Former US President Barack Obama has taken to social media to praise Harvard’s decision to stand up for academic freedom by rebuffing the Trump administration’s demands.
“Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions — rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect,” Obama wrote in a post on X.
He called on other universities to follow the lead.
Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and… https://t.co/gAu9UUqgjF
Harvard will not comply with the Trump administration’s demands to dismantle its diversity programming, limit student protests over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, and submit to far-reaching federal audits in exchange for its federal funding, university president Alan M. Garber ’76 announced yesterday afternoon.
“No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” he wrote, reports the university’s Harvard Crimson news team.
The announcement comes two weeks after three federal agencies announced a review into roughly $9 billion in Harvard’s federal funding and days after the Trump administration sent its initial demands, which included dismantling diversity programming, banning masks, and committing to “full cooperation” with the Department of Homeland Security.
Within hours of the announcement to reject the White House demands, the Trump administration paused $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts to Harvard in a dramatic escalation in its crusade against the university.
More focused demands
On Friday, the Trump administration had delivered a longer and more focused set of demands than the ones they had shared two weeks earlier.
It asked Harvard to “derecognise” pro-Palestine student groups, audit its academic programmes for viewpoint diversity, and expel students involved in an altercation at a 2023 pro-Palestine protest on the Harvard Business School campus.
It also asked Harvard to reform its admissions process for international students to screen for students “supportive of terrorism and anti-Semitism” — and immediately report international students to federal authorities if they break university conduct policies.
It called for “reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship” and installing leaders committed to carrying out the administration’s demands.
And it asked the university to submit quarterly updates, beginning in June 2025, certifying its compliance.
Garber condemned the demands, calling them a “political ploy” disguised as an effort to address antisemitism on campus.
“It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” he wrote.
“Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
The Harvard Crimson daily news, founded in 1873 . . . how it reported the universoity’s defiance of the Trump administration today. Image: HC screenshot APR
Legal experts and Māori advocates say the fight to protect Te Tiriti is only just beginning — as the controversial Treaty Principles Bill is officially killed in Parliament.
Social media posts by lawyer Riana Te Ngahue (Ngāti Porou), explaining some of the complexities involved in issues such as the Treaty Principles Bill, have been popular. Image: RNZ/Layla Bailey-McDowell
Riana Te Ngahue, a young Māori lawyer whose bite-sized breakdowns of complex issues — like the Treaty Principles Bill — went viral on social media, said she was glad the bill was finally gone.
“It’s just frustrating that we’ve had to put so much time and energy into something that’s such a huge waste of time and money. I’m glad it’s over, but also disappointed because there are so many other harmful bills coming through — in the environment space, Oranga Tamariki, and others.”
Most New Zealanders not divided Te Ngahue said the Justice Committee’s report — which showed 90 percent of submitters opposed the bill, 8 percent supported it, and 2 percent were unstated in their position — proved that most New Zealanders did not feel divided about Te Tiriti.
“If David Seymour was right in saying that New Zealanders feel divided about this issue, then we would’ve seen significantly more submissions supporting his bill.
“He seemed pretty delusional to keep pushing the idea that New Zealanders were behind him, because if that was true, he would’ve got a lot more support.”
However, Te Ngahue said it was “wicked” to see such overwhelming opposition.
“Especially because I know for a lot of people, this was their first time ever submitting on a bill. That’s what I think is really exciting.”
She said it was humbling to know her content helped people feel confident enough to participate in the process.
“I really didn’t expect that many people to watch my video, let alone actually find it helpful. I’m still blown away by people who say they only submitted because of it — that it showed them how.”
Te Ngahue said while the bill was made to be divisive there had been “a huge silver lining”.
“Because a lot of people have actually made the effort to get clued up on the Treaty of Waitangi, whereas before they might not have bothered because, you know, nothing was really that in your face about it.”
“There’s a big wave of people going ‘I actually wanna get clued up on [Te Tiriti],’ which is really cool.”
‘Fight isn’t over’ Māori lawyer Tania Waikato, whose own journey into social media advocacy empowered many first-time submitters, said she was in an “excited and celebratory” mood.
“We all had a bit of a crappy summer holiday because of the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill both being released for consultation at the same time. A lot of us were trying to fit advocacy around summer holidays and looking after our tamariki, so this feels like a nice payoff for all the hard mahi that went in.”
Tania Waikato, who has more than 20 years of legal experience, launched a petition calling for the government to cancel Compass Group’s school lunch contract and reinstate its contract with local providers. Image: Tania Waikato/RNZ
She said the “overwhelming opposition” sent a powerful message.
“I think it’s a clear message that Aotearoa as a whole sees Te Tiriti as part of this country’s constitutional foundation. You can’t just come in and change that on a whim, like David Seymour and the ACT Party have tried to do.
“Ninety percent of people who got off their butt and made a submission have clearly rejected the divisive and racist rhetoric that party has pushed.”
Despite the win, she said the fight was far from over.
“If anything, this is really just beginning. We’ve got the Regulatory Standards Bill that’s going to be introduced at some point before June. That particular bill will do what the Treaty Principle’s Bill was aiming to do, but in a different and just more sneaky way.
‘The next fight’
“So for me, that’s definitely the next fight that we all gotta get up for again.”
Waikato, who also launched a petition in March calling for the free school lunch programme contract to be overhauled, said allowing the Treaty Principles Bill to get this far in the first place was a “waste of time and money.”
“Its an absolutely atrocious waste of taxpayers dollars, especially when we’ve got issues like the school lunches that I am advocating for on the other side.”
“So for me, the fight’s far from over. It’s really just getting started.”
ACT leader David Seymour on Thursday after his bill was voted down in Parliament. Image: RNZ/Russell Palmer
ACT Party leader David Seymour continued to defend the Treaty Principles Bill during its second reading on Thursday, and said the debate over the treaty’s principles was far from over.
After being the only party to vote in favour of the bill, Seymour said not a single statement had grappled with the content of the bill — despite all the debate.
Asked if his party had lost in this nationwide conversation, he said they still had not heard a good argument against it.
‘We’ll never give up on equal rights.”
He said there were lots of options for continuing, and the party’s approach would be made clear before the next election
Kassie Hartendorp said Te Tiriti Action Group Pōneke operates under the korowai – the cloak – of mana whenua and their tikanga in this area, which is called Te Kahu o Te Raukura, a cloak of aroha and peace. Image: RNZ
Eyes on local elections – ActionStation says the mahi continues Community advocacy group ActionStation’s director Kassie Hartendorp, who helped spearhead campaigns like “Together for Te Tiriti”, said her team was feeling really positive.
“It’s been a lot of work to get to this point, but we feel like this is a very good day for our country.”
At the end of the hīkoi mō Te Tiriti, ActionStation co-delivered a Ngāti Whakaue rangatahi led petition opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, with more than 290,000 signatures — the second largest petition in Aotearoa’s history.
They also hosted a live watch party for the bill’s second reading on Facebook, joined by Te Tiriti experts Dr Carwyn Jones and Tania Waikato.
Hartendorp said it was amazing to see people from all over Aotearoa coming together to reject the bill.
“It’s no longer a minority view that we should respect, but more and more and more people realise that it’s a fundamental part of our national identity that should be respected and not trampled every time a government wants to win power,” she said.
Looking to the future, Hartendorp said Thursday’s victory was only one milestone in a longer campaign.
Why people fought back
“There was a future where this bill hadn’t gone down — this could’ve ended very differently. The reason we’re here now is because people fought back.
“People from all backgrounds and ages said: ‘We respect Te Tiriti o Waitangi.’
“We know it’s essential, it’s a part of our history, our past, our present, and our future. And we want to respect that together.”
Hartendorp said they were now gearing up to fight against essentially another version of the Treaty Principles Bill — but on a local level.
“In October, people in 42 councils around the country will vote on whether or not to keep their Māori ward councillors, and we think this is going to be a really big deal.”
The Regulatory Standards Bill is also being closely watched, Hartendorp said, and she believed it could mirror the “divisive tactics” seen with the Treaty Principles Bill.
“Part of the strategy for David Seymour and the ACT Party was to win over the public mandate by saying the public stands against Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That debate is still on,” she said.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Autonomous Bougainville Government President Ishmael Toroama has condemned the circulation of an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated video depicting a physical confrontation between him and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape.
