey to the same basic fallacies. By developing and disseminating counter-arguments (mental antibodies) to them, we develop our immunity to these and similar errors.

By taking down the videos, YouTube has limited the extent to which that social learning can happen and insulated the error from debunking. If anything, YouTubes censorship has lent additional credence to whatever mistakes they made by feeding into the narrative that the powers-that-be fear its truth. The debunking is being drowned out by outrage over the censorship. And the Streisand Effect (how censorship can boost somethings publicity) is causing it to spread even more.

Moreover, even if the physicians are wrong in some ways (like in their statistical claims), they may be right in other important ways.

Whether or not sheltering bodies is a wise policy for the spread of COVID-19, sheltering minds is surely a bad policy for the spread of ideas.

The rest is here:
YouTube's Censorship of Dissenting Doctors Will Backfire - Foundation for Economic Education

Every May 3, we are reminded of the importance of press freedom for the enjoyment of human rights. Press freedom constitutes one of the cornerstones of a democratic society as it can ensure the governments transparency and accountability.

World Press Freedom Day is also a reminder to governments around the world on the need to fulfill their commitment to the principles of press freedom. Unfortunately, the battle for press freedom is still the reality of our daily life in Southeast Asia.

In the past three years, the region showed an increasing number of journalists killed, attacks on the media and growing concerns over disinformation. As journalists work to uncover abuse of power, shed light on corruption and question opinions, they often face the specific risk of intimidation and violence.

As Indonesias representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission o...

Log in with your social account

Link:
Insight: Press freedom more pressing than ever amid virus controls, censorship - Jakarta Post

In the context of World Press Freedom Day, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Article 19 are sending an open letter to President Miguel Diaz-Canel urging him to take immediate measures to guarantee press freedom and protect independent journalists in Cuba.

The organizations also sent this letter in light of recent worrying reports regarding independent journalists in the country who have reportedly been fined or intimidated by state security agents because of their work.

In the COVID-19 era its even more vital to guarantee freedom of the press and access to truthful and timely information. Its shameful how the censorship of independent journalists in Cuba, which we have documented for decades, seems to be worsening in recent weeks, with complaints from independent journalists fined for reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the country. No journalist should have to decide between silence or jail. We demand that the Daz-Canel administration take immediate action to guarantee freedom of the press, said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International.

In the open letter, the organizations demand that the Cuban authorities immediately and unconditionally release Roberto Quiones Haces, a 63-year-old Cuban prisoner of conscience who has been held since September 2019 for practicing independent journalism and who is now at risk from COVID-19.

Its shameful how the censorship of independent journalists in Cuba, which we have documented for decades, seems to be worsening in recent weeks, with complaints from independent journalists fined for reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the country

The threat of imprisonment and the imposition of fines have functioned as dissuasive and inhibiting tools for the body of independent journalists on the island. In this sense, the imprisonment of journalist Roberto Quiones since September 2019 has become a clear warning to all critical journalists and media workers, even though there have been widespread calls for his release. Without doubt, these demands are more valid than ever today, as there is real risk of contagion with coronavirus, particularly for the elderly and even more so for those held in jails like the Guantnamo Provincial Prison, where, according to the journalists own testimony, the conditions are inhumane, said Ana Cristina Ruelas, regional director of the Article 19 office for Mexico and Central America.

Cuban authorities must release imprisoned journalist Roberto de Jess Quiones Haces and ensure that journalists on the island do not face harassment, threats, intimidation, or jail time simply for reporting facts. As long as they remain behind bars, Roberto Quiones and other imprisoned journalists face an elevated risk of contracting COVID-19, as they cannot isolate, maintain social distance or follow other health guidelines. Journalism must not carry a death sentence, now or ever, saidCPJ Central and South America Program Coordinator Natalie Southwick.

The imprisonment of journalist Roberto Quiones since September 2019 has become a clear warning to all critical journalists and media workers, even though there have been widespread calls for his release

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and its Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression recently reiterated their concern about the state of freedom of expression in the Americas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cuba remains the only country in the Americas to which Amnesty International and other human rights monitoring mechanisms do not have access.

