Mediaboss Marketing

"Knowledge is power," as the old saying goes, so it's no surprise that Wikipediaone of the largest repositories of general knowledge ever createdis a frequent target of government censorship around the world. In Turkey, Wikipedia articles about female genitals have been banned; Russia has censored articles about weed; in the UK, articles about German metal bands have been blocked; in China, the entire site has been banned on multiple occasions.

Determining how to prevent these acts of censorship has long been a priority for the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, and thanks to new research from the Harvard Center for Internet and Society, the foundation seems to have found a solution: encryption.

In 2011, Wikipedia added support for Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS), which is the encrypted version of its predecessor HTTP. Both of these protocols are used to transfer data from a website's server to the browser on your computer, but when you try to connect to a website using HTTPS, your browser will first ask the web server to identify itself. Then the server will send its unique public key which is used by the browser to create and encrypt a session key. This session key is then sent back to the server which it decrypts with its private key. Now all data sent between the browser and server is encrypted for the remainder of the session.

"The decision to shift to HTTPS has been a good one in terms of ensuring accessibility to knowledge."

In short, HTTPS prevents governments and others from seeing the specific page users are visiting. For example, a government could tell that a user is browsing Wikipedia, but couldn't tell that the user is specifically reading the page about Tiananmen Square.

The researchers saw a sharp drop in traffic to the Chinese language Wikipedia around May 19, 2015, indicating a censorship event. This did in fact turn out to be the casethe site had been blocked in anticipation of the upcoming anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Image: Harvard

Up until 2015, Wikipedia offered its service using both HTTP and HTTPS, which meant that when countries like Pakistan or Iran blocked the certain articles on the HTTP version of Wikipedia, the full version would still be available using HTTPS. But in June 2015, Wikipedia decided to axe HTTP access and only offer access to its site with HTTPS. The thinking was that this would force the hand of restrictive governments when it came to censorshipdue to how this protocol works, governments could no longer block individual Wikipedia entries. It was an all or nothing deal.

Critics of this plan argued that this move would just result in more total censorship of Wikipedia and that access to some information was better than no information at all. But Wikipedia stayed the course, at least partly because its co-founder Jimmy Wales is a strong advocate for encryption. Now, new research from Harvard shows that Wales' intuition was correctfull encryption did actually result in a decrease in censorship incidents around the world.

The Harvard researchers began by deploying an algorithm which detected unusual changes in Wikipedia's global server traffic for a year beginning in May 2015. This data was then combined with a historical analysis of the daily request histories for some 1.7 million articles in 286 different languages from 2011 to 2016 in order to determine possible censorship events. At the end of their year-long data collection, the Harvard researchers also did a client-side analysis, where they would try to access various Wikipedia articles in a variety of languages as they would be seen by a resident in a particular country.

Read More: Jimmy Wales to China After Blocking Wikipedia: I Can Outwait You

After a painstakingly long process of manual analysis of potential censorship events, the researchers found that, globally, Wikipedia's switch to HTTPS had a positive effect on the number censorship events by comparing server traffic from before and after the switch in June of 2015.

Although countries like China, Thailand and Uzbekistan were still censoring part or all of Wikipedia by the time the researchers wrapped up their study, they remained optimistic: "this initial data suggests the decision to shift to HTTPS has been a good one in terms of ensuring accessibility to knowledge."

See the original post here:
Wikipedia's Switch to HTTPS Has Successfully Fought Government Censorship - Motherboard

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Andrew Minik

Evanston, IL Northwestern University has become the latest battleground in the fight for free speech and academic liberty. Sociology professor Beth Redbird invited a public relations officer of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to participate in a lecture series on Inequality: Race, Class, and Power. To the activist organizations on campus, this invitation was unacceptable. I attended the protest to experience first hand the tactics employed by activists to silence professors.

MEChA, Black Lives Matter, Asian Pacific American Coalition, NU QTIPOC, NU Rainbow Alliance, and Immigrant Justice Project organized a protest to prevent the ICE representatives from attending the lecture. According to their official statement regardless of arresting power dialogue with any ICE official legitimizes their position as state actors of violence. The flier goes on to warn students that engaging with ICE creates harmful discourse that hinders critical conversation about state violence. Following a paragraph of fear mongering, the activist manifesto presents a list of demands ranging from an undocumented students resource center to simplifying the admissions process.

Flier posted to the official Facebook event

Protesters assembled around all entrances to Harris Hall on the Evanston campus. Blood stained banners reading No Human is Illegal and Stop Deportations were draped across the doors. As the crowd grew demonstrators scanned the area, prepared to stop ICE in any way necessary. ICE got in! an organizer yelled to her comrades. Frustrated, the crowd began a series of chants and speeches justifying their need to disrupt the university lecture. Unsatisfied with their failed wall, the activists marched into the building.

