Mediaboss Marketing

Wikipedia has made it much harder for governments to block access to individual articles.

AFP/Getty Images

In Iranas you might expectinternet content about womens rights, sex, and religion are censored and filtered. Wikipedia articles on the topic used to be blocked. But in 2015, people in Iran were suddenly able to access Wikipedia posts that were previously censoredall because Wikipedia made a simple switch.

Wikipedia used to operate under both HTTP or HTTPS. With HTTPS, the information in your browser is encrypted. People can see what site youre on, but not which specific page of that site when you use HTTPS. For example, someone eavesdropping on the network could see that youre on Facebook, but not which ex from high school youre looking at.

So if a country didnt want you looking at, say, the Wikipedia page about Tiananmen Square, it could just block that single article. That is, until the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to being completely HTTPS in 2015. Now, if a nation wants to stop its citizens from reading some Wikipedia pages, it has to block the entire site. Without encryption, governments can more easily surveil sensitive information, creating a chilling effect, and deterring participation, or in extreme cases they can isolate or discipline citizens, the Wikimedia Foundation said in a statement back in 2015.

In May, the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard released a study on the effects of the Wikimedia Foundations switch to HTTPS-only. For the most part, according to the report, it has been positive for the fight against censorship. Wikipedia has repeatedly found itself the target of government censors, the authors of the study wrote. But the sites efforts seem to be working. Our research suggests that on balance, there is less censorship happening now than before the transition to HTTPS-only content delivery in June 2015. This initial data suggests the decision to shift to HTTPS has been a good one in terms of ensuring accessibility to knowledge, the study says.

To conduct the study, the Berkman Center used both client-side data and server-side data. Client data comes from the perspective of users around the globe, and server data deals with traffic coming in to Wikimedia servers.

The researchers focused on 15 different countries that had histories of either specifically blocking Wikipedia or general internet censorship. The study found that the primary countries that are censoring Wikipedia at least somewhat are China, Thailand, and Uzbekistan.

The Chinese-language Wikipedia project began in May 2001. Its first brush with censorship came in 2004, when the government blocked the project during the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests. Currently, the entire Chinese Wikipedia site is blocked. Chinas government its own official digital encyclopedia in 2018. A digitized version of the print version that has been around since the 1970s, it will contain 300,000-plus entries made by more than 20,000 scholars.

China is an extreme case, but other countries have dabbled in Wikipedia blockage, too. While states in America have begun to legalize marijuana, Russia still has a problem allowing its citizens to merely look at articles on the subject. Roskomnadzor, the federal agency that supervises electronic media in Russia, blocked all of Russian Wikipedia, aka ru.wikipedia.org, in August 2015 after Wikipedia editors refused to remove an article about cannabis. Because this happened after the switch to HTTPS, the government had to block all access to Wikipedia, instead of just the page. However, the site was restored a few hours later after Roskomnadzor said the article met its standards after being edited, even though Wikipedia editors claimed the article hadnt been changed.

The study concludes that while Russias internet censorship at large continues to grow, the government has not been interfering with Wikipedia. Clients based in Russia were able to access Wikipedia and its subdomains, and the network request round trip was the fastest out of all the countries in the study.

Go here to read the rest:
Wikipedia Seems to Be Winning Its Battle Against Government Censorship - Slate Magazine (blog)

What do we call it when a state broadcaster bans a song critical of the government? Censorship? No, not in Iran right here in Britain. Right now, in fact.

The BBC claims that reggae band Captain SKAs Liar Liar, which was at the top of the iTunes chart last week, breaks impartiality rules during the election. The song is about Theresa May, you see.

The BBCs stance sounds straightforward but something isn't quite right. Its radio stations will report that Liar Liar reached No 1 on iTunes, but refuse to play it. This matters, as playing a song because it tops the charts is a different rationale to playing it because a DJ likes it. The former decision is driven by public choice, the latter is a matter of personal taste. The former shouldnt really be up for debate.

I asked Ofcom what they thought. They couldn't offer a view since it hadn't been aired yet. I went through their rules covering elections (section 6) and found nothing to justify the ban. The same goes for BBC guidelines. The song doesnt advocate for one party over another; it is merely critical of the Government. I found nothing to suggest that any music with a political message cannot be played during elections.

