Mediaboss Marketing

A report published by tech.co on Wednesday ranks and categorizes the countries with the highest internet censorship. Among the reports most salient findings:

The data were ranked based the content that citizens can access, the illegality of privacy tools such as virtual private networks, as well as monitoring policies and limitations on freedom of expression.

Turkmenistan was perhaps a surprising top pick for this list, if only for its absence from most world news. Yet it earned its spot at the top for several reasons.

Turkmentelecom, which is government-controlled, is the only internet provider in the country. It has used this chokehold to block access to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Politically motivated disappearances of online publishers are common.

Senators Tom Udall, D-N.M., Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., introduced the Tribal Digital Divide Act of 2020 on Tuesday to accelerate the deployment of broadband services to Native American communities.

According to the Federal Communications Commission, less than half of households on tribal lands have access to fixed broadband service. This billattemptsto address that by implementing the following:

Presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar expressed some ideas on how to expand broadband access at the Moving America Forward forum in Las Vegas this Sunday, according to the Wall Street Journal.

There are always ways, some of which include creating incentives that would penalize the states for not being more accepting of government-driven public-owned broadband. She also suggested preemption.

A precursor to either of these methods, however, is the collection of a new and accurate broadband map, as a whole bunch of money is going where it shouldnt. Klobuchar related how northern communities in her state of Minnesota which can see Canada from [its] porch have flocked to resorts across the border because of superior broadband.

Some have even switched to Canadian broadband, she mentioned.

View original post here:
Broadband Roundup: Global Internet Censorship, Tribal Divide, Klobuchar on the Broadband Stump - BroadbandBreakfast.com

Last month INHOPE, a global trade association of child abuse reporting hotlines, rejected a joint call from Prostasia Foundation, the National Coalition Against Censorship, Article 19, and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, that its members should stop treating cartoons as if they were images of child sexual abuse. As our joint letter pointed out, INHOPE's conflation of offensive artwork with actual abuse images has resulted in the misdirection of police resources against artists and fans predominantly LGBTQ+ people and women rather than towards the apprehension of those who abuse real children.

INHOPE is not a child protection organization, but an industry association for organizations and agencies that provide censorship services to government and private industry. Its Articles of Association are surprisingly explicit about this: its objective is to "facilitate and promote the work of INHOPE Member Hotlines, whose work is to eradicate illegal content, primarily child sexual abuse material, on the internet" [emphasis added].

It executes this mission by collecting personal information of those who share images that are reported to it (which can include a name, email address, phone number, and IP address), and sharing this information among its member hotlines and with police. Again, it is explicit about this, acknowledging that its "core business revolves around the exchange of sensitive data." INHOPE members have actively lobbied to weaken European privacy rules so that they can maintain these data collection practices, while refusing to accept a compromise allowing continued scanning for actual child abuse images.

Such data collection is clearly justifiable when it is limited to actual sexual abuse images. But INHOPE's data collection isn't limited to this. It siphons up reports of all manner of reports that its members declare to be illegal in their country, and (with one exception mentioned below) gives them another "once-over" to determine whether they are illegal worldwide, only in the reporting or hosting country, or not at all, before forwarding them to INTERPOL. Even if this assessment leads to a determination that the images are lawful, INHOPE doesn't delete them. Inexplicably, it instead classifies them as "Other Child-Related Content," retains them in a database, and sends them to law enforcement for what it describes as "documentation purposes."

Images reported by NCMEC, the American hotline, undergo even less vetting. Despite being an INHOPE member, NCMEC doesn't utilize the services of INHOPE analysts, but directly shares reported images and associated personal information with law enforcement agencies around the world. According to Swiss authorities, up to 90% of these images are later found to be lawful.

INHOPE chose to mischaracterize our call as being grounded in a misunderstanding of the fact that some countries do prohibit artistic sexual representations of minors by law. But our letter explicitly acknowledged that fact, by calling on INHOPE to establish a policy for its members that "artistic images should not be added to image hash lists that INHOPE members maintain, and should not be reported to authorities, unless required by the law where the hotline operates [emphasis added].

There are indeed some countries in which lawmakers do ill-advisedly use the same laws to criminalize the dissemination of offensive art as they use to prohibit the image-based abuse of real children. But the risks of an international organization allowing national authorities to act as gatekeepers of the images that it it treats as child abuse and reports to INTERPOL should be obvious.

For example, Canada's overbroad child pornography laws have recently drawn public attention over the much-criticised prosecution of an author and publisher for a novel that includes a brief scene of child sexual abuse in its retelling of the story of Hansel and Gretel. The Canadian Center for Child Protection, one of only two INHOPE members that proactively searches for illegal material, was responsible for the arrest of a a 17 girl for posting artwork to her blog, when it reported her to authorities in Costa Rica where such artwork is also illegal.