The clip, first shared on Facebook last week, is generated from the above picture of Toroama and Marape taken at a news conference in September 2024, where the two leaders announced the appointment of former New Zealand Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae as the independent moderator for the Bougainville peace talks.
It shows Toroama punching Marape from a sitting position as both fall down. The post has amassed almost 190,000 views on Facebook and more than 360 comments.
In a statement today, President Toroama said such content could have a negative impact on Bougainville’s efforts toward independence.
He said the “reckless misuse of artificial intelligence and social media platforms has the potential to damage the hard-earned trust and mutual respect” between the two nations.
“This video is not only false and malicious — it is dangerous,” the ABG leader said.
“It threatens to undermine the ongoing spirit of dialogue, peace, and cooperation that both our governments have worked tirelessly to build.”
Toroama calls for identifying of source
Toroama wants the National Information and Communications Technology Authority (NICTA) of PNG to find the source of the video.
He said that while freedom of expression was a democratic value, it was also a privilege that carried responsibilities.
He said freedom of expression should not be twisted through misinformation.
“These freedoms must be exercised with respect for the truth. Misusing AI tools to spread falsehoods not only discredits individuals but can destabilise entire communities.”
He has urged the content creators to reflect on the ethical implications of their digital actions.
Toroama also called on social media platforms and regulatory bodies to play a bigger role in stopping the spread of misleading AI-generated content.
“As we move further into the digital age, we must develop a collective moral compass to guide the use of powerful technologies like artificial intelligence,” he said.
“Truth must remain the foundation of all communication, both online and offline.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Now that Phil Goff has ended his term as New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, he is officially free to speak his mind on the damage he believes the Trump Administration is doing to the world. He has started with these comments he made on the betrayal of Ukraine by the new Administration.
By Phil Goff
Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.
As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.
I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.
Phil Goff speaking as Auckland’s mayor in 2017 on the nuclear world 30 years on . . . on the right side of history. Image: Pacific Media Centre
Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.
Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?
That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.
It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.
Withdrew satellite imaging
It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.
Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.
Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.
Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.
As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.
They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.
The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.
Silence condoning Trump
By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.
The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.
Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.
Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.
As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.
A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.
Question central to validity, ethics
“The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.
The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.
The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.
Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.
They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.
In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.
We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.
Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.
In the second of two episodes on Elon Musk, Matt and Sam examine key moments in the billionaire’s political derangement, his purchase of Twitter, and his role in Trump’s second term.
The Papua New Guinea government has admitted to using a technology that it says was “successfully tested” to block social media platforms, particularly Facebook, for much of the day yesterday.
Police Minister Peter Tsiamalili Jr said the “test” was done under the framework of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2024, and sought to address the growing concerns over hate speech, misinformation, and other harmful content online.
Tsiamalili did not specify what kind of tech was used, but said it was carried out in collaboration with the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC), the National Information and Communications Technology Authority (NICTA), and various internet service providers.
“We are not attempting to suppress free speech or restrict our citizens from expressing their viewpoints,” Tsiamalili said.
“However, the unchecked proliferation of fake news, hate speech, pornography, child exploitation, and incitement to violence on platforms such as Facebook is unacceptable.
“These challenges increasingly threaten the safety, dignity, and well-being of our populace.”
However, government agencies responsible for communications and ICT, including NICTA, said they were not aware.
‘Confidence relies on transparency’
“Public confidence in our digital governance relies on transparency and consistency in how we approach online regulation,” NICTA chief executive Kilakupa Gulo-Vui said.
“It is essential that all key stakeholders, including NICTA, law enforcement, telecommunications providers, and government agencies, collaborate closely to ensure that any actions taken are well-understood and properly executed.”
He said that while maintaining national security was a priority, the balance between safety and digital freedom must be carefully managed.
Gulo-Vui said NICTA would be addressing this matter with the Minister for ICT to ensure NICTA’s role continued to align with the government’s broader policy objectives, while fostering a cohesive and united approach to digital regulation.
The Department of Information Communication and Technology (DICT) Secretary, Steven Matainaho, also stated his department was not aware of the test but added that the police have powers under the new domestic terrorism laws.
Papua New Guinea’s recently introduced anti-terror laws are aimed at curbing both internal and external security threats.
Critics warn of dictatorial control
However, critics of the move say the test borders on dictatorial control.
An observer of Monday’s events, Lucas Kiap, said the goal of combating hate speech and exploitation was commendable, but the approach risks paving way for authoritarian overreach.
“Where is PNG headed? If the government continues down this path, it risks trading democracy for control,” he said.
Many social media users, however, appeared to outdo the government, with many downloading and sharing Virtual Area Network (VPN) apps and continuing to post on Facebook.
“Hello from Poland,” one user said.
East Sepik Governor Allan Bird said today that the country’s anti-terrorism law could target anyone because “the definition of a terrorist is left to the Police Minister to decide”.
‘Designed to take away our freedoms’
“During the debate on the anti-terrorism bill in Parliament, I pointed out that the law was too broad and it could be used against innocent people,” he wrote on Facebook.
He said government MPs laughed at him and used their numbers to pass the bill.
“Yesterday, the Police Minister used the Anti-terrorism Act to shut down Facebook. That was just a test, that was step one,” Governor Bird said.
“There is no limit to the powers the Minister of Police can exercise under this new law. It is draconian law designed to take away our freedoms.
“We are now heading into dangerous territory and everyone is powerless to stop this tyranny,” he added.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Staggering levels of online misogyny is driving young people, particularly women, away from social media. This is according to new polling commissioned by Amnesty International UK and carried out by Savanta. Through the testimony of more than 3,000 Gen Z respondents, the findings paint a damning picture of the misogyny plaguing spaces meant for creativity and connection.
It underscores the urgent need for tech platforms to overhaul their policies and take concrete steps toward ensuring safer digital communities.
Toxic tech: social media rife with misogyny
The polling, Toxic Tech: How Misogyny is Shaping Gen Z’s Online Experience is taken from the testimony of 3,024 Gen Z respondents from a nationally representative sample of the UK population.
An overwhelming 73% of Gen Z social media users have witnessed misogynistic content online, with half encountering it on a weekly basis. Moreover, the problem is only getting worse. The polling found that 70% believe misogynistic and divisive language has increased on social media.
Alarmingly, 55% expressed concerns about seeing misogynistic content. On top of this, less than half (49%) feel that social media is a safe space.
The polling also uncovers the shocking forms of online harassment faced by Gen Z women, including:
More than half (53%) receiving inappropriate emojis (e.g., ) on their posts and photos
44% receiving unsolicited explicit images
43% being body-shamed
40% subjected to unwanted sexually suggestive comments
32% experiencing hate speech
27% reporting online stalking
TikTok: the worst offender
Among social media platforms, TikTok is seen as the worst offender. Specifically, 70% of respondents reported encountering misogynistic content on TikTok, rising to 80% for women. Instagram followed at 61%, then Twitter/X with 37%, YouTube 31%, and Facebook 30%.
One young person said:
As a woman it’s something women experience everyday. I no longer post on social media due to the constant hate and negativity. Even seeing the comments/hate directed towards somebody else is soul destroying.
Another Gen Z respondent said:
It’s so ingrained in society, that many people don’t recognise it when it’s happening – which is sad. The hatred of women is everywhere and dictates the way men behave online.
Marginalised groups and intersectional risks
Disabled Gen Z women are twice as likely as non-disabled women to spend more than ten hours a day on social media (11% vs 6%)
Three in ten disabled women 29% who have experienced online misogyny, reported that they had received threats of violence online. By comparison, this was the case for one in five of non-disabled people (18%).
Racially minoritised Gen Z women who have experienced online misogyny, are more likely to have experienced hate speech than their white counterparts (38 vs 31%).
The mental health toll and coping strategies
Online misogyny is having a severe impact on mental health:
55% of those who have experienced online misogyny have blocked users in response to abusive content.
44% of Gen Z women who had experienced online misogyny in the UK report negative mental health impacts from exposure to misogynistic content.
35% have switched their accounts to private.
30% have taken screenshots as evidence of abuse received
22% avoid posting certain types of content.
20% have avoided or left platforms altogether.
The polling identified that 62% of Gen Z believe misogyny on social media mirrors real-world sexism. However, there’s a significant gender split on this belief with Gen Z women (71%) more likely to agree than Gen Z men (51%).
