radiofree.asia

Category: Social media

  • Kasun Ubayasiri: How will ruthless billionaire posturing by Rupert and Zuckerberg help robust journalism?

    COMMENT: By Kasun Ubayasiri in Brisbane

    It has indeed been a few strange days for Australian news media. Apparently, monopolies are bad if they are not NewsCorp.

    This week, Facebook came through on its threat to ban all news from its service, in retaliation against the Australian Federal government’s proposed new media code, that could see the tech giant paying news producers for content they willingly share on the Facebook platform.

    Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp rather predictably ran a story accusing Facebooks’ messenger platform of aiding and abetting paedophiles. A remarkable display of mutual chestbeating.

    But it is news media diversity and independent journalism routinely pillaged by Murdoch that will be the real victims of ScoMo trying to extort one billionaire at the behest of another.

    Queensland’s independent press, for example, is just beginning to lift its head after Rupert ruthlessly destroyed a whole swathe of rural and regional newspapers of record. I wonder how this posturing between two billionaires will affect those independent newspapers that are slowly beginning to show promise in that desolate landscape.

    Sure, there needs to be funding for good journalism, and the tech-giants should pitch in, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, of a rather long “to do list” to ensure a robust and independent news media that includes ensuring media diversity and the public’s access to fact-verified public interest journalism irrespective of petty party politics.

    In this respect it’s hard to see this whole fiasco as anything but a half-baked idea built on a NewsCorp orchestrated lie.

    Holding readers hostage
    News organisations could have easily blocked Google searches listing their content. They could also have stopped putting their content on Facebook pages, explored micro-payments or some such innovative solution, instead of holding readers hostage with archaic subscription models.

    Is Australian journalism suffering because of Google and Facebook? What of the media monopolies that have systematically destroyed diversity and independence of the press through concentration of ownership unparalleled in the Western world?

    What of the three-decade long devaluing of journalism, and training an entire generation to get free news on vanity websites while simultaneously selling the same content in printed papers, only to then retreat behind paywalls?

    What about forcing journalists to pimp their stories by linking KPIs to journalists’ capacity to secure subscriptions and assessing the value of stories on the basis of clicks?

    What of the ruthless stripping of journalists’ rights that has created a precariat work force?

    And what of the armies of media pundits who jumped on the Dan Gillmor bandwagon and vigorously claimed we didn’t need professional journalists because we were now all citizen journalists?

    What of the media educators who have conflated journalism with media, normalised native advertising and created a grey slurry of content where fact and fiction is indistinguishable and ethics non-existent?

    Championed social media
    And then there are the media theorists who have championed social media as a great equaliser.

    A “town square” where ideas flow freely, or as Mark Zuckerberg calls it a “digital living room” instead of seeing it for what it really is – a privately owned advertising platform hell bent on creating a global monopoly.

    Let’s say we manage to force Facebook to pay for content. I wonder exactly how the dollars Zuckerberg doles out to Newscorp will flow onto the journalists and the gutted newsrooms who everyone is suddenly concerned for.

    Shouldn’t the money be directly invested in public interest journalism instead of becoming just another version of that wonderfully Liberal idea of trickle-down economics filtered through Rupert’s pockets.

    Dr Kasun Ubayasiri is a senior lecturer and journalism programme director at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. An earlier version of this piece was originally a Facebook posting and this been revised and contributed to Asia Pacific Report as a column.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Kasun Ubayasiri: How will ruthless billionaire posturing by Rupert and Zuckerberg help robust journalism?

    It is news media diversity and independent journalism routinely pillaged by Murdoch that will be the real victims of ScoMo trying to extort one billionaire at the behest of another. Image: MediaNews4U

    COMMENT: By Kasun Ubayasiri in Brisbane

    It has indeed been a few strange days for Australian news media. Apparently, monopolies are bad if they are not NewsCorp.

    This week, Facebook came through on its threat to ban all news from its service, in retaliation against the Australian Federal government’s proposed new media code, that could see the tech giant paying news producers for content they willingly share on the Facebook platform.

    Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp rather predictably ran a story accusing Facebooks’ messenger platform of aiding and abetting paedophiles. A remarkable display of mutual chestbeating.

    But it is news media diversity and independent journalism routinely pillaged by Murdoch that will be the real victims of ScoMo trying to extort one billionaire at the behest of another.

    Queensland’s independent press, for example, is just beginning to lift its head after Rupert ruthlessly destroyed a whole swathe of rural and regional newspapers of record. I wonder how this posturing between two billionaires will affect those independent newspapers that are slowly beginning to show promise in that desolate landscape.

    Sure, there needs to be funding for good journalism, and the tech-giants should pitch in, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, of a rather long “to do list” to ensure a robust and independent news media that includes ensuring media diversity and the public’s access to fact-verified public interest journalism irrespective of petty party politics.

    In this respect it’s hard to see this whole fiasco as anything but a half-baked idea built on a NewsCorp orchestrated lie.

    Holding readers hostage
    News organisations could have easily blocked Google searches listing their content. They could also have stopped putting their content on Facebook pages, explored micro-payments or some such innovative solution, instead of holding readers hostage with archaic subscription models.

    Is Australian journalism suffering because of Google and Facebook? What of the media monopolies that have systematically destroyed diversity and independence of the press through concentration of ownership unparalleled in the Western world?

    What of the three-decade long devaluing of journalism, and training an entire generation to get free news on vanity websites while simultaneously selling the same content in printed papers, only to then retreat behind paywalls?

    What about forcing journalists to pimp their stories by linking KPIs to journalists’ capacity to secure subscriptions and assessing the value of stories on the basis of clicks?

    What of the ruthless stripping of journalists’ rights that has created a precariat work force?

    And what of the armies of media pundits who jumped on the Dan Gillmor bandwagon and vigorously claimed we didn’t need professional journalists because we were now all citizen journalists?

    What of the media educators who have conflated journalism with media, normalised native advertising and created a grey slurry of content where fact and fiction is indistinguishable and ethics non-existent?

    Championed social media
    And then there are the media theorists who have championed social media as a great equaliser.

    A “town square” where ideas flow freely, or as Mark Zuckerberg calls it a “digital living room” instead of seeing it for what it really is – a privately owned advertising platform hell bent on creating a global monopoly.

    Let’s say we manage to force Facebook to pay for content. I wonder exactly how the dollars Zuckerberg doles out to Newscorp will flow onto the journalists and the gutted newsrooms who everyone is suddenly concerned for.

    Shouldn’t the money be directly invested in public interest journalism instead of becoming just another version of that wonderfully Liberal idea of trickle-down economics filtered through Rupert’s pockets.

    Dr Kasun Ubayasiri is a senior lecturer and journalism programme director at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. An earlier version of this piece was originally a Facebook posting and this been revised and contributed to Asia Pacific Report as a column.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Facebook has pulled the trigger on news content — and possibly shot itself in the foot

    Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg … The social media giant claims news publishers derive more value from news sharing than Facebook does. Image: Michael Reynolds/AAP/The Conversation

    ANALYSIS: By Diana Bossio, Swinburne University of Technology

    Facebook this week made good on its threat to block Australians from accessing or posting news content. The ban includes blocking links to Australian and overseas news publishers.

    Facebook said the ban was a direct response to the federal government’s news media code legislation, which is expected to become law soon and would require digital platforms such as Facebook and Google to pay news media companies whose content they host.

    The move is either a last-ditch attempt to gain concessions in the legislation, or a simple cut-and-run by Facebook.

    The social media giant claims news publishers derive more value from news sharing than Facebook does. This is plausible, as news content makes up only 4 percent of sharing on the platform, whereas many news sites gain a large fraction of their traffic from Facebook referrals.

    But this is probably more about flexing some muscle. Facebook may be demonstrating to the Federal government that if it does not like the rules, it can damage national interests.

    Collateral damage
    Australians will feel some short-term negative impacts of Facebook’s flex.

    Certain government Facebook pages, such as those belonging to the Bureau of Meterology and some health department sites, have been caught up in the ban. Facebook says this is due to the wording of the legislation, stating:

    As the law does not provide clear guidance on the definition of news content, we have taken a broad definition in order to respect the law as drafted.

    While Facebook says it will restore non-news pages, the action will put pressure on the government to define more clearly what it means by news content.

    In the meantime, the move will affect Australians’ access to vital information related to emergencies and the covid pandemic. Without a concerted effort to ensure online behaviour change from users, this could be dangerous.

    Misinformation risk
    We can also expect to see a short-term proliferation of misinformation as Facebook’s news feed will have a vacuum of professionally sourced and fact-checked news.

    A significant number of Australians discuss news on Facebook, both via their newsfeed and in groups. Being able to source factual information from news sites is part of the everyday political and social participation that social media platforms facilitate.

    The democratic impact of Facebook’s ban will be felt – and is counter to Facebook’s stated principle of connecting people and its recent pledge to tackle misinformation.

    Will it hurt Facebook?
    The impact of this action against the legislation on Facebook itself is yet to be seen.

    The reputational damage from blocking important sites that serve Australia’s public interest overnight – and yet taking years to get on top of user privacy breaches and misinformation – undermines the legitimacy of the platform and its claimed civic intentions.

    Facebook’s actions may send a message to the government, but they will also send one to their Australian users.

    Readers are likely to find other ways to get their news. If we learn from the experience of Google’s news ban in Spain, we can see that after an initial dip in traffic, most major news organisations in Spain regained much of their web traffic after about a year.

    Surfing social waves
    Tools such as Facebook are only useful if people want to use them. And for some existing users, the lack of news might be a dealbreaker.

    Facebook already faces a long-term problem of an ageing user demographic, as under-25s turn to Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok for news and information.

    Young people may have Facebook profiles, but they are less likely to be active users.

    News organisations are already following their lead. For example, The Conversation Australia has 325,735 Facebook followers and will probably feel the impact of the loss of engagement there.

    But it also has more than 21,000 Instagram followers and counting. It is increasingly making visual news “tiles” to cater for the younger demographic of users who source news from other platforms. It has also been working to reach readers directly via regular email newsletters, which one in five US readers now say is their primary way of accessing news.

    News organisations have already learned how to pivot fast. When Facebook changed its algorithms in 2018 to deprioritise news publishers, many took action to reduce their reliance on Facebook’s traffic, analytics or digital advertising dollars.

    What now?
    Larger news organisations will be OK in the long run. But Australia’s smaller outlets, including local publishers and non-profits that produce public interest journalism, will need protection.

    The long-term task for news organisations and journalists is to convince the public – especially young people – that it’s worthwhile to actively seek out professional news and journalism as part of their daily online lives, rather than simply reading whatever comes across their feed.

    As for Facebook, going back to its original purpose of facilitating personal connection and social networking, rather than posing as a forum for public information, may not be a bad thing. But the reputational damage and publisher exodus will eventually damage its core business: digital advertising revenue.The Conversation

    Dr Diana Bossio is a lecturer in Media and Communications, Swinburne University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Facebook has pulled the trigger on news content — and possibly shot itself in the foot

    ANALYSIS: By Diana Bossio, Swinburne University of Technology

    Facebook this week made good on its threat to block Australians from accessing or posting news content. The ban includes blocking links to Australian and overseas news publishers.

