The bill, which passed its second reading on July 17, 2025, is the “most serious step in censorship and the fight against dissent since 2022,” when lawmakers introduced penalties of up to 15 years in prison for disseminating “fake” news about the Russian army, according to the online independent news outlet The Bell. If lawmakers pass the bill and President Vladimir Putin signs it into law, it would take effect on September 1.

“Punishing people for seeking information online is a direct barrier to the free flow of information and an assault on access to independent news,” said CPJ Europe and Central Asia Senior Researcher Anna Brakha. “This vaguely worded, fast-tracked bill shows a clear disregard for open debate and create an even more repressive environment for the media and the public.” 

The bill provides for fines from 3,000 to 5,000 rubles (USD$38 to USD$64) for accessing or searching content that is either included in Russia’s federal list of extremist materials or that calls for or justifies extremist activities.

Russian authorities maintain a list of over 5,400 banned “extremist” materials, including books, religious texts, songs, and films. To date, while independent media have been widely branded as undesirable and foreign agents, none have been labeled as extremist.

“Nothing prevents the authorities from declaring media outlets ‘extremists’ — which will allow them to effectively ban reading such publications,” independent media outlet Meduza said, calling the bill a step toward the “criminalization of reading.” 

A representative from digital rights group Setevye Svobody, who spoke to CPJ on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, told CPJ he expects “the most massive example of chilling effect in the history” of the Russian internet. 

Fines for reading online articles featuring so-called extremist content “will make tens of millions of users prefer to unsubscribe from the channels and stop visiting sites with information of any unofficial nature,” the representative said. 

CPJ emailed the State Duma’s press service but did not immediately receive a reply. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on June 21, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

Violence has a paralyzing power. What is the power of the word in the face of the planes that sow destruction and death, and the flying ballistic missiles? When I see people around me paralyzed or going crazy with fear in the face of the destruction that the Iranian missiles have sown, I cannot help but think of the resilience of the residents of Gaza, who go through seven circles of hell every day with no relief in sight.

But the missiles and planes are the continuation of politics by other means. Many words have been spoken, and many agreements have been concluded to create and set in motion the instruments of destruction and death. As far removed from reality as it may seem now, it is important to speak out today in order to understand the roots of the war and how we can resist and stop the looming disasters.

In Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran—it’s the same war

During the first year of the “war,” the Israeli public overwhelmingly supported the genocide in Gaza, with no significant reservations. But in recent months, we have seen doubts and disillusionment on the part of large sections. Now, when we stand in protest vigils demanding an end to the killing, the feeling is that most of the public on the streets of Haifa supports us. More and more Israelis, including established media outlets, former senior politicians, and generals, have begun to speak out about the war crimes that Israel is committing. An Israeli and international consensus has begun to form that the Israeli government deliberately avoids striving to end the war, and is working to expand and perpetuate it, for reasons of narrow political and personal interests or out of messianic extremism.

But suddenly, when Israel initiated the expansion of the war into an all-out attack on Iran, which will inevitably bring further death and destruction in both Iran and Israel, we began to see again the power of violence to take over the human psyche and paralyze thought. Suddenly, the automatic Israeli consensus stiffened again, with the media and the public celebrating the spilled Iranian blood. Even a sinking Europe, which had begun to show remorse in its support of the genocide in Gaza, became enthusiastic again, with Germany, France, and Britain literally begging for their share of the pound of flesh and blood.

The root of the evil here, and the source of all the current wars, is the role that Zionism has assumed as the crushing force of imperialist control in the Middle East. This is the declared strategy of the United States: to ensure Israel’s military superiority over any regional coalition. To secure Israel’s place as a military power that can strike at anyone who threatens American hegemony, the United States must keep Israel in a state of constant conflict and constant danger. 

This strategy paid off on a colossal scale for the United States in the wake of the Six-Day War in 1967, when the crushing Israeli victory over three Arab states led, within a few years, to the collapse of the dreams of independence and Arab socialism of the Nasserists and the left wing of the Ba’ath Party, and the establishment of reactionary and submissive dictatorships.

Since then, much water has flowed through the region’s rivers, hundreds of millions of residents have been added, there has been progress in education and the economy, and the equation that relies on the fortress of Jewish Sparta to maintain imperialist supremacy in the region is becoming less and less sustainable. The United States itself paid a heavy price for its military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq and emerged from them without any real achievement. Israel failed twice in its wars over Lebanon, in the Eighteen Years’ War (1982-2000) and in its brief adventure in the summer of 2006.

Meanwhile, the wider regional picture has also changed. Instead of pro-Western dictatorships in Turkey and Iran, populist Islamist governments have risen in the two regional powers, which are more responsive to public opinion in their countries and tend to identify with Palestinian suffering and resistance and to denounce Israel’s aggression.

For a long time, imperialist politics in the region were based on the principle of “divide and rule.” The main axis of nurtured conflict among the Muslim population was between Sunnis and Shiites. The grand idea was, within the framework of the “Abraham Accords,” to establish a defense alliance under Israeli-American auspices that would protect the oil kings and emirs of the Arabian Peninsula from the “Iranian threat” (and from their own people), in exchange for continued effective American control over the region’s natural resources and economy.

Even as the Palestinians did not receive massive support that would allow them to exercise their human and national rights, the Palestinian struggle was and remains a central axis that challenges the system of imperialist control in the region. The identification with the Palestinians by both Sunnis and Shiites, and, more recently, the shock of the unbridled violence perpetrated by Israel since October 7, and the exposure of the racist Pavlovian instinct of all Western powers in supporting the genocide in Gaza, all of which have changed and are still changing the map of the region for the long term.

Meanwhile, Israel has become embroiled in war on many fronts, struggling to achieve a decisive victory and reap the fruits of its military superiority. In Six Days in 1967, Israel militarily defeated three Arab countries and occupied vast areas. Now, for more than 600 days, it has been unable to defeat Palestinian resistance to the occupation of the Gaza Strip, which had been under a suffocating siege for many years before the current genocidal war. 

The only arena in which Israel has achieved a military and political victory is its struggle against Hezbollah in Lebanon, due to a combination of tactical failures on the part of Hezbollah and the fact that, as a representative of the oppressed Shiite minority, it had no full Lebanese legitimacy to intervene in the war. However, in Lebanon too, Israel’s insistence on continuing to hold occupied territory within Lebanon, with constant offensive military activity all over the country, keeps this front in the context of a violent conflict that has not ended and with no end in sight.

In Yemen, the government that came to power in Sanaa on the waves of the Arab Spring, and survived an all-out war by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Emirates, continues to try and pressure an end to the attack on Gaza through a naval blockade and repeated attacks. Even before the conflict with Israel, Yemen was the poorest country in the region and is still torn by civil war. Despite its limited capabilities, repeated attacks by a coalition of Western countries led by the United States and Israeli attacks on economic infrastructure have failed to change Yemen’s position.

The expansion of the war into Syria after the fall of the Assad regime adds another layer to the logic of the conflict. The new Syrian regime, which emerged after 14 years of revolution and civil war at the cost of about a million lives and immense destruction, declared from the moment it was established that it was committed to the 1974 armistice agreements and that it did not want conflicts with any neighboring country. Despite this, and despite the military erosion of the multi-front war, Israel decided to open another front against Syria, conquering additional territories (in addition to the Syrian Golan Heights captured in 1967), bombing all over Syria, and threatening the new regime. This completely exposed the logic of the “villa in the jungle”: in order for the villa to remain a villa, it must ensure that the jungle remains a jungle, and any attempt to build a normal society and state in the region is an existential threat to it. 

The attack on Iran took this logic a step further. Israeli strategic superiority must be guaranteed not only against four hundred million Arabs but also against all other countries of the region. The Israeli method of killing Iranian scientists, which did not begin with the latest attack, brutally presents the concept of how the colonialist “local branch of Western culture” will be able to maintain its technological superiority.

On the nuclear question

As a university student, I took a course on “International Relations After World War II,” that is, the Cold War between the Western powers and the Soviet Union. The lecturer always talked about how Western leaders planned to confront “The Soviet Threat.” In “Operation Unthinkable,” which was to begin as early as July 1945, Churchill planned to mobilize the surrendered Wehrmacht troops to attack the Soviet Union and drop (American) atomic bombs on Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kiev. In 1949, the US planned a larger operation (“Operation Dropshot“) that involved the use of 300 atomic bombs and the destruction of 100 cities and towns in the Soviet Union.

In 1949, the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear weapons test, which cooled America’s enthusiasm for a direct confrontation with it. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, after the Soviet Union had proven that it could create a real nuclear threat to the U.S., talks began between the parties, and the Cold War gradually moved into the “détente” phase.

In my naivete, I asked the lecturer: According to what you taught us, as long as nuclear weapons were only in the hands of the West, we were on the verge of a nuclear war. Only when a “balance of terror” was created did the tension subside. How does this fit in with saying that the problem was “The Soviet Threat”? It seems the opposite is true…

He replied that from the perspective of the sequence of events, what I said made sense, but “no one in political science would agree” with my conclusion…

As far as is known (“according to foreign sources”), Israel possesses a large number of nuclear weapons, which the Western powers helped it develop. To this day, they defend Israel’s “right” to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in all international forums. Israeli politicians and various experts have said that Israel has already considered using nuclear weapons against Arab countries several times, in moments of crisis. The climax came during the latest attack on Gaza, when lunatic extremist politicians fantasized about using an atomic bomb to annihilate Gaza as “revenge.” And, please, don’t tell me that the lunatic extremist right is far from the center of decision-making in Israel. As long as nuclear weapons are in the hands of one side in the region, there is a temptation to use them, thus creating an existential threat to the residents of the entire region. Clearly, the best situation is to have the entire region free of nuclear weapons. But history has proven that a nuclear balance of terror can also guarantee that nobody uses these weapons.

The West’s position on the Iranian nuclear issue is, on a regional scale, a repetition of its position on the denial of legitimacy of the Palestinian resistance. No matter how much Israel occupies and oppresses Palestinians, robs their land, destroys their homes, and kills them. Israel always “has the right to self-defense” and the Palestinian who defends his rights is always the “terrorist”. The ultimate way to ensure Israel’s “strategic superiority” in the region is to allow it, in a “time of need,” to wipe out millions of the inhabitants of the region using atomic weapons. This is the essence of the “Western Values” that they claim to stand for. 

The Gulf states, which grovel to the rulers of the United States and Europe, thought they were buying their favor, so that they would stop the massacre in Gaza. They also hoped to prevent the war with Iran, which endangers the security of all the countries in the region. Instead, surprise, surprise, it turns out that the money they gave to the U.S. continues to fund the genocide against Palestinians and the bombings of Lebanon and Syria. Furthermore, they are effectively paying the United States for the privilege of being on the receiving end of a future nuclear annihilation.

Where are we going from here?

As the saying goes: It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

It is difficult to know what will happen, but there are many things that are unlikely not to happen. At the beginning of the current “war” in Gaza, the American administration’s emissaries used to ask Netanyahu what were his plans for “the day after.” What is your end game?

To this day, they have not received an answer, and this is not by chance. Israel lives from war to war and is unable to imagine a different reality, let alone take action to create it. The historical logic was that Israel attacks in order to impose the American “day after” on the Arabs. For this equation to hold, there should be an American administration that is capable and willing to stop Israel’s aggression and force concessions on it. In the meantime, the Americans have fallen in love with Israel’s aggression. Even more importantly, the United States really has nothing to offer the region these days.

We are living at the end of “the American era.” Today, China is the main economic partner for trade and development for the countries of the region, as well as elsewhere. The United States still retains its military superiority, at the price of huge military investment. To benefit from this superiority, it is inclined to militarize international politics, as is evident in Ukraine and East Asia, just like in our region. Israel’s military and political power is a reflection of American superiority. 

The U.S. military advantage is eroding as it loses its economic and technological leadership. When it uses military force to try to preserve or restore its world hegemony, it is not advancing itself but trying to push others backward. Humanity is paying an awful cost, but the U.S. decline is also accelerating.

The current war in the Middle East is part of a desperate effort to preserve the remnants of colonialism and Western superiority over the peoples of the Third World. The Palestinian people are paying a terrible, unbearable price for this. But the future will not be determined by the politicians of the West or the corrupt rulers of the region who grovel to them, but by the peoples who will stand up for their right to determine their own destiny.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Yoav Haifawi.

An X user named Ujjwal shared the video and wrote that the video showed terrorists of Pahalgam, who have made it viral on social media while celebrating. (Archived link) 

Jitendra Pratap Singh, a BJP supporter who amplifies misinformation and communal propaganda on a regular basis, shared the video and wrote that this was a video of terrorists who opened fire on Hindus in Pahalgam after asking about their religion. (Archived link)

ध्यान से देख लो इन्हें,

धर्म पूछ कर @तंक की गोलियां बरसाने वाले,
पहलगाम में मारे गए 28 निर्दोष हिंदुओं के हत्यारे

स्थानीय तुतल!मान की मिलीभगत से रचा गया
नर!संहार का खू!नी खेल। pic.twitter.com/Qr3qVvuC47

— Jitendra pratap singh (@jpsin1) April 24, 2025

A user named Piyush also shared the video with the same claim. (Archived link)

Fact Check

We performed a reverse image search of a few frames taken from the viral video on Google, which led us to the source video which was tweeted on April 12, 2025 by an account named Radio Roma. In other words, this video was posted online 10 days before the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which occurred on April 22, 2025.

Contrôle au faciès obligatoire pic.twitter.com/8LoMGirqeU

— RADIOROMA (@RadioRomaX) April 12, 2025

Among the search results, we also came across the Instagram account of a user named Sadiq, a content creator from Kazakhstan, where the video was posted on April 11, 2025. Sadiq’s Instagram handle (@_sadiq999_) has more than 2.75 Lakh followers. His timeline had many such videos, almost all of which, including the viral video, have been taken down since the Hindi version of this article was published on April 26, 2025. Here is, however, a screenshot of the timeline before posts were deleted. 

Alt News has reached out to Sadiq for a statement on the matter and this article will be updated once we receive a response from him.

To sum up, several users shared a video uploaded by a Kazakhstan-based creator on social media days before the terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, and falsely claimed that it was a video of the terrorists responsible for the attack  celebrating after carrying out the violence.

The post Pahalgam terrorists celebrating? Old video by Kazakhstan content creator falsely viral appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Abhishek Kumar.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Hours after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, users spread a false claim on Facebook that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was paying a bounty for reports of undocumented people.

“BREAKING — ICE is allegedly offering $750 per illegal immigrant that you turn in through their tip form,” read a post on a page called NO Filter Seeking Truth, adding, “Cash in folks.”

Check Your Fact, Reuters and other fact-checkers debunked the claim, and Facebook added labels to posts warning that they contained false information or missing context. ICE has a tip line but said it does not offer cash bounties.

This spring, Meta plans to stop working with fact-checkers in the U.S. to label false or misleading content, the company said on Jan. 7. And if a post like the one about ICE goes viral, the pages that spread it could earn a cash bonus.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also said in January that the company was removing or dialing back automated systems that reduce the spread of false information. At the same time, Meta is revamping a program that has paid bonuses to creators for content based on views and engagement, potentially pouring accelerant on the kind of false posts it once policed. The new Facebook Content Monetization program is currently invite-only, but Meta plans to make it widely available this year.

The upshot: a likely resurgence of incendiary false stories on Facebook, some of them funded by Meta, according to former professional Facebook hoaxsters and a former Meta data scientist who worked on trust and safety.

ProPublica identified 95 Facebook pages that regularly post made-up headlines designed to draw engagement — and, often, stoke political divisions. The pages, most of which are managed by people overseas, have a total of more than 7.7 million followers.

After a review, Meta said it had removed 81 pages for being managed by fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves as American while posting about politics and social issues. Tracy Clayton, a Meta spokesperson, declined to respond to specific questions, including whether any of the pages were eligible for or enrolled in the company’s viral content payout program.

The pages collected by ProPublica offer a sample of those that could be poised to cash in.

Meta has made debunking viral hoaxes created for money a top priority for nearly a decade, with one executive calling this content the “worst of the worst.” Meta has a policy against paying for content its fact-checkers label as false, but that rule will become irrelevant when the company stops working with them. Already, 404 Media found that overseas spammers are earning payouts using deceptive AI-generated content, including images of emaciated people meant to stoke emotion and engagement. Such content is rarely fact-checked because it doesn’t make any verifiable claims.

With the removal of fact-checks in the U.S., “what is the protection now against viral hoaxes for profit?” said Jeff Allen, the chief research officer of the nonprofit Integrity Institute and a former Meta data scientist.

“The systems are designed to amplify the most salacious and inciting content,” he added.

In an exchange on Facebook Messenger, the manager of NO Filter Seeking Truth, which shared the false ICE post, told ProPublica that the page has been penalized so many times for sharing false information that Meta won’t allow it to earn money under the current rules. The page is run by a woman based in the southern U.S., who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she said she has received threats due to her posts. She said the news about the fact-checking system ending was “great information.”

Clayton said Meta’s community standards and content moderation teams are still active and reiterated the company’s Jan. 7 statement that it is working to ensure it doesn’t “over-enforce” its rules by mistakenly banning or suppressing content.

Meta’s changes mark a significant reversal of the company’s approach to moderating false and misleading information, reframing the labeling or downranking of content as a form of censorship. “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg said in his announcement. His stance reflects the approach of Elon Musk after acquiring Twitter, now X, in 2022. Musk has made drastic cuts to the company’s trust and safety team, reinstated thousands of suspended accounts including that of a prominent neo-Nazi and positioned Community Notes, which allows participating users to add context via notes appended to tweets, as the platform’s key system for flagging false and misleading content.

Zuckerberg has said Meta will replace fact-checkers and some automated systems in the U.S. with a version of the Community Notes system. A Jan. 7 update to a Meta policy page said that in the U.S. the company “may still reduce the distribution of certain hoax content whose spread creates a particularly bad user or product experience (e.g., certain commercial hoaxes).”

Clayton did not clarify whether posts with notes appended to them would be eligible for monetization. He provided links to academic papers that detail how crowdsourced fact-checking programs like Community Notes can be effective at identifying misinformation, building trust among users and addressing perceptions of bias.

A 2023 ProPublica investigation, as well as reporting from Bloomberg, found that X’s Community Notes failed to effectively address the misinformation about the Israel-Hamas conflict. Reporting from the BBC and Agence France-Presse showed that X users who share false information have earned thousands of dollars thanks to X’s content monetization program, which also rewards high engagement.

Keith Coleman, X’s vice president of product, previously told ProPublica that the analysis of Community Notes about the Israel-Hamas conflict did not include all of the relevant notes, and he said that the program “is found helpful by people globally, across the political spectrum.”

Allen said it takes time, resources and oversight to scale up crowdsourced fact-checking systems. Meta’s decision to scrap fact-checking before giving the new approach time to prove itself is risky, he said.

“We could in theory have a Community Notes program that was as effective, if not more effective, than the fact-checking program,” he said. “But to turn all these things off before you have the Community Notes thing in place definitely feels like we’re explicitly going to have a moment with little guardrails.”

Before Facebook began cracking down on content in late 2016, American fake news peddlers and spammers based in North Macedonia and elsewhere cashed in on viral hoaxes that deepened political divisions and played on people’s fears.

One American, Jestin Coler, ran a network of sites that earned money from hoax news stories for nearly a decade, including the infamous and false viral headline from 2016 “FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide.” He previously told NPR that he started the sites as a way to “infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right.” Coler said he earned five figures a month from the sites, which he operated in his spare time.

When people clicked on the links to the stories in their news feed, they landed on websites full of ads, which generated revenue for Coler. That’s become a tougher business model since Meta has made story links less visible on Facebook in recent years.

Facebook’s new program to pay publishers directly for viral content could unlock a fresh revenue stream for hoaxsters. “It’s still the same formula to get people riled up. It seems like it could just go right back to those days, like overnight,” Coler told ProPublica in a phone interview. He said he left the Facebook hoax business years ago and won’t return.

In January, ProPublica compiled a list of pages that had been previously cited for posting hoaxes and false content and discovered dozens more through domain and content searches. The pages posted false headlines designed to spark controversy, such as “Lia Thomas Admits: ‘I Faked Being Trans to Expose How Gullible the Left Is’” and “Elon Musk announced that he has acquired MSNBC for $900 million to put an end to toxic programming.” The Musk headline was paired with an AI-generated image of him holding a contract with the MSNBC logo. It generated over 11,000 reactions, shares and comments.

Most of the pages are managed by accounts outside of the U.S., including in North Macedonia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, according to data from Facebook. Many of these pages use AI-generated images to illustrate their made-up headlines.

One network of overseas-run pages is connected to the site SpaceXMania.com, an ad-funded site filled with hoax articles like “Elon Musk Confronts Beyoncé Publicly: ‘Stop Pretending to Be Country, It’s Just Not You.’” SpaceX Fanclub, the network’s largest Facebook page, has close to 220,000 followers and labels its content as satire. One of its recent posts was a typo-laden AI-generated image of a sign that said, “There Are Only 2 2 Genders And Will Ban Atheletes From Women Sports — President.”

SpaceXMania.com’s terms and conditions page says it’s owned by Funky Creations LTD, a United Kingdom company registered to Muhammad Shabayer Shaukat, a Pakistani national. ProPublica sent questions to the site and received an email response signed by Tim Lawson, who said he’s an American based in Florida who works with Shaukat. (ProPublica was unable to locate a person by that name in public records searches, based on the information he provided.)

“Our work involves analyzing the latest trends and high-profile news related to celebrities and shaping it in a way that appeals to a specific audience — particularly conservatives and far-right groups who are predisposed to believe certain narratives,” the email said.