One Gen Z man said:
Anything online is a joke and people who cry about others rage baiting need a helmet.
Another Gen Z man said:
It isn’t that deep. It’s all a laugh.
Whereas a Gen Z woman said:
Online misogyny often reflects real life attitudes, it shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Who Gen Z think is fuelling the problem
Over 60% of Gen Z attributed the rise in misogynistic language online to statements or actions by political leaders.
Meanwhile, 55% believed TikTok actively contributes to the problem. Notably, 61% of Gen Z women specifically pointed to the platform’s role in fuelling online misogyny.
Public figures and influencers were also cited as driving divisive narratives, from a list of high-profile social media users:
Men most frequently named Andrew Tate (50%) as a key source of online misogyny
Women pointed to Donald Trump (58%) as a major contributor
61% believe the rhetoric and actions of political leaders is fueling online toxicity
47% blame statements and actions by tech leaders for worsening the problem
In the last month, 57% of Gen Z men have reported they’ve seen content from Musk, 55% from Trump, and 41% from Andrew Tate.
More women than men had seen content from Donald Trump (60% against 55%)
What needs to change?
Gen Z is demanding urgent action from social media platforms and policymakers.
The polling found that 65% believe tech leaders have a responsibility to combat online misogyny, with concrete measures such as:
Harsher penalties for offenders (39%)
Stronger reporting and blocking features (37%)
Stronger content moderation and quicker removal of misogynistic content (33%)
Tougher rules and consequences (30%)
However, as well as pointing to the role of tech giants, 54% of Gen Z (and 46% of Gen Z men) think all men have either a lot, or full responsibility for addressing misogyny on social media.
Time for action from Big Tech
Recent changes in content moderation policies on Meta and X have sparked concerns that key safeguards against hate speech and abuse are being dismantled. In a bid to champion unfettered expression, these platforms have relaxed rules that once limited harmful content, creating an environment where abusive rhetoric can proliferate. This shift raises pressing questions about the balance between free speech and protecting users from online harm.
In the case of TikTok despite having robust policies in place, enforcement remains inconsistent. TikTok’s algorithm, for instance, can inadvertently amplify harmful narratives, exposing a predominantly young audience to misogynistic content.
These failures not only compromise user safety but also contribute to a normalisation of misogyny in digital spaces, leaving many women vulnerable to abuse.
Amnesty is calling on social media companies to take urgent action to address the epidemic of online misogyny by:
Strengthening content moderation policies to swiftly remove misogynistic content.
Implementing more robust reporting mechanisms for victims of online abuse.
Holding offenders accountable through enforcing meaningful penalties.
Increasing transparency on platform efforts to curb harmful content.
Online misogyny ‘does real world harm’
Amnesty International UK’s Gender Justice Programme director Chiara Capraro said:
This polling paints a deeply troubling picture of the digital world young people are forced to navigate.
Tech companies continue to prioritise profit over people’s safety and the result is a barrage of misogynistic content which deeply affects young people’s online experience. A toxic ‘bro’ culture is driving many young women away from social media altogether.
Gen Z are being inundated by a deluge of online misogyny, and these findings should be a stark wake-up call for tech leaders, who have either ignored the abuse their users are experiencing or, in some cases, actively contributed to letting it rip.
Social media should be a space for creativity, expression, and connection—not a hostile environment rife with harassment and hate. It’s time for tech companies to step up and take responsibility for the safety of their users. Women’s rights are human rights and online misogyny does real world harm.
She added:
A toxic ‘bro’ culture is driving many young women away from social media altogether.
Empowering change through music and community
Despite the toxic environment, 40% of women said they have found support from other women through social media, and 36% of those who had found support in this way felt empowered to speak out more as a result.
This underscores the resilience of online communities that push back against hate and create safer spaces.
To spark dialogue and drive meaningful action, on Thursday 20 March, Amnesty International UK hosted an event. Mahalia Presents: Change the Record was a collaboration between acclaimed R&B singer Mahalia and Amnesty. Mahalia personally curated this one-of-a-kind event which featured some of the most exciting artists in the UK using their artistry to highlight that women’s rights are human rights and inspire audiences to stand together for change.
Speaking of her own experience and involvement, Mahalia said:
As an artist and as a woman, I see first-hand the ways misogyny plays out online. Like many women, I regularly get unwanted comments on my appearance, and I see vulgar name calling and attempts to silence and intimidate women just being themselves.
Social media should be a place where we lift each other up, not a space that forces women to shrink themselves or hide.
This research is a wake-up call—but more importantly, it’s a call to action. Women’s rights are human rights, and I stand with Amnesty in demanding we change the record.
Amnesty is encouraging young people to stand up to misogyny whenever they encounter it and to help #changetherecord on misogyny.
There is much talk in this age of heaving tech behemoths about the digital town square, where views can be aired with confidence, impunity and, at stages, disconcerting stupidity. Tech moguls such as Elon Musk are the loudest proponents of the view, claiming that “it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital square”.
The guardians of this square are, however, a fickle lot, managing the distribution of licenses (they can cancel them at any point, just as quickly as they can reinstate them – take Donald Trump as an example). They can also overtly make attempts to blacklist and blacken material that exposes their various practices.
An example of the latter can be found in the response to Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism, a work by Sarah Wynn-Williams who oversaw the linking of Meta’s executives with relevant leaders as director of global public policy. The portrait of Meta that emerges is disturbing, as have been the company’s efforts to silence Wynn-Williams, who has registered as a whistleblower with the US Securities and Exchanges Commission.
According to Flatiron Books, the book provides “a deeply personal account of why and how things have gone so horribly wrong in the past decade – told in a sharp, candid and utterly disarming voice.” The company also bluntly notes that Careless People “reveals the truth about the executives Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and Joel Kaplan as callously indifferent to the price others would pay for their own enrichment.”
The book savages Meta with claims of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour, Facebook’s role in fanning hateful speech against the Rohingya in Myanmar and efforts to placate China in its to penetrate that market.
Some of the material discussed in the book is covered terrain, the work being more a case of unsettling memoir than investigative inquiry. Wynn-Williams, however, makes the point that the executives were brazenly indifferent to the social consequences of company actions. By way of example, she produces documents revealing instructions from Meta to the Chinese government on AI and face recognition, with the requisite strategy to cope with a leaking of such tactics.
The personal dimension, however, is paramount: accounts of Sandberg’s insistence they share a bed mid-air, and the claim that produced a failed sexual harassment action against Kaplan, who allegedly grinded against her while dad dancing at a corporate function. Steven Levy, editor at large at Wired, notes these events and suggests that Wynn-Williams, while not unreliable, is likely to have succumbed to some embellishment. In doing so, she naturally excuses her own prominent role in the company, to which, for all her objections, she remained complicit in. In a true sense, she had been an initial convert keen to proselytise the merits of Facebook before becoming a critic of Zuckerberg’s project which delivered “a crap version of the internet to two-thirds of the world”.
In a bristling statement, Meta claims that the publication “is a mix of out-of-date and previously reported claims about the company and false accusations about our executives.” They insist that the author “was fired for poor performance and toxic behaviour” with an investigation finding the making of “misleading and unfounded allegations of harassment.”
The effort to stifle the author culminated in Meta seeking an award from the Emergency International Arbitral Tribunal on March 7 in reliance on a non-disparagement agreement supposedly signed by the author. The arbitrator, Nicholas Gowen, duly found for Meta, enjoining Wynn-Williams, along with people or entities “for which she controls” from making “disparaging, critical or otherwise detrimental comments” about the company, its employees, products and programs. He also ordered that promotion of the book on a book tour cease, along with its further publication or distribution, along with a retraction of the relevant “disparaging, critical or otherwise detrimental comments”. Were emergency relief not granted, the company would suffer “immediate and irreparable loss”.
This all seems, not merely disproportionate but childishly vindictive, the latter a characteristic that seems to mark emotionally stunted Big Tech oligarchs trapped in their digital ivory towers. Meta has been a company disparaged, reviled, mocked and fined, so nothing discussed in Careless People will change an already sullied image. It is hard to imagine any immediate or irreparable loss arising in any event.
Wynn-Williams refused to appear in the proceeding and shows no signs of refraining from the promotion of the work. Macmillan has also confirmed that the arbitration order will have no influence on its decisions. “However,” the publishing house responded, “we are appalled by Meta’s tactics to silence our author through the use of a non-disparagement clause in a severance agreement.”