The coalition of activist organizations entered the foyer in front of the lecture hall. Once in place, two students with megaphones led the group in chants. ICE is a disruption, not a discussion and Fuck ICE, echoed through the building.

Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students Todd Adams arrived to plead with protesters to take their demonstration outside. Unmoved, the chanting continued. Dean Adams explained to protesters that professors are allowed a degree of academic freedom, and that the university is not in a position to prohibit speakers from campus. ICE is not good! responded an eloquent demonstrator.

Thirty minutes into the standoff, professor Redbird allowed the protesters to enter the lecture. Immediately upon entering a screaming match ensued between the demonstrators and professor Redbird. Several students fled the hall, some in tears. Professor Redbird grabbed a microphone, Enough! Class is dismissed. she yelled over the activists. You are not required to stay in this uncomfortable environment if you dont want to. I will stay and answer questions!

With the protesters unwilling or unable to posit a question, I raised my hand. Are there speakers on any subject you would feel uncomfortable presenting to your lecture?

Well, I have a problem with a class that censors before she could continue the activists screeched in disgust. The pattern of interrupting professor Redbird continued throughout the Q and A.

The protesters statements revealed a troubling belief system. This bubble where everything is going to be objective, that is erasure. That is violent. Demonstrators felt no distinction between physical and emotional harm. We are trying to make the case that its harmful either way. Its not worth putting a symbolic danger on campus for the purpose of understanding it.

Professor Redbird, a progressive and advocate for undocumented immigrants, found this assault on academic freedom troubling. My husband is an immigration lawyer and when the travel ban came down he rushed to the airport to help. He could help because he knew the law. Without that knowledge he cannot help anyone. I want you to speak up, but I want you to understand the power. Without that knowledge you will always be outsiders. It is easy to be outside when you are loved. You need that knowledge to survive. Before she could continue angered protesters interrupted.

She went on to explain that the outside world, their home, and places of recreation should be safe. However, the classroom is a place that should make you uncomfortable. Understanding the way society works is uncomfortable. There is no way to learn how it works without being uncomfortable. Frustrated, the students urged the need to censor violent opinions in the classroom.

It became clear the protesters held no regard for freedom of speech or freedom of thought. The activist community makes no distinction between physical violence and emotional violence. The ICE representatives held no arresting power. They are not allowed, by law, to carry out violent behavior. And yet, according to Daniel, a sophomore participating in the protest, We must confront the idea that all opinions are valid. Even that should have a limitation under free speech. To him the pursuit of education is not worth putting students in ideological danger.

Students in Redbirds course disagreed with the activists assault on their class. Rick, a freshman in economics, disapproved of the protests blatant disregard for our opportunity to learn and make change towards what the group was advocating for. He felt that the protest hijacked their class in order to make a statement against ICE.

It is clear that academic freedom is under siege on college campuses. Actions such as this have landed Northwestern on FIREs list of worst colleges for free speech. Students and professors on both sides of the political spectrum must continue to pursue knowledge, no matter how uncomfortable it may make students. The censorship of violent opinions presents a direct threat to freedom of speech. Campus activists and their crusade to censor professors is anti-intellectual and their willful ignorance of ideas must be confronted. The activist community remains dedicated to silencing educators by any means necessary. I recommend they build the next censorship wall ten feet taller.

Asian Pacific American CoalitionBeth RedbirdBlack Lives MatterCensorshipcollegefree speechICEImmigrant Justice ProjectimmigrationImmigration and Customs EnforcementMEChAnorthwestern universityNU QTIPOCNU Rainbow AllianceSJWsocial justiceTodd Adamsuniversity

See more here:
Northwestern Activists Build Censorship Wall, Storm Lecture Hall ... - The Libertarian Republic

Climate Home

Trump administration sued over climate change 'censorship' Climate Home The Trump administration's refusal to release public information about its climate censorship continues a dangerous and illegal pattern of anti-science denial, said Taylor McKinnon from the CBD. Just as censorship won't change climate science, ...

Continued here:
Trump administration sued over climate change 'censorship' - Climate Home

Facebook's guidelines about whena post must be removed show that images captioned by commentary or criticism can remain on the site but support, praise or threats mean they must be removed.

Apicture of a person being shot at close range can stay online, the documents show,if the caption is "More deaths" or "How sad". It must be removed if there is noaccompanying text or if itsays something like"A great day".

Images of leaders of terrorist organisations must be deleted if they are posted without a comment or a supporting one, but can remain if the comment is neutral or condemning.

Posts celebrating terrorist attacks, groups and members are must be removed.

The leak contains a 44-page guide for moderators that includes the pictures and names of 646 terrorist leaders and their groups, the Guardian said. Most of the groups are recognised internationally as terrorist organisations. But some, including the Free Syrian Army and First Division Coastal Group, are supported as legitimate organisations by the US and UK.

Read more:
Terrorists can easily bypass Facebook censorship, leaked documents show - Telegraph.co.uk

SUMMARY:

The EU has taken its first steps towards greater regulation of the internet with proposed legislation that would take on video content on social media platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp. Its a slippery slope to leave to politicians.