Lawson said they earn between $500 and $1,500 per month from web ads and more than half of the traffic comes from people clicking on links on Facebook. The pages are not currently enrolled in the invitation-only Facebook Content Monetization program, according to Lawson.

The SpaceXMania pages identified by ProPublica were recently taken offline. Lawson denied that they were removed by Meta and said he deactivated the pages “due to some security reasons.” Meta declined to comment.

It remains to be seen how hoax page operators will fare as Meta’s algorithmic reversals take hold and the U.S. fact-checking program grinds to a halt. But some Facebook users are already taking advantage of the loosened guardrails.

Soon after Zuckerberg announced the changes, people spread a fake screenshot of a Bloomberg article headlined, “The spark from Zuckerberg’s electric penis pump, might be responsible for the LA fires.”

“Community note: verified true,” wrote one commenter.

Mollie Simon contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Craig Silverman.

On January 7, founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a raft of changes to Meta’s content policies, seemingly aimed at currying favor with the new Trump administration. These include the lifting of prohibitions on previously banned speech, such as the denigration and harassment of racialized minorities. Zuckerberg also announced a drastic shift in content moderation practices – with automated content moderation being significantly rolled back. While these changes have been initially implemented in the US, Meta has signaled that they may be rolled out internationally. This shift marks a clear retreat from the company’s previously stated commitments to responsible content governance.

“I really think this is a precursor for genocide […] We’ve seen it happen. Real people’s lives are actually going to be endangered.
A former Meta employee recently speaking to the platformer

As has been well-documented by Amnesty International and others, Meta’s algorithms prioritize and amplify some of the most harmful content, including advocacy of hatred, misinformation, and content inciting racial violence – all in the name of maximizing ‘user engagement,’ and by extension, profit. Research has shown that these algorithms consistently elevate content that generates strong emotional reactions, often at the cost of human rights and safety. With the removal of existing content safeguards, this situation looks set to go from bad to worse.

As one former Meta employee recently told Platformer, “I really think this is a precursor for genocide […] We’ve seen it happen. Real people’s lives are actually going to be endangered.” This statement echoes the warnings from various human rights experts who have raised concerns about Meta’s role in fuelling mass violence in fragile and conflict-affected societies.

We have seen the horrific consequences of Meta’s recklessness before. In 2017, Myanmar security forces undertook a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims. A UN Independent Fact-Finding Commission concluded in 2018 that Myanmar had committed genocide. In the years leading up to these attacks, Facebook had become an echo chamber of virulent anti-Rohingya hatred. The mass dissemination of dehumanizing anti-Rohingya content poured fuel on the fire of long-standing discrimination and helped to create an enabling environment for mass violence. In the absence of appropriate safeguards, Facebook’s toxic algorithms intensified a storm of hatred against the Rohingya, which contributed to these atrocities. According to a report by the United Nations, Facebook was instrumental in the radicalization of local populations and the incitement of violence against the Rohingya.

Rather than learning from its reckless contributions to mass violence in countries including Myanmar and Ethiopia, Meta is instead stripping away important protections that were aimed at preventing any recurrence of such harms.

In enacting these changes, Meta has effectively declared an open season for hate and harassment targeting its most vulnerable and at-risk people, including trans people, migrants, and refugees.

Meta claims to be enacting these changes to advance freedom of expression. While it is true that Meta has wrongfully restricted legitimate content in many cases, this drastic abandonment of existing safeguards is not the answer. The company must take a balanced approach that allows for free expression while safeguarding vulnerable populations.

All companies, including Meta, have clear responsibilities to respect all human rights in line with international human rights standards. Billionaire CEOs cannot simply pick and choose which rights to respect while flagrantly disregarding others and recklessly endangering the rights of millions.

Rather than learning from its reckless contributions to mass violence in countries including Myanmar and Ethiopia, Meta is instead stripping away important protections that were aimed at preventing any recurrence of such harms.
Pat de Brún is Head of Big Tech Accountability at Amnesty International

An investigation by Amnesty International in 2021 found that Meta had “substantially contributed” to the atrocities perpetrated against the Rohingya, and that the company bears a responsibility to provide an effective remedy to the community. However, Meta has made it clear it will take no such action.

Rohingya communities — most of whom were forced from their homes eight years ago and still reside in sprawling refugee camps in neighboring Bangladesh — have also made requests to Meta to remediate them by funding a $1 million education project in the refugee camps. The sum represents just 0.0007% of Meta’s 2023 profits of $134 billion. Despite this, Meta rejected the request. This refusal further demonstrates the company’s lack of accountability and commitment to profit over human dignity.

That is why we – Rohingya atrocity survivor Maung Sawyeddollah, with the support of Amnesty International, the Open Society Justice Initiative, and Victim Advocates International – on January 23, 2025, filed a whistleblower complaint with the SEC. The complaint outlines Meta’s failure to heed multiple civil society warnings from 2013 to 2017 regarding Facebook’s role in fueling violence against the Rohingya. We are asking the agency to investigate Meta for alleged violations of securities laws stemming from the company’s misrepresentations to shareholders in relation to its contribution to the atrocities suffered by the Rohingya in 2017.

Between 2015 and 2017, Meta executives told shareholders that Facebook’s algorithms did not result in polarization, despite warnings that its platform was actively proliferating anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar. At the same time, Meta did not fully disclose to shareholders the risks the company’s operations in Myanmar entailed. Instead, in 2015 and 2016, Meta objected to shareholder proposals to conduct a human rights impact assessment and to set up an internal committee to oversee the company’s policies and practices on international public policy issues, including human rights.

With Zuckerberg and other tech CEOs lining up (literally, in the case of the recent inauguration) behind the new administration’s wide-ranging attacks on human rights, Meta shareholders need to step up and hold the company’s leadership to account to prevent Meta from yet again becoming a conduit for mass violence, or even genocide.

Similarly, legislators and lawmakers in the US must ensure that the SEC retains its neutrality, properly investigate legitimate complaints – such as the one we recently filed, and ensure those who abuse human rights face justice.

Globally, governments and regional bodies such as the EU must redouble their efforts to hold Meta and other Big Tech companies to account for their human rights impacts. As we have seen before, countless human lives could be at risk if companies like Meta are left to their own devices.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The scale of censorship was revealed on Nov. 28, during a conference of the Ministry of Information and Communications, where the Internet Service Management Agency reported that it ordered the companies to remove content that “violated Vietnamese laws.”

According to the report, over the past year, Facebook censored 8,981 posts, Google censored 6,043 pieces of content, and TikTok applied censorship measures to 971 videos considered to be in violation, and that the three companies had complied with more than 90% of Hanoi’s requests.

The practice of foreign tech companies censoring content in Vietnam at the behest of the state has been condemned by international human rights organizations.

In 2020, Amnesty International published a report on the phenomenon, calling the companies' censorship “arbitrary.”

Also, at the conference held on Nov. 28, the Ministry of Information and Communications discussed the dissemination of Decree 147, the latest legal tool issued by the government to more strictly control the use of social networks in Vietnam.

RFA attempted to contact the social media firms but received no response by the time of publishing.

RELATED STORIES

Vietnam’s new internet rules bad for free speech, business: users

Vietnam tightens controls on social media users

Vietnam cracks down on social media users who criticize the state

New laws

On Saturday, Vietnam’s National Assembly, or parliament, approved a law that requires organizations and individuals to provide data to state agencies when requested by authorities without the consent of the data subject in specific situations.

Those situations include when responding to a state of emergency, when there is a threat to national defense and security but not to the extent of declaring a state of emergency, during disasters, and when preventing and combating riots and terrorism.

The law passed with 451 out of a possible 458 votes, accounting for nearly 95% of the total number of lawmakers in the assembly.

The law has been criticized by a number of international experts. Nikkei news site quoted some experts as saying that this law would stifle innovation and increase the trade surplus with the U.S. as President-elect Donald Trump is about to take office.

Japan’s Nikkei newspaper quoted the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) as saying that the trade surplus between Vietnam and the U.S. is “very high” and Hanoi should protect this trade relationship.

Jonathan McHale, vice president of the CCIA, which represents Facebook, Amazon, TSMC and Deliveroo, was quoted by Nikkei as saying that policies that hinder data transfers, including provisions in the new law, are harming foreign companies and domestic economies that thrive on outside participation.

According to Nikkei, the new law is heavily influenced by China’s recent data regulations.

Translated by Son Nguyen. Edited by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Vietnamese.

Despite a city-wide crackdown on public dissent and political opposition in recent years, Hong Kong has so far remained outside of the Great Firewall of Chinese internet censorship.

But there are signs that the city’s internet isn’t as free as it once was.

Restrictions on Facebook content have skyrocketed from 402 instances in 2019, a year before the first security law was passed, to 2,181 instances in 2023, according to publicly available information published by Facebook's parent company Meta, and viewed by RFA Cantonese on Oct. 9.

Most restrictions targeted personal Facebook accounts, pages and groups, although some involved restricting individual posts and comments on posts, the data showed.

Meta said in a response to RFA Cantonese that it "responds to government data requests in accordance with applicable laws and our terms of service." 

It said every request is "carefully reviewed for legal adequacy," while any request that appeared "too broad or vague" would be carefully scrutinized.

It also stated that "every request we receive will be carefully reviewed for legal adequacy, and any request that appears to be too broad or vague will be reviewed carefully." request, we may deny or request more specific details."

The owner of the EduLancet account on Facebook, Yeung Wing Yu, said Facebook had blocked users in Hong Kong from viewing a Sept. 1 post he wrote about the widely criticized police response to July 21, 2019, attacks on passengers and passers-by in Yuen Long MTR station.

"We've received a legal request from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, to restrict access to your post for going against local law," Facebook told Yeung in a notice he posted to his Instagram account. "We complied with the request after conducting a legal and human rights assessment."

"Your content can still be seen by people in other locations," the notice said.

However, the URL to the post provided by Yeung returned an error message when viewed from the United Kingdom on Oct. 14.

Yuen Long attacks

The Yuen Long police attacks came at the height of the 2019 protests against plans to allow the extradition of alleged criminal suspects to mainland China, that later broadened to include demands for fully democratic elections and greater official accountability.

According to a book about the democracy movement published in September 2023, Hong Kong police knew in advance that white-clad mobsters planned to attack protesters and passers-by at the Yuen Long train station on July 21, 2019.

When dozens of unidentified thugs in white T-shirts attacked train passengers and passers-by with wooden and metal poles that day, police were inundated with emergency calls, but didn't move in until 39 minutes after the attacks began, drawing widespread public criticism that has largely been quashed or ignored by the city authorities.

Yeung's post had identified one officer involved in the incident.

The authorities have also pursued overseas internet service providers over content published by Hong Kongers overseas, Radio Free Asia has learned.

Overseas activist Sunny Cheung, who edits the online protest magazine "Be Water," said the magazine's internet service provider had received a letter from Hong Kong's national security police, who implement the 2020 National Security Law and the 2024 Law to Safeguard National Security, last month.

U.S.-based Cheung, who is among more than a dozen overseas activists wanted by the Hong Kong authorities, said police had claimed that "Be Water" was in violation of the National Security Law, which applies to anyone, anywhere in the world, and called on the provider to block it.

"This whole thing is about the Hong Kong government trying to exercise extraterritorial power to order network service providers in the United States to implement Hong Kong's National Security Law," Cheung told RFA Cantonese in a recent interview.

"The letter didn't mention any evidence, but accused us of crimes including 'secession' and 'incitement'."

Cheung described the measures as "extreme" and "ridiculous."

"Our U.S. service providers had the guts to stand up to the Hong Kong government and reject this request," he said.

The Facebook and Instagram pages of "Be Water" were still displaying normally in Hong Kong on Oct. 9.

However, some pro-democracy websites were blocked in the city, including the website of the U.S.-base Hong Kong Democracy Council, the London-based rights website Hong Kong Watch and an online museum commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Luk Nam Choi and Kwong Wing for RFA Cantonese.

Definitely. Having severe ADHD and managing without medication means my ability to focus is practically non-existent. I’ve missed so many deadlines, using last-minute pressure as a motivator. Writing a book under these circumstances was tough. But honestly I didn’t end up having much of a structured process, just chaotic spurts driven by the fear of my editor’s reaction if I didn’t deliver. I ended up doing everything during nights and weekends—it was intense.

I noticed you seemed less active on certain social platforms for a while. Was that a strategic part of your process to enhance focus?

Somewhat. I took a break from Twitter and was actually banned from it at one point. But I still stayed active on TikTok and YouTube. My online presence fluctuates depending on whatever’s happening in my life. I didn’t have a “book leave” from social media per se. When I have too many things going on, those are my most productive days. I’d end up procrastinating on a project even if you gave me all day to focus on it. I need a limited amount of time, a deadline, to get things done.

Could you expand on how you use the pressure from deadlines to be productive?

Well, there’s this idea: “A deadline is not a start time,” but for me, it might as well be. It’s 100% about the external pressure for me. I remember a tech executive I interviewed discussing anxiety as a motivator—it resonated very deeply. Without that anxious drive, I sometimes really struggle to accomplish tasks. During the book writing, I especially felt this. The stress and fear of missing a deadline or disappointing others are what fuel me into action. Planning doesn’t work for me; piling on work and riding the wave of urgent necessity does. It’s about creating a structure of chaos that somehow results in productivity.

How do you prioritize what gets done amidst that chaos? I think I would find that process maddening, but it seems to work well for you.

I think it’s the lack of predictability that keeps me engaged. If my day is too controlled or stable, I lose interest. I need my schedule packed, full of back-to-back commitments, so when a rare free hour pops up, I know it’s now or never for getting certain pieces of work done. Too much free time equals procrastination for me. By overloading my schedule, it forces me to manage time more effectively—even if it means I’m constantly putting out fires, it’s what keeps me moving forward.

How do you avoid burnout?

I don’t really think about slowing down. Burnout happens, sure, but I honestly just power through it. I manage by shifting my focus. If one area wears me out, I pivot to something else. If I’m tired of making videos, I switch to writing. If I’ve just finished a long feature, I’ll make TikToks or start a new project. It’s all about diversification for me. Stepping away entirely doesn’t work for me; it leads to depression and a drop in productivity. So I keep creative, often collaborating with friends on just-for-fun projects, like filming comedy skits. That kind of creativity, separate from work, is crucial for me. It’s about balance and finding joy in the creative process, not the outcome.

What is it about non-work-related creative projects that rejuvenates you? Is it the different stakes, or something else?

I thrive on new challenges and learning. That’s partly why I’m a journalist—I love to learn. It’s the same with hobbies; I dive into them, like I’ve been doing needlepoint recently and it’s become a big part of my day. It’s possibly an ADHD trait, this hyper-focusing on different skills, but it’s also how I keep my creativity flowing. Hobbies like that feel low-stakes because they’re not tied to my professional work, and yeah, that helps.

Have you taken on projects that you’ve had to abandon?

Oh, absolutely. Lots. I’ve left behind everything from TV shows that were in development to podcasts that were already several episodes in. Abandoning projects is part of the process for me. Even if a project doesn’t end up coming together the way I hoped, I get so much out of just having put in the work on it. I always approach projects like “let’s just see where this goes.” It’s important to manage expectations, too. High hopes can sometimes lead to disappointment, so I try to learn and have fun regardless of the outcome.

Has your approach to setting expectations evolved with your career experiences?

Definitely. I’ve come to appreciate that the best work isn’t always the result of intense effort or big expectations. Effort is important, but it doesn’t guarantee that others will resonate with your work. You have to do it for yourself first. A valuable lesson from art school was to always create art for yourself, as it might end up being just for you—and that’s okay. You have to try to enjoy the process of creating. Of course that isn’t to say you shouldn’t get paid for your work, but its value to you shouldn’t only depend on whether it’s commercially successful.

I wanted to ask about the financial side of your work. As a journalist, you study how online creators make money, and you’re also a content creator yourself. What insights from your journalism have helped you in the content creator side of your career?

One thing about money is that I don’t actually make any from my internet content because of my role as a journalist. I’m make a lot more money if I wasn’t a journalist.

From starting out as a blogger I learned how important it is to interact with your audience, which is not at all like how traditional journalism worked. I work on stories together with my audience, asking for their feedback and sources, which makes them feel more involved and actually improves the quality and accountability of my work. Sharing my work process and thoughts openly has also improved my work due to the interaction and feedback from the community, which is something traditional journalism could benefit from learning more about.

How do you approach using social media positively for audience interaction for your work despite all the toxicity out there?

For me, it’s about really engaging with people and making them a genuine part of the conversation. Not just treating them like an audience, but like people. I ask for input because I genuinely want it and it helps my work. It’s about creating meaningful dialogue and connections, even with all the negativity online.

What’s your personal work environment like? Do you have a specific place or tools you prefer for your best work?

I’ve said this before, but I do all my writing from bed. That’s where I’m able to focus and be most productive. I need that quiet, cozy environment. If I have to edit video, especially on Premiere, I might use a desktop for the convenience of a bigger screen, but all my writing happens in bed. Desks make me feel like I’m supposed to be on a call or something—it’s just too formal and stressful. Back when I was in a newsroom, I couldn’t write at my desk; I could only socialize or manage emails and messages. My best writing happens away from a desk.

Does working from bed affect your ability to disconnect from work during off hours?

The boundary between work and life is pretty much gone for me. Being on social media is such a big part of my work that I check my phone first thing in the morning in bed. It’s probably not ideal, but that’s how things are. I do have a “work side” of the bed, if that makes sense [laughs]. If I could, I’d have a separate daybed in an office just for work and keep my own bed for rest. But for now, I just switch sides.

Does it ever worry you that you don’t do more to separate your work and personal life?

Honestly, I don’t dwell on it. I’ve tried different productivity methods before that were supposed to help deal with that stuff, and they just added stress. I found that when I stopped worrying about following a set of “shoulds,” I was less dragged down by stress. I fully realize my approach isn’t for everyone. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it, but it works for me.

Your point about productivity methods adding stress really resonates. My wife and I listen to productivity podcasts, almost as a weird form of comfort listening, but it’s funny how they can make optimizing efficiency feel like a second job. The other day I was listening to a guy talk about using all these tips and tricks in Gmail, and I thought, this is definitely more work than just replying to your emails!

Oh, totally! I’ve actually thought a lot about this topic. My approach to email is “inbox infinity.” I refuse to let email become a stressor.

That mindset of not trying to over-manage everything also applies to my general outlook on making things. I’ve accepted that I’ll drop the ball sometimes. That’s just how it is. A story might not work out. I might have an unproductive day. I’ve learned to be at peace with it. The alternative, trying to keep up with everything, just adds too much negative pressure.

With your projects, especially the book, but also with all your content creation online, how do you decide when something is finished? Is that where deadlines come into play, because it’s “done” simply by necessity?

Exactly, it’s the deadline that calls it. I’ll be deep into something right up until the moment it needs to be submitted or I need to publish it online. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of being so tired of interacting with it that I can’t stand to look at it any longer—that’s when I decide it’s finished.

There’s also this sense of urgency tied to the internet. Creating content for the web, I feel this constant push against time. I’ll think, “Could I redo this video and improve it? Sure, but it’ll lose traction if I delay. Better to just release it.” I try to remember to not let perfect be the enemy of good.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Eric Steuer.

The bill would fine broadcasters who air content that promotes LGBTQ+ gender identification and relationships. Georgian press freedom advocates say state authorities often use legislation to fine opposition-leaning broadcasters.

Parliament passed the bill on September 17 and it must now be signed by President Salome Zourabichvili who has indicated that she will block it. But the ruling Georgian Dream party has enough support in parliament to override her.

The groups called on Georgian Dream to halt its legal attacks on press freedom and freedom of expression. In June, authorities enacted a Russian-style law requiring media outlets and nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from abroad to register as “foreign agents.”

Read the full statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The other organizations joining in the comments include, Access Now, Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), Japanese American Citizens League, National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI), National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Public Citizen, Sikh American Legal, Defense and Education Fund, and The Trevor Project.

“AI deepfakes represent a clear and present danger when it comes to political advertising and the FCC is rightfully taking it very seriously,” said Virginia Kase Solomón, President and CEO of Common Cause. “The American people deserve disclosure and transparency not only regarding who is bankrolling the political ads but whether the content itself is real or AI-generated. There are simply too many bad actors – both foreign and domestic – seeking to manipulate voters and election outcomes not to address deepfakes now.”

“It is gratifying to work with these civil rights organizations on the intersection of media accountability and artificial intelligence,” said Cheryl A. Leanza, UCC Media Justice’s policy advisor. “The long-standing work to ensure transparency and responsibility in political advertising should be fully applied to artificial intelligence in advertising. The viewing and listening public has every right to know by what means, and by whom, they are being persuaded.”

The groups emphasize that deepfakes and other AI-generated content have the potential to dramatically increase election disinformation, further threatening the integrity of our elections. They further stress that Black, Latino, Asian, and other communities of color have traditionally been targets of voter suppression and disinformation and that those trends will continue with the use of AI deepfakes.

The comments highlight the critical need for public disclosure of these advertisements, and the need to create a database that is easy-to-use for both journalists and members of the public.

“Disinformation has evolved and so must the regulations to combat it and protect the public interest,” said Ishan Mehta, Common Cause Media and Democracy Program Director. “AI deepfakes represent the newest generation of disinformation and voter suppression and to safeguard our democracy, Chair Rosenworcel and the FCC are to be commended for moving forward with new rules and a new database at a time when Congress and the Federal Election Commission has thus far failed to act.”

The comments point to the fact that the Commission has the authority to adopt the proposed rules in the public interest and that they are in compliance with the First Amendment.

To read the comments, click here.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Environmental Protection Agency has taken the first ever federal action against a system that misleads consumers about the recycled content in plastic products.