Appalled as Macmillan might be, Meta’s effort has singularly failed to have its intended effect. Joanna Prior, CEO of Pan Macmillan, revealed that 1,000 hardbacks of the book were sold in the first three days on sale in the UK. The book is being widely discussed by the curious and the prurient.
While Meta has suppressed and will prevent discussion of the book on its platforms, it is cheering to authentic defenders of the town square that discussion about such companies takes place. Their mighty, unprincipled dominance necessitates that.
Gareth Southgate might not have had a series of dazzling victories or a collection of gleaming silver trophies to hold up to the skies.
But one thing is for certain, he is one of the greatest managers that England has ever had, with his ability to unify and build a team environment that represented the very best of us as a country, during some of our hardest moments.
Gareth Southgate’s timely speech calls out misogynistic men
In the wake of Netflix’s hit show Adolescence, Gareth Southgate gave a profoundly timely speech which was centred around the themes of “toxic masculinity”, men’s addiction and exposure to porn, gambling and misogynistic content, and an increasing absence of father figures.
He believes that this is having a hugely negative impact upon men who are desperately in need of role models to whom they can look up to and seek encouragement from.
In charge of the England football team for eight years, Southgate led the Lions to two finals in both Euro 2020 and 2024, and oversaw a group of players who worked together, laughed together, and cried many tears together.
Through it all, Southgate was a shoulder to cry on, a father figure and a football coach all in one, and someone that will be remembered for his patience, kindness and statesmanship.
This level of empathy shone through during his speech and is something that is hugely lacking in today’s society.
Sports can empower young men in a positive way
Men are instead radicalised by callous people like Andrew Tate, who believe that an alpha male is someone that invests in crypto, treats women like property, possesses a six pack, and owns countless material items.
This arguably only leads men to perceiving themselves as catastrophic failures, when really, they are just normal men who are trying to survive in a climate that deems them as weak if they don’t adhere to these warped standards that Tate sets out for them.
Southgate on the other hand, offers something completely different, and suggests that participating in a hobby such as sports, is an avenue that is far more empowering than being glued to a phone that sits neatly in the palm of your hand like a parasitic leech.
This poison, that has taken over society like a menacing and calculated criminal, is the smartphone, a device that young people are often taken prisoner of for fourteen hours a day, wreaking havoc on relationships, health, and wellbeing.
With just one touch, men can access porn, obsessively game and gamble to their hearts content, getting into crippling debt, and as a result, feel completely cut off and alienated from the rest of the world.
Perhaps the most heartbreaking element of his lecture was his focus upon young men who are suffering from poor mental health due to the Andrew Tate rhetoric that men should:
not show emotion and never show weakness.
As a result of this, more and more men are turning to their phone, rather than the people who really love and care about them such as their friends, family, teachers, bosses and coaches:
Young men end up withdrawing, reluctant to talk, or express their emotions.
Young men ‘fail to try, rather than try and fail’ due to Tate-like figures
Southgate, a man who has been faced with multiple setbacks and failures in his life, suggests that failure is the only way young men ever learn to grow a sense of resilience and strength, and as a result, become better versions of themselves.
In the lecture, he reflected on his crucial missed penalty at the Euros in 1996, and stated:
That pain still haunts me today, and I guess it always will.
Southgate said it was a “watershed moment” when he missed the goal, but ultimately this failure forced him to:
dig deep, and revealed an inner belief and resilience I never knew existed.
But he also added that currently young men fear failure because of how they will be viewed by society, and instead:
fail to try, rather than try and fail.
Firmly railing against Tate, and other figures like him, he said that:
we have to show young men that character is more important than status.
In this sense, Southgate offered words of solace for young men, who might not have missed a penalty, but will all, at some points have experienced failure and setbacks.
He encouraged men to not just view success through the lens of social media which bombards men with unrealistic and harmful content of people lifting trophies, winning fights, or driving beaming Lamborghinis and Ferraris out of car showrooms, and instead wants them to see success as:
how you respond in the hardest moments.
Gareth Southgate’s speech: a tonic against toxic masculinity
It’s no wonder therefore that young men feel lost, with more and more parents raising concerns about the fact that young men are clearly suffering and are:
grappling with their masculinity and with their broader place in society.
Speaking from his own experiences as England manager, he called on society to help create more leaders who can:
set the right tone and to be the role models we want for our young men.
To craft a society that is nurturing of young boys and men – often trapped in poverty or experiencing marginalisation – he proposed investing in schools, youth clubs, and family relationships that foster a true sense of connection and belonging.
Social media feeds are not validating men and are only pushing them further towards extremism where influencers consistently bombard them with content that pushes a certain narrative of what masculinity really looks like, which is an extremely insular view.
Southgate overall, makes a rallying call for there to be less monetisation of masculinity, less marketing figures, and less virulent algorithms.
It is no wonder, that in an ever-growing capitalist world that pushes gym bodies, videos of cash being thrown around by influencers like confetti, that marginalised young men feel failed, worthless, and indifferent to the world.
Instead of this, society should be striving towards a world where men feel valued beyond the realms of what capitalism constitutes as success and Southgate offers a welcome tonic to the current climate that we must listen to, before more young men are lost to dark voids that they can’t ever escape from.
Maria Ressa says rules-based order ‘can perhaps still exist’ but social media is being used to undermine democracy around the world
The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte is a welcome sign that the rules-based order continues to hold, the Nobel laureate Maria Ressa has said, even as the global order has been marred by the US “descending into hell” at the hands of the same forces that consumed the Philippines.
Ressa’s remarks came after Duterte, the former president of the Philippines, made his first appearance before the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, accused of committing crimes against humanity during his brutal “war on drugs”.
Airplanes with standing sections. An extra fee for boarding charged at airport terminals. Even smaller carry-on luggage allowances. These are a few of the features offered by Unfair Canada.
Since December, satirical ads for the fictional airline have popped up on Facebook and Instagram alongside anonymous, first-hand accounts of flight attendants stuck on planes for hours without pay.
The posts are part of the Air Canada flight attendants’ union’s campaign to put a spotlight on the hours of unpaid work expected of flight attendants as their union negotiates a new contract.
Exhaustion is a strategy. What looks like collective fatigue is actually the consequence of a carefully engineered mechanism designed to rob us of our power — our power to resist, to imagine, to protect each other and to create sustainable change. Burnout is many things, including an effective political tool for our oppressors. According to the American Psychological Association…
When Mark Zuckerberg terminated Meta’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs for hiring and training employees and procuring suppliers in January 2025, he forged “inroads with the incoming Trump administration,” abandoned Meta’s founding ethos of open innovation, and dramatically realigned how the tech giant will now do business, as critics like Bärí A. Williams, former lead counsel for…
At a recent conference, Andrew Feinstein spoke alongside other left-wing voices to answer the question “How does the left respond to the rise of the far right?” And he emphasised two key points. First, he stressed that strong “engagement with local communities” is key to building a popular mass movement. Secondly, he insisted that it’s essential to be rooted in a community and to work actively to support local people with the problems they’re facing.
Standing in solidarity with other independent left-wingers in the 2024 election, the anti-racist and anti-militarist campaigner challenged Labour Party leader Keir Starmer in his constituency, reducing Starmer’s majority significantly. And speaking on the panel at February’s Transform conference, he pointed out that having a main opponent as “extraordinarily dislikable” as Starmer really helped. A member of the community apparently told him when campaigning that Starmer “makes it easy for us” because “we don’t have to try and figure out when he’s lying, because every time his lips move, we know he’s lying”. He also explained how:
because Keir Starmer has been such an absent MP for almost 10 years now, people think I’m their MP. So if I’m going to the shops, people come up to me and want to tell me about their problems and ask me how I’m going to solve them for them.
As a result, he needs to clarify for them that:
our MP is actually the person who’s the prime minister and creating a lot of the problems they’re talking about
Andrew Feinstein: community engagement is the key
Andrew Feinstein has been supporting efforts to build a mass left-wing movement to fill the space Labour abandoned once and for all when Starmer took over as leader. And in order to build a movement, he stressed that people need to be enjoyably engaged. While connecting with people via independent media and social media plays a role, he stressed:
Nothing replaces the engagement with local communities.