The European Union (EU) has signed off on the first steps towards greater regulation of the internet with a vote to establish a universal set of video content censorship rules that companies like Facebook and Twitter would be forced to follow.

The ruling was part of revisions to the EUs Audiovisual Media Services Directive, issued a year ago, tackling extremism and hate speech online.

The EU Parliament wil have to give the final nod for the proposal to become law, but it seems inevitable that this will happen. Vice-President for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip says:

It is essential to have one common set of audiovisual rules across the EU and avoid the complication of different national laws. We need to take into account new ways of watching videos, and find the right balance to encourage innovative services, promote European films, protect children and tackle hate speech in a better way.

Individual EU states have tackled the issue of online extremism in different ways. For example, Germany recently passed a bill that makes companies open to fines of up to $53 million if hate speech was not scrubbed from their platforms within 24 hours of being flagged.And an Austrian court ruled earlier this month that Facebook must delete hate posts about the leader of the countrys Green Party.

Meanwhile in the UK, the question of how to manage the rise of extermist content online has become a policy issue in the forthcoming General Election on 8 June. The Conservative Party has been particularly forthright in warning of heavy financial penalties for online content platform providers who dont toe the line.

And following the appalling terrorist attack in Manchester on Monday evening, its now being suggested that anti-terrorism legislation will be rushed through to force co-operation from social media firms as soon as the election is over if the Tories win a majority as the current polls suggest.

According to reports in The Sun an enthusiastic basher of all thing Facebook, Twitter etc Technical Capability Orders would be put in place to allow the police and security services to insist that the likes of WhatsApp would have to remove all encryption from suspect messages themselves for the first time. WhatsApp messages were sent by the perpetrator of the car terrorist attack on Parliament in March in advance of the atrocity and police complained they were unable to see what they said without having the phone in their possession.

The timing of the vote came after Facebook documents, leaked to The Guardian, revealed how difficult the social network finds it to police its own audience of nearly 2 billion users. Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, told the newspaper:

We have a really diverse global community and people are going to have very different ideas about what is okay to share. No matter where you draw the line there are always going to be some grey areas.

This leads to some interesting policy decisions. For example, online threats against a head of a state, such as Donald Trump or Theresa May, would automatically be removed, but a threat against nprmal citizens are left live unless the threat being issued is judged to be credible.

On terrorist activities, the documents indicate that in one month last year Facebook moderators identified 1,340 posts that posed credible terrorist threats, but only removed 311.

The leak also provided an insight into how Facebook makes judgement calls on what consistutes a terrorist organisation, citing 646 terrorist leaders and their groups But there are the inevitable problems of interpretation here. For example, the Facebook documents designate the Free Syrian Army (FSA) as a terrorist group. But the FSA is recognised a legitimate anti-Bashir opposition force by various Western governments, including the US and the UK.

Posts celebrating terrorist attacks, groups and members must be removed and images of leaders of terrorist organisations must be deleted if they are posted without a comment or with a supporting one, but they can remain if the comment is felt to be either neutral or condemning.The guidelines state:

People must not praise, support or represent a member of a terrorist organization, or any organization that is primarily dedicated to intimidate a population, government or use violence to resist occupation of an internationally recognized state.

Things that have been censored on Facebook include images of breastfeeding and female nipples in general male nipples are fine apparently; plus-sized women; and burn victims. In most cases, these were errors that were subsequently corrected, but are indicative of the pressure that the firms 4,500 community managers are under.

Last year Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Microsoft signed signed up to a voluntary code of conduct in Europe, under which they agreed to review and remove content flagged as hateful within 24 hours. But according to a European Commission study, only around 40% of reported content has been removed within that time frame, rising to 80% after 48 hours.

Ive said before that this far too complex a matter to be left to politicians to tackle. The European Unions first step down the censorship is part of a wider protectionist stance that would force non-EU broadcasters, such as Netflix, to produce 20% of their content in Europe. So whatever the official line, this isnt just about social responsibility; its also about stacking the deckfor European media firms.

In the UK, if the Tories win the election, it will be all-out war with the social media firms. But then if Labour wins, itll be pretty much the same story, given that some of the most vocal social media critics are part of the current main opposition party. Meanwhile in the US, the Trump administration maintains its stance that social media firms are not playing a big enough role in the war on terror.

The social media firms themselves do have to start taking more responsibility this nonsense about not being media firms isnt going to stand and there should be some urgent rethinking going on about that as a defence against being seen to be more proactive. Yes, the likes of Facebook and Twitter are between a rock and a hard place on matters like extremist content and hate speech, but if they allow politicians to take the public moral high ground then theyll have to take what they get and thats not going to be good for society in the long run.

Image credit - Freeimages.com

See more here:
The EU takes first step on slippery slope to internet censorship - Diginomica