    Facebook said the ban was a direct response to the federal government’s news media code legislation, which is expected to become law soon and would require digital platforms such as Facebook and Google to pay news media companies whose content they host.

    The move is either a last-ditch attempt to gain concessions in the legislation, or a simple cut-and-run by Facebook.

    The social media giant claims news publishers derive more value from news sharing than Facebook does. This is plausible, as news content makes up only 4 percent of sharing on the platform, whereas many news sites gain a large fraction of their traffic from Facebook referrals.

    But this is probably more about flexing some muscle. Facebook may be demonstrating to the Federal government that if it does not like the rules, it can damage national interests.

    Collateral damage
    Australians will feel some short-term negative impacts of Facebook’s flex.

    Certain government Facebook pages, such as those belonging to the Bureau of Meterology and some health department sites, have been caught up in the ban. Facebook says this is due to the wording of the legislation, stating:

    As the law does not provide clear guidance on the definition of news content, we have taken a broad definition in order to respect the law as drafted.

    While Facebook says it will restore non-news pages, the action will put pressure on the government to define more clearly what it means by news content.

    In the meantime, the move will affect Australians’ access to vital information related to emergencies and the covid pandemic. Without a concerted effort to ensure online behaviour change from users, this could be dangerous.

    Misinformation risk
    We can also expect to see a short-term proliferation of misinformation as Facebook’s news feed will have a vacuum of professionally sourced and fact-checked news.

    A significant number of Australians discuss news on Facebook, both via their newsfeed and in groups. Being able to source factual information from news sites is part of the everyday political and social participation that social media platforms facilitate.

    The democratic impact of Facebook’s ban will be felt – and is counter to Facebook’s stated principle of connecting people and its recent pledge to tackle misinformation.

    Will it hurt Facebook?
    The impact of this action against the legislation on Facebook itself is yet to be seen.

    The reputational damage from blocking important sites that serve Australia’s public interest overnight – and yet taking years to get on top of user privacy breaches and misinformation – undermines the legitimacy of the platform and its claimed civic intentions.

    Facebook’s actions may send a message to the government, but they will also send one to their Australian users.

    Readers are likely to find other ways to get their news. If we learn from the experience of Google’s news ban in Spain, we can see that after an initial dip in traffic, most major news organisations in Spain regained much of their web traffic after about a year.

    Surfing social waves
    Tools such as Facebook are only useful if people want to use them. And for some existing users, the lack of news might be a dealbreaker.

    Facebook already faces a long-term problem of an ageing user demographic, as under-25s turn to Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok for news and information.

    Young people may have Facebook profiles, but they are less likely to be active users.

    News organisations are already following their lead. For example, The Conversation Australia has 325,735 Facebook followers and will probably feel the impact of the loss of engagement there.

    But it also has more than 21,000 Instagram followers and counting. It is increasingly making visual news “tiles” to cater for the younger demographic of users who source news from other platforms. It has also been working to reach readers directly via regular email newsletters, which one in five US readers now say is their primary way of accessing news.

    News organisations have already learned how to pivot fast. When Facebook changed its algorithms in 2018 to deprioritise news publishers, many took action to reduce their reliance on Facebook’s traffic, analytics or digital advertising dollars.

    What now?
    Larger news organisations will be OK in the long run. But Australia’s smaller outlets, including local publishers and non-profits that produce public interest journalism, will need protection.

    The long-term task for news organisations and journalists is to convince the public – especially young people – that it’s worthwhile to actively seek out professional news and journalism as part of their daily online lives, rather than simply reading whatever comes across their feed.

    As for Facebook, going back to its original purpose of facilitating personal connection and social networking, rather than posing as a forum for public information, may not be a bad thing. But the reputational damage and publisher exodus will eventually damage its core business: digital advertising revenue.The Conversation

    Dr Diana Bossio is a lecturer in Media and Communications, Swinburne University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Rush Limbaugh’s Death Evokes Little Sympathy From Progressives on Social Media

    Rush Limbaugh speaks during the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, on December 21, 2019.

    Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who hosted his eponymous radio program “The Rush Limbaugh Show” for the past 32 years, died on Wednesday, his wife announced on his show. He was 70 years old.

    Limbaugh announced in February 2020 that he was diagnosed with advanced Stage 4 lung cancer. Shortly after, former President Donald Trump controversially awarded him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during that year’s State of the Union address.

    Limbaugh’s rise in talk radio led him to influence, often in detrimental ways, the conservative movement over the past few decades. Often lacking in policy points but heavy on personal attacks, Limbaugh’s show went after a number of groups, including feminists, members of the LGBTQ community, and racial minorities, as well as left-leaning individuals and organizations in general.

    Limbaugh rarely held back or exercised restraint in his attacks, which were often baseless and petty — including several comments he made in the 1990s about the physical appearance of then-teenager Chelsea Clinton. He helped shape right-wing radio with such attacks, which were copied by countless other commentators throughout the country, frequently with the same hateful and vitriolic bantering he’d spout off on the daily show.

    Some of Limbaugh’s more notable and detestable moments included calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” in 2012 for daring to suggest women deserved access to birth control; promulgating the “birtherism” conspiracy theory that wrongly alleged former President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.; and more recently, pushing the unsubstantiated claims of a supposed “deep state” working against Trump during his only term in office.

    His commentary often resulted in dangerous views that put his own listeners’ lives at risk. Limbaugh, for example, dismissed coronavirus as nothing more than the “common cold” at the early stages of the pandemic.

    Just last month, the radio host also made some approving remarks about the January 6 attack of the Capitol building, which was carried out by a mob of Trump loyalists and resulted in at least seven deaths, including in the weeks following.

    Several progressive voices spoke out about Limbaugh’s legacy, which they said would not be remembered well. Many recounted Limbaugh in general ways, pointing out that he helped to widen the divisive political gap in the U.S. through his programming and constant attacks over the past few decades:

    Others cited specific examples of Limbaugh’s cruel and bitter criticism of other individuals, sharing personal experiences of his attacks or remembering when he used his golden microphone to launch attacks against others:

    Limbaugh’s rise to fame would not have been possible were it not for the deregulation of the telecommunications industry, former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt explained:

    Enacted 25 years ago, the Telecommunications Act barred the FCC from opposing the roll up of thousands of local radio stations by a few firms. These were mostly conservative politically. They wanted to give Limbaugh and similar conservative speakers [n]ational platforms. [Former Speaker of the House Newt] Gingrich insisted on this measure as a price for supporting [the] whole Act. Local radio, with local content matched to local taste, was soon bought up, changed into a conservative platform.

    Many on the right spoke positively about Limbaugh. They also criticized others who recalled his legacy of hate and vitriol on social media — but as journalist Neil King pointed out, the talk radio host himself often engaged in similar behavior when his political opponents passed away.

    “In case you’re shy about lambasting Limbaugh for what he was, he scoffed at the ‘slobbering media coverage’ the day [former U.S. Senator] Ted Kennedy died and called him the sort of politician who ‘takes money from people who work and gives it to people who don’t work,’” King wrote.

    Within an hour of Limbaugh’s death being announced, Trump called into Fox News, breaking a media silence he’s held onto for the past several weeks in order to talk about the life of the radio host.

    “He is a legend. He really is. There aren’t too many legends around. But he is a legend,” Trump said, describing how people who listened to Limbaugh on a daily basis were engaged in “a religious experience” while doing so.

    The White House has so far maintained silence and President Joe Biden has not commented on Limbaugh’s passing. When Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked whether Biden would speak later on about Limbaugh during a press briefing at the White House Wednesday, she replied that she didn’t anticipate the president doing so.

    Biden’s “condolences go out to the family and the friends of Rush Limbaugh, who have, of course, lost him today,” Psaki added.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Laurens Ikinia: Trash cans and study, a short story of Papuan prayer and hope

    Can collecting in Papua … saving and paying for education needs in Papua. Image: Laurens Ikinia

    COMMENT: By Laurens Ikinia

    The above photo is an image of how I grew up in Papua.

    But before I share my story, I would like to extend my warm greetings to my fellow brothers and sisters who were on the day that I wrote this piece commemorating the 166th anniversary of evangelism in the Land of Papua.

    As a fruit of evangelism, my parents had committed to be Christians and until now they still practise Christian lives.

    My mom, who is the role model of my faith, has become a central part of my life. And I believe so do other people.

    The following is a short story of faith which was accompanied by deeds that came true.

    When I was studying in elementary school from grade 3 to 6 and in middle school from grade 7 to 9, I used to collect aluminium cans and sell them to a workshop so that I was able to buy a book, pencil, pen, and other school stationery.

    For a 20 kg rice sack, I earned 5 cents. If I was lucky on the day, I sometimes collected 2 sacks in one day.

    Needed new textbooks
    I did this job when I needed a new book or to buy a textbook from school and sometimes to help my mom buy detergent to wash our laundry and dishes.

    I normally started collecting the cans from the afternoon around 1 pm to 4 pm. I did this two or three times a week.

    Sometimes I took my younger brother with me.

    If I went with him, I bought him noodles and candies. Otherwise, he would cry and demand that I buy him candies, noodles or cakes.

    As an older brother, I had to indulge his wishes and I always did.

    That’s why sometimes I could not buy what I needed from a day’s earning. So, I normally saved left over money in my piggy bank.

    I asked my mom to keep it. I had to do that to be able to buy a NZ$1 exercise book or NZ$5 textbook from school.

    Hard-working out on the farm
    My mom was and is a hard-working woman, so from morning to afternoon she was and is always out on the farm – traditional Papuan garden. Because she was so busy, she always asked me to look after my younger brother after school.

    And my mom always prepared steamed sweet potatoes – sometimes small (just as big as a handful) and sometimes bigger than that, which was enough to still our stomach.

    We are so fortunate that she always prepared something for lunch. My younger brother would always wait for me to come home and have lunch together.

    My mom worked extremely hard herself as our dad was a chief and lived with his first wife. My dad thought that my mom’s children would not be successful in the future, so he paid more attention to his first wife and our older step-sister.

    Long story short, we were and are so grateful to have a great uncle, my mom’s older brother who always treated us like his own children.

    Due to my dad’s careless behaviour, my uncle took us in and raised us in his family. That’s why, when I was with my mom, she always advised me to work hard and never rely on other people and never forget to have some time for prayer.

    She always encouraged us to go to Sunday school every Sunday morning. In my university studies, she always asks me to study hard and seriously.

    Guiding your future
    She always said that “Mom never went to school, but I have faith that when you study and pray, God will open many ways for you to be successful in the future.

    “My prayers and hope will always guide you.”

    My mom’s advice always became my inspiration to study; that’s why in middle school and high school I was always in the top 1 to 4 in the class.

    In commemorating the 166th anniversary of the evangelism in the Land of Papua, let’s have faith and hope that the true mission laid by the missionaries (Carl Wilhelm Ottow and Johann Gottlob Geissler) as a foundation of the direction of our lives becomes our strength in viewing Papua as a land full of hope for future generations.

