Mediaboss Marketing

June 3, 2020 at 9:00 am ET

Nearly 3 in 4 adults said in August that the U.S. president should be banned or suspended for spreading offensive content on social media.

Nine months later, roughly 3 in 5 adults say such conduct by the president should merit a ban or suspension.

Among Trump voters, 32% say a U.S. president should neither face a ban or suspension for spreading offensive content on social media.

Last week, as the United States saw its 100,000th death from the coronavirus pandemic and protests brewed against institutional racism and police brutality, President Donald Trump turned his attention to a familiar foe: social media.

Within 48 hours of Twitter Inc. taking its first enforcement actions against two of Trumps posts for violating its content moderation policies, the administration pushed through an executive order targeting online platforms Section 230 liability protections that experts on both sides of the aisle widely see as a politically motivated response to Twitters move.

But, at least among Trumps base, a new Morning Consult survey suggests that these efforts could be paying off.

Since August, the share of adults who said they believe social media companies should either ban or suspend the U.S. president from their platforms for spreading offensive content has dropped 15 percentage points, from 74 percent to 59 percent, with a growing number of Trump voters saying that platforms shouldnt suspend or ban the U.S. presidents accounts at all in these instances.

The surveys, conducted Aug. 21-24, 2019, and May 29-June 1, 2020, among a sample of 2,200 adults each, have a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

After years of practicing a more hands-off approach to moderating the president, two divergent camps have started to emerge in recent days over how social media platforms should moderate the U.S. leader: Twitters decision to add warning labels or other context to posts that violate its rules, and Facebook Inc.s model to leave the content as is so users can make their own decisions about its worthiness.

The survey indicates that theres at least some value to adding labels to Trumps posts, albeit a small one. Respondents were shown screenshots of the flagged Trump tweets both before and after they received either a fact-check or glorifying violence label, to determine whether they viewed the content as appropriate.

In the instance of Trump sharing misleading information about mail-in voting, which received a fact-check label, the share of adults who said the content was inappropriate dropped 6 percentage points, from 51 percent to 45 percent, once it received a fact-check label. And in response to the Trump tweet about Minnesota protests that received a glorifying violence label, sentiments among those who said it was inappropriate dropped 8 points after receiving a label.

And while Trumps executive order imploring the Federal Trade Commission to review complaints of political bias on the platforms and the Federal Communications Commission to review how it regulates liability protections afforded by Section 230 might seem like a smoke screen, it has support with one of his most important demos in an election year: 2016 Trump voters. Sixty-eight percent of those who voted for the president four years ago said his administration should make tackling alleged political biases in social media companies moderation policies a priority, compared to 45 percent of all adults.

However, experts worry that the executive order might have hindered the progress being made to pursue meaningful congressional-led reform to the 24-year-old statute.

Prior to Trumps executive order, interest in reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act had been growing among a bipartisan group of lawmakers; however, discussions about how to do it were in the early stages, said Adam Conner, vice president of technology policy at the Center for American Progress. For instance, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in March about the EARN IT Act, which proposes stripping a tech platforms Section 230 liability protections if it doesnt take proper measures to curb the distribution of child sexual abuse content on its sites. And former Vice President Joe Bidens presidential campaign said last week that the presumptive Democratic nominee still wants to revoke Section 230, although the campaign disagrees with some of the basic principles expressed in Trumps executive order.

Conner said that while the executive order will definitely slow these policy discussions, robust conversations about the responsibilities that platforms have to moderate the information that users share on their sites will continue.

Even in a world where you think Section 230 should remain exactly in its perfect form, theres going to be a debate and discussion on it, he said.

Despite growing calls in Washington for reforming the law, the basis for Section 230 still has support among adults: In the survey, a plurality (45 percent) said that users who post offensive items are always legally responsible for the content, while 29 percent said the same about the platforms.

Jennifer Huddleston, director of technology and innovation policy at the American Action Forum, warned that although the executive order comes with a few legal gray areas, the meaning behind it could be enough to ward off platforms from allowing political speech on their sites although Twitter has continued to place warning labels on several politicians posts after the orders signing.

Huddleston pointed to how companies reacted to SESTA-FOSTA, a law that passed in April 2018 that amended Section 230 so that online sites could risk losing their liability protections if they dont adequately regulate for sex trafficking on their platforms. As a result of that regulation, many platforms completely wiped out any mentions of sex and personal connections, including Craigslist removing its personal ads and Reddit Inc. deleting certain subreddits.