A ProPublica investigation in June showed how the plastics industry uses a controversial accounting method called mass balance to advertise plastic products as 20% or 30% recycled even if they physically contain less than 1% recycled content.

It involves a number shuffle, done only on paper, that inflates the advertised recycledness of one product by reducing the advertised recycledness of another, often less lucrative, product. Done purely for marketing, it has been criticized by environmentalists as a greenwashing tactic.

According to an EPA policy released this month, companies that want the federal government’s stamp of approval for their sustainable products can no longer use such convoluted math.

The EPA’s Safer Choice standard is a voluntary program that allows manufacturers to affix a “Safer Choice” label to their dish soap, laundry detergent and other products. The roughly 1,800 products that have earned that distinction include household cleaners sold in grocery stores and more niche products like industrial carpet stain removers. Until now, the program’s criteria have focused on encouraging brands to reduce their use of toxic chemicals. But the updated standard, released on Aug. 8, strengthens requirements for sustainable packaging as well; plastic packaging must contain at least 15% postconsumer recycled content.

A key requirement: The content must be determined “by weight,” effectively forbidding the mathematical sleight of hand.

“This is the turning point” that will allow us to start killing the “hoax” of mass balance, said Jan Dell, a chemical engineer who founded The Last Beach Cleanup, a nonprofit fighting plastic pollution.

It’s the latest of several Biden administration actions to tackle the plastic crisis, which is smothering communities, oceans and even our bodies with toxic material that doesn’t break down in nature. Last month, the White House announced that the federal government — the world’s largest buyer of consumer products — would stop purchasing single-use plastic by 2035. Reuters also reported that U.S. negotiators would support global limits on plastic production in ongoing talks for a United Nations plastics treaty.

This EPA decision shows that President Joe Biden’s team is adopting more aggressive policies to curb plastic, said Anthony Schiavo, senior director at Lux Research. Schiavo’s company analyzes global trends in emerging petrochemical and plastics technologies.

The new requirement effectively shuts out of the program any product made through a much-heralded chemical recycling technology called pyrolysis, which ProPublica’s investigation revealed to be so inefficient that it cannot yield more than 10% recycled content. In practice, it yields far less. Mass balance has been key to marketing those products and the technology.

A prominent plastics industry trade group defended mass balance and cited its use in other products like paper and fair-trade chocolate. “Mass balance is a widely accepted accounting tool used by a variety of industries that would encourage more recycled content in the overall economy,” Adam Peer, the American Chemistry Council’s senior director of plastics sustainability, said in an email.

The EPA gives annual awards to participants that have done particularly well in its program. Those recognized in 2023, for instance, included The Clorox Co., Rust-Oleum, Ecos and Seventh Generation, which grew their inventories of less-toxic cleaning products and educated consumers about the Safer Choice program.

ProPublica asked these four companies whether it would be difficult to transition to plastic packaging that meets the 15% threshold. None responded to requests for comment.

The EPA did not comment directly on the policy’s implications for pyrolysis or mass balance. The agency instead referred ProPublica to comments it made last year to the Federal Trade Commission about mass balance, calling it deceptive and advising against promoting it. “It would be clearer to focus on calculations that involve the actual amount of material used,” the agency told the FTC.

After an earlier version of the EPA policy, posted in November, left the door open for the use of mass balance, activists including Dell warned the agency about the accounting method’s flaws. And a group of state and local officials, including the attorneys general of 11 states, shared similar reservations on how the EPA should define recycled content.

In response to those comments, the EPA wrote that the final policy was written to “respect this consumer expectation” that “products with labels indicating use of recycled content contain post-consumer recycled content.”

“Common sense has prevailed here,” said Peter Blair, who co-wrote the activists’ comments with Dell. Blair, policy and advocacy director at the environmental group Just Zero, said he was thrilled that the EPA’s final decision prioritized “truthful, accurate” labeling of recycled content for a program that’s not explicitly about plastic.

The activists’ campaign reflects the mounting pressure to scrutinize and regulate how plastic — especially plastic recycled via newer technologies — is marketed. European regulators have banned the most extreme version of mass balance. And the FTC is updating the Green Guides, which spell out how companies can advertise recycled content in sustainable products. Those officials, too, are considering whether to allow mass balance.

Blair hopes the EPA decision sets a precedent for where the federal government will stand.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Lisa Song.

An explicit video of two individuals indulging in penetrative sex has gone viral on Instagram and X. 

The authors of this story came across the reel while scrolling through Instagram last week. It shows two young Indian men having a drink. Initially, the video appears typical, casually shot, and not intended to promote any product or service. However, as the video progresses, it shows one of them, whose face is blurred throughout the clip, losing or partially losing consciousness and the other, whose face is visible, taking the incapacitated man to another room and engaging in penetrative sex. The video graphically displays their naked bodies and genitalia during the act, throughout which the ‘victim’ is unconscious or barely conscious. The clip includes multiple cuts, which suggests that it has been edited to resemble a typical pornographic video. 

Here are a few screenshots from the initial part of the video:

According to Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, even consensual sexual intercourse is considered rape if the consent is taken when one is intoxicated or incapacitated. It is also to be noted at the outset that one can not confirm whether the clip in question is a staged video or whether it shows an actual commission of a rape. Upon inspection, however, we found that the man whose face was visible in the clip was a creator/adult entertainer holding an account on the subscription-based content-sharing platform ‘OnlyFans’.

What is of deep concern from the point of view of platform accountability is that the video, which flouts Instagram’s community guidelines on several counts, was live for at least six days amassing nearly 7 million views and 2.4 million shares. Even more worrying is that it was uploaded three times by the same user without being flagged by the automatic moderation algorithm. While these have been removed, the video continues to be live on Instagram, uploaded by other users.   

The community guidelines of Instagram state, “We know that there are times when people might want to share nude images that are artistic or creative in nature, but for a variety of reasons, we don’t allow nudity on Instagram. This includes photos, videos and some digitally-created content that show sexual intercourse, genitals and close-ups of fully nude buttocks.”

We reported the video using Instagram’s in-app reporting mechanism and it took the platform six days to remove all three videos.

At the time of this article being written, the video has been uploaded for the fourth time by the same account and continues to be live. It has also been uploaded by several other users on Instagram, one of which has 6.7 million views. A new Instagram account which had only this video on its timeline amassed close to 6,800 followers. We reported this particular video on July 25. It was no longer available at the time of this article being published, though we did not receive any notification from Instagram on the platform removing it. The same account subsequently shared another post which directed users to another account where the video was still live. Even spoof videos and skits made on the basis of the problematic clip are now doing the rounds on social media platforms. Besides, screenshots from the video have made their way into memes and have gone viral. 

Besides, several accounts have been created using the suffix ‘Zucc’ in the user name just to amplify the video. These accounts are being tagged in comments on other posts so that more viewers can access the video. The username is a clever wordplay. In meme culture, when a page is disabled or deleted, it’s referred to as being ‘zucced’, where ‘zucced’ is an allusion to Zuckerberg. This essentially implies that the page was taken down owing to Meta’s moderation mechanism. Accounts with such usernames are often backup pages for content that is likely to be removed by Meta.

In March 2019, Meta introduced a technology to detect nude images and videos automatically. It said in an announcement, “When someone’s intimate images are shared without their permission it can be devastating. To protect victims, it’s long been our policy to remove non-consensual intimate images (sometimes referred to as revenge porn) when they’re reported to us — and in recent years we’ve used photo-matching technology to keep them from being re-shared… By using machine learning and artificial intelligence, we can now proactively detect near nude images or videos that are shared without permission on Facebook and Instagram. This means we can find this content before anyone reports it…”

It is worrying to note that this particular video was not flagged for nudity at the server end when it was being uploaded multiple times.

According to Meta’s blog, it also uses a technology called SimSearchNet++, an image-matching model trained through self-supervised learning to match variations of an image with high precision and improved recall. This technology essentially helps in applying warning labels to duplicates of false claims and reduces their distribution. If Meta is using a similar technology for content moderation, the repeated upload of the video shows the ineffectiveness of that feature.

Also, Meta has introduced nudity protection in Instagram DMs, which blurs images identified as containing nudity and encourages people to think twice before sending nude pictures. The feature is designed to protect people from seeing unwanted nudity in their DMs and from scammers. The number of shares of the video in question suggests that nudity protection either doesn’t work on this video or it isn’t designed to work on videos in general. We tested the feature on Instagram by sending this reel to a demo account and it didn’t get blurred. Nor were we shown any prompt about potential nudity. This shows that the nudity protection mechanism applicable to images doesn’t work on videos.

Alt News has written to Meta about this. The story will be updated once we receive a response. We also reached out to the OnlyFans creator several times but they refused to speak to us. 

Possibility of Exposure to Minors

We came across this video on Instagram’s Reels section, where the social media platform has implemented an algorithm that presents users with videos posted from accounts they do not follow. More importantly, these algorithms are black boxes and can display content to users based on various factors, which are hard to determine. Instagram allows 13-year-olds to register for accounts on the platform and has introduced various parental control features in recent years. It is possible that the video came up/comes up in the timeline of a minor.  

It is to be noted that a 2021 study commissioned by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights found that among 3,491 participating school-going children, many have accounts on major social networking apps/sites, among which Instagram (used by 45.50 per cent) and Facebook (used by 36.8 per cent) were the most popular.

Alt News spoke to a psychologist to understand the effects of exposure to such videos on a minor. Ananya Sinha, director and chief clinical psychologist at TherapHeal, said, “Exposure to such videos, portraying hardcore pornography containing abuse, rape or sexual manipulation or aggression, has a strong influence on adolescents’ sexually permissive attitudes. They tend to normalize sexual harm and aggression. We must remember, pornography is not only watched out of curiosity or pleasure, but sometimes acts as a source of information. If a video like this pops up on an adolescent’s timeline, they will start thinking that this is how sexual interaction is supposed to be”.

“On the other hand, when one unexpectedly gets exposed to such videos, they may leave a significant psychologically distressing impact on the viewer’s mind. Viewing such sexual violence could be traumatising and the associated fear and anxiety may stay with one for years. This is one reason why social media platforms have community guidelines. The existence of the video on the platform shows the abject failure of these,” she added.

We also spoke to an advocate practising in Delhi. She said, “Instagram not taking the video down for days is illegal and they should have faster turn-around time. They have stricter community guidelines than most other platforms. The reel depicts a non-consensual scene and should have been taken down immediately. Publishing or transmitting obscene material/ sexually explicit act in electronic form is punishable under section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.”

Meta Has Deprioritized Content Moderation

In the past, Meta has come under criticism for arbitrarily deleting/disabling entire accounts of erotic art creators and pole dancers It also disabled the account of a creator for featuring photos of them breastfeeding their child. It is also pertinent to note that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has deprioritized content moderation over the past year. It laid off nearly 200 content moderators in 2023. Additionally, more than 100 positions related to trust, integrity, and responsibility were reportedly abolished the same year. The moves came at a time when nearly 50 elections, affecting half the planet’s population, were scheduled for 2024. 

Several media outlets have highlighted these while reporting on issues such as shrimp Jesus AI art, stolen AI-based images on Facebook, ads on Instagram selling drugs, stolen credit cards, hacked accounts, counterfeit money, weapons, and videos of minors doing sexual activity. Alt News, too, has written extensively on the failure of Meta’s content moderation, particularly in cases involving hate speech and depiction of violence.  

Earlier this year, a police complaint filed in West Bengal had named Instagram as a co-accused in an offence under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 67 (B) of the Information Technology (IT) Act of 2000. Responding to media queries, a spokesperson from Meta had then said that they took action on “content that violates our Community Guidelines or when it violates local law.” 

The story does not include usernames and links to prevent promotion of the video in any way. 

Kalim Ahmed is an independent researcher and former fact-checking journalist at Alt News.

The post Viral video of sexual act demonstrates failure of Instagram’s content moderation mechanism appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Kalim Ahmed.

The statement further called on Saudi authorities to end their campaigns of defamation and harassment against all those peacefully expressing views that diverge from the official government line or carrying out legitimate work in journalism, broadcasting, and online media.

As of December 2023, 10 journalists remain detained in Saudi prisons.

The joint statement is available in English and العربية.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

By Stephen Wright of BenarNews

The Papua New Guinea government’s push for news organisations to become its cheer-leading squad is under further scrutiny this week as Parliament hears testimony from journalists and top officials.

The effort to wield influence over the news, first announced last year as a “media development policy”, has been watered down in the face of strong opposition.

Despite the changes, the policy still contains avenues for politicians and officials to undermine the watchdog role of the Pacific island country’s media.

• READ MORE: Other PNG media freedom reports

“When we say media development we are saying media should be a tool for development because we are a developing nation,” said Steven Matainaho, Secretary of the Department of Information Communication Technology, which devised the media regulation plans.

“In a more advanced and mature economy it could be used as a Fourth Estate for balance and check, but in a developing economy every stakeholder should work together to develop the country — that includes the media,” he told the Committee on Communications’ hearing at Parliament House.

Papua New Guinea’s global ranking in the annual Reporters Without Borders press freedom index deteriorated to 91st place this year from 59th last year. In 2019 it was placed 38th out of the 180 nations assessed.

“We’re calling it the ‘media control policy’, not the ‘media development policy’,” Scott Waide, a senior Papua New Guinea journalist, told BenarNews.

“We didn’t agree with it because it was trying to make the media an extension of the government public relations mechanism,” he said.

Amid the criticism, the parliamentary committee on Wednesday asked the Media Council of Papua New Guinea to amend its submission to include a proposal that it takes the leading role in drafting any media policy.

Marape threatened media
Prime Minister James Marape has threatened to hold journalists accountable for news reports he objected to and has frequently criticised coverage of his government’s failings and Papua New Guinea’s social problems.

The government has an at times tenuous hold over the country, which in the past few months has suffered economically ruinous riots in the capital, spasms of deadly tribal violence in the highlands and a succession of natural disasters.

The fifth and latest draft of the policy argues that a government framework is needed for the growth of a successful media industry, which currently suffers from low salaries, insufficient training, competition for readers with social media and, according to a government survey, a high level of public distrust.

The media policy is also needed to justify providing funds from the government budget to bolster journalism training at universities, according to Matainaho.

It envisages a National Media Commission that would report to Parliament and oversee the media industry, including accreditation of journalists and media organisations. A Government Media Advisory Committee would sit inside the commission.

A separate National Media Content Committee would “oversee national content” and a National Information Centre would “facilitate the dissemination of accurate government information” by overseeing a news website, newspaper and 24-hour news channel.

It also aims to make existing state-owned media a more effective conduit for government news.

Government role ‘too much’
Neville Choi, president of the Media Council of PNG representing the major mainstream broadcasters and publishers, said the plans still give far too much of a role to the government.

He said the council is concerned about the long-term risk to democracy and standards of governance if the state became the authority for accreditation of journalists, determining codes of practice, enforcing compliance with those codes and adjudicating complaints against media.

“One must consider how future actors might interpret or administer the policy with political intent,” he said in the council’s submission to the committee.

“The proposed model would allocate too much centralised power to government,” he said.

Waide said the main focus of a media development policy should be on training and providing adequate funding to university journalism programmes.

Media, he said, “is a tool for development in one respect, in that we need to promote as much as possible the values of Papua New Guinean society.

“But there has to be a healthy mix within the media ecosystem,” he said. “Where opinions are expressed, opinions are not suppressed and not everyone is for the government.”

Call to develop ‘pathways’
Although the policy mentions the importance of press freedom in a democracy and freedom of expression enshrined in the country’s constitution, other comments point to different priorities.

“It is necessary to review, update and upgrade how we do business in the media space in PNG. This must be with the mindset of harnessing and enhancing the way we handle media information and news for development,” Minister of Communications and Information Technology Timothy Masiu said in the document.

It is timely to develop “pathways” for developing the industry and “holding media in general responsible and accountable,” he said.

And according to Matainaho: “The constitution protects the rights of the citizens, we must not take that away from the citizens, but at the same time we need to find a balance where we still hold the media accountable.”

His department had studied Malaysia — which ranks lower than Papua New Guinea in the press freedom index and has draconian laws used to threaten journalists — when it was developing the media policy, Matainaho said.

Media’s rights under the constitution are not absolute rights, he said.

Harlyne Joku contributed to this report from Port Moresby. Copyright ©2015-2024, BenarNews. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

"I really never imagined the police would come after me because I migrated along with my entire family," YouTuber Qiqi, who goes by one name, said in a video posted to her channel on April 25. "But now the police have gone and gotten in touch with relatives on my mother's side of the family."

"They couldn't get a hold of me, so they went after my mother instead, which is the same thing," she said, adding that the order to find her relatives had come down from the provincial level of government. "I'm not going to say exactly who because the police are probably watching this."

Qiqi's video comes amid growing concern over Beijing's “long-arm” law enforcement targeting overseas activists and students, as well as YouTubers who post content that is critical of the Chinese Communist Party and its leader Xi Jinping.

"They kept calling my mother in the middle of the night, harassing her, calling again and again," Qiqi said.

She said the police -- who want her to shut down her YouTube channel and delete all of her videos -- needn't bother calling any more.

"A big part of the reason I left China was that I wouldn't be able to speak freely until I got out," she said. "So why do you think I'll listen when you try to pursue me overseas?"

Repeated attempts to contact Qiqi online went unanswered by the time of writing.

Common problem

Veteran U.S.-based journalist and YouTuber Wang Jian said the Chinese authorities often pursue and harass Chinese migrants overseas, or put pressure on their relatives back home.

"Actually, it's not just YouTubers, but journalists, dissidents, human rights lawyers and anyone critical of the Chinese authorities have this problem," Wang said. "But YouTubers are more likely to get to the critical point where someone [in the Chinese government] feels hurt by what they do."

He said the aim in contacting people's relatives was to show them that they aren't free from possible reprisals, even if they live overseas.

"[It means] you have a weakness, so be careful what you say," Wang said. "You can't express your thoughts freely -- the Communist Party has been doing this since it was founded."

One of the videos police wanted Qiqi to take down was a Jan. 14 upload in which she discussed whether President Xi Jinping really would give the order to invade Taiwan.

Complaints from people operating as part of Beijing's United Front overseas influence campaign are believed to have been behind the removal of at least two satirical YouTube channels taking aim at Xi in recent years.

‘Drink tea’

Meanwhile, a group of rights activists who are currently making a small-budget satirical film taking aim at the Chinese government in Los Angeles said police back in China have hauled in a number of their family members back home to "drink tea," a euphemism for questioning or a dressing-down.

Wang Han, who is directing the movie "The Emperor Vs. the Three Evils," said the police had managed to track down family members of all of the crew.

"The police kept on calling the home of [one actor], telling [his parents] not to let him take part in this," Wang said. "The police keep trying to contact me as well."

Wang said freedom of expression should be a universal human right that he and the rest of the crew aren't willing to let go, however.

"People in China should have the right to express themselves freely, but if we can't do that in China, then at least we should get to do that in the United States," he said.

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jenny Tang for RFA Mandarin.

It all stems from the April 15 incident that took place at an Assyrian Orthodox service conducted by Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and the Rev. Isaac Royel at Christ the Good Shepherd Church in Wakeley, Sydney.  A 16-year-old youth, captured on the livestream of the surface, is shown heading to the bishop before feverishly stabbing him, speaking Arabic about insults to the Prophet Muhammed as he does so.  Rev. Royel also received injuries.

Up to 600 people subsequently gathered around the church.  A number demanded that police surrender the boy.  In the hours of rioting that followed, 51 police officers were injured.  Various Sydney mosques received death threats.

The matter – dramatic, violent, raging – rattled the authorities.  For the sake of appearance, the heavies, including counter-terrorism personnel, New South Wales police and members of the Australian domestic spy agency, ASIO, were brought in.  The pudding was ready for a severe overegging.  On April 16, the NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb deemed the stabbing a “terrorist incident”.  NSW Premier Chris Minns stated that the incident was being investigated as a “terrorist incident” given the “religiously motivated” language used during the alleged attack.

After conducting interviews with the boy while still in his hospital bed on April 18, the decision was made to charge him with the commission of an alleged act of terrorism.  This, despite a behavioural history consistent with, as The Guardian reports, “mental illness or intellectual disability.”  For their part, the boy’s family noted “anger management and behavioural issues” along with his “short fuse”, none of which lent themselves to a conclusion that he had been radicalised.  He did, however, have a past with knife crime.

Assuming the general public to be a hive of incipient terrorism easily stimulated by images of violence, networks and media outlets across the country chose to crop the video stream.  The youth is merely shown approaching the bishop, at which point he raises his hand and is editorially frozen in suspended time.

Taking this approach implied a certain mystification that arises from tampering and redacting material in the name of decency and inoffensiveness; to refuse to reveal such details and edit others, the authorities and information guardians were making their moralistic mark.  They were also, ironically enough, lending themselves to accusations of the very problems they seek to combat: misinformation and its more sinister sibling, disinformation.

Another telling point was the broader omission in most press reporting to detail the general background of the bishop in question.  Emmanuel is an almost comically conservative churchman, a figure excommunicated for his theological differences with orthodoxy.  He has also adopted fire and brimstone views against homosexuality, seeing it as a “crime in the eyes of God”, attacked other religions of the book, including Judaism and Islam, and sees global conspiracies behind the transmission of COVID-19.  Hardly, it would seem, the paragon of mild tolerance and calm acceptance in a cosmopolitan society.

On April 16, Australia’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, got busy, announcing that X Corp and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, had been issued with legal notices to remove material within 24 hours depicting “gratuitous or offensive violence with a high degree of impact and detail”.  The material in question featured the attack at the Good Shepherd Church.

