Mediaboss Marketing

The Bates Student would like to address the petition released on Oct. 15 (and subsequent articles by News Center Maine and The Intercept) regarding censorship of The Bates Student by the Bates College administration.

The Bates Student was not coerced or censored by any member of the Bates administration, the Bates Communication Office, or any other member of the Bates community in the writing or republishing of Elizabeth LaCroixs article from Oct. 13.

Mary Pols, Bates media relation specialist, asked The Student to temporarily take down the original article, pointing to several misleading statements and reporting inaccuracies. The Student made the decision on its own accord to honor this query. Mary Pols handles all media relations for the college; therefore, The Bates Student, like all other media outlets, is unable to access school administrators in all departments without first communicating with Pols. However, Pols has no authority to require changes or read articles before publishing and did not attempt to exercise such authority.

Nearly all edits made to the originally published article were additions. Information regarding neutrality statements was reworded for clarity. Additionally, a quote provided by Francis Eanes was paraphrased, as it relayed second-hand information that could not be verified. Commentary provided by employees with first-hand experience was unaltered, or in Jon Michael Foleys case, expanded.

Every edit or change in the article was discussed between Elizabeth and myself and approved by me as editor-in-chief of The Bates Student. We corrected inaccuracies that were misleading or confusing, and we allowed additions to both the union and administration side of the story, as shown in the document outlining edits made to the original article linked in the petition.

The staff of The Bates Student takes immense pride in our editorial independence. We are given full autonomy on what is and is not published. In the interests of informing the Bates community, we stand by the edits we made.

If you have any questions regarding the events of the past week, please send us an email ([emailprotected]).

Jackson Elkins 22 and Elizabeth LaCroix 23

Editor-in-Chief and Managing News Editor at The Bates Student

Read more from the original source:
A Statement Regarding the Petition Against Censorship at Bates - The Bates Student

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922

TheBritish philosopher Wittgenstein wrote those words as a philosophical foundation for his larger belief in freedom of speech. His meaning: He who controls the language also controls reality, something that todays left understands brilliantly, even devilishly. America historically hasnt limited freedom of thought and speech, and the resulting clash of ideas has improved our national discourse. The language police make us weaker intellectually by limiting the world in which we live.

The language around climate change is one more area the left wants to control, especially given that trillions of dollars in spending are on the line. Big Tech is now doing its part to protect the Green New Deal and radical green ideology from dissenting views.

Googles and YouTubes recent announcement that they now prohibit climate deniers from monetizing their platforms would have caused Wittgenstein to ask: What is a climate denier?

This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, the announcement answers. And surely there is no hoax about the climate: Data show that since the 1880s, the global temperature has risen 1 Fahrenheit.

But what else can we measure? In that same period, the world population jumped sevenfold, and food production increased even more. Remarkably, the number of people not living in extreme poverty increased at the same rate. The infant-mortality rate fell from 165 per 100,000 to seven. In 1880, more than 80 percent of the global population was illiterate. Today, that number is around 13 percent.

The question is: Why? The answer is simple: fossil fuels.

Inexpensive, abundant, reliable fossil fuels have turned 10,000 years of stagnant human existence into flourishing and prosperity. Illnesses that took the lives of kings and peasants alike are nearly eradicated thanks to medicine and refrigeration and electricity. All of this growth for 1 F of temperature increase. Thats quite the bargain.

Without fossil fuels, humanity would still be mired in misery and darkness. Do we really want to ban that miracle? Do we want to keep it in the ground, as the green movements cry? Thats a conversation we need to have.

It is thus curious that Google in its announcement calls denying the scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change reason enough to get de-platformed.

The evidence of the causes of climate change are far weaker than the evidence of fossil fuels causing the past 200 years of human flourishing, but neither is scientific fact. Could there be any intellectual framework less scientific than consensus?

This discussion now cant take place on the platforms of the Big Tech thought police, and we are all worse for it.