That might not seem like a big deal, but that was legitimate speech that was silenced as a result of a law that was targeting something that we might agree was bad, but because it took away this liability protection, it silenced legitimate speakers, as well, she said.

And calls for political neutrality on the platform, such as the ones included in the presidents executive order, could create an even larger gray area of speech that could be silenced, Huddleston said.

The sheer volume that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube are dealing with that, and the international framework where there are a lot of nuances as to what different content may mean in different contexts, makes content moderation a very difficult job, Huddleston said, and something that theres not always a black and white answer to: This should stay up, and that should be taken down.

Get the latest global tech news and analysis delivered to your inbox every morning.

Link:
After Twitter Feud, Trump Voters More Supportive of Social Media Inaction Against President's Posts - Morning Consult

Is it legal for police officers to use tear gas on protesters? We break down when the chemical irritant can and can't be used.

For days, people across the nation have marched to protest the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer held his knee on Floyds neck.

Police forces have responded to these protests with tear gas and other anti-riot measures. Protesters have posted countless photos and videos to social media showing police firing the chemical gas during the demonstrations.

The most common types of chemicals used in these agents today are chloroacetophenone and 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, according to the CDC. Usually, these chemical compounds cause a burning sensation in the eyes, nose and on the skin. Long-lasting exposure or large doses could cause blindness, respiratory failure or death, the CDC says.

Some posts claim tear gas is illegal to use in warfare - so why can police use it against civilians?

So the VERIFY team researched the rules behind tear gas.

THE QUESTION

Is the usage of tear gas a war crime?

THE ANSWER

But law enforcement can still legally use it for riot control purposes. In fact, the same agreement that banned and criminalized tear gas in warfare also specifically allowed for its use by law enforcement.

WHAT WE FOUND

The general use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925, shortly after WWI. The text of the protocol was short and did not specify beyond that what gases were banned.

The United States Senate, according to the State Department, did not ratify the treaty at the time. In fact, the United States continued to use tear gas and chemical herbicides in the Vietnam War, arguing that such chemicals were not covered by the Geneva Protocol. But other countries, especially those in the Soviet bloc, argued that the use of tear gas was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol.

A Swedish ambassador at the time argued there was a danger of escalation if nonlethal chemical agents were permitted but also pointed out that the military use of tear gases should be distinguished from their use for riot control, the State Department says.

A broader interpretation of the Geneva Protocol was then adopted and the United States eventually ratified it -- with a few riot-control exceptions -- in 1975.

In 1992, the United Nations held a convention on chemical weaponscalled the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction.

During this meeting, the organization developed a second treaty that was similar to the first, but more explicit in its guidance. The updated agreement prohibited members from using "riot control agents as a method of warfare."

That convention explicitly defined riot control gases as chemicals "which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure," to avoid the debate that occurred following the Geneva Protocol.

But the issue provoked debate among member states. Jamil Dakwar, a representative from the ACLU, said in an interview with PRI said there was pressure to ban chemical weapons in the leadup to the Chemical Weapons Convention. He said many countries argued they would resort to more lethal methods to control their own citizens if law enforcement could not use these chemicals.

So as a compromise, the agreement again allowed an exception for the use of these chemicals for domestic riot control purposes.

Our expert also explained some of the risks involved when using these chemicals during wartime.

Richard Price, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia and the author of The Chemical Weapons Taboo, told VERIFY in an email that soldiers dont have the luxury of determining if gasses shot at them are tear gases or much more lethal chemical weapons like chlorine, mustard or what have you."

He said any gases on the frontlines could expose a country to false accusations of using illegal chemicals. Such claims could escalate the conflict further.

"The best thing to avoid potentially false accusations of prohibited lethal chemical use (that then spirals to more general use in retaliation) was to just ban them all in the context of battle.

He also explained that the Chemical Weapons Convention decided on the term "riot control" gases rather than non-lethal gases because they can kill, if in sufficient dosage and concentration, such as in a confined area, but that is very rare since they are usually used outdoors, but thats one reason why the CWC doesnt differentiate these as lethal/non-lethal gases, but rather define according to the purpose (riot control).

BOTTOM LINE

Yes, tear gas is banned for use in war. However, the same international provisions that ban it also allow law enforcement to use it domestically.

Its also incorrect to say tear gas is non-lethal. It can be lethal in confined areas, which is one reason its banned in war. Its very rarely lethal when used outdoors.

Though many countries use these chemicals for riot control purposes, their use remains controversial.

