Mediaboss Marketing

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

Decentraland is an Ethereum-based game which basically puts Second Life on the blockchain. It raised a snappy $20 million during the ICO boom of 2017 and has now finally launched.

Decentraland's value proposition for users is quintessentially blockchain-ey. It's a lot like Second Life, except you get to personally own your digital assets, everything in the virtual world is measurably scarce, and the world is decentralised and censorship resistant.

While Second Life saw the robust exchange of all kinds of digital goods, the digital property ladder is currently where the real money is in Decentraland.

As a slice of decentralised digital paradise, it's operated by a decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO), which is functionally intended to bring a degree of censorship resistance and transparent democracy to the new digital world.

Decentraland raises all kinds of fascinating questions around governance, DAOs, accountability, censorship and ownership of digital assets, all of which are nicely exemplified in two simple questions: what happens if someone builds an 800 foot high swastika on their land and what will that do to property prices?

Anecdotally, and by observing other digital communities, we can see that a healthy amount of self-censorship isn't always a bad thing. A laissez faire approach to free speech often leads to echo chambers and less diversity of opinion in online communities.

This is because people prefer to seek like-minded company, and if a community proves to be sufficiently offensive, members will simply go somewhere else. This leaves behind a same-minded group of people. This is why completely unmoderated Internet bastions of free speech tend to veer towards extremist fringes over time.

Decentraland isn't like other online communities though, for several reasons.

One is that it's decentralised. It has no real central points of power, except the smart contracts themselves. No one can unilaterally decide to take the world a specific direction. Another is that it has a democratic governance structure.

And a third one is that the community has a direct, shared financial incentive to try to improve property prices. This is best done by growing the Decentraland userbase, which is probably best done by fostering a more inclusive online community. More directly, getting the website banned or blocked in certain countries wouldn't be good for its growth.

The end result is that the DAO, which we'll go ahead and call the HOA from here on, has a strong motivation to demolish that 800 foot eyesore. But is this even possible?

Before the offending structure can be demolished, the property it's on will probably need to be somehow confiscated or bought out. If ownership of the land and the ability to build on it is dependent on private key possession, the community is unable to unilaterally agree to confiscate it. Basically, the owner of the land physically holds the digital land.

The Decentraland web host can't just remove or blot out the structure either, as the Decentraland world is hosted across a series of independent nodes called Catalysts.

There may be some legal recourse though, assuming the offending creator is even identifiable. The Decentraland terms of use clearly say you shouldn't do anything illegal on the platform. However, any questions around the legality of building an 800 foot swastika depend on where the builder is located.

If they're in the US, its construction would almost certainly be protected as free speech. Incidentally, that's why hate websites are typically hosted in the US. Note that this is not legal, financial or architectural advice.

It's possible, given how decentralised and censorship-resistant the place is, that the HOA or another party will need to buy out the land from the swastika owner before it can be demolished. As such, it may be possible for an unscrupulous free speech enthusiast to take advantage of this by buying land cheaply, building something wildly offensive on it, and then refusing to sell the land at anything except an inflated price.

The HOA has a $10 million treasury, but that won't last long if it has to be spent exercising eminent domain.

The Decentraland community and governance structure no doubt has lots of interesting challenges ahead of it. One of the subtler ones may be trying to develop a culture of practical, democratic self-censorship in a censorship-resistant world, and building the tools to enforce this.

Disclosure: The author holds BNB, BTC at the time of writing.

Disclaimer: This information should not be interpreted as an endorsement of cryptocurrency or any specific provider, service or offering. It is not a recommendation to trade. Cryptocurrencies are speculative, complex and involve significant risks they are highly volatile and sensitive to secondary activity. Performance is unpredictable and past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Consider your own circumstances, and obtain your own advice, before relying on this information. You should also verify the nature of any product or service (including its legal status and relevant regulatory requirements) and consult the relevant Regulators' websites before making any decision. Finder, or the author, may have holdings in the cryptocurrencies discussed.

Picture: Shutterstock

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: Decentraland will have to build a culture of self-censorship - finder.com.au

The Chinese professor Xu Zhangrun, who published a rare public critique of President Xi Jinping over Chinas coronavirus crisis, was placed under house arrest for days, barred from social media and is now cut off from the internet, his friends have told the Guardian.