Under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), the commissioner is granted various powers to make sure the sheep do not stray.  Internet service providers can be requested or required to block access to material that promotes abhorrent violent conduct, incites such conduct, instructs in abhorrent violent conduct or depicts abhorrent violent conduct.  Removal of material promoting, instructing, or depicting such “abhorrent violent conduct”, including “terrorist acts” can be ordered for removal if it risks going “viral” and causing “significant harm to the Australian community”.

X took a different route, preferring to “geoblock” the content.  Those in Australia, in other words, would not be able to access the content except via such alternative means as a virtual private network (VPN).  The measure was regarded as insufficient by the commissioner.  In response, a shirty Musk dubbed Grant Australia’s “censorship commissar” who was “demanding *global* content bans”.  On April 21, a spokesperson for X stated that the commissioner lacked “the authority to dictate what content X’s users can see globally.  We will robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court.”

In court, the commissioner argued that X’s interim measure not to delete the material but “geoblock” it failed to comply with the Online Safety Act.  Siding with her at first instance, the court’s interim injunction requires X to hide the posts in question from all users globally.  A warning notice is to cover them. The two-day injunction gives X the opportunity to respond.

There is something risible in all of this.  From the side of the authorities, Grant berates and intrudes, treating the common citizenry as malleable, immature and easily led.  Spare them the graphic images – she and members of her office decide what is “abhorrent” and “offensive” to general sensibilities.

Platforms such as Meta and X engage in their own forms of censorship and information curation, their agenda algorithmically driven towards noise, shock and indignation.  All the time, they continue to indulge in surveillance capitalism, a corporate phenomenon the Australian government shows little interest in battling.  On both sides of this coin, from the bratty, petulant Musk, to the teacherly manners of the eSafety Commissioner, the great public is being mocked and infantilised.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Editorial staff at Australia’s public broadcaster ABC have again registered a vote of no confidence in managing director David Anderson and senior managers over the handling of complaints by Israeli lobbyists.

At a national meeting of members of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance this week, staff passed a resolution of no confidence in Anderson and all ABC managers involved in the decision to unfairly dismiss freelance broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf, MEAA said in a statement.

The meeting was held in response to the Fair Work Commission hearings to determine Lattouf’s unfair dismissal claim after she had been sacked from her temporary job as host of ABC Sydney radio’s morning show in December.

• READ MORE: Other reports on ABC and media bias over Israel’s war on Gaza

Staff have also called for ABC’s head of content, Chris Oliver-Taylor, to step down immediately for his role as the ultimate decisionmaker in the dismissal of Lattouf.

“The mishandling of Antoinette Lattouf’s employment has done enormous damage to the integrity and reputation of the ABC,” said MEAA media director Cassie Derrick.

“Evidence provided in the Fair Work Commission hearing about the involvement of David Anderson and Chris Oliver-Taylor in her dismissal has further undermined the confidence of staff in the managing director and his senior managers to be able to protect the independence of the ABC.

“The Lattouf case continues a pattern of ABC journalists, particularly those from culturally diverse backgrounds, lacking support from management when they face criticism from lobby groups, business organisations and politicians.

“For these reasons, Chris Oliver-Taylor should be stood down immediately, while Mr Anderson must demonstrate he is taking the concerns of staff seriously to begin to restore confidence in his leadership.”

Lattouf co-founded Media Diversity Australia (MDA) in 2017, a nonprofit agency which seeks to increase cultural and linguistic diversity in Australia’s news media.

Her parents arrived in Australia as refugees from Lebanon in the 1970s.

Lattouf was born in 1983 in Auburn, New South Wales. She attended various public schools in Western Sydney and studied communications (social inquiry) at the University of Technology Sydney.

Union-led ABC staff call for the resignation of the Australian @ABCNews chief content officer after court documents revealed his role in journalist Antoinette Lattouf’s dismissal for an accurate social media post about Israel’s starvation strategy.https://t.co/eQ8fLBiQL6

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) March 21, 2024

The full motion passed by ABC MEAA members on Wednesday:

“We, MEAA members at the ABC, are outraged by the revelations of how ABC executives have disregarded the independence of the ABC, damaged the public’s trust in our capacity to report without fear or favour, and mistreated our colleague Antoinette Lattouf.

“Staff reaffirm our lack of confidence in managing director David Anderson, and in all ABC managers involved in the decision to unfairly dismiss Antoinette Lattouf.

“Chris Oliver-Taylor has undermined the integrity of the entire ABC through his mismanagement, and should step down from his role as Head of the Content Division immediately.

“We call on ABC management to stop wasting public funds on defending the unfair dismissal case against Antoinette Lattouf, provide her and the public a full apology and reinstate her to ABC airwaves.

“We demand that ABC management implement staff calls for a fair and clear social media policy, robust and transparent complaints process and an audit to address the gender and race pay gap.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The research lab at the University of Toronto found that Shenzhen Haimaiyunxiang Media Co. (Haimai), a public relations firm, was behind the push to promote pro-Beijing business and political “propaganda,” and vilifying reports of former United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen meeting when U.S.-China and cross-strait relations were in a highly-sensitive state.

The researchers used the Domain Name System to track down these websites in a campaign named Paperwall, and to dig up the information on Haimai, which has a commercial registration in Shenzhen. 

While the report is absolutely credible, it is only part of the truth based on his personal experience, Victor Ho, the former editor-in-chief of the British Columbia version of Sing Tao Daily, told Radio Free Asia.

Beijing has a long history of fighting public opinion wars overseas. There are many seemingly neutral Chinese-language media in Canada that promote Beijing’s “big foreign propaganda,” but it is difficult for ordinary people to discern, he pointed out.

Ho said Canada has numerous so-called pro-Chinese Communist Party media, or media that seem to have no relationship with the CCP, such as Ming Pao, Sing Tao Daily, Today Commercial News, Chinese Canadian Times, Dawa News, Health Times and New Star Times. 

“These are all localized names in Canada. There are 20 to 30 CCP’s foreign propaganda media outlets in Canada, shaping the impressions of the Chinese community and many overseas Chinese, or Chinese Canadians, of the CCP,” said Ho. 

“If you are new here and undiscerning, you could be watching the CCP’s ‘big foreign propaganda’ all the time, but thinking you are watching Canadian Chinese media. This is quite scary and shocking.”

The Paperwall report found that approximately 100 domains backlinked to Times Newswire, a “supposed newswire service.” 

The discovered “fake news” network is huge, 32 of which are targeting readers in South Korea and Japan, 11 are British media, and the rest cover about 30 countries around the world. 

Most of the “fake news” comes from Times Newswire, which RFA noticed dispatches press releases and news reports written in multiple languages, such as Korean, Japanese and French, covering politics, economy, culture, current affairs, and sports.

For instance, Roma Journal, which targets Italians and is not legally registered as a news outlet in Italy, often publishes information about U.S. President Joe Biden’s foreign visits. It also republished a large volume of news from Chinese mouthpiece CGTN before and after Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August 2022, with headlined articles like “Pelosi is short-sighted and selfish, endangering Sino-U.S. relations.” In addition, there was a video that vilified Tsai Ing-wen titled “Undercovering the Tsai scam,” and an unverified article that Taiwanese military officers only visited the U.S. to eat and have fun.

Another media, Conan Finance News, targeting British audiences, reprinted articles about Hong Kong, including those promoting the “one country, two systems.” 

Researcher and author of the report Alberto Fittarelli wrote: “While the campaign’s websites enjoyed negligible exposure to date, there is a heightened risk of inadvertent amplification by the local media and target audiences, as a result of the quick multiplication of these websites and their adaptiveness to local languages and content.”

Haimai did not respond to inquiries and a listed phone number was unreachable, according to a Reuters report. The Chinese Embassy in Washington told the news agency in an email that calling pro-China content and reports “false information” and anti-China content and reports “true information” was “typical prejudice and double standards.”

Translated by RFA staff. Edited by Taejun Kang and Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff for RFA Mandarin.

A small group of volunteers from Israel’s tech sector is working tirelessly to remove content it says doesn’t belong on platforms like Facebook and TikTok, tapping personal connections at those and other Big Tech companies to have posts deleted outside official channels, the project’s founder told The Intercept.

The project’s moniker, “Iron Truth,” echoes the Israeli military’s vaunted Iron Dome rocket interception system. The brainchild of Dani Kaganovitch, a Tel Aviv-based software engineer at Google, Iron Truth claims its tech industry back channels have led to the removal of roughly 1,000 posts tagged by its members as false, antisemitic, or “pro-terrorist” across platforms such as X, YouTube, and TikTok.

In an interview, Kaganovitch said he launched the project after the October 7 Hamas attack, when he saw a Facebook video that cast doubt on alleged Hamas atrocities. “It had some elements of disinformation,” he told The Intercept. “The person who made the video said there were no beheaded babies, no women were raped, 200 bodies is a fake. As I saw this video, I was very pissed off. I copied the URL of the video and sent it to a team in [Facebook parent company] Meta, some Israelis that work for Meta, and I told them that this video needs to be removed and actually they removed it after a few days.”

Billed as both a fight against falsehood and a “fight for public opinion,” according to a post announcing the project on Kaganovitch’s LinkedIn profile, Iron Truth vividly illustrates the perils and pitfalls of terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation” in wartime, as well as the mission creep they enable. The project’s public face is a Telegram bot that crowdsources reports of “inflammatory” posts, which Iron Truth’s organizers then forward to sympathetic insiders. “We have direct channels with Israelis who work in the big companies,” Kaganovitch said in an October 13 message to the Iron Truth Telegram group. “There are compassionate ones who take care of a quick removal.” The Intercept used Telegram’s built-in translation feature to review the Hebrew-language chat transcripts.

Iron Truth vividly illustrates the perils and pitfalls of terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation” in wartime.

So far, nearly 2,000 participants have flagged a wide variety of posts for removal, from content that’s clearly racist or false to posts that are merely critical of Israel or sympathetic to Palestinians, according to chat logs reviewed by The Intercept. “In the U.S. there is free speech,” Kaganovitch explained. “Anyone can say anything with disinformation. This is very dangerous, we can see now.”

“The interests of a fact checking or counter-disinformation group working in the context of a war belongs to one belligerent or another. Their job is to look out for the interests of their side,” explained Emerson Brooking, a fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. “They’re not trying to ensure an open, secure, accessible online space for all, free from disinformation. They’re trying to target and remove information and disinformation that they see as harmful or dangerous to Israelis.”

While Iron Truth appears to have frequently conflated criticism or even mere discussion of Israeli state violence with misinformation or antisemitism, Kaganovitch says his views on this are evolving. “In the beginning of the war, it was anger, most of the reporting was anger,” he told The Intercept. “Anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anything related to this was received as fake, even if it was not.”

The Intercept was unable to independently confirm that sympathetic workers at Big Tech firms are responding to the group’s complaints or verify that the group was behind the removal of the content it has taken credit for having deleted. Iron Truth’s founder declined to share the names of its “insiders,” stating that they did not want to discuss their respective back channels with the press. In general, “they are not from the policy team but they have connections to the policy team,” Kaganovitch told The Intercept, referring to the personnel at social media firms who set rules for permissible speech. “Most of them are product managers, software developers. … They work with the policy teams with an internal set of tools to forward links and explanations about why they need to be removed.” While companies like Meta routinely engage with various civil society groups and NGOs to discuss and remove content, these discussions are typically run through their official content policy teams, not rank-and-file employees.

The Iron Truth Telegram account regularly credits these supposed insiders. “Thanks to the TikTok Israel team who fight for us and for the truth,” read an October 28 post on the group’s Telegram channel. “We work closely with Facebook, today we spoke with more senior managers,” according to another post on October 17. Soon after a Telegram chat member complained that something they’d posted to LinkedIn had attracted “inflammatory commenters,” the Iron Truth account replied, “Kudos to the social network LinkedIn who recruited a special team and have so far removed 60% of the content we reported on.”

Kaganovitch said the project has allies outside Israel’s Silicon Valley annexes as well. Iron Truth’s organizers met with the director of a controversial Israeli government cyber unit, he said, and its core team of more than 50 volunteers and 10 programmers includes a former member of the Israeli Parliament.

“Eventually our main goal is to get the tech companies to differentiate between freedom of speech and posts that their only goal is to harm Israel and to interfere with the relationship between Israel and Palestine to make the war even worse,” Inbar Bezek, the former Knesset member working with Iron Truth, told The Intercept in a WhatsApp message.

“Across our products, we have policies in place to mitigate abuse, prevent harmful content and help keep users safe. We enforce them consistently and without bias,” Google spokesperson Christa Muldoon told The Intercept. “If a user or employee believes they’ve found content that violates these policies, we encourage them to report it through the dedicated online channels.” Muldoon added that Google “encourages employees to use their time and skills to volunteer for causes they care about.” In interviews with The Intercept, Kaganovitch emphasized that he works on Iron Truth only in his free time, and said the project is entirely distinct from his day job at Google.

Meta spokesperson Ryan Daniels pushed back on the notion that Iron Truth was able to get content taken down outside the platform’s official processes, but declined to comment on Iron Truth’s underlying claim of a back channel to company employees. “Multiple pieces of content this group claims to have gotten removed from Facebook and Instagram are still live and visible today because they don’t violate our policies,” Daniels told The Intercept in an emailed statement. “The idea that we remove content based on someone’s personal beliefs, religion, or ethnicity is simply inaccurate.” Daniels added, “We receive feedback about potentially violating content from a variety of people, including employees, and we encourage anyone who sees this type of content to report it so we can investigate and take action according to our policies,” noting that Meta employees have access to internal content reporting tools, but that this system can only be used to remove posts that violate the company’s public Community Standards.

Neither TikTok nor LinkedIn responded to questions about Iron Truth. X could not be reached for comment.

A Palestinian woman cries in the garden of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital after it was hit in Gaza City, Gaza, on Oct. 18, 2023.

“Keep Bombing!”

Though confusion and recrimination are natural byproducts of any armed conflict, Iron Truth has routinely used the fog of war as evidence of anti-Israeli disinformation.

At the start of the project in the week after Hamas’s attack, for example, Iron Truth volunteers were encouraged to find and report posts expressing skepticism about claims of the mass decapitation of babies in an Israeli kibbutz. They quickly surfaced posts casting doubt on reports of “40 beheaded babies” during the Hamas attack, tagging them “fake news” and “disinformation” and sending them to platforms for removal. Among a list of LinkedIn content that Iron Truth told its Telegram followers it had passed along to the company was a post demanding evidence for the beheaded baby claim, categorized by the project as “Terror/Fake.”

But the skepticism they were attacking proved warranted. While many of Hamas’s atrocities against Israelis on October 7 are indisputable, the Israeli government itself ultimately said it couldn’t verify the horrific claim about beheaded babies. Similarly, Iron Truth’s early efforts to take down “disinformation” about Israel bombing hospitals now contrast with weeks of well-documented airstrikes against multiple hospitals and the deaths of hundreds of doctors from Israeli bombs.

On October 16, Iron Truth shared a list of Facebook and Instagram posts it claimed responsibility for removing, writing on Telegram, “Significant things reported today and deleted. Good job! Keep bombing! ”

While most of the links no longer work, several are still active. One is a video of grievously wounded Palestinians in a hospital, including young children, with a caption accusing Israel of crimes against humanity. Another is a video from Mohamed El-Attar, a Canadian social media personality who posts under the name “That Muslim Guy.” In the post, shared the day after the Hamas attack, El-Attar argued the October 7 assault was not an act of terror, but of armed resistance to Israeli occupation. While this statement is no doubt inflammatory to many, particularly in Israel, Meta is supposed to allow for this sort of discussion, according to internal policy guidance previously reported by The Intercept. The internal language, which detailed the company’s Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, lists this sentence among examples of permitted speech: “The IRA were pushed towards violence by the brutal practices of the British government in Ireland.”

While it’s possible for Meta posts to be deleted by moderators and later reinstated, Daniels, the spokesperson, disputed Iron Truth’s claim, saying links from the list that remain active had never been taken down in the first place. Daniels added that other links on the list had indeed been removed because they violated Meta policy but declined to comment on specific posts.

Under their own rules, the major social platforms aren’t supposed to remove content simply because it is controversial. While content moderation trigger-happiness around mere mentions of designated terror organizations has led to undue censorship of Palestinian and other Middle Eastern users, Big Tech policies on misinformation are, on paper, much more conservative. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, for example, only prohibit misinformation when it might cause physical harm, like snake oil cures for Covid-19, or posts meant to interfere with civic functions such as elections. None of the platforms targeted by Iron Truth prohibit merely “inflammatory” speech; indeed, such a policy would likely be the end of social media as we know it.

Still, content moderation rules are known to be vaguely conceived and erratically enforced. Meta for instance, says it categorically prohibits violent incitement, and touts various machine learning-based technologies to detect and remove such speech. Last month, however, The Intercept reported that the company had approved Facebook ads calling for the assassination of a prominent Palestinian rights advocate, along with explicit calls for the murder of civilians in Gaza. On Instagram, users leaving comments with Palestinian flag emojis have seen these responses inexplicably vanished. 7amleh, a Palestinian digital rights organization that formally partners with Meta on speech issues, has documented over 800 reports of undue social media censorship since the war’s start, according to its public database.

Disinformation in the Eye of the Beholder

“It’s really hard to identify disinformation,” Kaganovitch acknowledged in an interview, conceding that what’s considered a conspiracy today might be corroborated tomorrow, and pointing to a recent Haaretz report that an Israel Defense Forces helicopter may have inadvertently killed Israelis on October 7 in the course of firing at Hamas.

Throughout October, Iron Truth provided a list of suggested keywords for volunteers in the project’s Telegram group to use when searching for content to report to the bot. Some of these terms, like “Kill Jewish” and “Kill Israelis,” pertained to content flagrantly against the rules of major social media platforms, which uniformly ban explicit violent incitement. Others reflected stances that might understandably offend Israeli social media users still reeling from the Hamas attack, like “Nazi flag israel.”

But many other suggestions included terms commonly found in news coverage or general discussion of the war, particularly in reference to Israel’s brutal bombardment of Gaza. Some of those phrases — including “Israel bomb hospital”; “Israel bomb churches”; “Israel bomb humanitarian”; and “Israel committing genocide” — were suggested as disinformation keywords as the Israeli military was being credibly accused of doing those very things. While some allegations against both Hamas and the IDF were and continue to be bitterly disputed — notably who bombed the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital on October 17 — Iron Truth routinely treated contested claims as “fake news,” siding against the sort of analysis or discussion often necessary to reach the truth.

“This post must be taken down, he is a really annoying liar and the amount of exposure he has is crazy.”

Even the words “Israel lied” were suggested to Iron Truth volunteers on the grounds that they could be used in “false posts.” On October 16, two days after an Israeli airstrike killed 70 Palestinians evacuating from northern Gaza, one Telegram group member shared a TikTok containing imagery of one of the bombed convoys. “This post must be taken down, he is a really annoying liar and the amount of exposure he has is crazy,” the member added. A minute later, the Iron Truth administrator account encouraged this member to report the post to the Iron Truth bot.

Although The Intercept is unable to see which links have been submitted to the bot, Telegram transcripts show the group’s administrator frequently encouraged users to flag posts accusing Israel of genocide or other war crimes. When a chat member shared a link to an Instagram post arguing “It has BEEN a genocide since the Nakba in 1948 when Palestinians were forcibly removed from their land by Israel with Britain’s support and it has continued for the past 75 years with US tax payer dollars,” the group administrator encouraged them to report the post to the bot three minutes later. Links to similar allegations of Israeli war crimes from figures such as popular Twitch streamer Hasan Piker; Colombian President Gustavo Petro; psychologist Gabor Maté; and a variety of obscure, ordinary social media users have received the same treatment.

Iron Truth has acknowledged its alleged back channel has limits: “It’s not immediate unfortunately, things go through a chain of people on the way,” Kaganovitch explained to one Telegram group member who complained a post they’d reported was still online. “There are companies that implement faster and there are companies that work more slowly. There is internal pressure from the Israelis in the big companies to speed up the reports and removal of the content. We are in constant contact with them 24/7.”

Since the war began, social media users in Gaza and beyond have complained that content has been censored without any clear violation of a given company’s policies, a well-documented phenomenon long before the current conflict. But Brooking, of the Atlantic Council, cautioned that it can be difficult to determine the process that led to the removal of a given social media post. “There are almost certainly people from tech companies who are receptive to and will work with a civil society organization like this,” he said. “But there’s a considerable gulf between claiming those tech company contacts and having a major influence on tech company decision making.”

Iron Truth has found targets outside social media too. On November 27, one volunteer shared a link to NoThanks, an Android app that helps users boycott companies related to Israel. The Iron Truth administrator account quickly noted that the complaint had been forwarded to Google. Days later, Google pulled NoThanks from its app store, though it was later reinstated.

The group has also gone after efforts to fundraise for Gaza. “These cuties are raising money,” said one volunteer, sharing a link to the Instagram account of Medical Aid for Palestinians. Again, the Iron Truth admin quickly followed up, saying the post had been “transferred” accordingly.

But Kaganovitch says his thinking around the topic of Israeli genocide has shifted. “I changed my thoughts a bit during the war,” he explained. Though he doesn’t agree that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, where the death toll has exceeded 20,000, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, he understands how others might. “The genocide, I stopped reporting it in about the third week [of the war].”

Several weeks after its launch, Iron Truth shared an infographic in its Telegram channel asking its followers not to pass along posts that were simply anti-Zionist. But OCT7, an Israeli group that “monitors the social web in real-time … and guides digital warriors,” lists Iron Truth as one of its partner organizations, alongside the Israeli Ministry for Diaspora Affairs, and cites “anti-Zionist bias” as part of the “challenge” it’s “battling against.”