See the rest here:
VERIFY: Tear gas is banned from war, but not banned for use by law enforcement internationally - WUSA9.com

Every Saturday this month we will feature some of the best articles by young people from our SOUK workshops on Political and Media Literacy. Todays thought-provoking article is by Charlotte Mitchell.

We are facing a mental health crisis. This problem is all the worse for young people, with UK charity Young Minds reporting that less than 1 in 3 young people receive NHS support. The question then that must be asked, is how these alarming statistics have come to be?

Young people are more likely than any other demographic to be on social media and engaging with pop culture. They are also likely to see the hateful comments which are often directed at celebrities and other public figures. We are living in an age where tabloids, as well as broadsheet newspapers, are reporting in an increasingly personal and invasive way. Undoubtedly, public figures are under immense pressure, and are being held to higher standards of scrutiny than ever before. Regrettably, it seems that less and less consideration is given to the wellbeing of an articles subject. Those rose-tinted glasses which made us think that celebrities are invulnerable and unfeeling gods have shattered after one particular incident.

In January 2020, after a months long stream of negative reporting over the alleged assault against then-boyfriend Lewis Burton, ex Love Island host Caroline Flack tragically took her own life. I will not admit for a second that I condone the way Ms Flack treated Burton. Domestic violence against men is a woefully underreported crime, with men three times less likely to report than women. However, this person should never have been pushed into a position where she felt she could not bear to live.

At the time of her death, most of the press blamed the media for their insensitive reporting of Ms Flack. Of course, many factors were at play here, but the reporting style of the tabloids must be acknowledged. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer commented that some stories amplified damaging posts on social media, with many articles including personal attacks. The Mirror, for instance, described Ms Flacks situation as a fall from grace, despite her stunning body.

Caroline Flack had amassed a large online following during her life, much of which was made up of teenagers and young adults. How must these impressionable people have felt when they read such cruel and frankly objectifying comments about someones appearance? This is arguably something which could trigger an unhealthy relationship in a young person with their own body, especially given Flacks affiliation with Love Island, a reality TV show grounded on the premise of external beauty as that which determines your chances of finding happy ever after.

The Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service, CAMHS, gets less than 1 per cent of the total NHS budget. This, despite suicide being the third leading cause of death in 15-19-year-olds and with anorexia nervosa having the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder in adolescents. It is on this note that you begin to wonder what must be done.

May 18th through to the 24th was International Mental Health Awareness week, with charities everywhere doing what they could to raise the profile of mental health and reduce the surrounding stigma. During that week I read many articles which discussed the various causes of mental health problems, particularly in teenagers. While you cannot trace all mental health struggles back to a single root cause, I do feel that the media have certainly contributed to the individual struggles of many. I am 16, and I have seen far too many of my friends struggle with their body image and their relationship with food. In my view, seeing celebrities subjected to very high standards in terms of how they should look, has only made matters worse for them. Many, I suspect, feel that they too should meet this daunting idea of perfection.

It is always easy to say that anyone who is struggling with such issues should simply switch off unplug themselves from social media. But should the burden of responsibility fall on those most vulnerable in our society? Or, could it be argued that it is the job of the media to stop holding celebrities to such cruel and unrealistic standards?

In an NTA-winning BBC documentary titled Odd One Out, Little Mix member Jesy Nelson recalls a period of her life where she would actively seek out hate online, which saw her being described as the fat one in Little Mix. She was barely 20 when a competitor on The X Factor and already the pressure was mounting. Though she is now much happier and far less troubled by online hate, she vividly describes a time that was so dark it pushed her to attempt to end her life.

This hate must stop. But will the government intervene to help control the press, or will this be confined to the realm of free speech expected in a democracy? In an article for The Guardian, journalist Roy Greenslade argued that papers will justify their exposure of celeb secrets by insisting that they enjoy the rewards of marketing false images.

It is unfortunately true that no government will want to go after the media for fear of unfavourable coverage. To me, the governments priorities are clear. Support from the papers is more important than civilian wellbeing.

I, for one, refuse to settle for a world where 81 per cent of 10-year-olds are afraid of being fat. We must be better. Do better. Work harder to change the narrative not just for ourselves, but for everybody; including celebrities. No human being deserves to feel inadequate about themselves.

By Charlotte Mitchell

Read more from the original source:
Celebrities and the Media: An unhealthy relationship - Shout Out UK

LOGO: PPMA/NPMA

Its time for pest management professionals (PMPs) to participate in Bed Bug Awareness Week, taking place this year June 7-13. The annual education campaign is promoted by the Professional Pest Management Alliance (PPMA), which serves as the public outreach arm of theNational Pest Management Association (NPMA).