Google also says that claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming will not be allowed. Who is making that claim? The data once again show that the earths temperature indeed warming, but Wittgenstein might ask for a clarification on long-term. One hundred years isnt a very long time. If you look at the last 500 million years, the current trend still has us in a very cool period. The earth spent millions of years 30 to 40 warmer than the current average temperature, and that doesnt come close to covering the earths entire 4.5 billion years of age.

So why did the earth heat and cool so dramatically when there were no humans to cause the warming? After all, the tech language police tell of unequivocal evidence showing that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming. The firms failure to answer that question shows it has no idea what the word unequivocal means.

Darn. Now Im the language police.

Stifling speech doesnt make us a better nation. It doesnt make any truths truer or any falsehoods falser. It does eliminate competing or unwanted ideas from the conversation, which is the real goal here.

Those afraid of language arent looking for a better world. Wittgenstein understood that. Lets hope America does, too.

Daniel Turner is founder and executive director of Power the Future, a nonprofit that advocates for American energy jobs.

Twitter: @DanielTurnerPTF

Visit link:
Big Tech censorship on climate change only hurts the nation - New York Post

Professional networking site LinkedIn announced it will shut down its website in China because Chinas hefty compliance requirements have created a significantly more challenging operating environment. Its parent company, Microsoft, said it would replace LinkedIn China with a job listings website without a social media element later this year.

LinkedIns retreat from China sends a warning to all Western companies that there is no middle ground between Chinas authoritarian system and Western liberal democratic values. They must choose a side.

LinkedIn launched in China in 2014. It was the only Western social media site that operated openly in China, as Chinese authorities blocked other Western social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter. LinkedIn paid its admission price for the Chinese market by agreeing to adhere to the Chinese governments rules, including censorship requirements.

Like all Western companies doing business in China, LinkedIn claimed that to comply with Chinas law it had no choice but to censor content Chinese authorities object to. LinkedIn insisted the censorship was very light and in no way contradicted the company supporting free speech.

Still, LinkedIns censorship has caused great concern in the United States. In 2019, LinkedIn made headlines by blocking the profile of a U.S.-based Chinese dissident, Zhou Fengsuo. Zhou was one of the student leaders of the 1989 pro-democracy protest in Tiananmen Square.

After the Chinese government brutally cracked down on protestors, Zhou was forced into exile in the United States. He co-founded a nonprofit organization to aid human rights activists and organizations in China. On January 3, 2019, Zhou tweeted out a notice from LinkedIn, which stated that although the company strongly supports freedom of expression, Zhous profile and activities would not be viewable because of specific content on your profile.

Zhou demanded an answer in atweet, This is how censorship spread from Communist China to Silicon Valley in the age of globalization and digitalization. How does LinkedIn get the order from Beijing? After Zhous tweet received wide media attention, LinkedIn reversed its action and unblocked Zhous account,claiming his profile had been blocked in error.

As Chinas leader Xi Xinping seeks to return China to the Maoist socialist model and intensify his suppression of dissenting voices, he demands more censorship from Chinese and foreign companies. Early this year, Chinese regulators visited LinkedIns headquarters in China and gave the company 30 daysto clean up its content. The companydisclosedthat it had to stop new member sign-ups in China for weeks to ensure we remain in compliance with local law.

LinkedIn learned the hard way that capitulation to Beijing is not a one-time action but a process. Once you bend the knee, Beijing will soon demand a better attitude and posture. Surrender leads to more surrender because Beijing always wants more.

LinkedIns censorship on behalf of the Chinese government reached new heights in recent months. It used to only remove individual posts that Chinese censors did not like. But recently, LinkedIn blocked profiles and posts of foreign journalists, academics, researchers, and human rights activists from its China-based websites.

Well-known journalists affected includedAxios Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, Vice News Melissa Chan, and U.K.-based author Greg Bruno. All of them have written about Beijings human rights violations in the past. All received similar messages from LinkedIn, which claims their profiles were blocked in LinkedIn China due to prohibited content in the summary section of these journalists profiles.