Despite Iron Truth’s occasional attempts to rein in its volunteers and focus them on finding posts that might actually violate platform rules, getting everyone on board has proven difficult. Chat transcripts show many Iron Truth volunteers conflating Palestinian advocacy with material support for Hamas or characterizing news coverage as “misinformation” or “disinformation,” perennially vague terms whose meaning is further diluted in times of war and crisis.

“By the way, it would not be bad to go through the profiles of [United Nations] employees, the majority are local there and they are all supporters of terrorists,” recommended one follower in October. “Friends, report a profile of someone who is raising funds for Gaza!” said another Telegram group member, linking to the Instagram account of a New York-based beauty influencer. “Report this profile, it’s someone I met on a trip and it turns out she’s completely pro-Palestinian!” the same user added later that day. Social media accounts of Palestinian journalist Yara Eid; Palestinian photojournalist Motaz Azaiza; and many others involved in Palestinian human rights advocacy were similarly flagged by Iron Truth volunteers for allegedly spreading “false information.”

Iron Truth has at times struggled with its own followers. When one proposed reporting a link about Israeli airstrikes at the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, the administrator account pointed out that the IDF had indeed conducted the attacks, urging the group: “Let’s focus on disinformation, we are not fighting media organizations.” On another occasion, the administrator discouraged a user from reporting a page belonging to a news organization: “What’s the problem with that?” the administrator asked, noting that the outlet was “not pro-Israel, but is there fake news?”

But Iron Truth’s standards often seem muddled or contradictory. When one volunteer suggested going after B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization that advocates against the country’s military occupation and broader repression of Palestinians, the administrator account replied: “With all due respect, B’Tselem does publish pro-Palestinian content and this was also reported to us and passed on to the appropriate person. But B’Tselem is not Hamas bots or terrorist supporters, we have tens of thousands of posts to deal with.”

Israeli flags fly in front of the Knesset, the unicameral parliament of the state of Israel, on Sept. 11, 2022, in Jerusalem.

Friends in High Places

Though Iron Truth is largely a byproduct of Israel’s thriving tech economy — the country is home to many regional offices of American tech giants — it also claims support from the Israeli government.

The group’s founder says that Iron Truth leadership have met with Haim Wismonsky, director of the controversial Cyber Unit of the Israeli State Attorney’s Office. While the Cyber Unit purports to combat terrorism and miscellaneous cybercrime, critics say it’s used to censor unwanted criticism and Palestinian perspectives, relaying thousands upon thousands of content takedown demands. American Big Tech has proven largely willing to play ball with these demands: A 2018 report from the Israeli Ministry of Justice claimed a 90 percent compliance rate across social media platforms.

Following an in-person presentation to the Cyber Unit, Iron Truth’s organizers have remained in contact, and sometimes forward the office links they need help removing, Kaganovitch said. “We showed them the presentation, they asked us also to monitor Reddit and Discord, but Reddit is not really popular here in Israel, so we focus on the big platforms right now.”

Wismonsky did not respond to a request for comment.

Kaganovitch noted that Bezek, the former Knesset member, “helps us with diplomatic and government relationships.” In an interview, Bezek confirmed her role and corroborated the group’s claims, saying that while Iron Truth had contacts with “many other employees” at social media firms, she is not involved in that aspect of the group’s work, adding, “I took on myself to be more like the legislation and legal connection.”

“What we’re doing on a daily basis is that we have a few groups of people who have social media profiles in different medias — LinkedIn, X, Meta, etc. — and if one of us is finding content that is antisemitic or content that is hate claims against Israel or against Jews, we are informing the other people in the group, and few people at the same time are reporting to the tech companies,” Bezek explained.

Bezek’s governmental outreach has so far included organizing meetings with Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and “European ambassadors in Israel.” Bezek declined to name the Israeli politicians or European diplomatic personnel involved because their communications are ongoing. These meetings have included allegations of foreign, state-sponsored “antisemitic campaigns and anti-Israeli campaigns,” which Bezek says Iron Truth is collecting evidence about in the hope of pressuring the United Nations to act.

Iron Truth has also collaborated with Digital Dome, a similar volunteer effort spearheaded by the Israeli anti-disinformation organization FakeReporter, which helps coordinate the mass reporting of unwanted social media content. Israeli American investment fund J-Ventures, which has reportedly worked directly with the IDF to advance Israeli military interests, has promoted both Iron Truth and Digital Dome.

FakeReporter did not respond to a request for comment.

While most counter-misinformation efforts betray some geopolitical loyalty, Iron Truth is openly nationalistic. An October 28 write-up in the popular Israeli news website Ynet — “Want to Help With Public Diplomacy? This is How You Start”— cited the Telegram bot as an example of how ordinary Israelis could help their country, noting: “In the absence of a functioning Information Ministry, Israeli men and women hope to be able to influence even a little bit the sounding board on the net.” A mention in the Israeli financial news website BizPortal described Iron Truth as fighting “false and inciting content against Israel.”

Iron Truth is “a powerful reminder that it’s still people who run these companies at the end of the day,” said Brooking. “I think it’s natural to try to create these coordinated reporting groups when you feel that your country is at war in or in danger, and it’s natural to use every tool at your disposal, including the language of disinformation or fact checking, to try to remove as much content as possible if you think it’s harmful to you or people you love.”

The real risk, Brooking said, lies not in the back channel, but in the extent to which companies that control the speech of billions around the world are receptive to insiders arbitrarily policing expression. “If it’s elevating content for review that gets around trust and safety teams, standing policy, policy [into] which these companies put a lot of work,” he said, “then that’s a problem.”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Sam Biddle.

Officers from the Ho Chi Minh City Police Investigation Agency on Thursday searched the home of Tran Thi Ngoc Trinh, 34, in the city’s District 7 before taking her into custody, where she admitted to violating the country’s Law on Road Traffic by driving with no hands and lying down on her motorcycle, the official Thanh Nien newspaper reported.

Police also launched legal proceedings against 36-year-old Tran Xuan Dong, who trained Ngoc Trinh how to ride motorcycles, for “counterfeiting official documents” and “disturbing social order,” the report said. He has been prohibited from leaving his residence.

According to Thanh Nien, Ngoc Trinh and Tran Xuan Dong used a high-performance motorcycle to conduct a street performance on road D15 in Ho Chi Minh City’s High-Tech Park on Oct. 6 that included “dangerous actions and objectionable positions” such as lying down and kneeling on the seat, riding hands-free, and placing both legs on one side of the vehicle.

Last month, the duo organized a gathering and motorcycle performance on Tran Bach Dang Road to perform similar stunts, which were filmed and posted to Ngoc Trinh’s social media channels. The video went viral, generating nearly 500,000 likes, 5,000 comments, 10,000 views, and 6,000 shares as of last week.

Thanh Nien cited authorities in Ho Chi Minh City as saying that the videos had negatively affected public security, order, safety, and set the wrong example of the country’s youth.

Ngoc Trinh, from the southern coastal Tra Vinh province, won the Miss Vietnam International pageant in 2011.

She began her fashion career at the age of 16, before competing in a model contest. Famous for the risque photos she posts featuring herself in lingerie, Ngoc Trinh boasts some 6 million followers on her verified Facebook account.

Translated by Anna Vu. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

On September 28, the Latvian parliament approved the “National Security Concept,” a government-backed policy planning document. It states that all “content created by public media must only be in Latvian and languages belonging to the European cultural space” from January 1, 2026. The move would essentially prohibit Latvian TV and Latvian Radio from continuing to produce content in Russian.

Read the full statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Janine Jackson interviewed Gizmodo‘s Thomas Germain about the destruction of online history for the August 18, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Janine Jackson: In the 1980s, when we at FAIR would talk about how the goals of journalism as a public service, and of information as a public good, were in conflict with those of media as a profit-driven business, we were often met with the contention that the internet was going to make that conflict meaningless, by democratizing access to information and somehow sidelining that profit motive with—technology!

Well, now we’re here, and much of our lives are online. It’s where many get news and information, how we communicate and learn. But power is still power, and the advertising model that drives so much fear and favor in traditional journalism is still in effect.

So, while much is different, there are still core questions to consider when you’re trying to figure out why some kinds of news or “content” is in your face, like it or not, and why some perspectives are very hard to find, and why there’s so much garbage to get through to get to any of it.

Our next guest’s job is to report on life online. Thomas Germain is a senior reporter at Gizmodo. He joins us now by phone from here in town. Welcome to CounterSpin, Thomas Germain.

Thomas Germain: Happy to be here.

JJ: There are internet rules that are not visible to all users, particularly those of us who aren’t looking into the gears of the thing, you know? We just want to read articles, or look at cats falling off chairs.

But as “offline” media have unseen rules—like if a sponsor can’t be found to buy ads on a show, well, that show’s not going to air, no matter how much people might like it—there are also behind-the-scenes factors for internet content that are not journalistic factors, if you will.

I wonder if you would talk us through what CNET—which many listeners will know is a longstanding website dedicated to tech news—is currently doing, and what do you think it means or portends?

Gizmodo (8/9/23)

TG: Yeah, so CNET is one of the oldest technology news sites on the internet. It’s been around since 1995, and they have tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of articles that they’ve put up over the years.

But I got a tip that CNET had started deleting its old content, because of the theory about improving the site’s performance on Google. And I went and I checked it out, and what I found was the company has been deleting thousands of its own articles.

Now, there’s a lot of complicated reasons that this is happening, but the No. 1 thing that people need to understand is a lot of the writing that happens on the internet is aimed as much at robots as it is at humans. And what I mean here is the algorithms that run Google search, right? Almost all internet traffic is driven by how high you show up in the search results on Google.

And there’s an entire industry called “search engine optimization” that is essentially a kind of gamified effort to get your content and your website and individual pages to perform better on Google.

And this is actually a huge thing that drives the journalism business. It’s the reason that you look at articles and you see the same keyword repeated over and over. It’s basically one of the things that dictates what subjects journalists write about, what’s covered and how it’s written.

Search Engine Roundtable (4/30/20)

And the performance of your entire site dictates how your individual pages will do. And Google issued some guidance last year which suggested that if you’ve got some content on your site that’s not performing well, it might help if you take it down. It didn’t say this explicitly, but a lot of companies, CNET included, have been going through and looking at pages that aren’t performing well, which tends to be older content.

And some of that content, they’re redirecting the URL of that page to other articles that they want to promote. And in some cases, they’re taking it down altogether.

So the effect of this is this kind of ironic thing, right? Google‘s entire reason for being is to make information easier to find, but in effect, because of the design of their algorithms, they’re actually encouraging companies, indirectly, to take some information off the internet altogether.

JJ: Because if folks are not “engaging”—that’s the word we’ve all learned to use—with a particular piece that a website might have up, then that’s dragging down the SEO of the site generally, is what you’re saying? Like if you have a lot of content that folks are not actively engaging with, then maybe your new stuff might not show up so high up on Google. Is that, vaguely, somewhere in the ballpark of what’s happening?

Gizmodo (11/15/19)

TG: That’s basically it. It’s really complicated. And also, we don’t really know exactly what’s going on here. Google isn’t super transparent about the way that its algorithms function, and search engine optimization, or SEO, is as much a guessing game as it is based on actual data. There’s some information that journalists and content publishers have access to, about how certain things are performing, but in other cases, it’s just best practices, and people crossing their fingers, essentially.

So the one thing we know for sure is the more content that’s on your website, the longer it takes Google‘s robots, they call them “crawlers,” to go through every page, which is how the company determines how certain pages will rank for search results.

So what they’ve said is, you’ve got a giant, old site like CNET, and there’s some content that’s not performing well, shrinking that down, they call it “content pruning,” can help you increase the performance of the content that you want to promote. So in effect, it could be an advantage to you, if you’ve got a giant site, to take some of that content down.

JJ: I think listeners will already understand the harm that that does to public information and to journalism, because obviously we think of the internet, dumbly perhaps, as an archive, and there is a severe loss implied in sites like CNET, and others if they follow their lead, in deleting old material.

TG: Yeah. Journalism, they say that it’s the first draft of history, right? And if you’re doing any kind of archival research, if you want to know what people were talking about in 1997, it helps to be able to have a record of all these old articles, even if no one’s reading them, even if they’re about topics that don’t have any obvious importance now. CNET used the example of old articles that talk about the prices of AOL, which is a thing that you can’t even get anymore.

But this stuff can be important for reasons that aren’t immediately obvious. And the loss of this information can really have a serious detrimental effect on the public record.

Wayback Machine

There are some companies that are working to preserve this stuff. The most well-known one is the Internet Archive. It’s got this tool called the Wayback Machine, which goes and preserves copies of webpages.

And CNET says that before it deletes content, it lets the Internet Archive know to make a copy of it, so it’s not gone forever. And they say they preserve their own copy, but they’re relying on a third-party service that’s a nonprofit to maintain this content, and who knows whether it’s going to be around in the long term.

But there’s an effect on the journalists, right? Because you want a record of your work in order to just keep track of what you’ve done, but also to have stuff to put in your portfolio to get new jobs. So the erasure of this content can be a problem, for just the general public and for history, but also for the people who are tasked with writing this stuff in the first place.

JJ: Absolutely. And, of course, who knows what’s going to be interesting from the past to look back on, because, who knows, you can’t predict what you might want to go back and look through. You know, maybe AOL will come up in the future, and we’ll want to know what was said about it at the time. So it seems like a loss.

Futurama (4/27/99)

Well, I’m going to ask you to switch gears just for a second. I have been recently thinking about a line in the show Futurama, when Fry, who has been transported to the far future, is shocked because a commercial appears in his dream. And Leela says, “Didn’t you have ads in the 21st century?” And Fry says:

Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio and in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams! No siree.

I think of that every time my phone beeps at 2:00 AM and it’s Spotify saying, “Hey, uh, there’s a playlist that you might like,” that’s not anything I signed up for. What is up with what definitely feels like an increase in ads, and in intrusive ads, in all of the online spaces that we see? What’s going on there?

TG: Yeah, I think this is something that everybody experiences, you’re aware of it, we all know that we’re seeing more ads, but I think people don’t quite recognize how prevalent it is and how dramatically it’s changed.

And it’s actually a recent change. So over the last year, we’ve seen a massive increase in the amount of advertising. We’re seeing it in places we’ve never seen before; Uber, I think, is an example, where we’re getting pop-up notifications that have ads in them, but just about every context you can think of: I saw an ad in a fortune cookie the other day. If there’s a space where there’s people’s eyes, it’s being turned into a space for advertising.

And there are two, I think, counterintuitive reasons that this is happening. And the first one’s actually because there are increasingly regulations and restrictions about privacy, right? There’s laws, more so in Europe than in the United States, that are restricting the ways that companies can collect and use your data.

And simultaneously, Google and Apple, who control all of the phones, understand that the writing is on the wall here, and they’re trying to get out in front of regulation before it happens, by putting their own limits on how companies collect data on their platforms.

Now what this does is it makes advertising less profitable, right, because targeted ads make more money than regular ads. But those targeted ads need lots of data. And if the data’s harder to find, it’s harder to make money if you’re a company that makes its cash on ads.

So what do you do in that situation? You just increase the number of ads that you’re showing people.

Thomas Germain: “If…you need to add a new revenue stream and you don’t have any great ideas, the obvious one is to add more ads to your platform.”

Simultaneously, there’s this other thing that’s happening in the technology industry, which is the economy, right? The federal government has raised interest rates; that makes it more expensive to borrow money. And all of this endless runway that the technology companies had for the better part of the decade is suddenly drying up.

And there’s been this shift where investors have started to understand that the technology industry isn’t some kind of magic money printing machine, and people are expecting more return on their investment.

So if you’re a company, and you need to add a new revenue stream and you don’t have any great ideas, the obvious one is to add more ads to your platform, or put them in places where they’ve never been before.

So there’s these two competing forces, right, privacy and the economy, that are pushing companies to inundate us with ads. And it’s really grown to an astonishing level.

I saw a study—and this is from a couple years ago, it’s gotten worse—where in the ’70s, we saw on average between 500 to 1,000 ads a day. Now the number is somewhere between 5,000 to 10,000 ads that everyone is seeing on average in a single day, which seems like a lot, but we become blind to it.

If you add up the ads you’re seeing on TV, all the sponsored posts, all the videos on TikTok where someone’s been paid to promote a product, the ads we’re seeing on bus stops and, you know, the little TVs at the grocery station…. There’s just constant advertising being blasted at us.

And we don’t know, for example, among other potential problems, how this might affect people’s psyche. It’s kind of a mass experiment that we’re all going through at the same time, and we don’t know what the effects are going to be.

JJ: We did have laws at some point about that, but it certainly seems that laws and regulation are, let’s just say, not keeping up.

TG: Yeah, absolutely. You know, most of the laws that govern the internet are laws that were adapted from other purposes, from the ’90s. For example, health privacy rules are based on a law that was written in 1996 in the United States.

Part of the problem here is regulators don’t really understand what’s going on, and that’s to say nothing about our aging population of politicians. People don’t really understand how the internet works in the first place, let alone the ability to come to a consensus on what we should do.

So the internet, more or less, is a place that is unregulated. It’s getting a little better, but we’ve got a lot of catching up to do.

JJ: We’re going to end on that note, which is not an end note, but a question about moving forward. We’ve been speaking with Thomas Germain, senior reporter at Gizmodo, online at Gizmodo.com. Thomas Germain, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

TG: Thank you. Great to talk to you.

The post ‘Erasure of Content Can Be a Problem for the Public and for History’ appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

The city's Communications Authority is inviting public input on a "proposed relaxation" of broadcasters' code of practice that will allow TV and radio stations to ignore impartiality requirements if they are educating the public about the national security law banning public criticism of the government, or promoting patriotism and a sense of Chinese identity.

The move, which will likely further erode any remaining difference between Hong Kong and other Chinese cities, comes amid an ongoing program of patriotic education in schools and universities since the national security law was imposed on the city in 2020.

"[Such] programmes ... promote the correct understanding of our nation which is conducive to the building of national identity and protection of national security," according to the consultation document.

Broadcasters have pointed out that such content violates the impartiality clauses in their licenses. 

But including views that oppose the national security law and the ongoing crackdown on dissent could mean they risk breaking the law, according to the document.

"The inclusion of objection to the national security law just for the sake of observing the impartiality requirement might risk the licensees breaching the relevant law," it said, saying it now proposes waiving impartiality requirements for such content.

Patriotic programming

Hong Kong broadcasters are currently required to deliver at least 30 minutes of patriotic or national security-related programming a week.

The changes will also pave the way for the airing of content made by Chinese state media in Hong Kong, where press freedom rankings have plummeted in the wake of a citywide crackdown on civil groups, opposition politicians and pro-democracy media organizations.

Most mainland programming currently doesn't make the grade for rebroadcast in Hong Kong under current impartiality requirements.

The plans come as the Communist Party starts to wield greater control over "national security" in the city via the Hong Kong and Macau Work Office, which has been charged with deploying the power of the central government to implement the national security law, which criminalizes public criticism of the authorities by anyone, anywhere in the world.

The office is also charged with "supporting" the integration of both Hong Kong and Macau with the rest of China.

The proposed new rules entirely serve the needs of the government, rather than viewers and listeners, according to former broadcast show host and current affairs commentator Johnny Lau.

"It's hard to grasp the logic of these rules," Lau said. "The government's red lines are constantly changing, making them hard to adapt to."

"It seems that the government is just making up the rules to suit their own needs," he said. "They even admit that mainland Chinese media content isn't impartial."

Understanding the mainland

The consultation document said allowing more mainland Chinese content would be educational for Hong Kongers.

"Given the increasing economic integration with the mainland and particularly the Greater Bay Area, there is merit in giving licensees more flexibility in direct re-transmitting or broadcasting acquired programmes from reputable sources on the mainland with a view to offering more programme choices and promoting the understanding of the mainland," it said.

The Communications Authority last amended impartiality rules in 2012 after receiving more than 42,000 complaints that the now-defunct ATV had shown bias in its reporting of a student movement against patriotic education in Hong Kong's schools.

That iteration of the rules required broadcasters to deal with "controversial issues of public concern" as opinion or commentary, and to ensure that a variety of opinions were heard, and currently remain in force.

The authority also received complaints during the 2019 protest movement that some media reports were "unfair" to the police, who were widely criticized at the time for their violent response to protesters.

In May 2020, government broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong axed the top satirical show "Headliner" after it poked fun at police denials of violence against pro-democracy protesters, and apologized, saying some archived episodes would also be removed.

The move came shortly after the Communications Authority issued a warning to the station for "denigrating and insulting" the police in a February episode of the show.

And in September 2021, the government rewrote editorial guidelines at RTHK requiring its producers and journalists to uphold China's national interests and avoid "glorifying" or depicting "criminal" activities that could incite others to do the same.

In an apparent reference to the reporting of protests, the guidelines said the station should avoid portraying the actions of "criminals or criminal suspects" as "glorious, heroic deeds."

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Gigi Lee for RFA Cantonese.

The clampdown, based on a March 2022 regulation, gives authorities additional power to restrict online content that the ruling Communist Party considers damaging and is yet another example of how China has ramped up restrictions on expression, religion and culture in the western Tibet Autonomous Region.

“As the Chinese government started implementing the law, Tibetan writers and those who are influential have been particularly targeted and scrutinized,” said a Tibetan from inside Tibet who declined to be identified for safety reasons. 

“These sections of the people are completely barred from sharing or speaking about Buddhism or anything educational without seeking permission from the Chinese government,” he said. “They are not even allowed to print out any sort of these religious documents.” 

The regulation bans foreign organizations and individuals from spreading such content except for those who have obtained government licenses. It requires them not to have had any criminal charges in the past three years.