In other words, the BBC has banned a political song not because of rules but because it doesnt want to anger the Government. That is outrageous in itself. But the real problem isnt just one banned song it's that the BBCs rules on impartiality have been broken. And moreover, that BBC bosses don't want a fight with the Tory Government. The ban on Liar Liar illustrates the problem with the prevailing culture at the top of the BBC.

The job of a journalist should be to get to the truth, not worry about impartiality. It should be to serve the audience, not care for how politicians feel they are being treated.

The problem with BBC news journalism in this instance is twofold: first, that producers feel they are being balanced by giving each side equal time. That is a convenient illusion. A news programme can be biased even if it offers two sides equal time, merely by prioritising one story over another.

On Tuesday morning Corbyn briefly forgot his costings for a key policy in an interview. Theres no doubt it was a gaffe. But the BBC ran it as their top story even at 10pm, on a day when Osborne slammed the PM over her key manifesto pledges. In any other universe a former Chancellor criticising a former close colleague would be big news. Instead the BBC led with a minor gaffe from the morning.

This isn't a one-off either. For years BBC management didnt even acknowledge the absurdity of having a balanced debate on climate change because, apparently, the weight of scientific opinion counted for nothing. Now, after acknowledging mistakes, BBC producers avoid accusations of bias by ignoring the issue entirely. Its coverage of climate change on political programmes is almost non-existent. Its barely featured anywhere this election.

General Election polls and projections: June 1

This isnt to say all attempts at balance are useless. I know plenty of journalists and producers who try their best to offer all sides of the story. But sometimes false balance does no one any favours.

The second problem is that BBC executives lack the courage to cross the Government. Again, this isnt new, but its now a glaring problem.

May has been so shameless in exploiting the media that some journalists have become rightly exasperated. Why does [Theresa May] go around just saying things that arent true?, Channel 4s Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked David Davis last night. He had no answer. Other than the one interview by Andrew Neil, there has been no such grilling across the BBC.

Our national broadcaster suffers from weak executives who dont have the courage to take on the Government. It has plenty of excellent journalists but the corporate culture fails them. And in turn that fails the vast majority of its audience.

In the past a BBC executive may have defended playing Captain Skas song by saying they were simply reflecting popular public opinion.

Read more here:
The BBC is censoring political content by banning 'Liar Liar' but not because it is biased towards the Government - The Independent

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is one of the rare few in the mainstream media who covered the gruesome new undercover video of abortionists talking about aborted babies heads getting stuck and eyeballs falling into their laps.

On Wednesday, Carlson explained that a federal judge ordered that the video be removed because it violated a gag order.

The video by David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress showed Planned Parenthood abortionists and others at the National Abortion Federation conference. In horrifying detail, the abortion providers discussed how they pull apart unborn babies bodies in the womb and admitted that what they are doing is violence. They talked about babies heads, eyes and legs, knowing full well that they are destroying babies lives.

The Blaze reports:

On his show, Carlson read quotes from the video, including a Planned Parenthood employee who described a fetus as a tough little object and a member of the Consortium of Abortion Providers who said, An eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross!

Wed love to show you the video, but we cant, because of a man called William Orrick, Carlson said.

Carlson said that Orrick is a massive donor to Democrats and that he intentionally suppressed the video. He argued that Orricks claim means the First Amendment doesnt exist.

Its an atrocity and its gotten very little attention, Carlson said.

He also spoke with Live Action founder and president Lila Rose.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

This is the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthoods own trade show, Rose explained. This is where they get together and talk about what they do every day.

Rose said abortion activists are very afraid of the videos because they expose the horrifying truth of abortion to the public.

She said they dont want the public to see abortion practitioners callous laughter about the abortion procedure, about tearing apart a childs legs their discussion of the head getting stuck in the cervix this is exactly what the public should hear, Tucker.

She also pointed out that many of the gruesome statements came from Planned Parenthood employees. Rose said the public deserves to know what they are saying, especially since Planned Parenthood gets about half a billion taxpayer dollars every year and performs more than one third of all abortions in the United States.

In the past several years, the Center for Medical Progress has released more than a dozen videos exposing gruesome and potentially illegal activity at Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities across the nation.

After investigating what CMP exposed, a U.S. House panel made 15 criminal and regulatory referrals to states involving the handling of aborted babies body parts by Planned Parenthood and other groups in January. A U.S. Senate investigation also made seven criminal referrals to the Department of Justice based on what it found.