However, he also asserted that:
we need to ensure that these community initiatives are linked to a national electoral party because there is obviously such logic to them. Because you challenge your council and, I would argue, your MP locally, but then you also in parallel challenge them electorally when the opportunity arises.
He added that, while planning strategies and policies carefully is often the focus when building a new movement, that means nothing if a strong community connection isn’t there:
People are going to see another party as, ‘Oh my goodness, it’s just the same old political stuff again’, whereas if you’re actually working in those communities and doing things for those communities, the perception of the entity that you rooted in our communities establish will be fundamentally different from the perception of the other political entities.
To resist the far right surge, we need to talk more ‘to people on the ground who don’t share our views’
Regarding the resurgence of the far right in the UK and elsewhere, Andrew Feinstein believes that talking to people is the best way we can fight back. He said:
the most important thing we can do is just talk to people on the ground—people who don’t share our views, people who believe that the Nigel Farages of this world are part of the solution rather than the problem.
And talk to them in very immediate terms about why the problems exist and why Farage, et al. are a part of the problem, not the solution.
He described one experience he had speaking to quite a right-wing group. Some people argued that Jews or Muslims controlled everything and that immigration is the country’s biggest problem. But he kept his calm. And he told them clearly that he himself was not only an immigrant, but also “Jewish and married to a Muslim woman”. He then added:
The reality is, we control nothing.
And it’s this kind of interaction he believes has an impact. As Andrew Feinstein asserted:
sometimes, you’ve just got to go to areas where you can just talk to people in a very immediate, person-to-person way and deal with some of the prejudices that have been built…
in our tens of thousands, we need to get out on the streets across this country and be talking to people about the realities of the situation we find ourselves in, the reasons for it, and what the solutions might be.
Build strong community roots and bring the left together nationally
Andrew Feinstein also issued a rallying call, saying:
People shouldn’t be downhearted. I think the fact that there are so many initiatives at the moment politically is brilliant.
I think what the next 6 to 8 weeks need to bring is how we bring together all of these various initiatives into a movement that is rooted in our communities but has massive impact electorally, locally, and nationally—because the country, and I would argue the world, has never needed it as badly as it does now.
Exclusive: Education department allows Sheikh Wesam Charkawi to return to Granville Boys high school, lawyer says, adding case highlights ‘ambiguity in what is required of public servants’
A support officer has returned to a western Sydney school after being ordered to work from home after he posted a video in response to the Bankstown hospital nurses footage, in which he criticised “selective outrage”.
Sheikh Wesam Charkawi, who works at Granville Boys high school, posted a video on his social media platforms on 16 February in which he spoke about the reaction to two New South Wales nurses who allegedly claimed in a social media video they wouldn’t treat Israelis and boasted of sending them to hell.
The September 2024 extra-legal murder of Dr. Shahnawaz Kumbhar exposed the lethal combination of blasphemy charges with improper policing practises in Pakistan. The incident reveals both human rights challenges that blasphemy accusation victims face and questions the proper role of law enforcement agencies regarding justice and human rights protection.
Background of Dr. Shahnawaz Kumbhar
The district of Umerkot in Sindh now associates its entire symbol with Dr. Shahnawaz Kambhar who suffered brutal murder despite being a resident. Religious fanatics murdered a doctor who remained innocent to his killers. Dr. Shahnawaz Kambhar distinguished himself as a community healthcare worker who received credit for his social activities and charitable activities in the field. His mission included organising free medical programs throughout Umerkot alongside neighbouring rural communities that offered free medical care to all patients. Through his lifetime he devoted himself to enhancing his impoverished residential belt despite the fact that he could have amassed considerable wealth in Karachi like numerous medical professionals do. Through his ongoing healthcare mission he placed greater emphasis on achieving better public health results in his local area.
The Blasphemy Allegation and Subsequent Dismissal
Dr. Kumbhar encountered the ordeal after a local mosque cleric claimed to discover blasphemous content on his social media account. His swift removal from medical service at the civil hospital in Umerkot happened after the accusation was made. When a person in Pakistan faces blasphemy accusations their situation turns into a dangerous sequence that causes harsh legal consequences while society reacts with violent crowds and possible unlawful acts against the accused. The announcement of such allegations against someone becomes an immediate vehicle for both reputation destruction and personal security risks.
Extrajudicial Killing and Fabricated Encounter
Dr. Kumbhar received arrest after the complaint against him. Officials showed him a fair trial but ultimately murdered him during a fake police confrontation. The first police statements stated Dr. Kumbhar died during a gunbattle but investigations showed he stayed under police detention throughout and officials deliberately created the encounter to legitimise his killing. The discovery shows an alarming trend where security forces perform unauthorised killings in highly sensitive cases regarding blasphemy incidents.
Investigations and Legal Proceedings
A complete investigation by the Sindh Human Rights Commission (SHRC) exposed both legal violations and administrative failures following the incident. An extensive investigation started by the Chief Minister of Sindh caused him to suspend multiple high-ranked police officers involved in the case. The legal authorities filed 45 individuals to court with murder and terrorism charges and violations of the Torture and Custodial Death Prevention Act 2022 against Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Javed Jiskani and Superintendent of Police (SSP) Asad Chaudhry. The non-bailable arrest warrants did not prevent multiple accused officers from evading arrest which demonstrated existing legal system failures to enforce responsibility upon influential officials.
Exhumation and Forensic Findings
The authorities obtained Dr. Kumbhar’s body for thorough autopsy procedures after exhuming him to find out what had happened. The forensic examination proved beyond doubt that Dr. Kumbhar had suffered from torture which the first autopsy report had completely failed to detect. The contradictory findings of the autopsy led authorities to arrest Dr. Muntazar Leghari who conducted the first autopsy thus leading to his charges for doctoring medical evidence to hide misconduct. This case element shows how medical and legal systems allow collusive actions between professionals that cause justice to be delayed while maintaining conditions of absolute freedom from prosecution.
Role of Social Media and Mob Violence
Per the SHRC report social media played an important part in worsening the situation. Social media users spread inflammatory content along with false information which triggered widespread public anger leading to violent mob activities. The death of Dr. Kumbhar triggered an enraged mob to seize his body afterwards leading them to use fire to defile it and they tried to bury it without proper funeral rituals as police made insufficient attempts at intervention. The instant consequences of improper social media usage emerged in public perception while demonstrating how dangerous such behaviour can be in delicate situations.
Wider Implications and Call for Reform
The medical professional’s case corresponds to a fundamental issue in the way Pakistan manages blasphemy charges. Multiple incidents registered by the Centre for Justice indicate how accusations of blasphemy have resulted in mistrials of justice that often end with extralegal killings. The established patterns demonstrate that it is essential to create thorough legal reforms that defend the basic rights of citizens and stop blasphemy law misuse.
Conclusion
The unlawful death of Dr. Shahnawaz Kumbhar provides evidence about the dangers facing people accused of blasphemy in Pakistan. Both current legal codes and law enforcement practices need to be evaluated immediately in order to make significant adjustments that will protect individual rights and uphold the rule of law.The absence of reform measures will allow violent and unjust practises to continue which will simultaneously endanger the rule of law and damage state institution credibility.
New York, February 14, 2025—The Nepalese government should withdraw a recently introduced social media bill that is expected to undermine press freedom, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.
“Nepal’s proposed social media law is ripe for misuse against journalists reporting on critical topics of public interest,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “Nepalese lawmakers should refuse to accept the proposed legislation unless it is significantly revised to protect the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.”
Nepal Minister of Communication and Information Technology Prithvi Subba Gurung presented the “Bill on the Operation, Use, and Regulation of Social Media” in the National Assembly, the federal parliament’s upper house, on February 9. Legislators can propose amendments before voting on the bill, which provides for hefty fines, license revocations for social media platforms, and prison sentences of up to five years for users.
The bill includes provisions prohibiting publishing or sharing posts with “false or misleading information” or “gruesome content” — measures that Santosh Sigdel, executive director of the non-profit Digital Rights Nepal, says would impose “an impractical onus on users.” It also bars the creation or use of anonymous profiles, which could restrict investigative journalists in particular.
Sigdel is also concerned that the proposed law could allow a government department to surveil journalists through its monitoring of social media content. The unnamed department “responsible for information technology” could also order social media platforms to remove content.