For more information or to arrange an interview, contact Duncan Tucker: duncan.tucker@amnesty.org

Excerpt from:
Cuba must guarantee press freedom in the COVID-19 era - Amnesty International

It is no secret that Japan censors some of its manga's most scandalous moments, but fans of One-Punch Man did learn recently how far the series has gone to outwit those guidelines. Over on Reddit, the conversation cropped up after a user pointed out an alleged instance of bypassed censorship which you can never unsee. So if you want to still be able to look at Puri Puri Prisoner without flinching, you better turn around now!

You can thank the user birdofnoel on Reddit for pointing out the rather salacious fact. The fan made a post on Reddit showing off One-Punch Man volume six which can be seen here. It is there fans can see Puri Puri Prisoner standing tall in all his muscular glory upon the volume's first page, but he is nude. As censorship laws dictate, the man's genitals are whited out to keep things kid-friendly... but artist Yusuke Murata found a way to rig the system.

Puri Puri Prisoner is on the other side off the volume's title page. On that title page, the text "One-Punch Man Vol. 6" can be found, and it is positioned strategically. That means if you were to, say, shine a light on this thin page that a secret image would reveal itself. It turns out the "6" on the title page is positioned so that it resembles the genitals which Puri Puri Prisoner had to obscure to appease the manga censors.

And if that is not equal parts genius and diabolical, then nothing is. Sure, this isn't the first time something like this has been done in manga, but fans are a bit surprised Murata went to such lengths. One-Punch Man isn't an ecchi series by any means, but its artist knows the tricks of that trade.

But before you go looking for this cover up, you will want to hit the pause button. The English version of volume six does not contain this secret, and the same goes for other translations from Brazil and beyond. It seems like this slip only made it past the first run or so of the Japanese volume, so Puri Puri Prisoner has been censored for good.

Did you ever notice this clever work around? Or do you wish you could unsee the One-Punch Man scene? Let me know in the comments or hit me up on Twitter @MeganPetersCB to talk all things comics and anime!

Disclosure: ComicBook is owned by CBS Interactive, a division of ViacomCBS.

Go here to see the original:
One-Punch Man Fans Discover the Lengths the Manga Went to Avoid Censors - ComicBook.com

Botswana President Mokgweetsi Masisi. (Photo: EPA-EFE / Aaron Ufumeli)

The glitter of Botswanas shining example of African democracy is fading, as the country of 2.3 million people slowly slides towards authoritarianism.

The trend began under former president Ian Khama, who silenced critical media and cowed citizens into apathy. His term in office ended in April 2018.

Early indications that his successor, Mokgweetsi Masisi vice-president for four years had a penchant for intolerance was evinced in the run-up to the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) congress in April 2019 when he openly thwarted his rival, Pelonomi Venson-Moitois incipient challenge for the party presidency.

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to further centralisation of power: Parliament recently passed an Emergency Powers Act that gives Masisi sweeping powers to rule by decree for a six-month period.

It was bulldozed through by the majority BDP in the face of opposition protests that putting power in the hands of one man would breed corruption and infringe on the powers of other branches of government.

As of Monday 23 April, Botswana has reported one death and 22 cases of people infected with Covid-19. The country has been placed under a 28-day lockdown, which ends on 30 April.

Masisi and his government have not been able to explain the need for a lengthy state of emergency, except to argue vaguely that the Public Health Act is too weak to enforce a lockdown.

One alarming provision of the presidents emergency powers is the introduction of a prison term of up to five years or a $10,000 fine for anyone publishing information with the intention to deceive the public about Covid-19 or measures taken by the government to address the pandemic.

Critics say the law, with broad and vague definitions, is a gift to authoritarian leaders who want to use the public health crisis to grab power and suppress freedom of speech.

Masisis backers argue that the law is needed as a deterrent. It has become necessary to curtail some rights to prevent the spread of the virus, said BDP spokesperson, Kagelelo Banks Kentse.

There are well-grounded fears that the emergency powers will be used to extend the governments grip on supposedly independent institutions. Already there are concerns that the security forces are meting out heavy-handed justice in the name of enforcing the lockdown.