    Waaa waaa waaa!

    Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan Masters in Communication Studies student at Auckland University of Technology who has been studying journalism. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report. The article was first published on Ikinia’s social media blog.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Laurens Ikinia: Trash cans and study, a short story of Papuan prayer and hope

    COMMENT: By Laurens Ikinia

    The above photo is an image of how I grew up in Papua.

    But before I share my story, I would like to extend my warm greetings to my fellow brothers and sisters who were on the day that I wrote this piece commemorating the 166th anniversary of evangelism in the Land of Papua.

    As a fruit of evangelism, my parents had committed to be Christians and until now they still practise Christian lives.

    My mom, who is the role model of my faith, has become a central part of my life. And I believe so do other people.

    The following is a short story of faith which was accompanied by deeds that came true.

    When I was studying in elementary school from grade 3 to 6 and in middle school from grade 7 to 9, I used to collect aluminium cans and sell them to a workshop so that I was able to buy a book, pencil, pen, and other school stationery.

    For a 20 kg rice sack, I earned 5 cents. If I was lucky on the day, I sometimes collected 2 sacks in one day.

    Needed new textbooks
    I did this job when I needed a new book or to buy a textbook from school and sometimes to help my mom buy detergent to wash our laundry and dishes.

    I normally started collecting the cans from the afternoon around 1 pm to 4 pm. I did this two or three times a week.

    Sometimes I took my younger brother with me.

    If I went with him, I bought him noodles and candies. Otherwise, he would cry and demand that I buy him candies, noodles or cakes.

    As an older brother, I had to indulge his wishes and I always did.

    That’s why sometimes I could not buy what I needed from a day’s earning. So, I normally saved left over money in my piggy bank.

    I asked my mom to keep it. I had to do that to be able to buy a NZ$1 exercise book or NZ$5 textbook from school.

    Hard-working out on the farm
    My mom was and is a hard-working woman, so from morning to afternoon she was and is always out on the farm – traditional Papuan garden. Because she was so busy, she always asked me to look after my younger brother after school.

    And my mom always prepared steamed sweet potatoes – sometimes small (just as big as a handful) and sometimes bigger than that, which was enough to still our stomach.

    We are so fortunate that she always prepared something for lunch. My younger brother would always wait for me to come home and have lunch together.

    My mom worked extremely hard herself as our dad was a chief and lived with his first wife. My dad thought that my mom’s children would not be successful in the future, so he paid more attention to his first wife and our older step-sister.

    Long story short, we were and are so grateful to have a great uncle, my mom’s older brother who always treated us like his own children.

    Due to my dad’s careless behaviour, my uncle took us in and raised us in his family. That’s why, when I was with my mom, she always advised me to work hard and never rely on other people and never forget to have some time for prayer.

    She always encouraged us to go to Sunday school every Sunday morning. In my university studies, she always asks me to study hard and seriously.

    Guiding your future
    She always said that “Mom never went to school, but I have faith that when you study and pray, God will open many ways for you to be successful in the future.

    “My prayers and hope will always guide you.”

    My mom’s advice always became my inspiration to study; that’s why in middle school and high school I was always in the top 1 to 4 in the class.

    In commemorating the 166th anniversary of the evangelism in the Land of Papua, let’s have faith and hope that the true mission laid by the missionaries (Carl Wilhelm Ottow and Johann Gottlob Geissler) as a foundation of the direction of our lives becomes our strength in viewing Papua as a land full of hope for future generations.

    Waaa waaa waaa!

    Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan Masters in Communication Studies student at Auckland University of Technology who has been studying journalism. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report. The article was first published on Ikinia’s social media blog.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A Common Platform: Reimagining Data And Platforms

    On October 20, 2020, the US Department of Justice filed an antitrust action against Google, the first step in what might be one of the biggest anti-monopoly cases of this century. With Google controlling more than an 87% share of the U.S. search market and its parent company, Alphabet, now one of the largest and most valuable companies in history, the move is likely long overdue. Yet Google/Alphabet is not alone. Just weeks later, the European Commission formally accused Amazon of breaking EU antitrust rules by distorting competition in online retail markets.

    At this point, it is relatively uncontroversial to point out that “Big Tech” giants like Google and Amazon increasingly dominate our economies and wield tremendous influence over our culture, social interactions, and political systems.

    The post A Common Platform: Reimagining Data And Platforms appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A report just exposed how establishment media pushed Tory 2019 election lies

    A campaign group has released a report. It details the extent of the Conservative Party’s use of “disinformation” during the 2019 general election campaign. The detail is staggering. But so far, the report has barely made a ripple in the media; probably because the establishment press is implicated in it.

    Defending the truth

    Truth Defence describes itself as:

    a collective of activists, lawyers, creatives, journalists, academics and citizens concerned about the spread of misinformation online, in traditional media, and in political advertising and campaigning.

    Its founders are Dr Justin Schlosberg, a senior lecturer in journalism and media at Birkbeck, University of London, and former ANC MP and campaigner Andrew Feinstein. Previously, it had worked on “Lawfare”: i.e. the “use of litigation for political or ideological ends”. But now it has turned its attention to the 2019 general election. Called GE2019: a post mortem, its author Scholsberg’s findings are damning.

    The 2019 general election: a post mortem.

    The backdrop to Truth Defence’s report saw the Tories sweep to power with a majority of 80. Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, after (as BBC News put it) ‘exceeding all expectations’ in 2017 with a 40% vote share, crashed and burned. It won 203 seats. But as Truth Defence investigated, disinformation may have played a part. It said that:

    the evidence collected strongly suggests that disinformation was an endemic feature of the Conservative Party campaign. Although it does not make comfortable reading for the Labour Party either, the extent and frequency of misleading online ads between the major parties was incomparable.

    And the establishment corporate media was central to this.

    Enter the corporate media

    Truth Defence looked at the media’s role in election disinformation. It highlighted some of the print media. The report noted a false Tory claim about Labour:

    At the start of the campaign, a Conservative press release claiming Labour’s spending plans would amount to £1.2 trillion over five years – rapidly discredited by fact checking organisations and journalists themselves – was splashed across the front pages of the biggest Sunday newspapers including the Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday; titles that collectively account for over 60% of total circulation.

    It said TV news “on the whole… did challenge and question” many of the Tories’ advert claims. But as the report noted, TV news took its time. For example, over the infamous “40 new hospitals” claim:

    On television, the claim was first made by Boris Johnson during a recorded interview segment for the ITV Lunchtime News on 14th November. It was then repeated during a live studio interview with Johnson on BBC Breakfast the following morning. But it wasn’t until the 19th November – when the claim was repeated by James Cleverly on the BBC’s late evening Newsnight programme – that it was subject to any challenge or questioning by journalists.

    Pulling no punches?

    But Truth Defence didn’t give TV news a free pass, with it noting one incident in particular:

    During the final days of the campaign, the significance of time lags in correcting stories intensifies exponentially. Not long after ‘senior Tories’ briefed the political news editor of both the BBC and ITV that one of their special advisors had been “punched” by a Labour activist, video footage emerged showing that the advisor had merely bumped into a protestor outside a hospital in Leeds. But the news had already been reported by both editors who tweeted it virtually without any qualification. It was also covered as a “breaking news” piece on television where a BBC News anchor affirmed that “some punches or at least one punch has been thrown there”.

    The report also said how much of the TV news reported on fake news, but that “at no point” did any of it highlight the Tories’ role in “fermenting” these untruths. But it wasn’t only in the media that disinformation was peddled. Because advertising also played a major role.

    A huge operation

    It found that overall the Tories’ advertising operation was huge. The report said that the party:

    ran a total of 167 adverts across Facebook and Google which were either subsequently removed due to breach of the platform’s advertising policies and/or featured misleading or inaccurate claims. These ads ran for a cumulative total of 1,038 days which is the closest proxy measure for exposure and reach (give that both Facebook and Google only provide indicative ranges for the number of impressions generated by each ad). The equivalent figure for Labour was 139 [days].

    The extent of false online advertising by the Conservatives was therefore seven times that of Labour:

    GE 2019 Advertising

    Manipulating adverts

    Truth Defence wrote about many of the Tory’s advert claims. For example, these included the ““40 new hospitals” claim that FullFact pulled apart. It said:

    Of the “40 new hospitals” promised in the Conservative manifesto, only six have actually been given money to start building works—and those are upgrades to existing hospitals.

    Labour was also guilty of disinformation in adverts. For example, one said that “Tories cut £8 billion from social care”. But as FullFact said:

    This figure refers to the savings councils in England have made on adult social care spending since 2010, not the amount their overall adult social care budgets were reduced by.

    Yet still, the Tories disinformation dwarfed Labour’s. And it was also more targeted.

    Targeted action

    Truth Defence’s reported said that:

    What was particularly striking about the Conservatives’ false or misleading ad campaigns was the degree to which they were concentrated on the last week before polling day. On Google, the party ran nearly 50% of all their false advertising during this single crucial week. Given that the average time lag for Google to remove ads deemed in breach of its policies was 7 days, this strategy ensured that any such removals would have a negligible impact on the campaign. Indeed, five of the ads that were banned by Google were only removed on polling day itself.

    If this wasn’t enough, Truth Defence found more. It noted that:

    • On Facebook, the Tories focused on promoting their manifesto. But on Google, the adverts were around Labour’s plans.
    • The Tories made these Google ads to “deceive voters into thinking they were… promoted by the Labour Party, directing them to the URL “LabourManifesto.co.uk””. Truth Defence says this breached Google rules.

    Overall, the report confirms what other researchers previously found. One example is First Draft’s analysis. It found that between 1-4 December 2020, around 88% of the total 6,749 Tory ads made false or misleading claims. At the time, senior Tory Michael Gove was typically obtuse, saying the ads must have been ‘errors’.

    But Truth Defence was highly critical of the whole situation.

    Mainstream disinformation

    It summed up by saying:

    The phenomenon of disinformation during election campaigns is of course nothing new. But what was relatively unique about the 2019 election was not just the prevalence and systemic nature of disinformation, but the fact that it stemmed primarily from the major political parties and was amplified by a combination of the mainstream press, tech platforms and, to a more limited extent, broadcasters. The problem was not so much to do with disinformation stemming from foreign interference or the political fringes, but rather the political mainstream.

    Our research suggests that neither the online platforms nor television news providers did enough to check or stem the circulation of false claims. The failure of the platforms in this respect was particularly noticeable, given that it took on average of several days for them to remove ads judged in breach of their policies. In election terms, that is a very long time indeed.

    Real-world consequences

    But Truth Defence also put its report into present-day context:

    The Covid emergency has both obscured attention to this problem, and also made it all the more significant. The extent of disinformation revealed in this report raises profound questions that are unanswerable but also inescapable: were it not for the scale of disinformation, would the UK have had a different government responsible for handling the biggest national crisis since the Second World War? If so, would the outcome have been different? Would more or less lives have been lost?