The expose videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all twelve:

See the original post here:
Tucker Carlson Slams Censorship of Video Exposing Planned Parenthood Doc Joking About Aborted Baby Parts - LifeNews.com

A 'free speech' gathering deserves a place, even if the mayor and others disagree with the group hosting Saturday's event.

Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it.

That's why we are joining Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler in asking the organizers of two upcoming public demonstrations to put their plans on hold.

The first, slated for Sunday, June 4, is billed as a Trump Free Speech Rally aimed at "exercising free speech" in "one of the most liberal areas on the West Coast." The second, more-disturbing, event is a March Against Sharia on Saturday, June 10.

Both events were planned before the sickening attack last Friday in which two men on a MAX train were killed after coming to the aid of two young women, one of whom wore a Muslim hijab, who was being verbally attacked by Jeremy Joseph Christian.

Alt-right organizers for the June 4 pro-Trump rally have tried to distance themselves from Christian, though he attended their previous "free-speech" rally earlier this spring. But any event supporting our president is ill-timed, given his past anti-Muslim statements and the three days it took him to issue a tepid condemnation of last week's fatal attack.

The June 10 event is one of 22 nationwide being organized by ACT for America, which cloaks anti-Muslim sentiments in a purported concern about Muslim women's rights. Even if the group was truly interested in drawing a distinction between Muslims who twist a part of Islamic tradition to justify violence and the vast majority of the peaceful practitioners of that faith, doing so would be nearly impossible in Portland's highly charged political climate right now.

There's nothing organizers can do to unlink the planned public events to Christian's actions, so for the good of the community as well as their own political messages they should call off the events.

If, however, they choose to go forward, the city must ensure everyone's safety without standing in the way of constitutionally protected speech.

That's why we were troubled by Wheeler's announcement on Monday that he'd asked the federal government to revoke the permit for the June 4 event and deny a permit for the June 10 event. (Both events are planned for the federally owned Terry Schrunk Plaza downtown.)

We understand his motivation, but believe he's on shaky constitutional grounds.

Yes, the murders on the MAX were horrific, particularly because the men killed were defending two young women from ugly, bigoted verbal assault.

But that doesn't justify using political influence to try and deny permits for people to express their opinions, even unpopular opinions, without proof that doing so poses an imminent threat of harm. And, despite violence at past events put on by the organizers of the June 4 rally, Wheeler did not on Monday offer any evidence that public safety was an issue.

Wheeler has every right to ask organizers of the permitted marches to reschedule them and we strongly concur with his request.

But if they don't, absent any proof of threat, they must be allowed to continue and any hateful rhetoric espoused should be matched and overmatched with a peaceful, clear, response that Portland will not stand for bigotry (or censorship).

Go here to read the rest:
Our Opinion: Rallies distasteful, but so is censorship - Portland Tribune

Who among us hasnt claimed censorship from the man at the slightest inconvenience?

On Friday, political strategist and former Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson took to Twitter to suggest the site was suppressing her tweets about Kathy Griffin.

Given the absurdity of whining about a comedian while the president was selling out planet Earth to Big Oil interests, that may have been a blessing in disguise. The truth, however, was much stupider. Piersons message to @kathygriffin didnt begin with a period, soas Twitter explains on its help pagethe tweet would only be seen by Griffin herself and those who follow both her and Pierson.

Many, many people tried to explain this to Piersonto no avail.

Refusing to admit shed made a simple goof, Pierson decided to write off the matter as a glitch before getting back to her primary role as a senior political strategist: tweeting about comedian Kathy Griffin and not the betrayal of 195 countries with whom we promised to combat climate change. #MAGA.

If you remember Pierson at all, it may be for her stunningly off-base comments during last years election. Among other things, Pierson claimed that President Obamas policies probably killed Gold Star parent Khizr Khans son, who died in Iraq four years before Obama took office. She also, tastefully, wore a bullet necklace during a CNN appearance and still hasnt deleted this vaguely eugenicist tweet about pure breeds running for president.

If nothing else, Piersons former boss knows how to use Twitter. Pierson, who joined the service in 2009, still needs help, apparently.

See more here:
Former Trump Spokeswoman Cries Censorship Because She Has No Idea How Twitter Works - Gizmodo