Xus passionate attack on the governments system of controls and censorship, Viral Alarm: When Fury Overcomes Fear, was published this month a rare, bold expression of dissent from the liberal camp under Xis rule.

A friend of Xus who spoke on Sunday on the condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals said police placed Xu under house arrest soon after he returned to Beijing from his lunar new year break at his home town in Anhui province.

They confined him at home under the pretext that he had to be quarantined after the trip, the friend said. He was in fact under de facto house arrest and his movements were restricted.

During those days, at least two people stood guard in front of his house around the clock and a car with a signal box was parked in front of his residence. Security agents also went into his house to issue warnings to him, the friend said.

Those restrictions were lifted late last week, but his internet connection has been cut off since Friday, the friend added.

He tried to get it mended but found out that his IP [internet protocol address] has been blocked. He lives on the outskirts of Beijing and is far away from shops and other services. Under the current [coronavirus] situation, things are very difficult for him.

Friends say that since publication, Xus account has been suspended on WeChat, a Chinese messaging app, and many have been unable to get in touch with him for days. His name has been scrubbed from Weibo, a Twitter-like microblog, with only articles from official websites several years ago showing up on the countrys biggest search engine, Baidu. Calls to his mobile phone went unanswered on Sunday.

Phone calls to the Ministry of Public Security also went unanswered on Sunday. The staff member who answered the phone at Changping branch of Beijing Public Security Bureau said she had no knowledge of Xu.

Another friend who also spoke on the condition of anonymity had managed to correspond with him through text messages but said his situation was worrying. I fear he might be under surveillance, said this friend. He has not directly responded (to my queries) but just told me not to worry.

When Xu published his essay, he warned that he was likely to be punished. He said he had already been suspended from teaching and had freedoms curtailed over critiques published nearly a year earlier.

I can now all too easily predict that I will be subjected to new punishments; indeed, this may well even be the last piece I write, he wrote at the end of his latest essay.

Xus criticism of the countrys leadership came shortly before a widespread debate on freedom of speech convulsed the country. The death on 7 February of whistleblowing doctor Li Wenliang, who had tried to warn colleagues about the virus but was reprimanded and silenced by security forces, triggered an outpouring of grief and anger and an unusual public discussion about censorship.

Lis death has thoroughly exposed the ills of the partys governance and control; this has a huge impact on peoples minds, said Hong Zhenkuai, an independent historian who is currently working outside China, as a visiting scholar at Tokyo University.

The mechanisms that normally constrain Chinese journalists have also eased slightly, with some of the most powerful stories about life in quarantined Wuhan and the latest news about the evolution of the outbreak coming from mainland newsrooms like that of magazine Caixin.

But public anger over censorship, and the particular circumstances of a national emergency, should not be mistaken for any fundamental change within the Chinese Communist party, which has been honing its ability to control the national conversation for decades, activists and intellectuals say.

In a further reminder of the governments strict controls, two citizen journalists who were reporting from the epicentre of Chinas coronavirus outbreak have vanished this week, apparently detained.

The Chinese military surgeon who exposed the governments cover-up of the Sars outbreak in 2002-2003 has been under de facto house arrest since last year, the Guardian revealed this month. Detention came after he wrote to the top leadership asking for a reassessment of the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement.

There is no space for speech freedom in China now, said Hong. The impacts on the individuals are multi-faceted. Economically, they would cut off your livelihood [academics get fired, writers cant publish and no one dares hire you]. You would get sidelined by mainstream society, youd lose friends and, worse than that, you might lose your personal freedoms, so a number of intellectual elites have chosen to leave China.

Since he took power in late 2012, Xi has tightened ideological control and suppressed civil freedoms across the nation, reversing a trend under his predecessor to give Chinese media some limited scope to expose and report regional corruption and lower-level officials misdeeds.

Even within the Communist party, cadres are threatened with disciplinary action for expressing opinions that differ from the leadership.

Under Xis crackdown on speech and academic freedoms, a number of prominent liberal intellectuals, journalists, rights lawyers and NGO workers have either been silenced, jailed or escaped abroad.

See the original post:
This may be the last piece I write: prominent Xi critic has internet cut after house arrest - The Guardian