Mediaboss Marketing

Actor Shweta Tripathi has always chosen to tread the path that many otherwise would not choose to venture into. Be it her breakout film Masaan in 2015 or the experimental film Haraamkhor in 2017, Tripathis choices have been lauded by the audiences and the critics. Moreover, the actor is an active participant in the citys theatre circuit and her last production Timeloss, directed by Akarsh Khurana had a digital premier, too. More than the medium, what is really important to me is the story - what were saying and who the character is, she explains forms the crux of her choices.

The actor adds that thanks to her initial films, she understood the parameters with which one should choose his/her scripts. In my opinion, pushing the envelope means trying out something new. Showing the audience something they havent seen before. It doesnt need to be complex, it could be anything from emotions to using environmentally friendly props and sets, says the actor.

Moreover, Tripathi, who has dabbled with all three major formats of performing arts films, OTT and theatre, says the varying censorship guidelines should make one understand the importance of responsibilities. Art reflects society and vice versa. So it is important to be responsible for the art youre creating, and the things its saying but the story is most important, she says.

She adds that censorship in any form is challenging. I think censorship shouldnt be decided by an external body but we, as artists, should take the responsibility on ourselves. The audience learns a lot from what they see in the entertainment world. The freedom to tell our stories is always great, but we should also understand the responsibility that comes with it, she concludes.

View post:
I think censorship shouldnt be decided by an external body: Shweta - Hindustan Times

President Trump took to Twitter Tuesday to slam the social media platform and others in biased Big Tech for using Section 230 to leave up disparaging content against conservatives, while censoring conservative speech.

Why does Twitter leave phony pictures like this up, but take down Republican/Conservative pictures and statements that are true? the commander-in-chief tweeted Tuesday morning.

The tweet included a picture of the viral Moscow Mitch meme, which took the internet by storm in mid-2019 when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked an election security bill.

McConnell, known for his sense of humor about political attacks and nicknames, was particularly incensed at the Moscow Mitch moniker, given his congressional history of being a Russia hawk.

Mitch must fight back and repeal Section 230, immediately. Stop biased Big Tech before they stop you! Trump continued in his tweet, referencing the majority leader.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act provides tech companies with liability protections against illegal content posted by third-party users.

In May, the Justice Department released a 25-page proposal on its website in which it recommended curbing protections that tech platforms have enjoyed for the last two dozen years.

That proposal came amid criticism, including from Trump, that large social media companies censor conservative voices while letting other controversial material, including some criminal content, run amok.

That same month, the president signed an executive order curtailing Section 230 that mostly focused on how platforms moderate content as some companies faced accusations of censorship.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see, the commander-in-chiefs order stated.

We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

View original post here:
Trump slams Twitter for using Section 230 to censor conservatives - New York Post

White House officials are advising Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nations top infectious disease expert, to promote messages that prioritize political positions over scientific findings, an attempt to bolster Donald Trumps misleading claims about the coronavirus. The pressure is apparently coming from Paul Alexander, a Trump appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services who, in emails reported by Politico, has repeatedly tried to edit Faucis planned responses to outlets including Bloomberg News, BuzzFeed, HuffPost, and the science journal Cell. Just this week, Alexander reportedly sent a message to Faucis press team urging him not to promote mask-wearing by children in an MSNBC interview.

Can you ensure Dr. Fauci indicates masks are for the teachers in schools. Not for children, Alexander wrote. There is no data, none, zero, across the entire world, that shows children especially young children, spread this virus to other children, or to adults or to their teachers. None. And if it did occur, the risk is essentially zero, he said, addingwithout evidencethat children take influenza home but do not take COVID home. The advice prompted long email threads between Alexander and some of Faucis aides pushing back against the misleading claims. Alexander is a senior adviser to Michael Caputo, an ally of the president who currently oversees HHSs media strategy and who said in a statement that he hired Dr. Alexander for his expertise and not to simply resonate others opinions.

While Alexanders messages are couched as scientific arguments, Politico notes, they often contradict mainstream science while amplifying controversial positions the president has taken on topics such as school reopening and the risk coronavirus poses to children. On August 27, Alexander objected to a press-office summary of what Fauci was expected to tell a Bloomberg reporter. I continue to have an issue with kids getting tested and repeatedly and even university students in a widespread mannerand I disagree with Dr. Fauci on this. Vehemently, Alexander wrote in an email.