Besides these well-known journalists, LinkedIn also banned academics and researchers. One of them is Eyck Freymann, a Ph.D. student at Oxford University. According to theWall Street Journal, Freymanns profile was probably blocked in China because he included the words Tiananmen Square massacre in an entry describing his job as a research assistant for a book in 2015.

To add insult to injury, LinkedIn offered suggestions to those affected: modifying their content to remove the ban. Greg Bruno, author of a bookon Chinas soft power on Tibet, disclosed in an interview with Verdict, LinkedIn suggests that my ban is not permanent, and that I am welcome to update the Publications section of my profile to minimize the impact of my offending content.

Bruno rejected LinkedIns offer. HetoldVerdict: While I am not surprised by the Chinese Communist Partys discomfort with the topic of my book, I am dismayed that an American tech company is caving to the demands of a foreign government intent on controlling access to information.

LinkedIn refused to explain whether its recent heightened censorship resulted from self-censorship by the company or was explicitly requested by the Chinese government. The companys actions and its silence received widespread backlash at home and drew attention from U.S. lawmakers. Rep. Jim Banks, R-Indiana, wrote to LinkedIn, demanding the company say which Chinese Communist Partys speech regulation it was enforcing on Americans and whether the company had handed over American users data to Beijing.

Senator Rick Scott, R-Florida, sent aletteraddressed to Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella and LinkedIn CEO Ryan Roslansky. He said the companys censorship raised the serious questions of Microsofts intentions and its commitment to standing up against Communist Chinas horrific human rights abuses and repeated attacks against democracy. He criticized the companys action as a gross appeasement and an act of submission to Communist China.

Besides censorship, LinkedIn has been embroiled in another controversy. Chinese intelligence agents have used fake profiles on LinkedIn and disguised themselves as headhunters, consultants, and scholars to collect information and recruit potential spies. In 2017, Germanys intelligence agency disclosedthat Chinese agents targeted more than 10,000 German citizens, including senior diplomats and politicians.

A year later, William Evanina, the U.S. counterintelligence chief,warnedLinkedIn about Chinas super aggressive intelligence activities on the site. In 2020, a Singapore national wasconvictedin U.S. court as an illegal agent for a foreign power. He had set up a fake consulting company and used LinkedIn to recruit Americans to spy on behalf of China.

Eventually, both the pressure from China and from home has proven too much for LinkedIn. The company finally realized that Beijing would continue to demand more censorship while abusing its intelligence-gathering on the companys platform.

To please Beijing means to abandon the companys business model as a platform for the open and free exchange of ideas and to face more backlash from the public and more scrutiny from lawmakers at home. Eventually, LinkedIn chose to fold its China operation because it couldnt straddle two different political systems with opposing values and still be successful.

LinkedIns exit from China should serve as a warning for all Western businesses and organizations. For too long, Western companies and organizations, from Nike to the NBA, have operated by this one company, two systems model. They have acted as if they are the defenders of liberal democratic values in their home countries.

But they have instead overlooked the Chinese Communist Partys human rights abuses and insisted on abiding by the CCPs speech code, all for the sake of chasing profit they dont want to be shut out of potentially lucrative Chinese markets. They have damaged their reputations while finding out Beijings appetite for control and censorship cannot be satisfied.

LinkedIns experience in China has shown that the one company, two systems model is a failure. All Western companies and organizations must realize that Beijings authoritarian model is incompatible with Western liberal democratic values.

Trying to find a middle ground will please no one. Western companies and organizations have to choose a side.

They should remind themselves that the liberal democratic values such as freedom of expression they enjoy at home have not only fattened their bottom line, they have given birth to superb products, including music, movies, products, and sports teams with universal popularity. If Western companies and organizations want to maintain their success and achieve more, they should choose freedom and democracy over kowtowing to Beijing.