Sigdel told CPJ that the bill does not provide any exceptions for content posted by the media, contravening the rights to freedom of expression and press freedom as outlined under Articles 17 and 19 of the Nepal constitution. Social media platforms would be required to hand over user data to the government, contravening privacy rights under the constitution and the 2018 Privacy Act, he said.
Gurung said the bill “does not restrict people’s freedom of expression or press freedom.” The minister did not respond to CPJ’s calls and text messages requesting comment.
The Miss Pacific Islands Pageant (MPIP) Committee has finally issued a statement — 5 days after damaging social media attacks following the 2025 Pageant finals hosted by the Solomon Islands last Saturday.
The statement yesterday simply said the committee recognised and deeply regretted the distress caused by recent disputes concerning the result on the pageant night.
“Unfortunately, these allegations have escalated to the extent of subjecting contestants to degrading treatment and issuing threats against the lives of certain judges, thereby, detrimentally impacting the camaraderie and ethos of the pageant,” it said.
However, the statement did not address the judging controversy despite calls from around the Pacific for a proper investigation and to hold the person responsible for the false allegations of results rigging against the pageant’s head judge, Leiataualesa Jerry Brunt.
A former pageant organiser told Talamua that the statement had come “too late — too little, the damage has been done”.
The organiser said there were policies and regulations that must be followed to ensure the successful progress of the pageant and steps to be taken if such events like the allegations against a judge surfaced.
She told Talamua that the MPIP committee should have issued a statement within 24 hours of the allegations.
Opened the door to conflict
She believes that if MPIP had issued a statement earlier, it would have prevented the harsh attacks on the contestants and the head judge, but the delay had opened the door for the exchange between Samoans and Tongans on social media.
The statement did not offer an apology or reasons why a statement was not issued earlier.
It only gave an explanation on why such a pageant had been established and then acknowledged Miss Samoa Litara Ieremia Allan, the contestants, all involved in the pageant, and the host country.
According to the former pageant organiser, the MPIP seemed to take the stop notices issued on the pageant judges very lightly, which drew an unprecedented involvement of both the Solomon Islands and Samoan governments.
Although the detained judges have returned to their respectful countries, a statement from the Solomon Islands government issued yesterday said investigation was continuing based on the complaint and that formal charges would then be determined.
It should not have gone this far if the MPIP committee had done their part, said a former pageant organiser.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is seeking to hire a contractor as part of an effort to expand the monitoring of negative social media posts about the agency, its personnel, and operations, according to a report published Monday. According to The Intercept’s Sam Biddle, ICE is citing “an increase in threats” to agents and leadership as the reason for seeking a contractor to keep tabs…
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has fed data from the Department of Education into artificial intelligence (AI) software. At the same time, Musk has led a $94.7bn bid to purchase OpenAI – the previously non-profit company that developed Chat GPT.
The AI revolution is only viable as socialist
Musk already owns xAI, which he founded in March 2023. The billionaire has issued warm words on the future of the technology. Speaking via a conference in Paris in May 2024, Musk said:
If you want to do a job that’s kind of like a hobby, you can do a job. But otherwise, AI and the robots will provide any goods and services that you want.
This idea is progress. One’s purpose can be intellectual, social, creative, and comedic rather than working for the sake of it. Musk said the lack of a job would require a “universal high income” – otherwise known as a citizens dividend.
The thing is, this is the same guy that gave a Nazi salute at Donald Trump’s inauguration. He tried to establish plausible deniability around the salute through coupling it with saying “my heart goes out to you”, but the highly concerning stunt fooled basically no one except corporate media hacks. Celebrating Nazi ideals is the opposite to a socialist vision for the fourth industrial revolution.
Musk and xAi – corporate sanitising
As a ‘public benefit company’, Musk’s xAI is also a contradictory act of corporate sanitising. This type of corporation says it will “create public benefit” at the same time as saying that “the creation of public benefit is in the best interests of the Benefit Corporation”. So when these two ideals inevitably collide, which wins? Well, public benefit companies have no cap on return profits.
Indeed, xAI released Grok-2 in August 2024 – an AI service that can generate image as well as text responses. But that service is limited only to paid up X (formerly Twitter) subscribers. Another example of the issue with the lofty claims of public benefit company xAI is that these corporations are supposed to value environmental concerns.
Yet xAI developed a super computer to process data for AI that environmental campaigners say is guzzling vast amounts of gas without even a permit to do so. What’s the point of AI delivering progress for humanity, if the planet becomes unhabitable?
On 11 February, the US (and the UK) refused to sign up to even a basic declaration regarding AI. The acknowledgement states that it seeks to ensure that “AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy, taking into account international frameworks for all”, while “making AI sustainable for people and the planet”.
Vice president JD Vance showed his backwards thinking on AI when speaking about his opposition to the declaration. He said that “Should a deal seem too good to be true, just remember the old adage that we learned in Silicon Valley, if you aren’t paying for the product: you are the product.”
The thing is, AI becomes a self-sustaining product that doesn’t require significant or eventually basically any labour – therefore it doesn’t require payment.
Musk: this won’t end well
Calum Chace, author of Surviving AI, previously warned that without a socialist vision for the technology:
There will be people who own the AI, and therefore own everything else…Which means homo sapiens will be split into a handful of ‘gods’, and then the rest of us.
With Musk and his ilk at the helm, this is exactly what may happen.
With a collection of online platforms that allows the user to share opinions, information, news, or just what their cat got up to that day, we now live in a world that means we can instantly stay in touch. Using digital technology through virtual communities and networks, we can communicate in a way we never have.
But is it really as good as it sounds – or have we all been sucked into a virtual void that actually controls free speech?
Loaded social media…?
In the UK, with Facebook being the most used, we also have Instagram, Threads, TikTok, WhatsApp, X (formally known as Twitter), YouTube, Snapchat, Pinterest, LinkedIn, and Bluesky – to name a few. The most used platforms are Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, and Instagram.
Current projections put WhatsApp users in the UK by 2025 as being 38.35 million, making it the most popular app used between 16-64 year olds. TikTok is estimated to have around 22.9 million accounts in 2025 (although this figure varies). In January 2025 there was almost 34.71 million Instagram users in the UK, with Facebook having 55.9 million users, and X or Twitter having the lowest users with approximately 17.94 million as of January 2025.
There are clear age differences on what age group uses what platform, according to YouGov, and also differences in gender usage. With unfortunately absolutely no options on gender types other than male or female, it shows that females use WhatsApp the most at a rate of 87% with males using YouTube the most at a rate of 83%.
So, with all these different ways to communicate, why have we become so divided? And further more, who’s really controlling what we are seeing?
Cute cats or controlling capitalism…?
In 2020 the US government announced it wanted to ban the Chinese social media app TikTok, on the advice of the then-and now-president Donald Trump, due to a national security threat. With Trump now the president that threat continues to grow to the over 170 million and increasing users of TikTok in the US as to whether they can continue to use their social media platform, and who owns it or controls it.
After being briefly taken down in the US last month (a decision strongly protested against by its users) it’s still unclear as to what will happen to this social media platform. With Trump implying that he wanted to see a bidding war with Microsoft who were in discussions about buy the platform, it is very unsure as to what will happen. Along with Elon Musk as a potential buyer, Trump has now set up a sovereign wealth fund to yep – not support future generations, but to potentially buy TikTok… #Capitalist!
Whilst this is happening in the US, this unfortunately is affecting us too. With our current Tory-made Online Safety Act, which regulates online speech, facing widespread criticism from economists, Keir Starmer may have to change the law due to backlash from American tech company’s.
Musk’s focus was the social media platform Twitter, now known as X. Beginning in January 2022 Musk started to buy shares in the company, being the largest shareholder in April 2022.
He then made an offer of $44bn to buy the platform, and after becoming the CEO and sacking a few top executives his transformation of Twitter to X was complete. Which of course being the worlds richest person was all probably small change to him – but how does it affect us?
Freedom of speech – or hate speech…?
With Friends star David Schwimmer calling on Elon Musk to remove Kayne West’s account after his antisemitic slurs on X recently, many were left wondering who actually controls what is said on the platform and what are they promoting?
The account was not shut down by X but was instead deactivated by Kayne West himself after firstly thanking Musk for allowing his rant and secondly his attack on both Taylor Swift and Kendrick Lamar after the US Superbowl.