“The Chinese government has not only denied basic freedom of expression for the Tibetans, but now Tibetan writers and those who are influential are completely barred from sharing anything,” said Pema Gyal, a researcher at London-based Tibet Watch. “So, in recent years we have hardly seen any content shared by them on social platforms.”

Public speaking banned

Among those barred are educators Yonten Gatos and Sayul Gyaltsen, Tibet historian Tsering Dhondup, and Sonam, the administrator of Potala Palace in the regional capital Lhasa, the Tibetan source from inside the region said.

Other Tibetans have been arrested and imprisoned on charges of “inciting separatism” and “endangering state security,” according to Tibetan sources, underscoring Beijing’s ongoing drive to destroy the influence of people whose views on religion and life in Tibet and Tibetan-populated regions of China go against official Chinese narratives.  

Another Tibetan source from inside the region sees the regulation as a double-standard.

“The Chinese government often denies any license or permits that could give the Tibetans to teach or educate publicly, and recently it has become even more difficult under the regulation,” he said. 

“On the contrary, there is so much content shared on social media that is misleading and inappropriate, and for those the Chinese government imposes no restrictions,” he said. 

Translated by Tenzin Dickyi for RFA Tibetan. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Sangyal Kunchok.

Along with the threats to journalists' safety that watchdog groups have documented for years, the 2023 World Press Freedom Index on Wednesday warned that the rapidly growing artificial intelligence and fake content industries are endangering the livelihoods of journalists around the world and cutting down on people's ability to access fact-based news.

The annual report, released by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), includes a section titled "Effects of the fake content industry," which notes that out of 180 countries evaluated by the group, 118 of them reported "massive disinformation or propaganda campaigns" in which political figures have been involved.

"The unprecedented ability to tamper with content is blurring the lines between true and false," RSF said in a video shared on social media as it released the report.

The report points to recent, realistic-looking viral images that were shared widely on social media showing former U.S. President Donald Trump being accosted by police and imprisoned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a comatose state, which were produced by the AI program Midjourney.

After the Trump photo went viral, journalist and researcher Arthur Holland Michel warnedPBS Newshour in March that the technology could just as easily be used to make fake photos or videos, also known as deepfakes, of private citizens for any number of reasons.

"From a policy perspective, I'm not sure we're prepared to deal with this scale of disinformation at every level of society," Michel wrote in an email. "My sense is that it's going to take an as-yet-unimagined technical breakthrough to definitively put a stop to this."

Blurred lines between fact and fiction are among the factors that are "jeopardizing the right to information," RSF reported, along with the "arbitrary, payment-based approach to information" that Twitter CEO Elon Musk has pushed, charging $8 per month for verified accounts which were once given to users including news outlets that had demonstrated merit.

Both developments are turning social media platforms into "quicksand for journalism," said RSF.

The report was released two days after NewsGuard published its own analysis, Rise of the Newsbots: AI-Generated News Websites Proliferating Online. That report showed that along with artificial intelligence (AI) companies that create fake images, dozens of websites populated entirely with AI-generated content have begun to "churn out vast amounts of clickbait articles to optimize advertising revenue."

"In April 2023, NewsGuard identified 49 websites spanning seven languages—Chinese, Czech, English, French, Portuguese, Tagalog, and Thai—that appear to be entirely or mostly generated by artificial intelligence language models designed to mimic human communication—here in the form of what appear to be typical news websites."

The websites publish hundreds of articles per day in some cases, about topics including politics, health, and finance—without ever disclosing their ownership or control or ensuring a human employee reads the information before it's shared with millions of internet users.

The lack of human input led at least one of the inauthentic websites analyzed by NewsGuard, CelebrityDeaths.com, to publish a false obituary of U.S. President Joe Biden in April, which stated that Vice President Kamala Harris was acting as president before continuing, "I'm sorry, I cannot complete this prompt as it goes against OpenAI's use case policy on generating misleading content."

OpenAI is the company behind ChatGPT, currently the fastest-growing app in the world. New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo wrote last month that the app, which launched in November is "already changing" journalism by offering assistance with finding synonyms, writing whole paragraphs of articles for journalists at Insider, and summarizing complicated documents.

"In short, as numerous and more powerful AI tools have been unveiled and made available to the public in recent months, concerns that they could be used to conjure up entire news organizations—once the subject of speculation by media scholars—have now become a reality," said NewsGuard.

RSF wrote that the challenges posed by AI and fake content—both for journalists and news consumers—are compounding "volatility" in the world of journalism, where reporters around the globe are also still in danger of being imprisoned, persecuted, or murdered for their work.

Threats to press freedom were classified as "problematic" in 68 countries in the last year, "difficult" in 38 countries, and "very serious" in 20 countries.

The safest countries for journalists were found to be Norway—in the top spot for the seventh year running—followed by Ireland and Denmark.

Among the worst nations for press freedoms, according to the report: Vietnam, where independent reporters and commentators have been targeted and jailed by the government; China, the world's biggest jailer of journalists and a top source of propaganda and fake content, and North Korea.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

Dang Tien, best known for his books “Universe of Poetry,” and “Poems, Poetics, Prosody, and Profiles,” died in France at age 83 on April 17. 

After starting his career as a book reviewer while still a college student in Saigon, now called Ho Chi Minh City, in 1960, he left Vietnam for Paris in 1966 and taught Vietnamese literature at the University of Paris from 1969 to 2005.

Tien was a member of the Independent Literature Association’s Advocacy Committee, or ILAAC, which was established in 2014 and has 60 members. Members say it is often harassed by authorities, and state media have reported that it is an illegal organization set up by hostile forces to oppose the Communist Party and the Vietnamese government.

This is why the Ho Chi Minh City Party Committee's Propaganda and Education Department sent directives to media outlets to remove coverage of Tien’s death from their websites, Hoang Dung, a professor and member of the group told RFA’s Vietnamese Service.

“[It’s] true. I received the info from a journalist friend of mine and I’ve read the directive,” Hoang Dung, a member of the ILAAC told RFA’s Vietnamese Service.

The directive, which Dung forwarded to RFA, was worded as follows:

“In regard to Mr. Dang Tien, who has passed away in France, media organizations are requested not to cover the news (and if they have done so, their stories should be removed immediately) as this person joined an organization against the Party and the Vietnamese government (the Independent Literature Association). Best regards." 

News reports about Tien’s death are no longer accessible on the online editions of the Ho Chi Minh City’s Youth and Women’s Newspapers, but two other state-owned outlets, VnExpress and the Sports & Culture online newspapers, still had online content on the subject as of Friday afternoon.

The Youth (Tuoi Tre) Newspaper is the mouthpiece of the city’s Communist Youth Union, and the Ho Chi Minh City Women’s Newspaper is the mouthpiece of the city’s party committee.

‘Voluntary’ removal

The Young People (Thanh Nien) Newspaper also removed reports on the subject, even though it is not managed by the party committee and is run by the Vietnam Youth Federation.

Dung said the fear of punishment from the government is so prevalent that staff at Young People would have found it safer to take their stories down.

RFA attempted to contact both Youth and Young People for confirmation, but phone calls went unanswered. RFA also contacted the Ho Chi Minh City Women’s Online Newspaper, but a woman who answered the call said she could not provide a response to inquiries over the phone.

Written inquiries to all three outlets received no response.

According to Dung, censorship of news relating to the ILAAC or its members is only a fraction of the government’s efforts to crack down on the organization.

For instance, the Central Party’s Propaganda and Education department in 2018 sent a dispatch officially requesting that the Ministry of Education and Training remove all works by members of the ILAAC from new literature textbooks.

The dispatch is still in effect, and people who are no longer ILAAC members are still blacklisted, Dung said.

Translated by Anna Vu. Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster. 

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

Kevin McCarthy has a keen new idea about what he thinks he can get out of Democrats in Congress in exchange for Republicans authorizing the government to pay the trillions in debt that Donald Trump racked up in his four years in office.

In exchange for lifting the so-called debt ceiling, McCarthy wants Biden and congressional Democrats to throw millions of families off food stamps (SNAP) and end even the possibility of any help to low-income young people unable to pay off student loans.

He claims this is because the federal government can't afford to help out students or hungry Americans. Nonetheless, his caucus is also pushing a new $1.8 trillion cut to the already-hobbled estate tax, paid exclusively by "lucky sperm club" children of the morbidly rich when they inherit fortunes they didn't lift a finger to create.

You'd think that discovering over a quarter-million Americans every year die from current poverty, and an additional 406,000 die every year from long-term or "cumulative" poverty, would move the GOP.

Ironically, this proposal came out the same week that The Journal of the American Medical Association published a new study finding that poverty is the fourth largest killer of Americans.

And by poverty, they're not just talking about the profoundly poor or homeless: For the purposes of this study they defined poverty as everybody living on less than the 50% median of income in the nation.

The study was unambiguous, noting:

"Current poverty was associated with greater mortality than major causes, such as accidents, lower respiratory diseases, and stroke. In 2019, current poverty was also associated with greater mortality than many far more visible causes—10 times as many deaths as homicide, 4.7 times as many deaths as firearms, 3.9 times as many deaths as suicide, and 2.6 times as many deaths as drug overdose."

The outlook for people who've spent at least the past 10 years living below the U.S. median income level is even more grim. The researchers refer to this as "cumulative poverty:"

"Cumulative poverty was associated with approximately 60% greater mortality than current poverty. Hence, cumulative poverty was associated with greater mortality than even obesity and dementia. Heart disease, cancer, and smoking were the only causes or risks with greater mortality than cumulative poverty."

Concluding that "poverty should be considered a major risk factor for death in the U.S.," the researchers noted that the situation is probably even worse than what they were able to easily measure:

"[O]ne limitation of this study is that our estimates may be conservative about the number of deaths associated with poverty."

You'd think that discovering over a quarter-million Americans every year die from current poverty, and an additional 406,000 die every year from long-term or "cumulative" poverty, would move the GOP.

After all, they control the poorest states in the nation, so this hits their constituents harder than it does the electorate of Democratic politicians. This hits right smack in the middle of where Republican politicians live.

But ever since five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court first legalized political bribery in 1976 and 1978, paving the way for the Reagan Revolution, the GOP has abandoned Eisenhower's embrace of unionization and anti-poverty programs to instead suck up to the morbidly rich and the corporations they control.

Just in the past six years, Republicans have:

• Repeatedly fought efforts to raise the $7.25 minimum wage (which would be over $15 if inflation-adjusted and over $25 if adjusted for worker productivity gains).
• Blocked passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would give workers the right to join a union by simply signing a card, all while putting forward new legislation to block gig workers from unionizing.
• Cut funding for school lunches by about 40%.
• Refused to extend the Child Tax Credit, which lifted millions of families with kids out of poverty during the pandemic.
• Denied healthcare to low-incoming working families in almost a dozen GOP-controlled states by refusing to expand Medicaid.
• Sued the Biden administration all the way to the Supreme Court to stop Democrats' efforts to reduce the burden of student debt by a paltry $10,000.
• Responded to the slaughter of schoolchildren in Tennessee by proposing legislation making it impossible for grieving parents to sue gun manufacturers and sellers.
• Challenged legislative efforts by Democrats to slow down climate change by citing bullshit phony science promoted by the fossil fuel industry and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
• Demanded cuts in social security and propose raising the retirement age to 70 for people currently under 50.
• Supported the ongoing privatization of Medicare through George W. Bush's corrupt Medicare Advantage private insurance scam.

President Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan expanded child tax credits and access to Medicaid in 2021, lifting an estimated 12 million people, including 5.6 million children, out of poverty. As Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) economists noted:

"[T]he Rescue Plan may turn out to be the most effective single piece of legislation for reducing annual poverty since 1935."

When Republicans refused to go along with an extension of the program last year, however, childhood and general poverty both shot back up, proving that poverty in America isn't some mystical or even natural force, but a policy choice embraced by the GOP.

The so-called "party of life" doesn't, it turns out, give a damn about actual human life

When confronted with the option of cutting or even ending poverty in America (and the homelessness and crime attendant to it) or adding trillions to the money bins of the morbidly rich, Republicans choose the latter every time.

Biden's policies brought Trump's 14.7% unemployment rate all the way down to 3.6%, lifting millions of families out of poverty. Now, however, Trump appointee and lifelong Republican Jerome Powell has dedicated his efforts at the Fed to jacking unemployment back up (while doing nothing at all about out-of-control corporate price gouging) just in time for the 2024 election.

As Senator Ron Wyden said yesterday:

"Republicans manufactured this [debt ceiling] crisis, and Speaker McCarthy's proposal to get out of it would destroy jobs, worsen healthcare, increase hunger, hurt the climate, and make millions of American families poorer."

The so-called "party of life" doesn't, it turns out, give a damn about actual human life unless it has a net worth over a half billion dollars.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Thom Hartmann.

Even billionaires get things wrong.

But none more so than Elon Musk, who, a year after announcing his bid to buy Twitter, has squandered every opportunity he’s had to make the social-media company a success.

Musk’s mistakes have been many. He’s spent most of the past year behaving like a preschooler on a finger-load of frosting, and his childishness has affected the platform’s bottom line and alienated potential business allies. After announcing plans to buy out Twitter investors at an overinflated $54.20 a share, he quickly reversed course with an erratic campaign to scuttle his own deal.

But shareholders forced Musk to honor his initial offer and he took up residence in the company’s San Francisco headquarters, announcing immediate and drastic plans to cut staff rolls by 75 percent.

In the cold calculus of profit and loss, that move might have made sense to some. Musk took on $13 billion in debt to purchase Twitter. Servicing that will require nearly a billion dollars in annual payments to the banks — money Twitter is struggling to generate.

But Musk’s mistakes didn't end with the deal and the need to pay off the debt it generated. Early mass layoffs included many of those charged with keeping the social network up and running; in the months since, Twitter has suffered an increasing number of technological malfunctions.

A banner year of bad decisions

He then moved to introduce a pay-for-verification plan that would cost subscribers $8 per month. This fell apart almost immediately, after the heads of Twitter’s security, privacy and compliance teams quit. Twitter’s lawyers had warned that the mass verification push could jeopardize user privacy and expose the company to billions in government fines for violating a Federal Trade Commission consent decree. (While the blue-check verification scheme is back on track, scheduled to relaunch on April 20 — get it? — it’s not likely to generate anything close to the revenue Twitter needs to survive.)

By the end of the year, Musk reneged on his pledge to make Twitter “a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner.” He began binging on right-wing memes, giving prominent space on the network to Twitter “investigations” — a series he dubbed the #TwitterFiles — that sought to prove MAGA conspiracy theories about alleged censorship of conservative voices, and supposed coverups of anti-vaccine and Hunter Biden-related news.

Never mind that the writers Musk cherry-picked to reveal the files had their own reactionary agendas, or that the Musk hype surrounding the files has turned Twitter into an even more divisive political echo-chamber. The highly partisan #TwitterFiles were a Musk miscalculation that alienated half of the users Musk once claimed he wanted to welcome into “healthy” discussions with their ideological others.

The worst decision of all

The list of Musk mistakes goes on: There’s his reckless suspension of journalists whose reporting he doesn’t like; his demand that the platform’s algorithms be manipulated to prioritize his posts above all others; his shutdown of independent researchers’ ability to access Twitter data; his censoring of critics of India’s conservative government; and his refusal to abide by a poll where a majority of users said he should step down as head of the platform.

It’s been a banner year of bad moves — so bad that the estimated value of Twitter has plummeted by tens of billions of dollars, making it arguably the most costly deal in the entire history of media acquisitions.

But Musk’s most damaging decision was one he made early on.

Shortly after taking the helm at Twitter headquarters, Musk called a meeting of civil-rights leaders to discuss Twitter’s commitment to community standards, election integrity and content moderation. Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González joined Musk on a Zoom call alongside representatives from the ADL, the Asian American Foundation, Color Of Change and the NAACP.

Following the meeting, Musk tweeted that the platform would “continue to combat hate and harassment and enforce its election integrity policies.”

“Twitter will not allow anyone who was de-platformed for violating Twitter rules back on [the] platform until we have a clear process for doing so, which will take at least a few more weeks,” he added. “Twitter’s content moderation council will include representatives with widely divergent views, which will certainly include the civil rights community and groups who face hate-fueled violence.”

But no sooner had he made this pledge than Musk started to decimate the trust and safety and human rights teams that were charged with combating the spread of hate.

Researchers at the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that the number of tweets containing one of several different racial slurs soared in the week after Musk bought Twitter. Research by CASM Technology and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue has found a major and sustained uptick in antisemitic posts on Twitter since Musk’s takeover.

After his meeting with the civil-rights leaders, Musk announced a “general amnesty” for banned accounts on Twitter. He reinstated thousands of accounts belonging to prominent neo-Nazis, white nationalists, misogynists, anti-immigrant and transphobic figures. The BBC analyzed more than 1,000 previously banned accounts that Musk had restored, and found that over a third of them had since spread abuse or misinformation on the platform.

Musk then eliminated COVID-related content moderation and — to no one’s surprise — the volume of lies about the virus and vaccines jumped alarmingly, according to analysis by the Queensland University of Technology.

Content moderation is key

The deluge of online hate and lies sent Twitter’s biggest revenue line into a tailspin: Advertisers, fearing damage to their brands, have left Twitter in droves.

After Musk ditched his promises to civil-rights leaders, Free Press, Accountable Tech and Media Matters for America launched the #StopToxicTwitter campaign, which has called on companies to stop advertising on the platform unless and until Musk enforces common-sense guardrails that will protect the health and safety of users.

More than 600 of Twitter’s top-1,000 advertisers have abandoned the platform, fearing that their brands wouldn’t be safe under Musk’s unsteady leadership. Their departure resulted in a 70-percent drop in Twitter’s December revenue over the previous year, according to Standard Media Index.

Musk chose to ignore a fundamental truth for social-media ventures: Effective content moderation is essential to growing healthy online communities and protecting brand safety. As Musk’s Twitter barrels toward insolvency, he has only himself to blame for lacking this basic business sense about social networks.

“It’s kind of a rite of passage for any new social media network,” writes Mike Masnick about the content-moderation learning curve. “They show up, insist that they’re the ‘platform for free speech’ without quite understanding what that actually means, and then they quickly discover a whole bunch of fairly fundamental ideas, institute a bunch of rapid (often sloppy) changes … and in the end, they basically all end up in the same general vicinity.”

Musk has yet to arrive in this vicinity and likely never will. The proof for Twitter is in its bottom line. Before Musk took charge, advertising sales made up 90 percent of Twitter’s revenues. Brands get nervous when they see their ads run adjacent to some of the most toxic posts. The companies that have left Twitter have put their money where their values are. And they aren’t likely to return until Twitter can make assurances that their ad buys aren’t helping underwrite the amplification of hate and lies.

We hoped Musk would have learned this lesson at the beginning: Twitter’s business will live or die on the decisions he makes or doesn’t make about content moderation.

But one year after Musk first announced his bid to take over Twitter — all of his decisions have been wrong.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Tim Karr.

In November 2022, a court in Dong Nai province sentenced Nguyen Thai Hung, 50, to a four-year term and his wife, Vu Thi Kim Hoang, 45, to two-and-a-half years for running the “Telling the Truth TV” YouTube channel. 

It had nearly 40,000 followers and earned allegedly “illegal profits” of more than 384 million dong, or U.S.$15,500, from advertisements. 

Dong Nai police arrested the couple in January 2022, though they released Hoang in late April. 

Authorities said Hung livestreamed 21 videos on his YouTube channel from June 2020 until his arrest, during which he spoke badly of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the state, distorted socioeconomic development policies and slandered senior party and government leaders. 

At their earlier trial, in Tan Phu District, police presented evidence from material they said that the pair broadcast on the social media platform addressing a deadly January 2020 police raid over a land dispute in northern Vietnam’s Dong Tam village. 

The couple also broadcast content regarding the management of prisoners and Vietnam’s communist regime and the legal system.

The videos, which generated 19,000-56,000 views each, are no longer available for viewing on YouTube. 

The communist country tightly curbs freedom of expression and enforces stringent controls over online content.

Though the couple did not have legal representation at the first trial, for the appeals trial, Hung was represented by attorney Nguyen Van Mieng, and Hoang by attorney Ngo Thi Hoang Anh. 

'Unfair' outcome

Speaking to Radio Free Asia after the trial, Hoang, who maintains that she had no part in the making or production of the videos, said the outcome was unfair.

“Mr. Hung only exercised his freedom of speech and wanted to make society better, not to oppose or ruin the state,” she said. “The defense attorney had great arguments, stressing that Vietnam has signed international conventions on human rights.” 

Hoang also complained about the upholding of her own sentence on the basis that she supported Hung by taking care of him, providing him with accommodations and letting him use her laptop computer and bank account. 

Hoang’s elder sister, Vu Giang Tien, who had attended the trial, told RFA that attorney Nguyen Van Mieng’s arguments were strong.  

“He said there was not enough evidence to convict [Hung] and that Article 25 of the Constitution states that we [citizens] have freedom of speech following international conventions,” Tien said. 

“Despite whatever the lawyer said, the judging panel still had their own way and made their own decision.”  

After the trial ended, authorities took Hung back to Dong Nai police’s detention facility and allowed Hoang to return home to wait for the court’s decision on judgment implementation.   

Translated by Anna Vu for RFA Vietnamese. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

The was charged with “abusing the rights to freedom and democracy to violate the State’s interests and legitimate rights and interests of organizations and individuals” under Article 331, state media reported. 

International human rights organizations have said Article 331 and other vaguely written and arbitrarily applied laws are tools for the government to silence dissenting voices and restrict freedom of speech.

The, born in 1963, completed a two-year jail term for the same charge in July 2020, the state media report said. 

Authorities did not specify what the illegal content on his Facebook account was, but his most recent post was about U.S. President Joe Biden visiting Ukraine on Tuesday. 