Fauci told Politico he had not seen the emails, nor had his staff advised him to minimize the risk coronavirus poses to kids or the need for mask-wearing. No one tells me what I can say and cannot say, Fauci said. I speak on scientific evidence, a point he reiterated in a pair of interviews on Friday. Asked by CNNs Wolf Blitzer whether the public should listen to Fauci or Trumpwho on Thursday claimed were rounding the corner of the pandemicFauci remarked, You dont have to listen to any individual if you look at the data. The data speak for themselves, he said. Were still getting up to 40,000 new infections a day and 1,000 deaths. That is what you look at. Look at the science, the evidence and the data and you can make a pretty easy conclusion."

Fauci also cited the data to MSNBCs Andrea Mitchell when she asked about the administrations contradictory messages, with Fauci telling Americans to hunker down and get through this fall and winterwhen the pandemic is likely to worsen againthe same day that Trump suggested the worst is past. Im sorry, but I have to disagree with that, Fauci said of the presidents comments, noting the disturbing statistics and increased test positivity in some parts of the country that come as people begin to move indoors due to colder weather.

That's not good for a respiratory-borne virus. You dont want to start off already with a baseline thats so high, Fauci said. The country needs to get the levels down, he warned, so that when you go into a more precarious situation, like the fall and the winter, you wont have a situation where you really are at a disadvantage right from the very beginning.

We are still in the middle of this, he told Blitzer.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

Melania Trump Sounds a Lot Like Her Husband in Stephanie Winston Wolkoffs New Book How Trumps Handling of White Supremacists Could Create a Homegrown Crisis Ashley Etienne May Be Bidens Deadliest Weapon Against Trump Whats the Reality Behind Netflix Hit Selling Sunset? How to Abolish the Police, According to Josie Duffy Rice The Pandemic Is Creating an Endless Summer in the Hamptons From the Archive: The Perks and Perils of Being Donald Trumps Daughter

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.

See more here:
Trump Health Officials Reportedly Tried to Censor Faucis COVID Messaging - Vanity Fair

Heard about the new James Bond movie, soon going into production, which features a Chinese hacker who manages to penetrate the northeastern United States electric grid?

Thought so. It is not actually in production, nor is it ever going to be. From now on, entertainment may feature American villains, Russian villains, evil Iranians, Germans, and cops, but there wont be a new Dr. No. Chinese censors wouldnt like it, so why bother trying? Attempts to stay on Chinas good side have gone so far that in its new live-action version of the movie Mulan, Disney even credits the Turpan Public Security Bureau, an institution that helps operate Uighur internment camps.

Such behavior is not just demeaning to the artists involved, its harmful to democracy. And although the Chinese censors are mighty, they can be defeated through collective action. Artists of the world, unite!

For the past several years, a specter has been haunting Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea, and many other democratically ruled lands: censorship. Beijing has done its best to strengthen that ghost through its various weapons for controlling the media: its State Film Administration, State Administration of Radio and Television, and State Administration of Press and Publication; the China Film Group Corporation; the China Film Co-Production Corporation; and the Central Committee Publicity Department.

Two years ago, Disney, the powerful studio now humbly thanking an arm of the Chinese government, was seemingly unaware of Beijings reach. When Disney released Christopher Robin, a live-action version of the beloved Winnie the Pooh stories, it found the film mysteriously blocked from the 1.4 billion viewers in the Chinese market. Christopher Robin featured no subtle mention of Tibet, no Chinese villain in the Hundred Acre Wood. The likely problem? Winnie the Pooh happens to look a lot like Chinese President Xi Jinping, which caused merriment after enterprising Chinese Internet users posted images of the two.

Tinseltown has learned to be more circumspect, as the nonprofit PEN America detailed in a recent report. Hollywood studios increasingly see access to China as a prerequisite for their movies financial success, PEN noted. Given that Chinas movie market overtook the United States for a quarter in 2018, thats entirely logical. But Hollywood cant bring movies to China the way it does to, say, Switzerland or India. If it wants movies released in China, it needs to please the countrys censors. Failing to do that can be the difference between a black and a red bottom line. In turn, Beijing bureaucrats can demand changes to Hollywood moviesor expect Hollywood insiders to anticipate and make these changes, unprompted, according to PEN America.