Two police officers in central Botswana are facing assault charges, while a schoolteacher was arrested after challenging the governments claim that a health worker who screened lawmakers during a heated parliamentary debate on the state of emergency had tested positive for Covid-19.

On his Facebook page, the teacher also questioned why people infected with Covid-19 in hospital were not recovering or developing further complications.

It takes five days for corona to manifest in its victim. We are in the 14th day of lockdown. Common sense says patients should be showing signs of infection, said Rakkie Kelesamile.

Police say Kelesamiles arrest is part of a larger effort to crack down on alleged misinformation under section 30 of the Emergency Powers Act. His lawyer, Kgosietsile Ngakaagae complains that the government is trying to criminalise the airing of opinions.

The interpretation of freedom of speech is wrong, he said. Making personal observations should not be criminalised.

Days earlier, police had arrested Justice Motlhabane the spokesperson of Botswana Patriotic Front, an opposition party with ties to former president Khama for degrading and maligning the leadership.

The charges were labelled worrying by the Botswana Federation of Public, Private and Parastatal Sector Unions. The charges were not brought under the Emergency Powers Act, but the countrys Penal Code.

Motlhabane and Oratile Dikologang are accused of suggesting on a Facebook page, Botswana Trending News, that Masisi had declared a lengthy state of emergency so that he could deal with his political rivals and business competitors.

A police spokesperson, assistant commissioner Dipheko Motube, said that the three men had published an offensive statement against the government as well as degrading and maligning the leadership of the country.

Motlhabane, who is out on bail, denied the charges, saying he does not have access to the Facebook account. He told INK Centre that the police gave him electric shocks on several occasions, while demanding certain information about a coup by the former president [Ian Khama].

They placed a Taser on my buttocks and in between my thighs, he claimed.

His lawyer, Biggie Butale, and president of Botswana Patriotic Front, insisted police do not have a case against his client.

He is not the administrator of the Facebook account in question, he said, adding: Police never questioned him over Covid-19 they asked him about a coup. You wonder what they are looking for.

Several other people have been charged under the Emergency Powers Act.

A South African woman, Charmaine Ibrahim, appeared in court in Botswana on 27 March for alleging that two fellow South Africans in the country had tested positive for Covid-19. Ibrahim, 35, is out on bail.

A lawyer, Mboki Chilisa, commented on social media that there is no point in punishing innocuous false statements which no right-thinking member of the public could ever believe.

The emergency powers also risk worsening the already adversarial relationship between the government and private media. The Act prohibits journalists from using source(s) other than the [Botswana] Director of Health Services or the World Health Organisation when reporting on Covid-19.

Journalists who use other sources potentially face a fine of $10,000 or a five-year jail term. The executive director of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Botswana chapter), Tefo Phatshwane, objected that the emergency prohibits independent journalists from holding those in power to account.

He said Masisi has started a censorship pandemic, using wide-ranging restrictions as a cover to violate freedom of expression.

As journalists, we cant rely on a government that we are expected to police, he says.

If the coronavirus outbreak has taught us anything beyond the necessity of washing our hands, it is that its victim has been leadership. Bureaucracy and incompetence have made it difficult to trust the WHO and governments worldwide.

On 21 March, Masisi, who has a penchant for air travel, defied the lockdown to fly to Windhoek to witness the swearing-in of Namibian President Hage Geingob. He insisted the trip was essential to enable leaders to discuss strategies to combat Covid-19.

The government also botched the handling of the death of Botswanas first victim of Covid-19. A local newspaper reported that the funeral of the elderly woman, from Ramotswa in the south-east of the country, was not handled in a manner consistent with guidelines for the burial of victims.

The government admitted days later that she had died of the disease.

It is tempting to demand prompt action to combat those who undermine national and global efforts to combat the pandemic through disinformation. But Nkgakaagae insists that censorship should not be part of the cure.

The government should identify the most efficient responses and communicate them to the public and allow reasonable and genuinely held opinions to flourish.

Government has to engage the public in dialogue, he said. DM

This article was produced by the INK Centre for Investigative Journalism in Botswana, in association with IJ Hub.

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or if you are already an Insider.

Read the rest here:
Botswana: Censorship is not the cure for Covid-19 - Daily Maverick