Read the original post:
LinkedIn's Retreat From China Is A Warning To All Western Businesses - The Federalist

Shilpa Gupta at the Barbican: social injustice, censorship and poetry

In the multipart showSun at Night at Londons Barbican, Mumbai-based artist Shilpa Gupta highlights the fragility of free expression and gives a voice to those silenced

The words of Azerbaijani poet Mikayil Mushfig (1908 1938), labelled an enemy of the state by the Soviets, hover in the air. From a canopy of 100 low-hung microphones, a chorus clusters and repeats the poets statement. There is heavy breathing. Hums dissolve into whispers. Fingers click and hands furiously clap. An unpredictable rhapsody of disembodied voices darts around a dimly lit room, creating a dense fog of sounds that lingers over a field of metal spikes.

Once your senses adjust, you can edge through these spines that comprise Shilpa Guptas sound installation, For, In Your Tongue, I Cannot Fit (2017 2018). Rising up to waist height, the spears forge a constricted path. Each pierces a leaf of paper bearing fragments of the spoken verses, written by a poet incarcerated for their beliefs. It is a panoply of resistance spanning time and place, with the words of dissident writers such as Maung Saungkha from Myanmar, arrested in 2016 for his risqu claim that he had a tattoo of the president inked on his penis, melding with those of Ayat al-Qurmezi, jailed in 2011 for supposedly defaming Bahrains royalty.

The enveloping piece is part of Guptas poignant exhibition Sun at Night at the Barbican Curve. In a year when the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to two journalists, Maria Ressa of the Philippines and Dmitry Muratov of Russia, for their courageous advocacy and practice of press freedom, and when digital censorship is alarmingly on the rise, the show is a testament to the force of words and the fragility of our commitment to free speech.

Gupta, however, finds a refreshingly subtle way of rallying for free expression while keeping those poets at the fore. She treats their words preciously. She has preserved the verses of censored poems by speaking them into a collection of ostensibly empty medicine bottles that form the piece Untitled (Spoken Poem in a Bottle).

The thresholds of expression have long preoccupied Gupta. She once built a library of stainless steel books, each a replica of a title written anonymously or pseudonymously. And on the spine she explained the reasons why, capturing a range of societys neuroses and prejudices. Guptas practice is characterised by its delicate investigation of social injustices and finding pathways to empathy. As she tells me, the objective of her work is speaking with you and not at you and not against you. It maybe has to do with a sense of hope that a conversation might mean something.

Come November 2021, Gupta will continue this dialogue with her first solo show at Londons Frith Street Gallery. There will be spillover from the Barbican show,she explains, drawing a link between the genre of isolation that has been enforced throughout the world this last year. She has created a new flap-board the kind typically associated with airport and train arrivals that flickers through letters and settles to find our connective tissue. It spells out We are closer than you ever imagined.

Go here to read the rest:
Shilpa Gupta at the Barbican: social injustice, censorship and poetry - Wallpaper*

Key Takeaways:

Beijings ongoing crackdown on pretty much everything spurred by President Xi Jinpings highly publicized common prosperity campaign has brought about a new challenge for influencers hoping to maintain their online traffic as well as authorities on the lookout for those posting anything that smells of wealth-flaunting. With authorities on extra-sensitive mode, many if not most celebrities and influencers are lying low and resisting the urge to post photos of lavish outfits or handbags, yet others have sought to skirt the scrutiny of censors by shoehorning their high-end items into seemingly unassuming content.

As noted in our recent report Chinese Cultural Consumers: The Future of Luxury, Chinas influencer landscape is changing, with the formerly dominant Hollywood stars or established Chinese actors holding less sway over young consumers than livestreams by KOLs (key opinion leaders), KOCs (key opinion consumers), or even brand owners and employees. This means there are now dozens, if not hundreds, of types of influencers, all fighting for the attention of consumers and keeping online censors on their toes.