As a result, the censors usually dont even need to ply their trade. The moviemakers try their hardest to anticipate what may encounter disapprovaland that means a lot of sanitizing just in case. The trailer for a forthcoming Top Gun sequel, for example, shows Tom Cruise wearing his familiar bomber jacket, but with the flags of Taiwan and Japan altered. Richard Gerea public supporter of Tibethas said hes losing movie roles. And when the director of Seven Years in Tibet, Jean-Jacques Annaud, was recently given a new movie to direct, he published a Chinese-language penitential blog post so obsequious that it could have been written during a show trial. I have always respected the rules of international conventions that acknowledge that Tibet is a part of Chinese territory, Annaud swore.

The artistic harm is not limited to movies. When the Swedish pop star Zara Larsson announced earlier this summer that she had ended her sponsorship deal with Huawei because China is not a nice government, her songs swiftly disappeared from Apple in China. But none of Larssons fellow pop stars came to her rescue. Why should they? Theyve got their own income to protect. Too bad for those other artists who are either so naive or so foolhardy that they dare criticize the country that can fill their bank accounts.

But invisible censorship leads to a life led in fear, not to mention creative paralysis. Partial paralysis has already set in, thanks to the United States own outsized role in cultural production. Last year, the majority of the 20 top-grossing movies were American. Stars of music and film alike are adopting American themes, expressions, and language. Wang Ju, known as Chinas Beyonc, raps in Chinese and English. The Eurovision Song Contests top songs are now sung in English even though the United Kingdom is a minimal (and rather embarrassing) presence. The breadth of other countries cultures deserves more attention in pop culture. But Chinas censors are not going to liberate the world from Hollywood creep. On the contrary, theyre a foe mightier even than Hollywood. It is high time for artists to openly publish their views on censorship and offer a manifesto of artistic freedom.

That means: Artists of the world, unite! Unite even though income from China is alluring, especially with the global entertainment market expected to shrink by 6 percent this year. Dont abandon Pooh Bear simply because he happens to look like Xi. Make a movie about Tibet, Hong Kong booksellers, or Uighur reeducation camp inmates if you like, not to demean Beijing but because its compelling cinematic material. Hire Gere if hes right for the role. Speak up for Larsson, who dares to say what everyone should have said. By all means, be apolitical as well when it suits. But kowtowing is no guarantee against eventually finding oneself frozen out.

China may be one of the worlds biggest entertainment markets, but artists in the West are among the biggest creators. If they were to stop showing their movies in Chinese cinemas, performing at Chinese arenas, and selling their songs to smartphone users in Chinaif the NBA were to stop playing in China to point out that Beijing has no right to censor NBA managers views on Hong Kongit would be Beijing that would have to contend with a very large number of unhappy people.

For the past few years, Beijing has singled out Sweden as its favorite bullying victim, with the countrys ambassador to Sweden comparing his host countrys media to a lightweight boxer versus China, the heavyweight, and threatening consequences over a literary reward given to a Hong Kong bookseller with Swedish nationality. But when it comes to pop music, Sweden is the heavyweight boxer. Its many producersthink of Max Martin and Shellbackare the best in the world. Only Paul McCartney and John Lennon have written more Billboard No. 1 hits than Martin. Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, and Ariana Grande are all his collaborators. His protg, Shellback, boasts a similarly impressive rsum that includes Katy Perry and the Jonas Brothers.

The West shouldnt lecture other countries or demand that they conform to its way of life. But if the governments of those countries want access to Western societies, the deal includes accepting mentions of free Tibet and images of Winnie the Pooh. Every German leader has to put up with Hitler mustaches drawn onto pictures of them. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin permits Russian translations of books critical of his country. It would be wrong for Western leaders to read Xi the Riot Act on freedom of expression, but if artists unite rather than trying to maximize their individual advantage, they have a chance of succeeding. If it were Martin versus Xi, its clear who people would root for.

Read the rest here:
Artists of the World, Unite Against Chinese-Driven Cultural Paralysis - Foreign Policy

One aspect of the 2020 presidential campaign that isnt much discussed is the fact that both candidates want to end the internet as we know it. Both President Trump and Joe Biden have called for the end of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies in most cases when their users post something illegal on their platforms.