    These are painfully relevant points. And Truth Defence also concluded that things have to change:

    In summary, the evidence suggests that the current regulatory framework for political advertising and campaigning during elections is not fit for purpose and wholly inadequate for the digital terrain on which elections are increasingly fought.

    And it said:

    Unless and until the major platforms are able to implement a robust fact checking approval system before publication, there is an unanswerable case to ban all political advertising online during election periods.

    Given the current government is the one that benefitted from the vast disinformation campaign, it’s unlikely to change the rules itself. All opposition political parties must not only convey the scale of the problem to the public but commit to eradicating it in their next manifestos. And the media must follow their lead.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube, liarpoliticians2 – YouTube, BBC News – YouTube, Sky News – YouTube and MP’s Newswatch – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Google aren’t ‘stealing’ news content, publisher Eric Beecher tells Senate


    Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Nine Entertainment and News Corporation are wrong to say Google and Facebook have destroyed their business models by stealing content, according to news publisher Eric Beecher, reports The New Daily.

    Giving evidence before the Australian Senate hearing on the government’s proposed media bargaining code on Monday, Beecher said representatives from Nine, News Corp and The Guardian had wrongly accused Facebook and Google during previous hearings of “stealing both their content and their advertising revenue”.

    Beecher, the chairman of Solstice Media and owner of Private Media, publisher of the independent Crikey!, said the multibillion-dollar organisations clearly gained more than they lost from sharing their journalism on Facebook and Google, writes Euan Black in his New Daily report.

    Eric Beecher
    Publisher Eric Beecher … internet giants should pay a “social licence” fee to support public interest journalism. Image: GXpress

    “Those media companies actively provide snippets or their full journalism to the platforms for one blindingly obvious reason: They gain huge benefit from the exposure – and clicks – their content attracts on Google and Facebook,” he told the senate committee.

    “If they didn’t, they wouldn’t allow it to be ‘stolen’.”

    Beecher, who also chairs Motion Publishing, publisher of The New Daily, disputed claims that the internet giants had siphoned off advertising revenue from the news organisations.

    He said that before Google and Facebook most of this revenue came from newspaper classifieds that have since moved online.

    Money ‘ended up in pockets’
    Beecher said this money had “ended up in the pockets” of realestate.com.au (owned by News Corp), Domain (owned by Nine) and other classified advertising websites like Seek and Carsales.

    “As has been meticulously researched, the vast bulk of Google and Facebook’s advertising revenue has not come from news publishers,” he told the hearing.

    Private Media and Solstice media chair Eric Beecher said Facebook and Google are not “stealing” from media organisations, but also said the internet giants were “almost certainly too powerful”.

    Posted by The New Daily on Monday, February 1, 2021

    In an earlier submission to the senate inquiry, Facebook said it had generated 4.7 billion referrals to Australian media publishers and shared A$5.4 million in revenue with them between January and November.

    It also claimed “the commercial value we derive from news content in Australia is virtually zero”, while Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia if the current version of the code is passed into law.

    Despite disagreeing with key arguments used to defend the media bargaining code, Beecher said the internet giants were “almost certainly too powerful” and should be legally required to “pay full Australian tax on all their Australian profits that stem from all their Australian revenue”.

    “I’m not here to defend Google and Facebook,” he said.

    ‘Their behaviour is scary’
    “Their market dominance and the information they collect about their users’ online behaviour is scary.”

    Beecher said the huge market share and tax minimisation strategies of the internet giants provided enough justification to ask them to pay a “social licence” fee to support public interest journalism.

    “For those reasons — not because of spurious arguments about stealing content and advertising revenue — I believe they should pay what is, in effect, a social licence to support the public interest journalism that has been severely affected by the invention of the commercial internet, which Google and Facebook dominate,” he said.

    Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who is the Greens’ media spokesperson and sits on the committee tasked with interrogating the proposed new laws, also called for the code to explicitly support public interest journalism.

    She said in a statement that the Greens would seek amendments to the bill that:

    • “Require news organisations to spend the revenue from the Code on resourcing public interest journalism, and
    • “Require the 12-month review of the Code to report on the impact that the Code is having on small, independent and start up publications.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Church demands Timor-Leste faithful accept defrocking of accused priest

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The Timorese Episcopal Conference has called on the entire Catholic community in Timor-Leste to accept and respect Pope Francis’ decision to expel an American accused of child sexual abuse in the country from the priesthood, reports LUSA news agency.

    “Mr Richard Daschbach has already received his sentence for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the number 208 / 2018-67069 of November 6, 2018 from Pope Francis: he is no longer a priest, he is now a layman,” said the CET statement.

    “Confirmed by the Archdiocese of Dili” and addressed “to priests, religious, deacons, brothers, nuns and all baptised in Timor-Leste”, the statement said.

    “According to this decree of the Holy Father, there is nothing more to say about this priest’s priesthood. Priests, deacons, brothers, mothers and all the baptised are asked to respect this decree and not make any further comments ”, it said.

    The statement, signed by the president of the Timorese Episcopal Conference (CET), Norberto do Amaral, bishop of Maliana, comes after news and images on Timorese social networks that re-identified Daschbach as a priest, including by some religious, have spread in recent days.

    “The Pope’s decision comes from a deep and lengthy process to finally arrive at this final decision. Once again, I ask everyone to respect and accept this decision of the Pope,” wrote Do Amaral.

    News of the East Timorese charge against Daschbach, who is accused of child sexual abuse and pornography, and who has already been convicted of these crimes by the Vatican, has sparked criticism of journalists, lawyers and victim support organisations.

    Criticism over Gusmão visit
    The debate over the case reignited this week after former East Timorese President Xanana Gusmão visited Daschbach in the house where he is under house arrest in Dili on the accused’s birthday.

    News coverage of this visit drew criticism from the president of the Timorese Press Council, Virgílio Guterres, who said the news in the national press tried to “whitewash” Daschbach.

    “This is serious news. This is an attempt to influence public opinion and even people in court to influence the decision,” he said.

    “It is very serious because the news does not even make reference to the Vatican’s expulsion decisions or data on the crime he is accused of in East Timorese justice,” he told Lusa.

    Although the articles mention that the ex-priest is the subject of an ongoing judicial process, they never explain what are the crimes he is accused of in East Timor or the fact that Daschbach had already been convicted and sacked by the Vatican.

    The news presents in great detail a biography of Daschbach without ever referring to data on the crimes of which he is accused.

    Daschbach, 84, is accused of abusing at least two dozen children in the orphanage where he worked, Topu Honis, and of the crimes of child pornography, according to the East Timorese prosecutor’s office.

    Vatican ‘has no doubt’
    In October last year, the representative of the Holy See in Dili told Lusa that the Vatican “has no doubt” that the former priest was guilty of these crimes, expelling him from the priesthood.

    “There is no doubt for the Church that he is guilty of sexual abuse against minors, recognised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with an unappealable sentence,” said Marco Sprizzi, interim nuncio and the maximum representative of the Pope and of the Vatican in Timor-Leste.

    “Richard Daschbach himself admitted and pleaded guilty before the Church. He looks like he backed down before civil justice, but before the church he never backed down.

    “I want to be clear on this, ”said Sprizzi, who is responsible in Timor-Leste for the relationship between the Holy See and the Timorese Catholic Church and for the Holy See’s relationship with the Timorese state.

    The archbishop of Dili, Vírgilio do Carmo da Silva, had previously apologised for criticism and accusations to all those who have been involved in the investigation of the former priest accused of pedophilia and child pornography in Timor-Leste, reaffirming his full support for the victims .

    “On behalf of the Archdiocese of Dili, I want to apologise for the accusations and allegations that have affected the people involved in the investigation. The church wants to give its support and help the victims declared by the police authorities,” he said.

    The ABC reports that Daschbach was regarded as a hero in Timor-Leste for founding children’s shelters that had operated for more than two decades.

    He founded the Topu Honis or “Guide To Life” children’s homes in Oekusi Ambeno, an East Timorese enclave in the Indonesian-controlled western half of Timor, in 1992, the broadcaster reported.

    Daschbach was also feted for saving children during East Timor’s war for independence from Indonesia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Church demands Timor-Leste faithful accept defrocking of accused priest

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The Timorese Episcopal Conference has called on the entire Catholic community in Timor-Leste to accept and respect Pope Francis’ decision to expel an American accused of child sexual abuse in the country from the priesthood, reports LUSA news agency.

    “Mr Richard Daschbach has already received his sentence for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the number 208 / 2018-67069 of November 6, 2018 from Pope Francis: he is no longer a priest, he is now a layman,” said the CET statement.

    “Confirmed by the Archdiocese of Dili” and addressed “to priests, religious, deacons, brothers, nuns and all baptised in Timor-Leste”, the statement said.

    “According to this decree of the Holy Father, there is nothing more to say about this priest’s priesthood. Priests, deacons, brothers, mothers and all the baptised are asked to respect this decree and not make any further comments ”, it said.

    The statement, signed by the president of the Timorese Episcopal Conference (CET), Norberto do Amaral, bishop of Maliana, comes after news and images on Timorese social networks that re-identified Daschbach as a priest, including by some religious, have spread in recent days.

    “The Pope’s decision comes from a deep and lengthy process to finally arrive at this final decision. Once again, I ask everyone to respect and accept this decision of the Pope,” wrote Do Amaral.

    News of the East Timorese charge against Daschbach, who is accused of child sexual abuse and pornography, and who has already been convicted of these crimes by the Vatican, has sparked criticism of journalists, lawyers and victim support organisations.

    Criticism over Gusmão visit
    The debate over the case reignited this week after former East Timorese President Xanana Gusmão visited Daschbach in the house where he is under house arrest in Dili on the accused’s birthday.

    News coverage of this visit drew criticism from the president of the Timorese Press Council, Virgílio Guterres, who said the news in the national press tried to “whitewash” Daschbach.

    “This is serious news. This is an attempt to influence public opinion and even people in court to influence the decision,” he said.

    “It is very serious because the news does not even make reference to the Vatican’s expulsion decisions or data on the crime he is accused of in East Timorese justice,” he told Lusa.

    Although the articles mention that the ex-priest is the subject of an ongoing judicial process, they never explain what are the crimes he is accused of in East Timor or the fact that Daschbach had already been convicted and sacked by the Vatican.

    The news presents in great detail a biography of Daschbach without ever referring to data on the crimes of which he is accused.

    Daschbach, 84, is accused of abusing at least two dozen children in the orphanage where he worked, Topu Honis, and of the crimes of child pornography, according to the East Timorese prosecutor’s office.

    Vatican ‘has no doubt’
    In October last year, the representative of the Holy See in Dili told Lusa that the Vatican “has no doubt” that the former priest was guilty of these crimes, expelling him from the priesthood.

    “There is no doubt for the Church that he is guilty of sexual abuse against minors, recognised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with an unappealable sentence,” said Marco Sprizzi, interim nuncio and the maximum representative of the Pope and of the Vatican in Timor-Leste.

    “Richard Daschbach himself admitted and pleaded guilty before the Church. He looks like he backed down before civil justice, but before the church he never backed down.