Below are just three recent examples of innovative influencers in China, whose crafty content strategies are testing the limits of the wealth-flaunting crackdown:

The Buddhist Socialite ()

Buddhist Socialites have attracted particular ire from censors, since commercial advertising using religion is illegal in China. Image: Weibo

Almost exclusively made up of young women, the appearance of the Buddhist Socialite influencer in recent months was marked by content that often showcased activities at Buddhist temples praying, eating vegetarian meals, or transcribing religious texts. All common practices, none of which are the target of Chinas content crackdown. However, where the Buddhist Socialite attracts the ire of censors is in her often prominently featured luxury apparel and accessories and elaborate makeup which they typically offer for sale via e-commerce livestreaming or other online channels.The Patient KOL ()

Patient KOLs often appear in hospital beds in full make-up. Image: Weibo

This highly niche group claims to be hospitalized for medical treatment yet manages to find the time to share recommendations for beauty and wellness products. Often, Patient KOLs tell their audience they have just undergone a procedure such as major surgery that left scars on their skin that they successfully treated with various products (which theyre happy to recommend or sell via e-commerce livestreaming, of course). One distinguishing factor about this type of influencer is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain whether he or she had a genuine illness or medical procedure.

In one case, a female Weibo user responded with lawsuit against media reports that named and shamed her as a Patient KOL, claiming that she had a thyroid procedure and did not promote any healthcare product for profit. Nevertheless, the fact that short video platform Kuaishou has reportedly removed more than 100 videos from Patient KOLs speaks to their prevalence.

The Volunteer Teacher KOL ()

Altruism or opportunism? Image: ce.cn

The latest secret influencer controversy surrounds the founder of a charity organization that organizes volunteer teachers to assist young students in remote, mountainous areas. Catapulted to internet fame by post in September that praised her as the prettiest volunteer teacher in China, who had helped over 2,000 students over ten years in 24 different schools, skepticism soon emerged. How, some asked, could the young lady volunteer for an entire decade, given she claimed to hold degrees from overseas institutions, and how was she able to maintain such an impeccable appearance on-camera without a professional photography team?

Soon, it was revealed that the individual only volunteered for short periods during her summer breaks, and that her organization charged around RMB 5,000 ($775) for volunteer trips that consisted of only seven classes in two days but offered volunteer certificates and multiple souvenirs. Some viewers were quick to saythat the trips expensive accommodation and the flashy apparel and accessories shown off by those taking part in the volunteer trips did more harm than good to the children they are supposed to help.

These new types of undercover influencers have emerged in response to the governments crackdowns on ostentatious displays of wealth. The most recent of these campaigns which do appear with some frequency launched in May, when the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) issued a series of policies designed to curb overt displays of extravagant lifestyles through measures such as blacklisting andcontentfiltering, which have been taken up by social platforms such as Douyin and Xiaohongshu.

By selecting themes that appear, at first glance, to be altruistic and far removed from the usual fashion-influencer content, this new spate of KOLs hoped to stay under the radar. However, Chinese state-run media quickly caught on and condemned their behavior. One state media op-ed accusedBuddhist Socialite influencers of stoking materialism while compromising the integrity of temples, while also noting thatcommercialadvertising using religion is illegal in China. Likewise, Patient KOLs have been criticized for corrupting the sacredness of hospitals and the healthcare profession and potentially engaging in fraudulent advertising. Another Xinhua Daily op-ed criticized the phenomenon of volunteer teaching for show and called for moral condemnation and legal action against exploiting volunteering opportunities to generate traffic and profit. For their parts, short video platform Douyin and lifestyle platform Xiaoghongshu have penalized dozens of accounts and removed their objectionablecontent.With Xis common prosperity becoming a central concept in recent government action, any public displays of wealth, whether obvious or subtle, are likely to come under greater scrutiny in the run-up to next years National Congress. But its not just government censors on the lookout for this type of content. Major social platforms are also stepping up their scrutiny of sneaky KOLs, having pledged to promote core socialist values. Although the KOLs who most recently came under fire were not directly sponsored by brands, their experiences offer a cautionary tale for luxury brands engaged in influencer marketing in China: simply switching to influencers previously not associated with excessive wealth might come along with its own problems if the crackdown continues to spread and intensify.

Continued here:
Undercover Influencers Test the Patience of China's Censors - Jing Daily