Trump brought the subject up today when a Twitter account with fewer than 200 followers posted an obviously doctored image of Senate Majority Mitch McConnell dressed up in Soviety military garb, with the caption reading Moscow Mitch.

Why does Twitter leave phony pictures like this up, but take down Republican/Conservative pictures and statements that are true? the president wanted to know. Mitch must fight back and repeal Section 230, immediately. Stop biased Big Tech before they stop you!

He then tagged Republican senators Marsha Blackburn and Josh Hawley, who reliably step up to lodge baseless complaints about systematic bias against their party whenever called upon. (In fact, they introduced something called the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act on Tuesday, the point of which seems to be to stop social networks from doing so much moderating.)

The reason Twitter (usually) leaves phony pictures like that up is that the United States permits its citizens to speak freely about politicians even to say mean things about them. Repealing Section 230 would likely have no impact on the tweet in question, because the Twitter users speech is protected under the First Amendment.

It might, however, make Twitter legally liable for what its users post which would lead the company to remove more speech, not less. Whatever repealing Section 230 might achieve, it would not be what the president seems to want.

Anyway, all of this is well known to followers of the long-running Section 230 debates and seemingly impenetrable to everyone else. But if theres one important lesson from 2020, its that long-running debates over expression can sometimes result in clumsy but decisive actions ask TikTok! And so its worth spending a few more minutes talking about what smarter people say ought to be done about Section 230.

As it so happens, theres a sharp new report today out on the subject. Paul Barrett at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights looks at the origins and evolution of Section 230, evaluates both partisan and nonpartisan critiques, and offers a handful of solutions.

To me there are two key takeaways from the report. One is that there are genuine, good-faith reasons to call for Section 230 reform, even though theyre often drowned out by bad tweets that misunderstand the law. To me the one that lands the hardest is that Section 230 has allowed platforms to under-invest in content moderation in basically every dimension, and the cost of the resulting externalities has been borne by society at large.

Barrett writes (PDF):

Ellen P. Goodman, a law professor at Rutgers University specializing in information policy, approaches the problem from another angle. She suggests that Section 230 asks for too little nothing, really in return for the benefit it provides. Lawmakers, she writes, could use Section 230 as leverage to encourage platforms to adopt a broader set of responsibilities. A 2019 report Goodman co-authored for the Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State at the University of Chicagos Booth School of Business urges transforming Section 230 into a quid pro quo benefit. The idea is that platforms would have a choice: adopt additional duties related to content moderation or forgo some or all of the protections afforded by Section 230.

The Stigler Center report provides examples of quids that larger platforms could offer to receive the quo of continued Section 230 immunity. One, which has been considered in the U.K. as part of that countrys debate over proposed online-harm legislation, would require platform companies to ensure that their algorithms do not skew toward extreme and unreliable material to boost user engagement. Under a second, platforms would disclose data on what content is being promoted and to whom, on the process and policies of content moderation, and on advertising practices.

This approach continues to enable lots of speech on the internet you could keep those Moscow Mitch tweets coming while forcing companies to disclose what theyre promoting. Recommendation algorithms are the core difference between the big tech platforms and the open web that they have largely supplanted, and the world has a vested interest in understanding how they work and what results from their suggestions. I dont care much about a bad video with 100 views. But I care very much about a bad video with 10 million.

So whose job will it be to pay attention to all this? Barretts other suggestion is a kind of digital regulatory agency whose functions would mimic some combination of the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and similar agencies in other countries.

It envisions the digital regulatory body whether governmental or industry-based as requiring internet companies to clearly disclose their terms of service and how they are enforced, with the possibility of applying consumer protection laws if a platform fails to conform to its own rules. The TWG emphasizes that the new regulatory body would not seek to police content; it would impose disclosure requirements meant to improve indirectly the way content is handled. This is an important distinction, at least in the United States, because a regulator that tried to supervise content would run afoul of the First Amendment. [...]

In a paper written with Professor Goodman, Karen Kornbluh, who heads the Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, makes the case for a Digital Democracy Agency devoted significantly to transparency. Drug and airline companies disclose things like ingredients, testing results, and flight data when there is an accident, Kornbluh and Goodman observe. Platforms do not disclose, for example, the data they collect, the testing they do, how their algorithms order news feeds and recommendations, political ad information, or moderation rules and actions. Thats a revealing comparison and one that should help guide reform efforts.