    “I want to be clear on this, ”said Sprizzi, who is responsible in Timor-Leste for the relationship between the Holy See and the Timorese Catholic Church and for the Holy See’s relationship with the Timorese state.

    The archbishop of Dili, Vírgilio do Carmo da Silva, had previously apologised for criticism and accusations to all those who have been involved in the investigation of the former priest accused of pedophilia and child pornography in Timor-Leste, reaffirming his full support for the victims .

    “On behalf of the Archdiocese of Dili, I want to apologise for the accusations and allegations that have affected the people involved in the investigation. The church wants to give its support and help the victims declared by the police authorities,” he said.

    The ABC reports that Daschbach was regarded as a hero in Timor-Leste for founding children’s shelters that had operated for more than two decades.

    He founded the Topu Honis or “Guide To Life” children’s homes in Oekusi Ambeno, an East Timorese enclave in the Indonesian-controlled western half of Timor, in 1992, the broadcaster reported.

    Daschbach was also feted for saving children during East Timor’s war for independence from Indonesia.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Twitter Rolls Out New Wikipedia-Like Program To Narrative Manage Tweets

    Twitter has announced that it will be employing “a new community-driven approach to help address misleading information” called Birdwatch which news media are comparing to the model of content moderation used by Wikipedia.

    “Twitter unveiled a feature Monday meant to bolster its efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation by tapping users in a fashion similar to Wikipedia to flag potentially misleading tweets,” reports NBC. “The new system allows users to discuss and provide context to tweets they believe are misleading or false. The project, titled Birdwatch, is a standalone section of Twitter that will at first only be available to a small set of users, largely on a first-come, first-served basis.”

    “We know there are a number of challenges toward building a community-driven system like this — from making it resistant to manipulation attempts to ensuring it isn’t dominated by a simple majority or biased based on its distribution of contributors,” Twitter’s official statement says. “We’ll be focused on these things throughout the pilot.”

    Such claims provide little reassurance for anyone who’s familiar with the establishment narrative control operations which take place on Wikipedia in exactly that way. The Grayzone‘s Ben Norton did a great two-part report last year on the way concerted, aggressive efforts by a small group of shady-looking Wikipedia editors has succeeded in dominating the site’s articles which relate to western imperialist agendas and the reporters who support and oppose those agendas, including getting outlets like WikiLeaks and The Grayzone banned from use as sources despite their having no history of false reports.

    “The internet encyclopedia has become a deeply undemocratic platform, dominated by Western state-backed actors and corporate public relations flacks, easily manipulated by powerful forces,” wrote Norton. “And it is run by figures who often represent these same elite interests, or align with their regime-change politics.”

    Since 2018 alternative media voices like The Canary and Media Lens have been reporting on the frenetic editing behavior of a Wikipedia account by the name of “Philip Cross” which works an inhuman number of hours without ever taking a day off, largely targeting the accounts of those who criticize the western empire and voice skepticism of its dominant narratives.

    This kind of aggressive narrative management campaign is why when you look at any Wikipedia article about an internationally disputed issue on the world stage, say for example the article about the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, you’ll see the word “Bellingcat” no fewer than 20 times as of this writing and a heavy bias toward the western narrative that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack, but won’t find information about the gaping plot holes in the story like the ones documented in this excellent article by The Nation‘s Aaron Maté, nor will you see any links back to this article.

    So it’s already established that this sort of “community-driven approach” to information control can easily be exploited by well-funded groups which have a vested interest in doing so. The fact that Twitter has already been functioning as a propaganda arm of the US government with regard to its willingness to deplatform accounts from imperialism-targeted nations like Iran, Venezuela, Russia and China means we can only expect this bias to go one way with regard to imperialist narrative management.

    The fact that this “Birdwatch” program will most likely be used to determine the dominant narrative on disputed events like potential false flags and what’s happening in nations like China and Syria means it’s obnoxious that Twitter’s post promoting it features an imaginary account saying “Whales are not real! They’re robots funded by the government to watch us!!” As though that sort of indisputable falsehood is the sort of post this program will actually be targeting rather than people expressing doubts about things like Russian hackers and the White Helmets.

    Twitter chose to use “whales aren’t real” as its example of the “misinformation” its new program will be “fighting” not because it is cute and funny, but because using any of the actual narratives it will wind up manipulating would have set off people’s alarm bells. Imagine the reaction if they’d chosen something like Covid vaccinations for example, even though this could very well end up being one of the issues Birdwatch winds up exercising narrative control over.

    Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. That’s all you’re ever seeing in all the efforts to manage information via censorship, algorithm changes, “fact” checking, Russian propaganda panic, etc. Humans are story-driven animals, so if you control the stories you control the humans.

    The US-centralized oligarchic empire will be doing a lot of evil things in the near future, and it will be necessary to control the narrative about those things. That’s all we’re really looking at here.

    _______________________________

    Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on , throwing some money into my tip jar on  or , purchasing some of my , buying my new book Poems For Rebels (you can also download a PDF for five bucks) or my old book . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • RSF condemns Google for dropping Australian media searches in ‘tests’

    Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the arbitrary and opaque experiments that Google is conducting with its search engine in Australia, with the consequence that many national news websites are no longer appearing in the search results seen by some users.

    The Australian, ABC, Australian Financial Review, The Age, The Guardian Australia and The Sydney Morning Herald are among the media outlets that have not appeared in the search results of around 1 percent of Australian users since January 13, the date on which Google admits that it began its “experiments”.

    The experiments are supposedly intended to measure the correlation between media and Google search and are due to end at the start of February.

    Neither the media outlets nor Google search users were notified in advance of the consequences of the experiments, namely that they would be deprived of their usual access to many news sources.

    “The platforms must stop playing sorcerer’s apprentice in a completely opaque manner,” said Iris de Villars, the head of RSF’s Tech Desk.

    “Most Australians use Google to find and access online news, and these experiments confirm the scale of the power that platforms like Google exercise over access to online journalistic content, and their ability to abuse this power to the detriment of the public’s access to information.

    “They have a duty to be transparent and to inform their users, a duty that is all the greater in the light of the impact that the current and future experiments can have on journalistic pluralism.”

    Thousands of tests every year
    Google conducts tens of thousands of tests on its search engine every year.

    The experiments that Google and other platforms carry out usually test design changes, algorithmic modifications or new functionalities on some of their users in order to study how they behave and to guide future changes.

    This is not the first time one of these experiments has impacted on journalistic pluralism.

    Facebook, for example, tested a new functionality called “Explore” in six countries – Bolivia, Cambodia, Guatemala, Serbia, Slovakia and Sri Lanka – from October 2017 to March 2018.

    This experiment, in which independent news content was quarantined in a not-very-accessible secondary location, had a disastrous impact on journalistic pluralism in these countries, with traffic to local media outlets falling dramatically.

    In Cambodia, many citizen-journalists lost a large chunk of their readers, with the result they had to pay to restore traffic to their sites.

    Google’s experiments in Australia have come at a time of tension between the platforms and the Australian government, which has a proposed new law, called the News Media Bargaining Code, under which platforms such as Google and Facebook would have to share advertising money with media companies.

    The two tech giants have reacted to the proposal with hostility. Facebook has said it would prevent Australian media outlets and users from sharing journalistic content on its Facebook and Instagram platforms, while Google has added a pop-up message to its search results warning Australian users that “your search experience will be hurt by new regulation”.

    When asked about the details of these experiments, their purpose and about transparency towards media outlets and users, Google just referred RSF to an existing, general press release.

    Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • RSF condemns Google for dropping Australian media searches in ‘tests’

    Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the arbitrary and opaque experiments that Google is conducting with its search engine in Australia, with the consequence that many national news websites are no longer appearing in the search results seen by some users.

    The Australian, ABC, Australian Financial Review, The Age, The Guardian Australia and The Sydney Morning Herald are among the media outlets that have not appeared in the search results of around 1 percent of Australian users since January 13, the date on which Google admits that it began its “experiments”.

    The experiments are supposedly intended to measure the correlation between media and Google search and are due to end at the start of February.

    Neither the media outlets nor Google search users were notified in advance of the consequences of the experiments, namely that they would be deprived of their usual access to many news sources.

    “The platforms must stop playing sorcerer’s apprentice in a completely opaque manner,” said Iris de Villars, the head of RSF’s Tech Desk.

    “Most Australians use Google to find and access online news, and these experiments confirm the scale of the power that platforms like Google exercise over access to online journalistic content, and their ability to abuse this power to the detriment of the public’s access to information.

    “They have a duty to be transparent and to inform their users, a duty that is all the greater in the light of the impact that the current and future experiments can have on journalistic pluralism.”

    Thousands of tests every year
    Google conducts tens of thousands of tests on its search engine every year.

    The experiments that Google and other platforms carry out usually test design changes, algorithmic modifications or new functionalities on some of their users in order to study how they behave and to guide future changes.

    This is not the first time one of these experiments has impacted on journalistic pluralism.

    Facebook, for example, tested a new functionality called “Explore” in six countries – Bolivia, Cambodia, Guatemala, Serbia, Slovakia and Sri Lanka – from October 2017 to March 2018.

    This experiment, in which independent news content was quarantined in a not-very-accessible secondary location, had a disastrous impact on journalistic pluralism in these countries, with traffic to local media outlets falling dramatically.

    In Cambodia, many citizen-journalists lost a large chunk of their readers, with the result they had to pay to restore traffic to their sites.

    Google’s experiments in Australia have come at a time of tension between the platforms and the Australian government, which has a proposed new law, called the News Media Bargaining Code, under which platforms such as Google and Facebook would have to share advertising money with media companies.

    The two tech giants have reacted to the proposal with hostility. Facebook has said it would prevent Australian media outlets and users from sharing journalistic content on its Facebook and Instagram platforms, while Google has added a pop-up message to its search results warning Australian users that “your search experience will be hurt by new regulation”.

    When asked about the details of these experiments, their purpose and about transparency towards media outlets and users, Google just referred RSF to an existing, general press release.

    Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Conversation’s submission to the Australian Senate Inquiry into the News Media Bargaining Code

    ANALYSIS: By Misha Ketchell, The Conversation

    On 10 December 2020, the Australian Senate established an inquiry into a government bill proposing a “mandatory bargaining code” between news media organisations and digital platforms including Google and Facebook. The Conversation Australia & New Zealand made the following submission. Asia Pacific Report frequently republishes – and its authors contribute – Conversation articles.


    About The Conversation
    The Conversation is a unique global journalism project that in just 10 years has become the world’s leading publisher of research-based news and analysis. We pair professional editors with academics to publish articles that share new research and explain issues in the news.

    All our content is free to republish, with the aim of sharing trusted information with the widest possible audience.

    Since it was founded in Melbourne in 2011, The Conversation has expanded to operate across Australia, New Zealand, the UK, US, France, Spain, Africa, Indonesia and Canada.

    It is read by more than 25 million people a month directly and more than 64 million a month via republication. In Australia, our editors have collaborated with more than 17,540 academic authors.

    A unique Australian not-for-profit start-up, our global impact is guided by a clear purpose: to provide access to trustworthy explanatory journalism essential for a healthy democracy.