In other countries where cartoon images are illegal, criminal laws are used to disproportionately target and criminalize LGBTQ+ people and women. An example given in our letter was the case of a Russian trans woman who was arrested over cartoon images and sentenced to imprisonment in a men's prison.

Russia's INHOPE member the Friendly Runet Foundation encourages people to report if they are "exasperated by the on-line materials transgressing morality," and boasts that it was "created at the direct participation and works in close partnership with the Department "K" of the Russian ministry of Interior." This terminology, and the hotline's association with the ministry that criminalized "gay propaganda," is understood by Russian citizens as an attack on LGBTQ+ people's speech. It is noted that no LGBTQ+ representatives are included on INHOPE's Advisory Board.

INHOPE can't do anything, directly, about unjust national laws that conflate artistic images with child abuse. INHOPE and its members also can't do much to prevent conservative members of the public from reporting non-actionable content (although one member has taken steps to address this problem). That's why we are directly targeting the public with our "Don't report it, block it information campaign, to stem such false reports at the source.

But what INHOPE can do is to decide what to do with reports that it receives about artistic content. Passing them to law enforcement authorities, using a censorship and surveillance infrastructure that was established to deal with real images of child sexual abuse, isn't its only option here. Neither is it necessary to place those who share such images in the crosshairs of police, especially in countries that have unjust laws or repressive governments.

In 2019, we held a seminar with Internet companies and experts to discuss more proportionate ways of dealing with content such as child nudity, child modeling, and artistic images, that doesn't rise to the legal of child abuse, but which can still be triggering or offensive, or harmful when shared in the wrong context. Through a multi-stakeholder process, this resulted in the development of a set of principles for sexual content moderation and child protection that were launched at last year's Internet Governance Forum.

INHOPE already has a Code of Practice that its members are required to comply with. To be clear, some INHOPE members already do have good practices, and Britain's Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is one of these: although cartoon images are unlawful in the United Kingdom and the IWF is mandated to accept reports about them, it doesn't include these reports in its hash lists of abuse images, nor share them with foreign police. Our joint letter invited INHOPE to take the opportunity to amend its Code of Practice to apply similar standards to its other members. Its decision not to consider this doesn't reflect well on the organization.

Internet reporting hotlines are selling a product to law enforcement authorities: a censorship service for which actual images of child abuse are only the selling point. This can be a lucrative gig; NCMEC alone received $33 million from the United States government in 2018. Therefore, as a business proposition, it makes sense for INHOPE and its members to ask few questions about the scope of the censorship services their governments call upon them to provide. Conversely, since almost no federal money is being allocated towards abuse prevention, there is little incentive for them to invest in prevention interventions that could reduce abuse in the long run.

But these perverse incentives are leading it down a dangerous path. It's time for us to call this censorship cartel to account, and to demand that it consider the human rights of the innocent people who are being hurt by its approach. The plain fact is that INHOPE doesn't represent the voices of experts who work on child sexual abuse prevention, it represents the law enforcement sector. By refusing to curtail its activities to place the censorship of artistic images outside its remit, INHOPE has lost the moral authority that provides the only justification for its sweeping and dangerous powers.

Go here to see the original:
It's Time to Curtail the Censorship Industry Cartel - CircleID

On WeChat, the renowned law scholar slams the dearth of information about the crisis. In his view, without press freedom, people will live in distress and the government in mendacity. A supporter of Liu Xiaobo and Charter 08, He calls for the implementation of the rule of law in China.

Beijing (AsiaNews/Agencies) He Weifang, a law professor at Peking University, has attacked the government for its handling of the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19).

The lack of a freedom of speech and expression helped the spread of the virus, the scholar said on Monday in a post on WeChat, a Chinese messaging app.

In his view, errors by the government, especially the restrictions on the free flow of information, have magnified the crisis. This shows that China needs press freedom to deal with emergencies.

I hope the heavy price [caused by the outbreak] will make Chinese authorities come to realise that without press freedom, people will live in distress and the government in mendacity, he explained.

He is highly critical of President Xi Jinping for his late reaction to the Wuhan virus. A speech by Xi on 3 February, reported by several state media, suggests that he was already aware of the epidemic in early January, when he ordered his officials to take the necessary steps to counter it.

He lost his university professorship for supporting the well-known dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, and signed Charter 08, a declaration drafted in December 2008 by intellectuals, including Liu, that calls for greater democracy and respect for human rights, and for this reason was censored by the government.

Hes younger brother He Weitong, who works in legal publishing, was arrested last November for posting an Islamic State video on social media to protest the visit to Beijing by some Taliban officials.

Freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, human and trade union rights, as well as social protection are at the heart of He's demands for the rule of law in China.