Nothing described here would really resolve the angry debate we have once or week or so in this country about a post that Facebook or Twitter or YouTube left up when they should have taken it down, or took down when they should have left it up. But it could pressure platforms to pay closer attention to what is going viral, what behaviors they are incentivizing, what harms all of that may be doing to the rest of us.

And over time, the agencys findings could help lawmakers craft more targeted reforms to Section 230 which is to say, reforms that are less openly hostile to the idea of free speech. Moscow Mitch will continue to have to take his lumps. But the platforms at last will have to take theirs, too.

Today in news that could affect public perception of the big tech platforms.

Trending down: A video of a man shooting himself with a gun started circulating on TikTok Sunday night, despite the companys attempts to take it down. Creators warned that the clip was being hidden in innocuous videos and shared across the site, making it harder to avoid. (Julia Alexander / The Verge)

The Trump campaign is betting on YouTube as a primary way to reach voters ahead of the November election. It appears to be a move away from the Facebook strategy that helped propel him to victory in 2016. Alex Thompson at Politico tells the story:

Many digital strategists say YouTubes algorithm is more likely to recommend to viewers channels that are updated regularly with new content. The name of the game with algorithms is to flood the zones, said Eric Wilson, a veteran Republican digital operative. The Trump campaign is putting on a master class in advertising according to algorithms it just rewards the side that will produce more content. [...]

The Trump campaigns YouTube strategy is also the latest example of it becoming its own news publisher, bypassing the established media. Many of the campaigns videos are short news clips or snippets of the press secretarys daily briefing.

The 2020 US election will likely spark violence and a constitutional crisis, according to experts who gamed out possible November scenarios. Unless Biden wins in a landslide, the experts predict significant unrest. Gulp. (Rosa Brooks / The Washington Post)

The Trump campaign launched a series of Facebook ads featuring a manipulated photo of Joe Biden edited to make the former vice president appear older. Its among the latest examples of Trump sharing content that has been deceptively altered to attack Biden. (Jesselyn Cook / HuffPost)

Joe Bidens campaign is taking over a popular Instagram account created by a teen supporter. Formerly a fan account, @VoteJoe account will now serve as the campaigns primary point of grassroots outreach on Instagram. (Makena Kelly / The Verge)

Also: Joe Biden is partnering up with the celebrity video platform Cameo to allow celebrities to earmark payments for his campaign. Andy Cohen, Mandy Moore, Tituss Burgess, Dul Hill, and Melissa Etheridge are lending their support to the campaign on the platform starting this week. (Makena Kelly / The Verge)

Oracles closeness with the Trump administration could prove helpful in its bid to buy TikTok. Oracle founder Larry Ellison is a prominent Trump supporter. (David McCabe / The New York Times)

TikTok and WeChat are being lumped together in the Trumps administrations attempt to crack down on national security threats from China. But WeChat, in addition to being a vital communication channel for the Chinese diaspora, is also a global conduit of Chinese state propaganda, surveillance and intimidation. (Paul Mozur / The New York Times)

Facebooks ban on political ads the week before the US election will muzzle important political speech and disproportionately burden challenger campaigns, this article argues. That could benefit incumbents who have large organic reach on social media platforms. (Daniel Kreiss and Matt Perault / Slate)

Also: Facebooks political ad ban could threaten the ability of election officials to spread accurate information about how to vote. (Jeremy B. Merrill / ProPublica)

Facebooks decision to leave up Trumps post urging people to vote twice angered employees, who called the move shameful and unconscionable. (Craig Silverman and Ryan Mac / BuzzFeed)

Facebook took down an image posted by GOP congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene, a QAnon conspiracy theorist, showing her holding a rifle next to a photo of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. The company said the post violated its policy on violence and incitement. (Eliza Relman / Business Insider)

Misinformation campaigns are likely going to come to online multiplayer games like Animal Crossing. Today, no online multiplayer game has a publicly available policy specifically related to medical or political disinformation in the US. (Daniel Kelley / Slate)

Amazon said it plans to continue protesting the Department of Defenses decision to award the JEDI contract to Microsoft. The DoD recently affirmed its decision, but Amazon said not all the relevant information about the politically corrupted contract has been made public. Cant wait! (Amazon)