So, whilst I’m all for freedom of speech, these social media platforms are now clearly a case of it’s not what you know but who you know – and of course how much money you have.
And in a world of narcissistic capitalists that border on the psychopathic, is very clear to see where we are going with this level of social media control – which in my opinion puts our free speech at risk and is incredibly dangerous for all of us.
The danger and influence social media has had, and will continue to have, on our younger generations has too been very clear to see. This has led to a complete social media ban in Australia that starts at the end of 2025 for all 16 year olds and younger.
So while it’s not going to be accessible in Australia for the under sixteens, where will that leave the rest of us?
Social media overload…?
Along with genuinely trying to find the time to keep up with all these different social media platforms and also not be glued to my phone all the time, I like many struggle with “social media overload”.
The accessibility for many of us who are either neurodivergent, chronically ill, or time poor thanks to our circumstances becomes harder as more platforms are created. Not only does this end up creating bubbles of smaller echo chambers, we end up becoming more divided – controlled by different algorithms and misinformation.
Along with the race riots last summer that were led by misinformation, in a completely different situation recently a teacher union rejecting a pay offer was later also put down to misinformation on social media.
With the likes of Musk running the X show and potentially Trump running TikTok, more and more of the voices of individuals trying to fight for their right to be even more visible now – and this is from someone who was shadow banned on Twitter as a disability rights campaigner.
With the cost of living and the new Labour Party government continuing deprivation for many, we also have the issue of data poverty.
Do we have a network error…?
As single mother who couldn’t afford Wi-Fi, I didn’t start using social media until 2015.
Data poverty, often not spoken about, affects 6.8 million households who can’t afford communication services, 1.9 million households that can’t afford a mobile service, and 3.7 million households with children that can’t afford a fixed broadband service. This leaves many of these people without a voice on any social media platform.
So while we’re being overloaded with the voices of the rich few, bombarded with misinformation, and taken down the void of different social media platforms, this new age of information technology could be our success or our downfall.
But either way, we have a “network error” that clearly needs fixing.
Israeli police have confiscated hundreds of books with Palestinian titles or flags without understanding their contents in a draconian raid on a Palestinian educational bookshop in occupied East Jerusalem, say eyewitnesses.
More details have emerged on the Israeli police raid on a popular bookstore in occupied East Jerusalem.
The owners were arrested but police reportedly dropped charges of incitement while still detaining them for “disturbing the public order”.
The bookstore’s owners, Ahmed and Mahmoud Muna, were detained, and hundreds of titles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict confiscated, before police ordered the store’s closure, according to May Muna, Mahmoud’s wife, reports Al Jazeera.
She said the soldiers picked out books with Palestinian titles or flags, “without knowing what any of them meant”.
She said they used Google Translate on some of the Arabic titles to see what they meant before carting them away in plastic bags.
Another police bookshop raid
Police raided another Palestinian-owned bookstore in the Old City in East Jerusalem last week. In a statement, the police said the two owners were arrested on suspicion of “selling books containing incitement and support for terrorism”.
As an example, the police referred to an English-language children’s colouring book titled From the River to the Sea — a reference to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that today includes Israel, the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The bookshop raids have been widely condemned as a “war on knowledge and literature”.
The Educational Bookshop in East Jerusalem is full with shoppers in solidarity a day after the Israel Police raided the Palestinian store, arrested its owners and confiscated books. They dropped the charges of incitement but still detain them for ‘disturbing the public order’ pic.twitter.com/ZfnkBttfY3
Hawa Hunt’s detention a month ago was politically motivated, say daughter and rights groups, who also raise concerns about her treatment in jail
Fears are mounting over the mental and physical health of a social media influencer who has been in prison in Sierra Leone for more than a month after she was arrested on live television.
Hawa Hunt, a dual Canadian and Sierra Leonean citizen, was arrested on 22 December while starring in House of Stars, a reality TV show, for comments she made on social media about the president of Sierra Leone and the first lady in May 2023.
President Donald Trump has frozen billions of dollars around the world in aid projects, including more than $268 million allocated by Congress to support independent media and the free flow of information.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has denounced this decision, which has plunged NGOs, media outlets, and journalists doing vital work into chaotic uncertainty — including in the Pacific.
In a statement published on its website, RSF has called for international public and private support to commit to the “sustainability of independent media”.
Since the new American president announced the freeze of US foreign aid on January 20, USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has been in turmoil — its website is inaccessible, its X account has been suspended, the agency’s headquarters was closed and employees told to stay home.
South African-born American billionaire Elon Musk, an unelected official, whom Trump chose to lead the quasi-official Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has called USAID a “criminal organisation” and declared: “We’re shutting [it] down.”
Later that day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he was named acting director of the agency, suggesting its operations were being moved to the State Department.
Almost immediately after the freeze went into effect, journalistic organisations around the world — including media groups in the Pacific — that receive American aid funding started reaching out to RSF expressing confusion, chaos, and uncertainty.
Large and smaller media NGOs affected
The affected organisations include large international NGOs that support independent media like the International Fund for Public Interest Media and smaller, individual media outlets serving audiences living under repressive conditions in countries like Iran and Russia.
“The American aid funding freeze is sowing chaos around the world, including in journalism. The programmes that have been frozen provide vital support to projects that strengthen media, transparency, and democracy,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF USA.
President Donald Trump . . . “The American aid funding freeze is sowing chaos around the world, including in journalism,” says RSF. Image: RSF
“President Trump justified this order by charging — without evidence — that a so-called ‘foreign aid industry’ is not aligned with US interests.
“The tragic irony is that this measure will create a vacuum that plays into the hands of propagandists and authoritarian states. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is appealing to the international public and private funders to commit to the sustainability of independent media.”
USAID programmes support independent media in more than 30 countries, but it is difficult to assess the full extent of the harm done to the global media.
Many organisations are hesitant to draw attention for fear of risking long-term funding or coming under political attacks.
According to a USAID fact sheet which has since been taken offline, in 2023 the agency funded training and support for 6200 journalists, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and supported 279 media-sector civil society organisations dedicated to strengthening independent media.
The USAID website today . . . All USAID “direct hire” staff were reportedly put “on leave” on 7 February 2025. Image: USAID website screenshot APR
Activities halted overnight
The 2025 foreign aid budget included $268,376,000 allocated by Congress to support “independent media and the free flow of information”.
All over the world, media outlets and organisations have had to halt some of their activities overnight.
“We have articles scheduled until the end of January, but after that, if we haven’t found solutions, we won’t be able to publish anymore,” explains a journalist from a Belarusian exiled media outlet who wished to remain anonymous.
In Cameroon, the funding freeze forced DataCameroon, a public interest media outlet based in the economic capital Douala, to put several projects on hold, including one focused on journalist safety and another covering the upcoming presidential election.
An exiled Iranian media outlet that preferred to remain anonymous was forced to suspend collaboration with its staff for three months and slash salaries to a bare minimum to survive.
An exiled Iranian journalist interviewed by RSF warns that the impact of the funding freeze could silence some of the last remaining free voices, creating a vacuum that Iranian state propaganda would inevitably fill.
“Shutting us off will mean that they’ll have more power,” she says.
USAID: the main donor for Ukrainian media In Ukraine, where 9 out of 10 outlets rely on subsidies and USAID is the primary donor, several local media have already announced the suspension of their activities and are searching for alternative solutions.
“At Slidstvo.Info, 80 percent of our budget is affected,” said Anna Babinets, CEO and co-founder of this independent investigative media outlet based in Kyiv.
The risk of this suspension is that it could open the door to other sources of funding that may seek to alter the editorial line and independence of these media.
“Some media might be shut down or bought by businessmen or oligarchs. I think Russian money will enter the market. And government propaganda will, of course, intensify,” Babinets said.
RSF has already witnessed the direct effects of such propaganda — a fabricated video, falsely branded with the organisation’s logo, claimed that RSF welcomed the suspension of USAID funding for Ukrainian media — a stance RSF has never endorsed.
This is not the first instance of such disinformation.
Finding alternatives quickly This situation highlights the financial fragility of the sector.
According to Oleh Dereniuha, editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian local media outlet NikVesti, based in Mykolaiv, a city in southeast Ukraine, “The suspension of US funding is just the tip of the iceberg — a key case that illustrates the severity of the situation.”