Critical of his country's judicial system, considered too centralised and subordinated to the power of the Communist Party, He penned a piece for the South China Morning Post in August saying that If China were to have had a comparably fair judicial system, the Hong Kong people would not have protested so vehemently against the extradition bill introduced by the territorys authorities.

He remains one of the few voices openly critical of Chinas regime. But his words echo those of two other intellectuals.

Human rights lawyer Xu Zhiyong, also a former professor at Peking University, recently lashed out at Xi for his "inability" to handle the coronavirus crisis, the trade war with the US and pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Xu was arrested last Saturday, in Guangzhou (Guangdong), during a "health check" to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Another law professor, Xu Zhangrun, from Tsinghua University, blamed the authorities for failing to tackle the epidemic crisis. According to Xu, the government's repressive and tyrannical action is the reason for the delayed response, which favoured the spread of COVID19.

Go here to read the rest:
CHINA He Weifang blames the spread of the coronavirus on government censorship - AsiaNews

The study was two-fold, with a survey that all UNC undergraduates could participate in, as well as in-depth group interviews with members of three politically-active student organizations.

For the group interviews, the researchers contacted eight UNC student groups and three responded and participated in the study: one conservative and two liberal groups. These interviews were conducted in spring 2019.

The results from the survey and interviews resulted in 12 principal findings that are included in the report. The first finding described the statistics of ideologies on campus of the undergraduates who participated in the survey. According to the report, 30.8 percent of students feel they have become more liberal during their college years, 15.9 percent feel they have become more conservative and 47.8 percent feel their ideological leanings have not changed.

Ideology in the Classroom

Student ideologies and their expression within the classroom was another focus of the study. One survey question asked, about how many times did you keep an opinion related to class to yourself because you were worried about the potential consequences of expressing that opinion? The study showed that 24.1 percent to 67.9 percent of students, varying based on ideology, engaged in self-censorship in the classroom.

Christian Cail, who graduated in December 2019 and was a member of UNCs Young Democratic Socialists of America, encouraged students to speak their mind in the classroom.

Im not personally sympathetic to that, but I can see why people would feel those reservations, but the goal would basically be to really train and educate folks to have really good accounts and responses for things so that they wouldnt be afraid, Cail said. I feel like people talk shit online, but if you really know your stuff and youre really passionate about it, theres very little that cant be forgiven or corrected.

Senior Devin Lynch serves as the state chairperson for all chapters of Young Americans for Liberty in North Carolina and has spoken to students about expressing their political views on campus.

I do think that a lot of more conservative students, or even more moderate students a lot of times, dont speak up in class because they feel their viewpoints wont be respected, Lynch said.

The reports sixth principal finding states, Anxieties about expressing political views and self-censorship are more prevalent among students who identify as conservative.

A student response from a group interview in the study said, I feel like a large number of those conservatives on campus are not comfortable presenting those views for fear of ridicule in class, as well as in the student body, which is a shame.

Social Media

Social media was also an aspect of the survey, with a question that asked, During your entire time at UNC, how often have you worried that, if you stated your sincere political views, someone would post critical comments about you on social media?

The study found that 53.7 percent of self-identified conservative students worried about critical comments on social media at least once or twice, while 19.9 percent of self-identified liberal students and 40.2 percent of self-identified moderate students had the same concern.

I think that social media completely changes the game of how people have to conduct themselves in society, I think that extends way beyond politics, but it definitely changes the game within politics, junior Ali Montavon, co-president of UNC Young Independents, said. Its something that you have to think about every single moment basically.

Ryan said the study could expand in two respects.

One is better understanding what kinds of views people are motivated to hold back, what kinds of things they dont feel comfortable expressing in a pedagogical context, Ryan said. And two, better understanding facultys perception of all these moments, so understanding how all this unfolds from the faculty perspective.

@praveenasoma

university@dailytarheel.com

Read the original:
Free expression survey found UNC students are self-censoring their beliefs in class - The Daily Tar Heel

A culture of self-censorship and fear of backlash from funders, colleagues and the public is convincing arts and cultural workers to stay silent on important issues, according to new research from ArtsProfessional.

APs Freedom of Expression survey has uncovered pressures on arts workers ability to speak out ranging from the fear of harassment and humiliation to more overt measures like non-disclosure agreements. More than 500 artists and arts workers contributed some 60,000 words on questions about their experiences navigating controversy and coercion.

The research indicates the openness, risk and rebellion that many believe characterises the sector is being eroded. While about 90% of respondents agreed that the arts and cultural sector has a responsibility to use its unique talents to speak out about things that matter, regardless of the potential consequences, more than 80% thought that workers in the arts and cultural sector who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised.