Apple is doubling down on its legal battle against Epic Games. The company filed counterclaims alleging Epic breached its contract and seeking an unspecified amount in damages. (Todd Haselton / CNBC)

Apple didnt commit to stop processing requests for user data from Hong Kong authorities in the wake of a national security law imposed by Beijing. Now, the company is opening up about what kinds of data requests it receives. (Zack Whittaker / TechCrunch)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission opened an investigation into the Apple App Store and Google Play. The commission is looking at competition between the two app stores and how they share data. (Tegan Jones / Gizmodo)

Italys competition authority opened an investigation into cloud storage services operated by Apple, Dropbox and Google. The move comes in response to complaints about how the companies collect user data for commercial purposes. (Natasha Lomas / TechCrunch)

TikTok has been building a vocal contingent of young supporters amid growing uncertainty about the apps future in the US. the company is working behind the scenes to turn creators in the US into superstars, arming them with brand deals and introductions to Hollywood power brokers. Heres Sarah Frier at Bloomberg:

The effort has given TikTok growing influence over American culture, which is not an accident, says Brett Bruen, who served as the White House director of global engagement in the Obama administration. He believes China and ByteDance are playing the long game. Its all a localization strategy, which allows you to not only achieve relevance but respect, he said. The most effective advocates for your company and for policy decisions are those local influencers and local partners.

U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered ByteDance to sell its U.S. TikTok assets and he has threatened to ban the app if a deal doesnt happen in coming weeks. Embedding the business deeply in society, while providing a livelihood for thousands of rising American stars will make it harder to uproot the app from the country. Creators say they havent been asked to make public statements in support of the app, but it comes naturally to some.

ByteDance is giving TikTok employees a half-months salary bonus in an attempt to calm the workforce as the company continues to negotiate a sale. The company said the money is meant to reward employees at a time of unprecedented economic and social upheaval. (Zheping Huang / Bloomberg)

Fan armies are harassing gay and trans people on TikTok. Cut it out, fan armies! (Taylor Lorenz / The New York Times)

A Facebook engineer quit today, saying they could no longer stomach contributing to an organization that is profiting off hate in the US and globally. Its the latest resignation to come amid rising discontent within the company. (Read the resignation letter.) (Craig Timberg and Elizabeth Dwoskin / The Washington Post)

Facebook will now notify third-party developers if it finds a security vulnerability in their code. After a third-party developer is notified, theyll have 21 days to respond and 90 days to fix the issues. (Zack Whittaker and Sarah Perez / TechCrunch)

Facebook gave employees with children extra time off to care for their kids during the pandemic. Some employees without kids thought it was unfair. (Daisuke Wakabayashi and Sheera Frenkel / The New York Times)

Tech companies are changing up their perks to account for remote working conditions. Some are mandating people take time off, and offering childcare support and mental health resources. (Arielle Pardes / Wired)

Amazon announced plans to expand to 25,000 workers in Bellevue, Washington. In a blog post the company said new leases and office-tower development would increase its projected headcount by 10,000. (Matt Day / Bloomberg)

Twitter reenabled the ability to download archives of Your Twitter Data, nearly two months after shutting off the feature as a precaution against hacking. The data could give you insight into what teen hackers could have stolen during the notorious bitcoin scam in July. (Sean Hollister / The Verge)

Brands are paying Twitter users between $20 and $60 to respond to viral tweets with a mention of their company. The move sends people to their sites without having to pay higher fees to advertise on Twitter. (Michael Tobin / Bloomberg)

People are streaming chess games on Twitch. The game might seem like an unlikely contender for the digital era, but its captured peoples attention. (Kellen Browning / The New York Times)

The Social Dilemma, a docu-drama that debuts on Netflix this week, has a simplistic view on the evils of social media platforms. It treats social media as a totally unprecedented threat, dismissing comparisons with radio, television, or any previous mass medium. (Adi Robertson / The Verge)

The pandemic is exacerbating discrimination in the school system, particularly as it relates to suspensions and other disciplinary action. Experts are worried about an uptick in Zoom suspensions. (Aaricka Washington / The New York Times)

Send us tips, comments, questions, and Section 230 reforms: casey@theverge.com and zoe@theverge.com.

Excerpt from:
Trumps latest attack on Section 230 is really about censoring speech - The Verge