Other posts on the account were information, images, and videos about Vietnam, a police summons issued to  Le Thi Binh – The’s younger sister, to discuss her livestream videos, Vietnam’s VinFast electric cars, and a recent RFA report about an ex-con former fortune-teller who was ordained as a Catholic priest under seemingly shady circumstances. 

The indictment for The’s previous violation in 2019 said that he contacted and exchanged information “with inside and outside reactionary forces on social media platforms” in hopes of inciting them to join demonstrations and topple the Vietnamese government.

Translated by Anna Vu. Edited by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

"Much of the water pollution from refineries is legal," EIP's report explains, "because EPA and the states have failed to set any limits on certain pollutants and have failed to update and modernize permit limits for other pollutants" despite the Clean Water Act's mandate that EPA does so. "But a portion of the problem is also illegal. As it turns out, EPA and state enforcement of existing permit limits for refineries is lax and rarely results in penalties for violations."

"Almost 83% of refineries (67 of 81) exceeded their permitted limits on water pollutants at least once between 2019 to 2021, according to EPA enforcement and compliance records," the report notes. "But only about a quarter of the refineries with violations (15 of the 67) were penalized during this period."

Other key findings of the report, titled Oil's Unchecked Outfalls, include:

• Wastewater discharged by 68% of the refineries examined (55 of 81) contributes to the "impairment" of downstream waterways—meaning they are too polluted to support aquatic life or allow for recreational uses like swimming or fishing.
• U.S. refineries are often old–averaging 74 years, but some dating back to the 1880s—and many have antiquated and inadequate pollution control systems. Most have also expanded over the last forty years, increasing both the volume and variety of pollutants they discharge. But EPA has not updated its standards for refineries since 1985.
• Two-thirds of the refineries examined by EIP (56 of 81) are located in areas where the percentage of low-income households within three miles exceeds the national average, and over half are located in areas where the percentage of people of color exceeds the national average.
• Sixty-seven refineries were flagged by EPA as violating permitted pollution limits 904 times between 2019 and 2021, including for dumping excessive amounts of cyanide, zinc, total suspended solids, ammonia, and oil and grease.

"Oil refineries are major sources of water pollution that have largely escaped public notice and accountability in the U.S., and too many release a witches' brew of contaminants to our rivers, lakes, and estuaries," EIP executive director Eric Schaeffer said in a statement. "This is because of lax federal standards based on wastewater treatment methods that are nearly forty years old."

"The Clean Water Act requires EPA to impose more stringent standards that reflect the advanced wastewater treatment methods available today," said Schaeffer, former director of civil enforcement at EPA. "After decades of neglect, EPA needs to comply with the law and set strong effluent limits for refineries that protect public health and environment. EPA and the states also need to start enforcing the limits that exist and penalizing polluters."

EIP identified which refineries are the top dischargers of key pollutants. When it comes to selenium, the Chevron El Segundo Refinery in California and the Motiva Port Arthur Refinery in Texas are the worst offenders, each dumping more than 12 pounds per day into local waterways. The Phillips 66 Wood River Refinery in Illinois and the BP Cherry Point Refinery in Washington pour out more nickel than any other facility in the country. El Segundo is also the biggest discharger of nitrogen, at 4,351 pounds per day, followed by the PBF Delaware City Refinery’s 3,283 pounds per day. For total dissolved solids, the worst offenders are the ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery (347,345 pounds per day) and the Valero Corpus Christi Bill Greehey Refinery (291,527 pounds per day), both in Texas.

EIP also documented the worst refineries for permit violations from 2019 to 2021. The Hunt Southland Refinery in Mississippi exceeded its permitted pollution limits 144 times during that time period but faced just two Clean Water Act enforcement actions totaling $85,500. The Phillips 66 Sweeny Refinery in Texas, meanwhile, ran up 44 violations but was hit with just a single $30,000 fine.

"After decades of neglect, EPA needs to comply with the law and set strong effluent limits for refineries that protect public health and environment. EPA and the states also need to start enforcing the limits that exist and penalizing polluters."

"EPA's national discharge limits for refineries apply to just ten pollutants, including ammonia, chromium, and oil and grease," states the report. "These skeletal standards do not begin to address the variety and volume of dangerous contaminants found in the wastewater from refining processes."

For example, the report documents that refineries are "a notable source" of toxic "forever chemicals" (PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), in part because they use firefighting foams that contain them. Even though PFAS have been linked to numerous adverse health impacts, EPA's newly released plan for regulating industrial discharges does not establish limits on these synthetic compounds in refinery wastewater.

"EPA's current rules for refineries are almost 40 years old, based on outdated treatment methods, and do not even apply to most of the pollutants that refineries discharge," says EIP's report. "EPA needs to waste no further time and move quickly to update these standards and impose the more stringent discharge limits the law requires."

"The states and the EPA also need to penalize permit violations more consistently so that refining companies have an economic incentive to clean up waterways," the report continues. "Currently, most violations by refineries are not penalized at all, and when they are, the amounts are paltry compared to the profitability of the industry. More stringent enforcement will provide a financial incentive for violators to update their pollution control systems and improve their operations to protect public health and the environment."

Bruze Reznick, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper, lamented that "once again, the U.S. government has turned a blind eye while oil and gas companies pollute our environment, including our sensitive marine ecosystems, and disproportionately harm our frontline communities."

"We must now put the spotlight on oil refineries' essentially unregulated water pollution and demand that EPA fulfill its duty under the Clean Water Act by setting, updating, and actually enforcing discharge limits for these refineries," said Reznick.

He was echoed by Sejal Choksi-Chugh, executive director of San Francisco Baykeeper, who said that "it's high time for EPA to crack down on the toxic pollution from oil refineries that's threatening both wildlife and human health."

EIP researchers argued that "EPA's failure to require the cleanup of refinery wastewater is a part of a wider pattern."

"Most of the discharge limits in effect today for industries across the U.S. were established well before the end of the last century," the report points out. "According to the latest state water quality reports, about half of America's rivers, streams, and lakes, and a quarter of our estuaries are too polluted to support aquatic life, swimming, fishing, or to supply drinking water. The 1972 Clean Water Act promised to make all waters fishable and swimmable, but we are only halfway home to that goal more than fifty years later."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

A court in Dong Nai province sentenced Nguyen Thai Hung to a four-year term and his spouse, Vu Thi Kim Hoang, to two-and-a-half years for running their “Telling the Truth TV” YouTube channel, which had nearly 40,000 followers and earned allegedly “illegal profits” of more than 384 million dong, or U.S. $15,500, from advertisements. 

During the trial, police presented evidence from material the pair presented on the social media platform addressing a deadly January 2020 police raid over a tense land dispute in northern Vietnam’s Dong Tam village, the management of prisoners, and Vietnam’s communist regime and legal system.

Hoang, 44, was arrested with Hung, 50, in January. Police released Hoang in late April. 

She told RFA that the couple first hired Nguyen Van Mieng as their defense lawyer, but later dismissed him under pressure from police. They also believed they would be able to defend themselves at the trial. 

But the trial did not go as expected, Hoang said.

 “We could not debate much at today’s trial,” she said. “Most of the time, they asked us yes-or-no questions. That was it. Because we did not have a lawyer, we did not have the right to speak.” 

Even if the couple had had a chance to explain what they had done, the verdict would have still been the same, Hoang said.

Although the trial was supposed to be open to the public, Hoang said only her daughter was allowed into the courtroom. Other relatives had to remain at the building’s entrance, she said.

The indictment said from June 2020 to January 2022, Hung used his YouTube channel to host 21 online discussions that contained content “speaking badly of the [Communist] Party and the state, distorting the government’s socioeconomic policy, slandering the party and state’s high-level leaders, and distorting recent high-profile incidents.” 

Hung’s comments in the videos, which each had 19,000-56,000 views, “caused confusion and worries to the people and seriously insulted the party and state’s senior leaders,” according to the indictment. 

Hoang was accused of “being a related and supportive person” for providing Hung with accommodations and letting him use her laptop and access her bank account. 

She admitted the acts in court, while Hung pleaded innocent, saying that by live-streaming his talks on YouTube, he was exercising his rights to freedom of speech and democracy. 

After the verdict was rendered, the couple announced that they would hire a defense lawyer to appeal the decision.

No additional content has been posted on the YouTube channel since the pair’s arrest.

The one-party state dominated by the ruling Communist Party of Vietnam tightly curbs freedom of expression and enforces stringent controls over the country’s online environment.

Translated by Anna Vu for RFA Vietnamese. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin. Edited by Jim Snyder. 

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

Zamora, who founded elPeriódico in 1996 and still serves as president of the newspaper, was arrested on July 29. He remains in pre-trial detention in the Mariscal Zavala prison in Guatemala City, as prosecutors conduct a criminal investigation on charges of money laundering, blackmail, and influence peddling.

Zamora, his family, and his colleagues have claimed that the case is retaliation for elPeriódico’s reporting on alleged corruption involving Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei and Attorney General Consuelo Porras.

Zamora’s son, José Zamora, who is also a journalist and currently works at Exile Content Studio, a Spanish-language entertainment and media firm, in Miami, spoke to CPJ in a video interview about his father’s case and the current state of press freedom and democracy in Guatemala.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

In response to CPJ’s request for comment, Juan Luis Pantaleon, a spokesperson for the Guatemalan prosecutor’s office, said in an email that the case against Zamora is “not about any political persecution or any attack” on freedom of expression. CPJ emailed the office of the executive secretary of the presidency but did not receive a reply.

This is not the first time your father has faced harassment from Guatemalan officials.

José Zamora: My father has a career of more than 30 years in journalism, and he was the first journalist to start doing investigative journalism, with his team, in Guatemala. This has led to a series of attacks and harassment and persecution over the years: defamation campaigns, fiscal terrorism, and many others.

For example, they said the newspaper hasn’t been paying taxes for years. They came to audit the newspaper but did not find anything.

Then there were the lawsuits. At one point, there were 195 spurious lawsuits against my father and the outlet, some of them even misusing important laws, like the law against femicide, which is intended to protect women who face abuse from their partners. Several officials sued my father using this law, which is a total aberration.

And then you have the commercial boycott. The government and the president have threatened influential business people and basically prohibited them from advertising in the newspaper.

My father has also been subjected to threats, kidnappings, and bombings. In 2003, there was a kidnapping. They entered my parent’s house — my siblings and I still lived with my parents at the time — and held us hostage for about three hours.

In 2008, they tried again to kill my dad. They kidnapped him coming out of a restaurant, took him away, beat him, injected him with something to kill him, and then left him. Luckily that place was so cold that he got hypothermia. And hypothermia was, in the end, what saved him. Firefighters brought him in, thinking he was a corpse, and when they began to prepare for the autopsy, they realized that he had vital signs [and treated him].

But this imprisonment is totally new. They had been trying to do this for the last year, but it did not happen until now. Several times, different sources warned us that they were fabricating cases against him.

How is your father?

He is in an isolated cell, and in general, he is in good health and in good spirits. He wants to fight and continue doing journalism even while there. At some point, he did have some health problems — his cell was filled with bedbugs, which bit him and gave him an allergic reaction. But now he is generally in good health and is much better.

What was the newspaper publishing before your father was arrested?

President Giammattei has been in power for 130 weeks, more or less, and elPeriódico has published 130 investigations. So there has not been a week without reporting on some act of corruption in his administration.

In the country in general, Giammattei has led a systematic attack on democracy and has persecuted anyone who is considered a critic. The most recent of these systematic attacks on democracy is this persecution of the press. In the case of elPeriódico and my dad, things got worse in November. The newspaper published an investigation titled “La Trama Rusa” (“The Russian Plot”) on how the president made a business deal with a Russian company in which the state of Guatemala granted a concession to develop a mine, and that the president was [allegedly] paid for it. That was the breaking point.

Can you tell us more about your father’s case? What is he accused of?

In Guatemala, legal processes generally take years in terms of investigation and processes. But [the legal case against Zamora] was all set up in 72 hours. It based on a complaint from a “denunciante” [a man Zamora asked to help him but who later informed on the journalist].

My father is accused of money laundering and blackmail. What happened is that a serious businessman gave my dad 300,000 quetzales [US$38,050] to support the newspaper. My father contacted the [man who became the] “denunciante” [to put the money into his business’s bank account] and give him a check from his company. My dad wanted that check deposited into the account of Aldea Global, the company that owns elPeriódico. But when my father goes to deposit the check, [it bounced].

[Editor’s note: According to an interview with Zamora’s lawyer in Central American online outlet El Faro, the reason that Zamora did not deposit the donation directly into Aldea Global’s account, but asked the man who became the “denunciante” to write him a check from his account, was because this triangulation helped him protect the identity of the donor.]

[For] blackmail, the Public Prosecutor’s Office said that the whistleblower believed that my father’s funds had come from blackmailing someone, but there is no proof.

Can you tell us why your father has to spend 90 days in pretrial detention?

The judge gave the Public Prosecutor’s Office the maximum amount of time for the investigation, three months, and ordered [my father to] pretrial detention. My father meets all the requirements to be granted “substitute measures” [similar to parole] and be under house arrest. But they want him there in prison, because they want to humiliate him and make a public example of him. Even when they took him to the hearings, everything was excessive, as if they were taking one of the biggest organized crime bosses.

Everything has been very public, and this is just an example in a series of systematic attacks against democracy and against the press. My dad is an example, but the broader message is for everyone, and that is that they are going to persecute any critical voice.

How are elPeriódico’s journalists working at the moment?

They all believe deeply in their work, its importance for democracy, and in making a better country. So they continue to work, but it’s very challenging when the newsroom’s leader is gone. On the other hand, there is a financial issue. For almost 15 days, they froze the accounts. The journalists did not receive their salaries for almost three weeks. And that demonstrates a lot: not only the journalists’ strength and determination, and conviction because they continued to work in a very tense situation, but also without any income. Little by little, this is getting resolved, but it’s complicated.

What do journalists in Guatemala need in order to do their work freely?

What they need is freedom. A decent state should see the press as an ally. The truth is that they can’t know everything that happens in all state institutions. They should be transparent, but the state is massive. So the state should support and have a decent relationship with the press and allow them to do their job, because it would even allow them to stop corruption.

What do you want now for your father’s case?

The main request is that he should be released. The evidence is weak, and they haven’t been able to prove anything.

The second point: If they are going to detain him, they should grant him substitute measures, and he should be able to wait for the process to take place under house arrest.

And thirdly, they should not persecute the newspaper as a company. In doing so, they have attacked not only press freedom, but also all the journalists and the people who work at elPeriódico. They also went after the financial director Flora Silva and imprisoned her. She is another person who, at minimum, should also be under substitute measures and house arrest.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Dánae Vílchez.

Zamora, who founded elPeriódico in 1996 and still serves as president of the newspaper, was arrested on July 29. He remains in pre-trial detention in the Mariscal Zavala prison in Guatemala City, as prosecutors conduct a criminal investigation on charges of money laundering, blackmail, and influence peddling.

Zamora, his family, and his colleagues have claimed that the case is retaliation for elPeriódico’s reporting on alleged corruption involving Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei and Attorney General Consuelo Porras.

Zamora’s son, José Zamora, who is also a journalist and currently works at Exile Content Studio, a Spanish-language entertainment and media firm, in Miami, spoke to CPJ in a video interview about his father’s case and the current state of press freedom and democracy in Guatemala.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

In response to CPJ’s request for comment, Juan Luis Pantaleon, a spokesperson for the Guatemalan prosecutor’s office, said in an email that the case against Zamora is “not about any political persecution or any attack” on freedom of expression. CPJ emailed the office of the executive secretary of the presidency but did not receive a reply.

This is not the first time your father has faced harassment from Guatemalan officials.

José Zamora: My father has a career of more than 30 years in journalism, and he was the first journalist to start doing investigative journalism, with his team, in Guatemala. This has led to a series of attacks and harassment and persecution over the years: defamation campaigns, fiscal terrorism, and many others.

For example, they said the newspaper hasn’t been paying taxes for years. They came to audit the newspaper but did not find anything.

Then there were the lawsuits. At one point, there were 195 spurious lawsuits against my father and the outlet, some of them even misusing important laws, like the law against femicide, which is intended to protect women who face abuse from their partners. Several officials sued my father using this law, which is a total aberration.

And then you have the commercial boycott. The government and the president have threatened influential business people and basically prohibited them from advertising in the newspaper.

My father has also been subjected to threats, kidnappings, and bombings. In 2003, there was a kidnapping. They entered my parent’s house — my siblings and I still lived with my parents at the time — and held us hostage for about three hours.

In 2008, they tried again to kill my dad. They kidnapped him coming out of a restaurant, took him away, beat him, injected him with something to kill him, and then left him. Luckily that place was so cold that he got hypothermia. And hypothermia was, in the end, what saved him. Firefighters brought him in, thinking he was a corpse, and when they began to prepare for the autopsy, they realized that he had vital signs [and treated him].

But this imprisonment is totally new. They had been trying to do this for the last year, but it did not happen until now. Several times, different sources warned us that they were fabricating cases against him.

How is your father?

He is in an isolated cell, and in general, he is in good health and in good spirits. He wants to fight and continue doing journalism even while there. At some point, he did have some health problems — his cell was filled with bedbugs, which bit him and gave him an allergic reaction. But now he is generally in good health and is much better.

What was the newspaper publishing before your father was arrested?

President Giammattei has been in power for 130 weeks, more or less, and elPeriódico has published 130 investigations. So there has not been a week without reporting on some act of corruption in his administration.

In the country in general, Giammattei has led a systematic attack on democracy and has persecuted anyone who is considered a critic. The most recent of these systematic attacks on democracy is this persecution of the press. In the case of elPeriódico and my dad, things got worse in November. The newspaper published an investigation titled “La Trama Rusa” (“The Russian Plot”) on how the president made a business deal with a Russian company in which the state of Guatemala granted a concession to develop a mine, and that the president was [allegedly] paid for it. That was the breaking point.

Can you tell us more about your father’s case? What is he accused of?

In Guatemala, legal processes generally take years in terms of investigation and processes. But [the legal case against Zamora] was all set up in 72 hours. It based on a complaint from a “denunciante” [a man Zamora asked to help him but who later informed on the journalist].

My father is accused of money laundering and blackmail. What happened is that a serious businessman gave my dad 300,000 quetzales [US$38,050] to support the newspaper. My father contacted the [man who became the] “denunciante” [to put the money into his business’s bank account] and give him a check from his company. My dad wanted that check deposited into the account of Aldea Global, the company that owns elPeriódico. But when my father goes to deposit the check, [it bounced].

[Editor’s note: According to an interview with Zamora’s lawyer in Central American online outlet El Faro, the reason that Zamora did not deposit the donation directly into Aldea Global’s account, but asked the man who became the “denunciante” to write him a check from his account, was because this triangulation helped him protect the identity of the donor.]

[For] blackmail, the Public Prosecutor’s Office said that the whistleblower believed that my father’s funds had come from blackmailing someone, but there is no proof.

Can you tell us why your father has to spend 90 days in pretrial detention?

The judge gave the Public Prosecutor’s Office the maximum amount of time for the investigation, three months, and ordered [my father to] pretrial detention. My father meets all the requirements to be granted “substitute measures” [similar to parole] and be under house arrest. But they want him there in prison, because they want to humiliate him and make a public example of him. Even when they took him to the hearings, everything was excessive, as if they were taking one of the biggest organized crime bosses.

Everything has been very public, and this is just an example in a series of systematic attacks against democracy and against the press. My dad is an example, but the broader message is for everyone, and that is that they are going to persecute any critical voice.

How are elPeriódico’s journalists working at the moment?

They all believe deeply in their work, its importance for democracy, and in making a better country. So they continue to work, but it’s very challenging when the newsroom’s leader is gone. On the other hand, there is a financial issue. For almost 15 days, they froze the accounts. The journalists did not receive their salaries for almost three weeks. And that demonstrates a lot: not only the journalists’ strength and determination, and conviction because they continued to work in a very tense situation, but also without any income. Little by little, this is getting resolved, but it’s complicated.

What do journalists in Guatemala need in order to do their work freely?

What they need is freedom. A decent state should see the press as an ally. The truth is that they can’t know everything that happens in all state institutions. They should be transparent, but the state is massive. So the state should support and have a decent relationship with the press and allow them to do their job, because it would even allow them to stop corruption.

What do you want now for your father’s case?

The main request is that he should be released. The evidence is weak, and they haven’t been able to prove anything.

The second point: If they are going to detain him, they should grant him substitute measures, and he should be able to wait for the process to take place under house arrest.

And thirdly, they should not persecute the newspaper as a company. In doing so, they have attacked not only press freedom, but also all the journalists and the people who work at elPeriódico. They also went after the financial director Flora Silva and imprisoned her. She is another person who, at minimum, should also be under substitute measures and house arrest.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Dánae Vílchez.

The post Dinner Versus the Truth: The Problem With Facebook’s Content Warnings appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Marten.

The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme is open to strengthening engagement and partnership with the Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) following the recent visit of senior ABC executives to Fiji.

Last week, ABC International Services head Claire Gorman, ABC International Development public affairs lead Jo Elsom, ABC Sport head Nick Morris and ABC Asia Pacific News managing editor Matt O’Sullivan met USP Journalism coordinator associate professor Shailendra Singh and staff to discuss ways ABC International Development (ABCID) and its regional media development programme (PACMAS) could assist the media in Fiji and journalism students at USP.

The discussions with the visiting ABC delegation focused on the possibility of content sharing, student professional attachments as well as priority areas for partnership such as youth, gender and regional cooperation to strengthen capacity-building and opportunity for growth.