    We place a high value on trust. All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter. Contributors must abide by our Community Standards. We only allow academic authors to write on subjects on which they have expertise. Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed.

    Our funding comes from partners from the university and research sector, some philanthropic organisations and more than 19,400 individual donors.

    The Conversatuon staff
    Cartoon depiction of The Conversation’s Australia + New Zealand-based staff members. Image: Wes Mountain/The Conversation

    Public interest news in Australia
    Quality information is as important to democracy as clean water is to health. Democracy is a decision making process, and without reliable information, voters, bureaucrats, civil society leaders and politicians cannot make informed decisions with surety and integrity.

    Public interest journalism is the primary means by which quality information is communicated to the Australian public. It provides essential context to help people make sense of a complex and confusing barrage of information.

    It provides essential insights that help us understand our politics, our environment, our culture and our history. It underpins the health and wellbeing of society.

    That is why The Conversation was founded – to ensure citizens and decision makers can freely access quality information written by experts in their field.

    The consequences of uninformed decision-making can be dire and, indeed, deadly. A BBC investigation into the effects of coronavirus misinformation found that online rumours led to mob attacks in India, mass poisonings in Iran, physical and arson attacks against telecommunications engineers in the UK, and people swallowing fish tank cleaner and other harmful chemicals in the US.

    Needless to say, this is not the kind of information environment we want to see in Australia or New Zealand.

    The Conversation’s reliance on digital platforms
    In Australia, a large proportion of The Conversation’s readership arrives via digital platforms. Google accounts for 53 percent of traffic and Facebook 8 percent.

    When Google changes its algorithm, or Facebook changes the way in which it presents news, it can have a big impact on our onsite audience. It should be noted, however, that onsite audience is only one measure of overall reach (albeit a very important one).

    Engagement from audiences on platforms like Facebook and Instagram is also very high when measured in terms of likes, shares, follows and comments. As of January 2021, The Conversation Australia has 325,735 Facebook followers and more than 21,000 Instagram followers.

    Many people interact with The Conversation news content on these platforms without clicking through to read the full article.

    Our editors are increasingly translating news articles into short images and tiles for a younger and more diverse audience on social platforms.

    Where we once might have thought of information presented in this way as an advertisement for the journalism and a driver of onsite traffic, we now recognise that for many harder-to-reach audiences it is a form of journalism itself.

    This social media journalism is costly to produce but it is also vital, given the problems we have seen with misinformation and disinformation on social platforms.

    The growing reliance on social media as a source of news, particularly among younger audiences, makes it even more important that publishers turn their attention to presenting reliable information on the platforms where the audiences are spending their time.

    Currently there is a global effort to eradicate misinformation though fact checking. While this is undeniably important work, we believe that debunking misinformation is only a partial solution.

    To achieve a healthy media ecosystem, you need to do more than eliminate contaminants – it is important to have a critical mass of quality information in the mix to dilute, counterbalance and drown out false claims.

    This is particularly important to maintain an informed citizenry that is necessary for our democracy to remain healthy, but that is not the sole value. Digital platforms such as Google and Facebook would have a significantly diminished product in the absence of the work of journalists and other professional content creators who create reliable and high quality content.

    Cartoon
    Cartoon, October 2019. Image: Wes Mountain/The Conversation

    While Google is right to argue that there is a value exchange, and commercial publishers do derive value from the traffic Google directs to them, it is also true to say that digital platforms derive a significant value from journalism, particularly in comparison to other forms of user-generated content.

    Without the journalism, and other forms of professionally curated content, Google search results would be wildly unreliable.

    Funding from digital platforms
    Digital platforms have provided funding via grants to The Conversation over the past two years, which included access to expertise, tools and techniques that are helping us grow and monetise our audience via reader donations.

    As a not-for-profit, public interest news provider, The Conversation exists not to create a financial return to shareholders but rather to provide quality and reliable information for the public good.

    News products and platforms such as Google News Showcase or Facebook news tab, which can help us extend our reach and impact with audiences, are valuable.

    It should be noted that the work of the ACCC and the Digital Platforms Inquiry has played a role in encouraging collaboration and knowledge-sharing between publishers and digital platforms. It is a welcome development.

    Recommendations
    Overall, we believe the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020 (the News Media Bargaining Code) can make a positive contribution to the maintenance and development of a healthy media ecosystem in Australia. It does this by creating a more level playing field for negotiations over appropriate compensation between digital platforms and publishers.

    We also welcome the inclusion of the ABC and SBS, which will enable the bargaining code to support public broadcasters and their crucial contribution to the Australian media.

    We agree with concerns expressed in other submissions that the restriction that news businesses must have annual revenue of over $150,000 might rule out some new and smaller media players and agree the cut-off could be reduced.

    We have also previously expressed concerns regarding the three part test that ACMA will use to determine whether a news business can participate in the Mandatory Bargaining Code. However we are encouraged by the Bill defining “core news content” as content that “reports, investigates or explains” issues that are relevant to “engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision making”.

    This definition appears to cover the type of explanatory journalism produced by The Conversation and many other independent media outlets that focus on the timely analysis of news that is directed at better informing Australian citizens.

    While we welcome the News Media Bargaining Code’s proposed algorithm notification provisions as useful to all publishers, we accept prima facie the arguments made by Google and Facebook that the currently proposed approach may be unworkable and require compromise.

    We thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for their careful consideration of this important topic, and we welcome the opportunity to address these issues in more detail.The Conversation

    By Misha Ketchell, editor & Executive Director, The Conversation. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RSF calls for ‘democratic obligations’ on leading digital players over Trump

    Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    In the wake of Twitter’s decision to shut down President Donald Trump’s accounts for good, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has proposed ways to avoid allowing the tech giants to retain the power to decide whether social media accounts should be closed.

    After overlooking the fake news and hate speech that Trump posted throughout his four years as US president, Twitter unilaterally decided on 8 January 2021 to permanently close his  @realDonaldTrump account and then, a few days later, 70,000 other accounts linked to the pro-Trump QAnon movement.

    Facebook, Instagram and Twitch also suspended the presidential accounts for an unspecified period, while Amazon then suspended the pro-Trump social media Parler.

    All of these decisions were taken by private-sector companies without any democratic or judicial control, reports RSF.

    “We live in a political dystopia,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said. “The laws of the public arena used to be established by parliaments and enforced by judges, but private-sector corporations are now in charge.

    Their norms are not defined within a democratic framework with checks and balances, they are not transparent and you cannot appeal to any court before they are carried out.

    The organisation of the online public arena should not be left to market forces or individual interests. We must impose democratic obligations on the leading digital players.”

    Concrete proposals
    In Europe, the Digital Services Act unveiled by European Commissioner Thierry Breton in December aims to regulate content posted on platforms and offers notable advances.

    Many other legislative initiatives are also under discussion such as the revision of Section 230 in the United States, the Online Harms Bill in the United Kingdom and the Digital Charter in Canada.

    But, so far, no legislation addresses all of the challenges posed by the digital public arena.

    It was to propose democratic safeguards for the digital arena that RSF launched the information and democracy initiative:

    • The Commission on Information and Democracy, consisting of 25 prominent persons of 18 nationalities, drafted a Declaration establishing general principles for the global online information and communication space – algorithmic transparency, pluralism, platform ideological neutralism, prohibition of conflicts of interest and promotion of reliable news and information.
    • This declaration inspired the Partnership on Information and Democracy, which was launched during the UN General Assembly in 2019 and which 38 governments have so far joined.
    • The Forum on Information and Democracy was created in November 2019 by 11 organisations, research centres and think-tanks based in all continents. In November 2020, it published 250 recommendations on platform transparency, content moderation, the promotion of the reliability of information, and messaging apps when their massive use goes beyond the bounds of private correspondence.
    • RSF was also behind the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), which is producing a set of machine-readable standards so that search engine algorithms can give preference to media that adhere to journalistic methods and ethics. These standards, which can also be used by advertisers, are the result of a self-regulatory initiative in which entities from all over the world collaborated under the aegis of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).

    Systemic change
    In a news and information arena from which intermediaries have been eliminated, politicians, celebrities, corporations, religious groups and other players are currently able to address their public directly without being held accountable to any ethical standards, while the media have continued to operate according to all of their traditional obligations.

    But now, the suspension of Donald Trump’s social media accounts has spotlighted the crucial issue of the most powerful accounts.

    In an op-ed piece published in the French daily Le Figaro on January 12, RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire, who also chairs the Forum on Information and Democracy, says social media accounts exceeding certain (direct or indirect) audience thresholds should be subject to procedures and obligations appropriate to their audience and in accordance with general legal principles.

    Private-sector companies should not be allowed to determine the fate of such accounts on their own, acting without control or transparency.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘Even mourning is said to shame China’: women of Wuhan fight to be heard

    Three writers who blogged about life in the city where Covid began still face constant threats and monitoring

    “When people from other places come to Wuhan now, they would have a feeling that nothing ever happened here,” said Ai Xiaoming, sitting in the book-filled study of her home in the city at the heart of China’s coronavirus outbreak last January.

    “It feels like they know nothing about the dead, or the families’ feelings,” said the 67-year-old writer and documentary film-maker. “The [Chinese] media rarely reports on these issues. There is no space for these people to tell their stories.”

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Patriot Act 2, Censorship, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

    Patriot Act 2.0 will be rolled out with a lot of mindless bleating about white supremacists and fighting fascism, and the actual policies and laws put into place will have virtually nothing to do with any of those things. They will be geared at preventing the revolutionary changes that need to be pushed for in the United States by the American people.

    ❖

    Listening to US politicians and pundits the last few years you’d assume it’s been raining actual 9/11s and Pearl Harbors in America 24/7.

    ❖

    “Our democracy has been attacked!” screamed the political establishment that just forced you to choose between Donald Trump and Democrat Donald Trump for president.

    ❖

    Saying there’s been an attack on American democracy is like saying there’s been an attack on Kazakhstan’s fjords.

    ❖

    Liberals learned the words “coup” and “insurrection” like five seconds ago and now they are academic experts on both of these things.

    ❖

    The narrative managers’ ability to move liberals and progressives from “Defund the police” to “MOAR POLICING” in just a few months was even more impressive than their ability to move them from “Believe Women” and #MeToo to “Tara Reade is a lying grifter”.

    ❖

    Here’s how politicians, media and government could eliminate conspiracy theories if they really want to:

    • Stop lying all the time
    • Stop killing people
    • Stop promoting conspiracy theories (eg Russiagate)
    • Stop doing evil things in secret
    • End government opacity
    • Stop conspiring

    ❖

    To support the censorship of online speech is to support the authority of monopolistic tech oligarchs to exert more and more global control over human communication. Regardless of your attitude toward whoever happens to be getting deplatformed today, supporting this is self-destructive.

    ❖

    I don’t share people’s magical fascination with the word “tolerance”. As far as I can tell it’s an empty and irrelevant concept. This isn’t about tolerance, it’s about trusting government-tied tech oligarchs to regulate speech around the world on monopolistic speech platforms.