READ MORE:

While much of the sectors censorship is self-imposed, one in six respondents said they had been offered a financial settlement in exchange for their silence on circumstances an organisation wanted to keep private.ArtsProfessional Editor Amanda Parker said the research reveals a deep division between public perception and the reality of working in the arts and cultural sector.

Our survey shines a damning light on the coercion, bullying, intimidation and intolerance that is active among a community that thinks of itself as liberal, open minded and equitable.

We are very aware that this research doesnt reflect all views, but its a sad and timely indication of the suppressed hurt and anger felt by many, despite the loud and growing conversations about collaboration and inclusiveness.

The sector is biting its tongue for fear of biting the hand that feeds, the survey shows.

Nearly 70% of respondents said they would not criticise a funder for fear of jeopardising future investment and 40% said they had been subject to pressure from funders for speaking out.

There was a sense that funders are immune from scrutiny, with respondents citing times they kept quiet about waste and cronyism, among other issues. One described the relationships with funders as being like a parent and child: Its hard to challenge or open up a dialogue with them even if there are genuine concerns.

Criticising a funders decision to award or turn down a grant or their continued support of elitist organisations would be a problem for many. Responses on this issue largely fell into two camps: those who felt the sector was only paying lip service to diversity and those who thought it attracted too much attention but neither group felt able to speak their minds.

Pressure to keep quiet was most likely to come from colleagues, according to two-thirds of respondents. However, the survey also revealed examples of retribution from organisations against arts workers who spoke their minds, from marginalisation and isolation to lost commissions, cancelled contracts and being screamed, shouted at [and] bullied by my ex-boss.

Some workplaces censor their employees online activity while others actively gag them: One in six respondents said they had been offered money if they signed a non-disclosure agreement.

One person said they had been offered money to keep quiet about corrupt practices in arts funding at the EU level; a whistleblower who told top management about mostly male bosses bullying their female subordinates was paid off and invited to leave the organisation. Another respondent accepted a redundancy package when the redundancy wasn't wholly legal; and one person reported a gagging order regarding a colleagues sexual harassment case and a boards illegal processes.

The research indicates the arts and cultural sector is intolerant of viewpoints outside of the dominant norms. Anything that might be considered politically incorrect to the liberal-leaning sector including expressing support or sympathy for Brexit, the Conservatives or other right-wing political parties was felt to be risky territory.

Religion, gender and sexuality were also considered a minefield and no-go areas for many: Anything to do with gender issues, especially trans issues, will get a lot of flak for either not being on message enough, or being off message, or too on message, one person said.

More than three-quarters of respondents said workers who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised. One person commented that people working in the sector are nowhere near as open as they pretend to be, there is a lot of hiding and backstabbing.

Only 40% of respondents agreed that personal views and opinions are met with respect by others working in the arts & cultural sector, and 42% said they feel free to speak publicly whether in person or online about their personal views on issues affecting the arts sector.

One person commented that it wouldnt be advisable to point out that the arts tend to do well under the Tories.

The dangers of this culture of self-censorship was summarised by another respondent:

Our arts, culture, and indeed education sectors are supposed to be fearlessly free-thinking and open to a wide range of challenging views. However, they are now dominated by a monolithic politically correct class (mostly of privileged white middle class people, by the way), who impose their intolerant views across those sectors.

This is driving people who disagree away, risks increasing support for the very things this culturally dominant class professes to stand against, and is slowly destroying our society and culture from the inside.

This culture of censorship is also affecting artistic expression and programming decisions. While four in five respondents agreed that organisations that wont risk controversy wont deliver the most exciting creative work, they also recognised the pressure on organisations. Only a third felt their boards were being unduly cautious about potentially controversial work.

But 45% had been pressurised, intimidated, ostracised, coerced, trolled, harassed or bullied, either in person or on digital media over their artistic and creative activities. Of that group, 44% had changed their product, programming or plans due to this pressure.

Negative public reaction can shut down free speech there is a culture of inviting and then overreacting to complaints when in fact they represent a tiny proportion of views, one person commented and cause artists to self-censor, the survey shows. Artists fear damaging their reputations or those of their organisations.

One person explained it as a matter of picking battles.

I sometimes have to weigh whether what I really need to say requires the element that will turn others away. If it is important to me, I will stick to my plan, but sometimes, it is not the most important thing and I choose to tame my ideas. I have felt like a traitor to my own self-expression, but I have to ask if anyone needs to hear from me at all.

Read theFreedom of Expression report, including over 1,000 comments and personal testimonies relating to freedom of expression in the arts and cultural sector.

Next week AP will launch an anonymous platform where you will be able to:

We won't share your identity anywhere.

Go here to see the original:
EXCLUSIVE: 'Culture of censorship' as arts workers fear backlash - ArtsProfessional