USP Journalism students and staff have participated in a number of ABCID/PACMAS capacity-building workshops and training, including the Women Leaders Media Masterclass, Reporting the Story of Us: Media Masterclass, Factcheck webinar, Pacific Resilience Masterclass as well as a Training of Trainers short-course for Fiji journalists at the Fiji National University’s National Training Productivity Centre.

The ABC executives were also given a brief tour of the newly-refurbished USP Journalism facilities at Laucala campus.

Geraldine Panapasa is editor-in-chief of the University of the South Pacific’s award-winning journalism newspaper Wansolwara. Republished under a partnership between Asia Pacific Report and Wansolwara.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Wansolwara.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday released an inventory of items seized from former President Donald Trump's Florida home last month, and one aspect of the newly disclosed document raised eyebrows and many questions: Namely, the listing of dozens of empty folders marked as "classified."

"Where did the classified content go?" asked Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), voicing a sentiment also expressed by reporters and watchdogs in response to the inventory, which indicates that the FBI retrieved from Mar-a-Lago 18 documents marked "top secret," 54 marked "secret," and 48 empty folders with "classified" banners.

The document, which was ordered unsealed by a federal judge, also lists dozens of additional empty folders labeled as "return to staff secretary/military aide."

The inventory offers no specific details on what the empty folders were supposed to contain, leaving observers to speculate on the sensitivity of the documents and where they may have ended up as the DOJ continues to investigate the former president's removal of classified documents from the White House.

"The only thing more concerning than finding classified documents in Donald Trump's possession is finding the folders used to conceal classified documents empty and in Donald Trump's possession," tweeted Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). "This information must be accounted for—all of it."

The Associated Press noted Friday that "the Justice Department has said there was no secure space at Mar-a-Lago for sensitive government secrets, and has opened a criminal investigation focused on their retention there and on what it says were efforts in the last several months to obstruct that probe."

Earlier this week, the DOJ released a photo of classified documents that federal agents seized from Trump's home during an August 8 raid. Previous reporting has indicated that classified nuclear weapons documents were among the files FBI officials were trying to recover in the Mar-a-Lago raid.

The Justice Department said in a court filing Tuesday that it "developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed" from a Mar-a-Lago storage room as investigators attempted to retrieve them, possibly further implicating Trump's team and the former president himself in a criminal scheme to obstruct justice.

In a status report unsealed Friday, the DOJ said that "the seized materials will continue to be used to further the government's investigation, and the investigative team will continue to use and evaluate the seized materials as it takes further investigative steps, such as through additional witness interviews and grand jury practice."

"All evidence pertaining to the seized items—including, but not limited to, the nature and manner in which they were stored as well as any evidence with respect to particular documents or items of interest—will inform the government's investigation," the report reads.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

A coalition of civil society organizations on Wednesday demanded that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg put a halt to censorship of abortion rights content on his company's platforms following reports that Facebook and Instagram have been removing posts aimed at helping pregnant people access reproductive care in U.S. states where it is heavily restricted.

"Meta has demonstrated that it has no policy in place to defend peoples' right to abortion on its platforms."

In a letter to Zuckerberg, the groups argue that Meta may be violating its "responsibility to respect human rights" by censoring information on reproductive health and rights, the treatment of which contrasts with Facebook's lax regulation of climate and election lies.

"Actions that unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression on this topic, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information related to sexual and reproductive health and rights, would contravene Meta's responsibility to respect human rights," reads the letter, which was signed by Access Now, Amnesty International USA, Fight for the Future, Human Rights Watch, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

"Numerous media organizations have reported that Meta-owned platforms Facebook and Instagram have taken down posts explaining how to access abortion pills," the groups write. "Media reports also indicate that Instagram is censoring searches for hashtags referencing terms such as 'abortion pills' and 'mifepristone,' stating that such posts are 'hidden because some posts may not follow Instagram's Community Guidelines.'"

In late June, days after the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority overturned Roe v. Wade and imperiled abortion access across the country, the Associated Press reported that Facebook and Instagram started "promptly removing posts that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them" as people turned to the internet for information on how to access care in the face of fresh bans.

As the outlet noted:

Memes and status updates explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail exploded across social platforms. Some even offered to mail the prescriptions to women living in states that now ban the procedure.

Almost immediately, Facebook and Instagram began removing some of these posts, just as millions across the U.S. were searching for clarity around abortion access.

The platform's handling of such posts has drawn scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers.

Last month, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) sent a letter to Zuckerberg raising alarm about the AP reporting and arguing that "it is more important than ever that social media platforms not censor truthful posts about abortion, particularly as people across the country turn to online communities to discuss and find information about reproductive rights."

Jennifer Brody, U.S. policy and advocacy manager at Access Now, echoed that message in a statement on Wednesday.

"Meta's censorship of information on abortion and reproductive health is jeopardizing the safety and human rights of millions across the U.S.," said Brody. "People need the power and knowledge to make informed decisions about their bodies and their lives—Meta must decide now if it will be on the right side of history."

Facebook has said its content guidelines prohibit "content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, request, or donate pharmaceuticals," but posts related to "the affordability and accessibility of prescription medication" are allowed.

"We've discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these," Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone wrote on Twitter in late June.

But the civil society coalition argued in its letter Wednesday that Facebook and Instagram's responses to censorship reports in the post-Roe U.S. have been woefully inadequate thus far. The groups called on Meta to release data on how many posts related to reproductive rights that it has censored.

"Meta has demonstrated that it has no policy in place to defend peoples' right to abortion on its platforms," said Caitlin Seeley George, director of campaigns at Fight for the Future. "Time and again, the company has deflected the question, but users of Facebook and Instagram have the right to know whether or not the company is going to defend their human rights or if it plans to roll over under the current, anti-abortion regime."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

“We need to scrap or reform the Media Industry Development Act.”

This is one of the key recommendations in the National Media Reporting of the 2018 Fijian General Elections Report.

Co-author and University of the South Pacific (USP) journalism coordinator, Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, said the Act was supposed to promote professionalism in journalism and did not address journalism’s lack of training and development.

• READ MORE: News Coverage of Fiji’s 2018 General Election Campaign: Insights from a Content Analysis of the National Print and Broadcast Media
• Behind the Fiji censorship: A comparative media regulatory case study as a prelude to the Easter putsch
• Other reports on Fiji media freedom

Dr Singh added that state advertising needed to be evenly distributed among media organisations, and public service broadcast grants needed to be allocated evenly among broadcasters.

The National Media Reporting of the 2018 Fijian General Elections research was presented by Dr Singh and Dialogue Fiji executive director Nilesh Lal.

The report provides a content analysis of the media coverage of the 2018 elections.

It focuses on a number of indicators such as direct quotation space and time, frequency of appearance, directional balance in terms of positive, negative or neutral representation of political parties or election candidates and issue balance in relation to prioritising coverage of various issues.

• Pacific Media Watch reports that Fiji’s Media Industry Development Act was originally a military decree imposed in 2010 after the 2006 Bainimarama coup and became codified law in 2015. It is widely regarded by critics as draconian.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Two New Zealand government agencies have revealed mounting concern about the intensity and the impact of online misinformation — and prompted loud calls for government action.

But behind the scenes, the government’s already reviewing how to regulate media content to protect us from “harm” — and the digital platforms are already heading in new directions.

“There is no minister or government agency specifically tasked with monitoring and dealing with the increasing threat posed by disinformation and misinformation. That should change,” Tova O’Brien told her Today FM listeners last week.

• LISTEN TO THE FULL RNZ MEDIAWATCH REPORT: Mounting fake news
• Frontline reports on disinformation — Pacific Journalism Review

For her, the tipping point was friends and peers recycling false rumours about the Prime Minister and her partner that have been circulating for at least five years.

The Tova show made fun of those rumours — and the paranoid people spreading them — in a comedy song when it launched back in March. Co-host Mark Dye asked the PM about one of them — the claim O’Brien and Ardern were once flatmates.

The PM laughed it off on the air back then, but last week O’Brien told her listeners the worst rumors had now spread so widely there’s nothing funny about them anymore.

“Thanks to social media . . . they’ve been picked up by all of us,” she said.

‘Sad and scary’
“It’s sad and it’s scary and . . . powerful propagandists are taking advantage of them.

“It is time now for a government ‘misinformation minister’,” she said — acknowledging the job title could be misconstrued.

But last Monday, one minister said he was on the case.

“Who is the minister in charge of social media? Is that you?” Duncan Greive asked the Broadcasting and Media Minister on Spinoff podcast The Fold.

“I suppose so  . . . and we’re trying,” said Willie Jackson, who also said he had heard misinformation from people he knows, including relatives.

“There’s a lot of things out of control, but I’m trying to bring some balance to it,” he said.

“We’re going through a whole content regulation review right now. I’m waiting on some of the results.”

That review, overseen by Internal Affairs Minister Jan Tinetti, began in May 2021 — and it’s complicated.

Role of the regulators
It is reconsidering the role of the regulators and complaints bodies which uphold standards for mainstream media today — the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Media Council and the Classification Office.

And for the first time, online outlets including social media could also be classed as “media service providers” obliged to abide by agreed standards too.

Just last week the BSA released fresh research showing New Zealanders were worried about digital social media platforms’ misinformation “making it harder to identify the truth.”

But while people can complain to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about the accuracy of what they see or hear on the air, it is all but impossible to successfully challenge fake news online.

“We need to bring a set of rules to the table. We have to at the same time balance those rules with freedom of expression,” Willie Jackson told The Fold.

Jackson also said he would soon be meeting Google and Meta (parent company of Facebook) executives to discuss all of that and more.

They already know there’s a problem.

Living by the Code — or ticking boxes?
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Tik Tok all signed up last week to the new Aotearoa New Zealand Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms overseen by Netsafe.

It was hailed as “a world first” in several media reports, but also condemned by some critics as a possible box-ticking exercise — that only requires the powerful platforms to tick easy boxes.

The Code creates an oversight committee to consider public objections — and that will be yet another self-regulatory body that people can complain to.

“It sounds like the worst sanction is that they’d be asked to leave the agreement, which isn’t really a sanction at all. It’s understandable that there are some people saying some concrete legislation that would have proper penalties in place would be better,” former newspaper editor Andrew Holden told RNZ this week.

“The signatories can pick and choose which measures they agree to implement, and which ones they don’t think are appropriate to them, and they can ignore,” Stuff’s technology writer Tom Pullar-Strecker noted.

Net users’ group Tohatoha called it ”an industry-led model that avoids the real change and real accountability needed to protect communities, individuals and the health of our democracy.”

“I think that this is an attempt to preempt that regulatory framework that’s coming down the pipeline,” Tohatoha chief executive Mandy Henk told Newstalk ZB last week.

She was referring to that Review of Media Content Regulation going on slowly behind the scenes and out of the headlines. One round of consultation with news media has been completed on the basic principles — and another one has begun on some of the details and the framework.

One-stop digital-age shop
The review says content can cause harm to individuals, communities and society.

A one-stop digital-age shop to regulate and set standards for all media could oblige offshore tech companies to curb misinformation on their platforms — or be penalised.

Online outlets including social media could be classed as “media service providers” with minimum standards to uphold, just like the established news media and broadcasters.

RNZ MediaWatch understands Cabinet will soon consider a proposed new regulatory framework, and details are due to be published next month for public input and discussion.

The stated goal of the review is also “to mitigate the harmful effects of content, irrespective of the way the content is delivered”.

One of the possibilities is the development of “harm minimisation codes”, with legislation setting out minimum standards for harm prevention and moderation. This could even mean the creation of new criminal offenses and penalties for non compliance.

Can this be done without compromising freedom of speech in general — and specific fundamental press freedoms as well?

Good reporting that is clearly in the public interest routinely causes some distress — or even “harm” — to certain people or groups. (Investigative reporting on Gloriavale over the past 30 years, for example).

Online giants ahead of the game

But while the government and the media industry ponder all this, the social media platforms continue to evolve in unforeseen ways.

Within the last fortnight users of Facebook and its sister platform Instagram have found their feeds featuring far more stuff from influencers, celebrities and even strangers — and less stuff from their friends, family or favoured sources of news.

The reason is Facebook fighting off Tik Tok, the Chinese made video-sharing app that now has more than a billion users around the world — including plenty here in New Zealand.

AI-driven algorithms are shaping much more of what social media users will see from now on. What this means for the spread of misinformation here in New Zealand is not yet clear.

Two days after the new social media code of practice was unveiled, Meta’s vice-president of public policy in Asia and Pacific was in Auckland talking about “the regulatory models that can drive greater transparency and accountability of digital platforms and the work being done to promote greater safety across the Meta Family of Apps.”

“We’re already creating and developing guardrails to address safety, privacy, and well-being in the metaverse,” Simon Milner said, though misinformation on Facebook or Instagram today was not mentioned.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

“Russian authorities’ shameless attempt to shutter the JMWU threatens to silence an organization whose fight for journalists’ rights and press freedom in Russia has been a thorn in authorities’ side,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Authorities must immediately lift their suspension of the union’s activities, drop all the charges against it, and stop stifling critical voices in the country.”

Founded after a 2016 attack on local and foreign journalists in Russia’s North Caucasus, the JMWU has some 600 active members and defends labor rights, provides assistance to journalists, and supports press freedom in Russia.  

A preliminary hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday, July 13, according to those news reports, which said the union is accused of publishing “materials containing misleading information” about Russia’s war in Ukraine that were aimed at discrediting the use of the Russian armed forces. On July 4, the Moscow City Court ordered the union’s activities suspended pending a judgment in the case, according to JMWU board member Andrei Jvirblis, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

From May 16 to June 16, the Moscow prosecutor’s office conducted an inspection of the union for its compliance with trade association legislation, according to the JMWU and those news reports, which said the union had not been notified about the outcome of that inspection.

On February 24, the day of Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine,  the JMWU published a statement calling the war a “perfidious step” that would risk journalists’ lives and “lead to the death of many citizens of our countries and huge destruction.”

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

Dear Minister,

Congratulations on assuming the Broadcasting and Media role.

The announcement of your new portfolio put me in mind of Hercules as King Eurystheus told him there were a dozen small jobs he would like done.

Like Hercules, you will find that the tasks ahead are challenging. Some will seem insurmountable. Yet, the underlying message of that particular piece of Greek mythology is that nothing is impossible.

• READ MORE: RNZ-TVNZ mega-entity named ‘Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media’ in draft law
• Public media: new name, new law, new minister, old questions
• Other public media reports

I would hesitate to suggest that success will lead to immortality, but you will certainly make an enduring name for yourself if you are able to ensure that New Zealand’s media ecosystem is fit for purpose.

In order for that to happen you must undertake, if I may be so bold, the Twelve Labours of Willie Jackson.

Here are the tasks you should address:

1. The new public media entity — ensure it is an entirely new approach to a digital future and not merely a TVNZ/RNZ merger, and enshrine independent governance.
2. Media content review – act as the coordinator for a project to determine how we should address harmful media content, which spans a multitude of issues and ministries.
3. Social media platforms — make them pay for plundering our media and our audiences, and make them accountable for content.
4. Public Interest Journalism Fund – restore public confidence in the fund (by removing requirements seen as linked to government policy) and continue to fund the scheme.
5. Regulatory structures – facilitate the replacement of the Media Council and the Broadcasting Standards Authority by a single, demonstrably independent, body.
6. Private sector survival — investigate alternative mechanisms that replace declining revenue, and incentivise plurality.
7. Māori media — Have a stern talk with yourself, as the Minister for Māori Development, to finally bring something concrete out of the Māori Media Sector Shift that has already been three years in the making.
8. Ethnic media — recognise and support media that directly address often hard to reach communities.
9. Media law — review statutes that were predicated on media structures and methodologies that have long been superseded.
10. Media training — resurrect the Journalism Training Organisation with a mandate to devise curricula standards and assess their implementation by tertiary institutions.
11. Policy balance – work to ensure that the legitimate Te Tiriti initiatives being pursued by the Labour Government do not inadvertently ignore the broader needs of the media sector and its audiences (plural).
12. Technology watch — set up a monitoring group to alert government to technological changes (in areas such as artificial intelligence) that will affect media production, impact and oversight.

I realise that it is no more than 18 months to the next election and, even if you expect another term in government, you will need to prioritise.

Three broad rubrics
The tasks fall under three broad rubrics that are inter-related: Media sustainability, media governance, and social cohesion. Admittedly, they involve some activities that currently sit outside your portfolio but there is a crying need for a coordinator. That can, and should, be you.

The most pressing task is the New Public Media Entity, which both Television New Zealand and RNZ openly call “the merger”. You have inherited a project in the second of its three phases, and I am sure the easiest approach would be to leave it to take its (predetermined) course.

That would be both a lost opportunity and, I respectfully suggest, an abrogation of your responsibility to oversee the establishment of an organisation that is truly fit for purpose.

Your predecessor, Kris Faafoi, is admirably well-meaning and I have no doubt the initiative started under his watch had sound core purposes. However, he tended to lead from behind and the outcomes to date suggest the results will be less than the sum of their parts.

There is a golden opportunity to establish an entirely new organisation, born for a digital future that can accommodate but not be led by its legacy technologies and cultures. Its impact on the overall media landscape will be so significant that it must have a unique multi-tiered independent governance structure to insulate it from government control and to contain its own power.

I see neither of these imperatives in any of the material that has so far entered the public domain and I fear the introduction of draft legislation in the next week or two will confirm my misgivings on both fronts. My hope is that you will intervene to ensure the final form of the bill addresses both opportunities and threats, and your discussions with the Establishment Board gives it the courage to think a significant distance beyond the square.

The Content Review, led by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, also demands your attention. While extremely useful work has already been undertaken on harmful content in various forms of media, there is a real need for strong coordination with your portfolio. My fear is that mainstream media could suffer because, when it comes to policing content, they are low hanging fruit. The real danger with harmful content lies with digital platforms.

Absence of strong government direction
Those social media platforms also demand your attention in other ways. The absence of strong government direction (the antithesis of what is evident in Australia and the European Union) has allowed them to apply a cynical cherry-picking approach to compensating New Zealand media for the material they appropriate.

Unless they are forced to act responsibly, they will continue to serve only their own pecuniary interests and to minimise their responsibilities for content. You have an opportunity to align New Zealand internationally.

Your predecessor performed a real service to media and the public in setting up the Public Interest Journalism Fund. I have to declare an interest here: I have been involved in evaluating applications for PIJF on behalf of NZ on Air. That involvement has allowed me to witness at first hand the determination to pursue journalism that is squarely in the public interest and to see successful applications for projects that hold government — and other forms of power — to account.

Blackened the name
However, oppositions forces (both political and more malign) have blackened the name of the fund. It has been characterised as a bribe that has muted criticism of the Labour government.

It may be a hard ask, given that you represent the very people accused of doing the bribing, but you need to restore the fund’s reputation…and commit to its continuation.

You may feel those tasks will be more than sufficient to keep you occupied for the rest of the current term, but you cannot ignore the other Labours of Willie Jackson. I suggest you coalesce them into a single project: Futureproofing New Zealand Media. It could provide the blueprint for your next term as Minister of Communication and Media.

It may also embrace the idea of my long-advocated Bretton Woods #2 and bring together the many elements that make up our media and their audiences to map a collective future. That would make this old man very happy.

I wish you well with your new portfolio. You bring to the role many years of media experience. Complete these 12 labours and, like Hercules, you will be a hero.

Dr Gavin Ellis ONZM MA PhD

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Sun Cheng.

On Wednesday, March 16, Mali’s Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization began a procedure to suspend the ability of RFA and France 24 to broadcast content in the country, according to a copy of the suspension order posted on the ministry’s Facebook page and reports by RFI and France 24. Both outlets are subsidiaries of the French government-owned France Médias Monde parent company, which stated it “deplored the decision,” according to those reports.

The suspension order cited the publication of “false allegations” of abuses by the Malian Armed forces (FAMa) made earlier this month by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, Human Rights Watch, and RFI as the reason for the suspensions. The order said the suspensions were justified under Mali’s “laws and regulations” but did not specify which laws were violated and barred all local outlets from distributing content made by RFI and France 24.

“Authorities in Mali should halt their efforts to control journalism in the country and reverse the suspension of RFI and France 24, as well as the ban on all local media distributing those outlets’ content,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator. “These suspensions, which follow the suspension of the media accreditation processes earlier this year, paint a grim picture for press freedom in Mali.”

RFI and France 24 broadcasts have been shut off since 1 p.m. local time on March 17, according to a journalist with knowledge of the situation who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Sambi Touré, the director of the Malian government’s information center, acknowledged CPJ’s requests for comment sent via messaging app, but did not directly answer the questions sent to him about the suspensions. CPJ also called Harouna Mamadou Toureh, Mali’s minister of communication, digital economy, and administration modernization. One of the calls sounded like it connected, but no audible words could be heard, and other calls and questions sent via messaging app and text message went unanswered.

In February, Malian authorities suspended the accreditation processes for journalists and expelled Jeune Afrique reporter Benjamin Roger, a French national, hours after he arrived in the county saying he did not have the required accreditation, as CPJ documented at the time. Accredited journalists already inside Mali could continue working, Harbert Traoré, a technical adviser for the Ministry of Communication, told CPJ at the time.

Since that time, certain journalists’ accreditations have expired and there is currently no avenue to be reaccredited, a journalist with knowledge of the situation told CPJ. In response to CPJ’s request for an update on accreditation processes in Mali, Traoré told CPJ via messaging app that the Ministry of Communication did not make these decisions without elaborating further.

In a video published on March 14, Olivier Dubois, a journalist kidnapped in Mali, said he was abducted by jihadists in April 2021 and thanked his family for messages he heard over the radio, which RFI has been broadcasting. CPJ called for his immediate release.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.