    The future of humanity depends on our ability to wake up a critical mass of people to how fucked things really are, and if speech which doesn’t conform to establishment orthodoxy is censored on the platforms the mainstream crowd use to share ideas, that will become impossible.

    ❖

    “We need to stop fascism so let’s give massive sweeping powers to an elite alliance of unelected authoritarians.”

    ❖

    “Well I’m a leftist and I haven’t been banned on social media.”

    That’s because the left is politically impotent in our society. Unless this is just a hobby for you, at some point you should plan on the left becoming a threat to the oligarchs and warmongers. What do you think happens then?

    Do you really think if the left actually becomes a threat to the status quo the Neera Tandens and Rachel Maddows aren’t going to suddenly discover a reason why you’re dangerous and need to be censored? The only way to be fine with censorship is to plan on never challenging power.

    Tech billionaires are not on your side, and neither are the government agencies and plutocratic media leaning on them to implement censorship. Those institutions don’t give a shit about silencing the right, they want to implement measures to silence you. The left is being censored already, but it hasn’t seen anything yet.

    ❖

    “As a leftist I’m fine with censorship because it’s not like the leftist revolution is going to be organized on social media.”

    Social media isn’t for organizing the leftist revolution you bonehead, it’s for creating more leftists. It’s for reaching the mainstream.

    A leftist’s first and foremost job is to create more leftists. If the left becomes a potent political force, all the censorship protocols they’ve been putting into place these last few years will be used to stop it from infecting the mainstream herd. You shouldn’t want this.

    ❖

    Trying to stop fascism by making it invisible is like trying to avert a charging bull by putting your hands over your eyes.

    If you want to stop the rise of fascism you need to change. Change your sick society. Profoundly. Not just cover up the manifestations of that sickness. Compartmentalizing and covering up the problem instead of pouring money and resources into creating a healthy society which addresses the underlying problems is the most shitlib thing ever.

    ❖

    Saying you are free to leave these monopolistic platforms and go to some fringe website no one uses is the same as saying you are free to dig a hole and yell into it. There is no magical free market solution to this problem, because the problem is that imperial power structures are deliberately herding people onto monopolistic speech platforms that they can then censor under the guise of terms of service.

    ❖

    All of the most critical factors determining what people’s lives are like are invisible now. Most people don’t even know they’re happening. Oligarchy. Neoliberalism. Imperialism. Used to be you knew who the king was, and he’d openly do anything he wanted. Now that’s all kept carefully hidden.

    ❖

    Why is it kept hidden now? Well there are a lot of factors, but mostly it’s because the rank-and-file public discovered guillotines. Ever since then your rulers are out of necessity kept hidden from you, and so is their totalitarianism.

    ❖

    The US government is the most evil and destructive force in the world. Not Trump. The US government. This will not change in any meaningful way when Trump leaves. Massive amounts of manipulation have been poured into keeping you from seeing this.

    ____________________

    Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on , throwing some money into my tip jar on  or , purchasing some of my , buying my new book Poems For Rebels or my old book . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • MSM Already Using Capitol Hill Riot To Call For More Internet Censorship

    The United States received a very small taste of its own medicine today as rioting Trump fanatics temporarily forced their way into the nation’s Capitol building, and now the whole nation is freaking out.

    I am being generous when I say that America was given a very small taste of its own medicine; unlike the horrific coups and violent uprisings the US routinely orchestrates in noncompliant nations around the world, this one stood exactly zero chance of seizing control of the government, and only one person was killed.

    I am also being generous when I say the rioters “forced their way” in; DC chose not to increase its police presence in preparation for the protests despite knowing that they were planned, and there’s footage of what appears to be cops actively letting them through a police barricade. There was some fighting between police and protesters, but contrasted with the unceasing barrage of police brutality footage which emerged from Black Lives Matter demonstrations a few months prior it’s fair to say the police response today was relatively gentle.

    Predictably, this entirely American disruption has blue-checkmarked commentariat shrieking about Vladimir Putin on social media.

    Just as predictably, it’s also got them calling for the censorship of social media.

    The New York Times has published two new articles titled “The storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media” and “Violence on Capitol Hill Is a Day of Reckoning for Social Media“, both arguing for more heavy-handed restrictions on speech from Silicon Valley tech giants.

    In the former, NYT’s Sheera Frenkel writes “the violence Wednesday was the result of online movements operating in closed social media networks where people believed the claims of voter fraud and of the election being stolen from Mr. Trump,” citing the expert analysis of think tank spinmeister Renee DiResta of “Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset” fame. As usual no mention is made of DiResta’s involvement in the New Knowledge scandal in which a Russian interference “false flag” was staged for an Alabama Senate race.

    “These people are acting because they are convinced an election was stolen,” DiResta said. “This is a demonstration of the very real-world impact of echo chambers.”

    “This has been a striking repudiation of the idea that there is an online and an offline world and that what is said online is in some way kept online,” DiResta adds.

    This narrative which seeds the idea that unregulated communication on the internet will lead to violent uprisings is funny coming from Frankel, who, as a Twitter follower recently observed, wrote a piece in 2018 condemning the Iranian government for restricting protesters’ social media access during the demonstrations at that time.

    “Social media and messaging apps have become crucial to antigovernment demonstrators around the world, as a means of both organizing and delivering messages to other citizens,” Frankel wrote. “Not surprisingly, restricting access to such technology has become as important to government crackdowns as the physical presence of the police.”

    In the other article, co-authored by Frankel, Mike Isaac and Kate Conger, the message is driven home even less subtly.

    “As pro-Trump protesters stormed the Capitol building on Wednesday and halted the certification of Electoral College votes, the role of social media companies such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube in spreading misinformation and being a megaphone for Mr. Trump came under renewed criticism,” reads the article, adding, “So when violence broke out in Washington on Wednesday, it was, in the minds of longtime critics, the day the chickens came home to roost for the social media companies.”

    The article reports on the US president’s temporary suspension of social media privileges for allegedly inciting violence with his posts, then discusses the various kinds of disinformation and violent ideation being circulated in Trump discussion forums.

    “Those alternative social media sites were rife with Trump supporters organizing and communicating on Wednesday,” NYT tells us. “On Parler, one trending hashtag was #stormthecapitol. Many Trump supporters on the sites also appeared to believe a false rumor that Antifa, a left-wing movement, was responsible for committing violence at the protests.”

    “We know the social media companies have been lackadaisical at best” at stopping extremism from growing on their platforms, Jonathan Greenblatt, director of the Anti-Defamation League, told NYT. “Freedom of expression is not the freedom to incite violence. That is not protected speech.”

    We will likely see many more such articles in the coming days, arguing for increased regulation of internet communication to prevent future incidents like today.

    In and of itself this won’t sound terribly concerning to the average citizen. Nothing wrong with taking steps to prevent people from plotting violence and terrorism on social media, right?

    But how do you predict what protests are going to be “violent”? How do you decide which protests and what political dissent need to be censored and which ones should be permitted to communicate freely? Do you just leave it up to Silicon Valley oligarchs to make the call? Or do you have them consult with the government like they’ve been doing? Are either of these institutions you’d trust to regulate what protests are worthy of being permitted to organize online?

    Because the actual power structures in the United States seem to be interested in simply censoring the internet to eliminate political dissent altogether.

    In 2017 top officials from Facebook, Twitter and Google were brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee and admonished to come up with policies that will “prevent the fomenting of discord” in the United States.

    World Socialist Website reported the following in 2017.

    Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii demanded, for her part, that the companies adopt a “mission statement” expressing their commitment “to prevent the fomenting of discord.”

     

    The most substantial portion of the testimony took place in the second part of the hearing, during which most of the Senators had left and two representatives of the US intelligence agencies testified before a room of mostly empty chairs.

     

    Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer, former FBI agent, and member of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, made the following apocalyptic proclamation: “Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words. America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America.”

     

    He added, “Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced—silence the guns and the barrage will end.”

    That sounds an awful like government officials and operatives telling social media corporations that it’s their job to censor communication which could facilitate any kind of unrest, no matter how justified.

    Do you trust these monopolistic megacorporations to decide whether or not people’s dissident speech is acceptable? I don’t.

    As Julian Assange is condemned to remain falsely imprisoned and the mass media ramp up their case for more imperial narrative control, we are now in a battle for the sovereignty of our very minds.

    ____________________________

    Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on , throwing some money into my tip jar on  or , purchasing some of my , buying my new book Poems For Rebels or my old book . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

     

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • The Great Divider: Covid-19 reflects global racism, not equality

    ANALYSIS: By Ramzy Baroud

    The notion that the covid-19 pandemic was “the great equalizer’ should be dead and buried by now. If anything, the lethal disease is another terrible reminder of the deep divisions and inequalities in our societies.

    That said, the treatment of the disease should not be a repeat of the same shameful scenario.

    For an entire year, wealthy celebrities and government officials have been reminding us that “we are in this together”, that “we are on the same boat”, with the likes of US singer, Madonna, speaking from her mansion while submerged in a “milky bath sprinkled with rose petals,” telling us that the pandemic has proved to be the “great equalizer”.

    “Like I used to say at the end of ‘Human Nature’ every night, we are all in the same boat,” she said. “And if the ship goes down, we’re all going down together,” CNN reported at the time.

    Such statements, like that of Madonna, and Ellen DeGeneres as well, have generated much media attention not just because they are both famous people with a massive social media following but also because of the obvious hypocrisy in their empty rhetoric.

    In truth, however, they were only repeating the standard procedure followed by governments, celebrities and wealthy “influencers” worldwide.

    But are we, really, “all in this together”? With unemployment rates skyrocketing across the globe, hundreds of millions scraping by to feed their children, multitudes of nameless and hapless families chugging along without access to proper healthcare, subsisting on hope and a prayer so that they may survive the scourges of poverty – let alone the pandemic – one cannot, with a clear conscience, make such outrageous claims.

    Not only are we not “on the same boat” but, certainly, we have never been. According to World Bank data, nearly half of the world lives on less than US$5.5 a day. This dismal statistic is part of a remarkable trajectory of inequality that has afflicted humanity for a long time.

    The plight of many of the world’s poor is compounded in the case of war refugees, the double victims of state terrorism and violence and the unwillingness of those with the resources to step forward and pay back some of their largely undeserved wealth.

    The boat metaphor is particularly interesting in the case of refugees; millions of them have desperately tried to escape the infernos of war and poverty in rickety boats and dinghies, hoping to get across from their stricken regions to safer places.

    Sadly familiar sight
    This sight has sadly grown familiar in recent years not only throughout the Mediterranean Sea but also in other bodies of water around the world, especially in Burma, where hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have tried to escape their ongoing genocide. Thousands of them have drowned in the Bay of Bengal.

    The covid-19 pandemic has accentuated and, in fact, accelerated the sharp inequalities that exist in every society individually, and the world at large. According to a June 2020 study conducted in the United States by the Brookings Institute, the number of deaths as a result of the disease reflects a clear racial logic.

    Many indicators included in the study leave no doubt that racism is a central factor in the life cycle of covid.