Since 2024, independent Ukrainian media outlets have found securing financial sustainability nearly impossible due to the decline in donors.
As a result, even minor budget cuts could put these media outlets in a precarious position.
A recent RSF report stressed the need to focus on the economic recovery of the independent Ukrainian media landscape, weakened by the large-scale Russian invasion of February 24, 2022, which RSF’s study estimated to be at least $96 million over three years.
Moreover, beyond the decline in donor support in Ukraine, media outlets are also facing growing threats to their funding and economic models in other countries.
Georgia’s Transparency of Foreign Influence Law — modelled after Russia’s legislation — has put numerous media organisations at risk. The Georgian Prime Minister welcomed the US president’s decision with approval.
This suspension is officially expected to last only 90 days, according to the US government.
However, some, like Katerina Abramova, communications director for leading exiled Russian media outlet Meduza, fear that the reviews of funding contracts could take much longer.
Abramova is anticipating the risk that these funds may be permanently cut off.
“Exiled media are even in a more fragile position than others, as we can’t monetise our audience and the crowdfunding has its limits — especially when donating to Meduza is a crime in Russia,” Abramova stressed.
By abruptly suspending American aid, the United States has made many media outlets and journalists vulnerable, dealing a significant blow to press freedom.
For all the media outlets interviewed by RSF, the priority is to recover and urgently find alternative funding.
How Fijivillage News reported the USAID crackdown by the Trump administration. Image: Fijivillage News screenshot APR
Fiji, Pacific media, aid groups reel shocked by cuts
In Suva, Fiji, as Pacific media groups have been reeling from the shock of the aid cuts, Fijivillage News reports that hundreds of local jobs and assistance to marginalised communities are being impacted because Fiji is an AUSAID hub.
According to an USAID staff member speaking on the condition of anonymity, Trump’s decision has affected hundreds of Fijian jobs due to USAID believing in building local capacity.
The staff member said millions of dollars in grants for strengthening climate resilience, the healthcare system, economic growth, and digital connectivity in rural communities were now on hold.
The staff member also said civil society organisations, especially grantees in rural areas that rely on their aid, were at risk.
Pacific Media Watch and Asia Pacific Report collaborate with Reporters Without Borders.
South Australians will face jail terms of up to two years for sharing violent or illegal acts on social media under laws introduced to state parliament on Thursday to tackle the so-called trend of ‘posting and boasting’. The new laws, which will apply regardless of whether the poster was the original offender, make the state…
Justice Marie-Josée Hogue issued her report on foreign interference in Canada’s last two federal elections on January 28, and her conclusions are reassuring.
There are no traitors sitting in Parliament, she says. And she finds no evidence that meddling from China, Russia, Iran, India or any other country had a significant impact on the last two elections.
Notwithstanding those sanguine, overarching conclusions, Justice Hogue does warn there is still much we must all do to head off threats to Canada’s democracy.
The greatest of those threats, she tells us, is the scourge of false and misleading information
There has rightly been much debate and analysis over New Zealand’s decision to review the aid it gives to Kiribati.
It’s a big deal. So much is at stake, especially for the I-Kiribati people who live with many challenges and depend on the $100 million aid projects New Zealand delivers.
It would be clearly unwise for New Zealand to threaten or cut aid to Kiribati — but it has every right to expect better engagement than it has been getting over the past year.
What has been disturbing is the airtime and validation given to a Kiribati politician, newly appointed Minister of Women, Youth, Sport and Social Affairs Ruth Cross Kwansing.
It’s helpful to analyse where this is coming from so let’s make this very clear.
She supports and is currently a minister of a government that in 2022 suspended Chief Justice William Hastings and Justice David Lambourne of the High Court, and justices Peter Blanchard, Rodney Hansen and Paul Heath of the Court of Appeal.
She supports and is part a government that deported Lambourne, who is married to Opposition Leader Tessie Lambourne — and they have I-Kiribati children. (He is Australian but has been in the Kiribati courts since 1995).
She supports and is part of a government that requires all journalists — should they get a visa to go there — to hand over copies of all footage/information collected.
She also benefits from a 220 percent pay rise that her government passed for MPs in 2021.That same year, ministers were gifted cars with China Aid embossed on the side, as well as a laptop from Beijing.
Amidst a gushing post about a president who recently gave this rookie MP a ministerial post, Cross Kwansing wrote of the “media manufactured drama” and “the New Zealand media, in its typical fashion, seized the opportunity to patronise Kiribati, and the familiar whispers about Chinese influence began to circulate”.
These comments shouldn’t come as any surprise as blaming the media is a common tactic of politicians and Cross Kwansing is no different.
Just because the new minister doesn’t like what New Zealand has decided to do doesn’t mean it must be “media manufactured”.
Her comment that “the New Zealand media, in its typical fashion, seized the opportunity to patronise Kiribati” is also ridiculous.
The journalist that broke the story — myself — is half I-Kiribati and incredibly proud of her heritage and the gutsy country that she was born in and grew up in, with family who still live there.
Cross Kwansing has been a member of parliament for less than six months. To not discuss the geopolitical implications with China, given the way the world is evolving and Kiribati’s close ties, would be naive and ignorant.
Pacific leaders frustrated
It is not just New Zealand that Maamau has refused to meet. Over the last two years, Pacific Island leaders have spoken of frustration in trying to engage with the president.
Maamau is known to be a pleasant man and enjoyable to converse with. But, for whatever reason, he has chosen not to engage with many leaders or foreign ministers.
Cross Kwansing has helpfully shared that the president announced to his cabinet ministers that he would delegate international engagements to his vice president so he could concentrate “intently on domestic matters”.
Fair enough. Except that Maamau has chosen to hang on to the foreign minister portfolio.
It is quite right that New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters would expect to engage with his Kiribati counterpart — especially given the level of investment and numerous attempts being made, and then a date finally agreed on by Maamau himself.
Six days before Peters was meant to arrive in Kiribati, the island nation’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs told the NZ High Commission there that the president was now “unavailable”. In the diplomatic world, especially given the attempts that had preceded it, that is hugely disrespectful.
There are different strategies the New Zealand government could have chosen to take to deal with this. Peters has had enough and chosen a hardline course that is likely to have negative impacts on New Zealand in the long term, but it’s a risk he obviously thinks is worth taking.
Cross Kwansing has spoken about prioritising cooperation and mutual respect over ego and political posturing. Absolutely right — except that this piece of helpful advice should also be taken by her own government. It works both ways for the sake of the people.
Barbara Dreaver is of Kiribati and Cook Islands descent. She was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2024 for services to investigative journalism and Pacific communities. This TVNZ News column has been republished with permission.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
Papua New Guinea’s cabinet has officially given the green light to the PNG media policy, which will soon be presented to Parliament for formal enactment.
Minster for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Timothy Masiu believes this policy will address ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.
In an interview with NBC News in Port Moresby, Masiu outlined the urgent need for a shift in the nation’s media practices.
“We must be more responsible in how we report and portray the issues that matter most to our country. It’s time for Papua New Guinea’s media to evolve and reflect the values that truly define us,” he said.
“Sensational headlines, graphic images of violence, and depictions of suffering do nothing to build our national identity. They only hurt our reputation globally.”
Minister Masiu said the policy aimed to regulate sensitive contents and shift towards “more constructive and informative” coverage.
According to Masiu, the policy’s long-term goal was to protect the public from harmful content while empowering journalists to play a positive role in nation-building.
“This policy isn’t about stifling press freedom. It’s about ensuring that media in Papua New Guinea serves the public good by upholding the highest standards of integrity and professionalism,” Masiu said.
Meanwhile, the policy also acknowledged the media’s significant influence on public opinion and its role in national development.
Masiu added that once the policy was passed into law, it would become a guiding framework for media institutions across the nation, laying the foundation for a new era of journalism in Papua New Guinea.
Republished from NBC News.
Persistent criticism Pacific Media Watch reports that the draft media policy law and consultation process have been controversial and faced persistent criticisms from journalists, the PNG Media Council (MCPNG) and Transparency international PNG.
Version 5 of the policy is here, but it is not clear whether that is the version Masiu says is ready.
Civicus references an incident last August when a PNG journalist was barred from a press briefing by the visiting Indonesian president-elect Prabowo Subianto and said this came “amid growing concern about the government’s plan to regulate the press under its so-called media development policy”.
) on their posts and photos