Bed Bug Awareness Week is recognized by Chases Calendar of Events and is celebrated throughout the pest management industry. Through various media relations and social media strategies, PPMA will work to educate the public on the need for diligent bed bug prevention, the signs of an infestation and the importance of working with a licensed PMPs to mitigate infestations.

With all of the excitement the prospect of summer travel brings in response to stay-at-home restrictions being slowly lifted nationwide, its easy to forget that bed bugs are still very much a threat, said Cindy Mannes, executive director of PPMA. Its a common misconception that bed bugs simply disappear without human hosts, as theyre actually able to survive for several months while waiting for their next meal. Bed bug populations that were established in hotels before the COVID-19 crisis impacted occupancy rates may in fact be hungrier than ever, posing an increased threat to unsuspecting travelers.

With more than six million online conversations in the U.S. on the topic of finding bed bugs in April 2020 alone a 70 percent increase from April 2019 PPMA is urging PMPs to get involved by taking advantage of the custom marketing materials made available by the association.

PPMA encourages PMPs and industry members to join the cause by launching media relations campaigns, including devoting their company social media pages to bed bugs throughout the week and using the hashtag #BedBugWeek on Facebook, Twitterand Pinterest.

To aid our partners who have supported our industrys initiatives by investing in PPMA, weve developed a robust Bed Bug Awareness Week toolkit to help promote their businesses and the importance of working with a pest control professional. We will also be unveiling a series of exclusive videos next week showing consumer audiences just how elusive and difficult to control these hitchhiking pests are, Mannes added.

The toolkit is available for download onPPMAMainframe.org, an exclusive digital marketing hub containing hundreds of custom, professionally designed marketing materials and assets PMPs can use to promote their businesses. The Bed Bug Awareness Week kit contains a customizable press release, suggested social media content, Bed Bug Awareness Week logos, high resolution photography, media training documents and a list of video content that can be directly embedded on a companys website.

Let us know what youre doing for#BedBugWeekon social media or email us atpmpeditor@northcoastmedia.net.

Continued here:
Participate in Bed Bug Awareness Week 2020 - Pest Management Professional magazine

To try to kill the novel coronavirus, some Americans are unsafely using disinfectants and cleaners, including washing food with bleach, using the products on bare skin, and inhaling and ingesting them, federal health officials reported Friday.

Health experts caution explicitly against using cleaning products in those ways.

The findings come from an online survey of 502 adults conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May. Thirty-nine percent had misused the cleaning products, and one quarter reported an adverse health effect that they believed was a result of the products.

advertisement

Of the respondents, 19% said they had used bleach on food, 18% said they had applied household cleaners to their skin, 10% said they had misted themselves with disinfectant sprays, 6% had inhaled vapors from the cleaners, and 4% had drunk or gargled diluted bleach solutions, soapy water, or other disinfectants.

These practices pose a risk of severe tissue damage and corrosive injury and should be strictly avoided, the CDC researchers wrote in a paper, published in the agencys Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Although adverse health effects reported by respondents could not be attributed to their engaging in high-risk practices, the association between these high-risk practices and reported health effects indicates a need for public health messaging regarding safe and effective cleaning practices aimed at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in households. (SARS-CoV-2 is the formal name of the novel coronavirus.)

advertisement

The paper does not mention President Trumps public questioning at a press conference in April of whether an injection inside the body of a disinfectant could kill the virus. His remarks led poison control centers and manufacturers of cleaning products to reiterate that disinfectants and cleaners should not be ingested, inhaled, or injected. The president later claimed he was trying to prank reporters with his remarks.

The CDC survey set out to see if consumers knew how to safely store and use disinfectants at a time when health officials were urging regular cleanings of high-touch surfaces to combat the spread of the virus. It also came amid an increase in calls to poison control centers about exposures to cleaning products.

The survey showed that many people did not know how to safely use different cleaning products, even as most said they knew how to properly store and use them. About a quarter of respondents knew that only room temperature water should be mixed with bleach, and a third knew not to mix bleach with vinegar. More of the respondents about two thirds knew that eye protection and gloves were recommended when using certain cleaners.

The researchers pointed to several limitations of their report, including whether the respondents were representative of the country.

Excerpt from:
CDC: Some Americans are misusing bleach to try to kill coronavirus - STAT