    For example, among those aged between 45 and 54 years, “Black and Hispanic/Latino death rates are at least six times higher than for whites”. Although whites make up 62 percent of the US population of that specific age group, only 22 percent of the total deaths were white.

    Black and Latino communities were the most devastated.

    According to this and other studies, the main assumption behind the discrepancy of infection and death rates resulting from covid among various racial groups in the US is poverty which is, itself, an expression of racial inequality. The poor have no, or limited, access to proper healthcare. For the rich, this factor is of little relevance.

    Moreover, poor communities tend to work in low-paying jobs in the service sector, where social distancing is nearly impossible. With little government support to help them survive the lockdowns, they do everything within their power to provide for their children, only to be infected by the virus or, worse, die.

    Iniquity expected to continue
    This iniquity is expected to continue even in the way that the vaccines are made available. While several Western nations have either launched or scheduled their vaccination campaigns, the poorest nations on earth are expected to wait for a long time before life-saving vaccines are made available.

    In 67 poor or developing countries located mostly in Africa and the Southern hemisphere, only one out of ten individuals will likely receive the vaccine by the end of 2020, the Fortune Magazine website reported.

    The disturbing report cited a study conducted by a humanitarian and rights coalition, the People’s Vaccine Alliance (PVA), which includes Oxfam and Amnesty International.

    If there is such a thing as a strategy at this point, it is the deplorable “hoarding” of the vaccine by rich nations.

    Dr Mohga Kamal-Yanni of the PVA put this realisation into perspective when she said that “rich countries have enough doses to vaccinate everyone nearly three times over, while poor countries don’t even have enough to reach health workers and people at risk”.

    So much for the numerous conferences touting the need for a “global response” to the disease.

    But it does not have to be this way.

    While it is likely that class, race and gender inequalities will continue to ravage human societies after the pandemic, as they did before, it is also possible for governments to use this collective tragedy as an opportunity to bridge the inequality gap, even if just a little, as a starting point to imagine a more equitable future for all of us.

    Poor, dark-skinned people should not be made to die when their lives can be saved by a simple vaccine, which is available in abundance.

    Dr Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr Baroud is a non-resident senior research fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). This article is republished with permission. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Stop funding military repression in Papua, plead TAPOL speakers

    Stop funding military repression in Papua, plead TAPOL speakers
    Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk Campaigners at a TAPOL-hosted global webinar have called on the people of Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States and other countries to stop funding military training for Indonesian security forces who are “killing innocent West Papuans”. Rosa Moiwend, a member of the War Resisters International, said West Papuans wanted to live peacefully without any oppression by the military – this was the hope of the indigenous Melanesian people. “If your government is actually behind this scenario, I think the main thing you have to do is to go and talk to your government, Parliament members and question them about your tax money,” she said. “Where does your tax money go? Does it go to pay [for] the war or is the tax money used for the purpose of human lives?” Moiwend said many people across the world loved peace and justice, so they were anti-military and war. Stopping governments funding military training was a must for activists. Moiwend, a strong Melanesian and Pacific woman, gave an inspiring message to activists around the world to stand up firmly and speak out about the arms business that was violating human rights and killing people everywhere, “including the lives of innocent West Papuans”. Sharing militarist experiences An organiser said a key objective of the webinar was to give an opportunity to lawyers, activists, and supporters of a Make West Papua Safe campaign to share their experiences of militarisation and militarised policing. Other speakers in the London-hosted webinar on Monday included Elijah Dacosta, a TAPOL campaigner; Yohanis Mambrassar, a lawyer for West Papuan human rights activists; Yones Douw, head of the justice and peace department of the Papua Kemah Gospel Church; author and researcher Jason MacLeod, co-founder of Make West Papua Safe; and Zelda Grimshaw, a Make West Papua Safe campaigner. TAPOL (Tahanan Politik) is a British-based organisation campaigning for human rights and democracy in Indonesia. “TAPOL was founded in 1973, and in the beginning the TAPOL campaign was focusing on releasing political prisoners in Indonesia,” said Dakosta. But later the seriousness of military occupation became increasingly important. “We have expanded to raise awareness on human rights issue in Aceh, East Timor and West Papua,” said Dakosta. Make West Papua SafeThe Make West Papua Safe logo … campaign against Indonesian militarism. Image: PMC screenshot Yohanes Mambrasar, a West Papuan lawyer gave an illuminating description on what has been happening over human rights violence by state institutions towards indigenous people of West Papua. “There has been increasing repression. We are seeing violent actions by the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) and police against unarmed peaceful civilians who are gathering to express their political aspirations. We can really see this increasing year by year, even month by month,” said Mambrassar. Human rights advocacy Mambrassar who has been working on human rights advocacy said that during 2019 and 2020 “we are seeing this crackdown on protesting West Papuans.” But they were also seeing a lot of violence towards villagers, who were suspected of supporting independence or having “separatist sympathies”, such as in Nduga, Intan Jaya, and other regions. He said the violence was now extended to the virtual world where some people who disseminated information on social media such as Facebook and YouTube would face cyber-attacks. They were even physically attacked by the police or armed forces. RNZ Pacific reports that Indonesian military denied shooting civilians in Papua. Papua’s police chief said that reports of a new military operation in the troubled Nduga regency were a “hoax”. Yones DouwChurch advocate Yones Douw … “right through until today the violence has continued.” Image: PMC screenshot However, Yones Douw, head of the justice and peace department of KIMI church (West Papua Kemah Gospel Church), said that violence had never stopped since Indonesia had occupied West Papua. “Really the violence has not changed since 1961 to 1969, 1969 to 2020, and 2020, when special autonomy was declared here in West Papua – right through until today the violence has continued,” said Douw. Douw, a human rights activist, said that when special autonomy was introduced, Jakarta said that West Papuans would be 90 percent independent. Promises ‘only words’ He said this was “only words – in fact, we have been seeing increasing violence”. “So, if special autonomy went the way it was supposed to, West Papuan people should be protected and cared for. But that has not happened at all,” Douw said. “Why is [the violence] increasing like this? Well, if you find a pastor who is speaking about the suffering of his congregation, he will be called a separatist. Anyone who speaks about human rights will be called as separatist, anyone who speaks about the welfare of Papuan people will be labelled as separatist,” he said. He said that the Indonesian laws granting freedom of expression did not hold in West Papua. Even journalists, human rights activists, and some church leaders could not work without feeling a sense of fear. “These are school students who are being shot, these are student who are walking around their own villages and without even any question they are being shot. “Imagine what it is like if you are an older person, there is just no freedom at all to move,” said Douw. Jason MacLeodAuthor Jason MacLeod … responding to students’ “go to hell” message to the Australian and New Zealand governments. Image: PMC screen shot Stopping foreign support Jason MacLeod, co-founder of Make West Papua Safe, said he had collaborated with New Zealand activist Maire Leadbeater and Rosa Moiwend in launching this campaign. The campaign was “to stop foreign government support for the Indonesian police and military,” said MacLeod. He said it was a peaceful movement seeking to stop New Zealand and Australian government funding and training for the Indonesian police and military which every day brutally repressed the indigenous people of West Papua. Brisbane-based MacLeod, who has been working on West Papua issues for the last 30 years, said the motivation behind the founding of the Make West Papua Safe campaign was in response to students speaking out in Jayapura. Asked what they had thought about the New Zealand and Australian governments’ help for the Indonesian military, the students replied that both governments “can go to hell”, said MacLeod. The activists, lawyers, and human rights defenders called on the people in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, the Pacific, Africa, Caribbean, Europe and Asia to raise their voices support of stopping military oppression in West Papua. Contributed by a postgraduate communication studies student at Auckland University of Technology.
    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Social Media Under Pressure Part I: Trump Lashes out at Twitter

    Rhetorically framed as defense of free speech, the President’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, is exactly the opposite: an attempt to intimidate social media platforms into yielding to the president’s views of what speech should be allowed online. While we agree that social media platforms “function in many ways as a 21st-century equivalent of […]

    The post Social Media Under Pressure Part I: Trump Lashes out at Twitter appeared first on National Coalition Against Censorship.

    This post was originally published on Blog – National Coalition Against Censorship.

  • Social Media Under Pressure Part II: Protests, Polarization, and Social Media Regulation

    As misinformation proliferates, protests escalate, and the 2020 U.S. presidential election looms, how much should social media companies regulate the content on their platforms? Rules and regulations are changing as social media giants are figuring out how to wield their unprecedented power over information. As an organization committed to free expression, we welcome efforts to […]

    The post Social Media Under Pressure Part II: Protests, Polarization, and Social Media Regulation appeared first on National Coalition Against Censorship.

    This post was originally published on Blog – National Coalition Against Censorship.

  • Harpooned by Facebook

    As smart devices become a bigger and bigger part of our lives, we look at how Facebook and other companies gather information about their users and turn it into profits. 

    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Pizzagate: A Slice of Fake News (Rebroadcast)

    A journey into the world of right-wing Twitter trolls, pro-Trump political operatives and fake-news profiteers from St. Louis to Macedonia, to answer one big question: How did America become a post-truth country?

    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Tumblr Adult Content Ban Will Chill Free Expression Online

    On December 17th, Tumblr permanently banned adult content from its platform. Under the new community guidelines, any image that depicts sex acts, real-life human genitalia, or (with a few exceptions) female nipples will be hidden from public view. Despite the company’s claims, the new guidelines will not create a “better, more positive” Tumblr.

    The post Tumblr Adult Content Ban Will Chill Free Expression Online appeared first on National Coalition Against Censorship.

    This post was originally published on Blog – National Coalition Against Censorship.

  • Alex Jones And Online Content Regulation

    Removals of Alex Jones’s content from online platforms raise questions about content regulation, censorship and who chooses what we can see, and shine a harsh light on the challenges tech companies face in applying their own content guidelines.

    The post Alex Jones And Online Content Regulation appeared first on National Coalition Against Censorship.

    This post was originally published on Blog – National Coalition Against Censorship.

  • The kids aren’t all right (rebroadcast)

    Federal law requires colleges and universities to track and disclose sexual assaults on campus. It’s different for kindergarten through 12th grade, where there are no similar requirements for cases involving assaults between students. In elementary, middle and high schools across the U.S., the Associated Press found a shocking level of sexual violence among students. The AP also uncovered a new dimension to the problem – on U.S. military bases.  

    On this episode of Reveal, we delve into results from the AP’s continuing investigation.

    —

    Head over to revealnews.org for more of our reporting.

    Follow us on Facebook at fb.com/ThisIsReveal and on Twitter @reveal.

    And to see some of what you’re hearing, we’re also on Instagram @revealnews.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Pizzagate: A slice of fake news

    On this episode of Reveal, we look at #Pizzagate. This story takes us into the world of right-wing Twitter trolls, pro-Trump political operatives and fake-news profiteers from St. Louis to Macedonia. Reveal unravels how this conspiracy theory spread and tries to answer one big question: How did America become a post-truth country?

    —

    To explore more reporting, visit revealnews.org or find us on fb.com/ThisIsReveal, Twitter @reveal or Instagram @revealnews.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.