WebProNews

Tag: censorship

  • India Denies Pre-screening Censorship Allegations

    Last week we brought you news that by Indian minister of telecommunications Kapil Sibal had been meeting with executives from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo and asking them to pre-screen and remove content that his office regarded as offensive or inappropriate.

    The news, which was initially reported by the New York Times, created a massive controversy across the internet. Google and Facebook responded by releasing statements that they would continue to enforce their terms of service and remove content that was illegal, but that they would not go further. Meanwhile, Minister Sibal held a press conference in which he denied that he was advocating political censorship, but rather that he was attempting to protect the religious sensibilities of the people of India.

    On Friday Sibal gave an interview with Karan Thapar New Dehli’s NDTV, in which he again denied that he was requesting political censorship. He insisted that the nature of his office’s requests have been grossly misinterpreted. When asked about the images he had shown to executives from the companies as examples of the kind of content he wanted removed, he insists that they agreed that it was innappropriate, and that they “said that none of this content should be on the site.” He also says that as a part of those meetings, “they agreed, by and large orally, to a certain number of things,” and that after the meetings they delayed in fulfilling the agreements they had made.

    He also expressed frustration with the initial New York Times piece. He complained that the paper had made no attempts to contact his office for comment, which is unusual for an organization of the Times’ stature. The Times, which posted a response early this morning, takes issue with that claim. They note that the original article cited confirmation from his office that the meetings would take place, and go on to list the names of three people in Sibal’s office with whom they either spoke or attempted to speak.

    Sibal also reiterated that his office’s request focused primarily on content that he believed would offend religious sensibilities. He never quite denies in the interview that, as the Times reports, his office showed the executives a Facebook page satirizing Congress president Sonia Ghandi. He does, however, insist that the images with which he confronted the companies were “mostly religious.” He went on to say that “these [images] are all pornographic, these are all unacceptable content with respect to gods and goddesses of various religions which if they were in the public domain would created problems.”

    When asked if political satire was among the kinds of content he wanted removed, he said, “I would welcome satirical references to political leaders as part of freedom of expression.”

  • US Brings Virtual Embassy to Iran; Iran Shuts it Down

    In the midst of rising tensions between Iran and the West over the country’s suspected bid to obtain nuclear weapons, the US State Department launched a virtual embassy for Iran yesterday. The stated purpose of the site is to foster a renewed relationship between the people of the United States and the people of Iran.

    There have been no formal diplomatic relations between the two nations since the revolution of 1979, which overthrew the US-friendly Shah of Iran and instituted a hardline Islamic regime ruled by Ayatollah Khomeini. During the conflict revolutionaries stormed the US Embassy in Tehran, taking its staff hostage. While some hostages – notably women and African Americans – were released shortly after the takeover, the remaining 52 hostages were held for 444 days. After a failed rescue attempt, the hostages were released on January 20, 1981, immediately following the completion of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration speech. The US has not had formal diplomatic relations since the hostage crisis ended.

    The state department was careful to point out that this new virtual embassy “is not a formal diplomatic mission, nor does it represent or describe a real U.S. Embassy accredited to the Iranian Government.” Rather, the goal is to open lines of communication between the people of Iran and those of America. The site is critical of the Iranian government’s attempts to cut off its people from the outside world via the internet. The virtual embassy is meant to undermine that effort by providing the Iranian people a direct path to information about America.

    The government of Iran, meanwhile, wasted no time in responding to the site. In a move that should surprise no one, the country’s internet censor blocked access to the embassy, which it accused of being a tool for recruiting spies and creating division among the Iranian people.

    Iran’s government-run Fars News Agency called the closing “a decisive reaction by the Iranian authorities to the latest plots hatched by Washington against the Iranian nation.”

  • Facebook, Google Respond to India Censorship Requests

    Yesterday we brought you news that Indian telecommunications minister Kapil Sibal was planning to meet with representatives of Google, Facebook, and others to ask that they screen content his office deemed objectionable, so that it could not be posted to the companies’ sites. He cited a page critical of a major government figure as an example of the kind of content he wanted removed.

    We have learned this morning that Facebook and Google have issued responses to Mr. Sibal. In a statement to the Times of India, Facebook promised to remove any content that came to their attention as being in violation of their terms of service, but would go no further.

    In a similar statement issued Indian news network IBN, Google stated that it would remove content found to be in violation of either the law or Google’s terms of service. The company emphasized its commitment to the free exchange of information and respect for disparate viewpoints, and so stated that it would not remove content simply because it is controversial.

    Meanwhile, Minister Sibal told the press that he had been in contact with Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, and Yahoo on this issue, and that they had declined to cooperate with his office’s request. He denied that his proposal constitutes censorship, arguing instead that he was seeking only to protect the sensibilities – particularly the religious sensibilities – of those who might be offended by what he regards as derogatory or incendiary content.

    In light of the companies’ refusal to participate, Mr. Sibal took something of a hard line, saying that since they were “not willing to cooperate on incendiary material” the government would have to step in with a solution of its own. He claimed that the goal was not to hinder the freedom of the press, but nevertheless “this kind of material should not be allowed.”

    As might be expected, reactions on Twitter have been fierce. Five of the top ten trending topics in India were related to this issue, with referencing Sibal directly – Kapil Sibal, and #IdiotKapilSibal.

    One user suggests that the Indian government would be better served by appropriately managing its presence on social media.

    @rachitseth
    रचित सेठ     One thing is sure, The Congress and the Government needs a Social Media Manager instead of screening Social Media. #Kapil Sibal 41 minutes ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Another expresses confusion over whom, precisely, Mr. Sibal believes he is protecting.

    @Lata_MV
    Lata Varma    I don’t understand whose ‘religious sentiments’ are hurt on social media ? #Kapil Sibal pz be clear. 1 hour ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    While another expressed his exasperation with politicians in general.

    @rohitkhilnani
    Rohit Khilnani    Will our politicians ever ‘Trend’ for doing some good work. They only trend when the do (or say) stupid things ! #kapil sibal 4 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Yet another points out the inevitable results of censorship.

    @ShrikantWad
    Shrikant Wad    #Kapil Sibal has actually revived people’s interest for so-called offensive stuff online… Lol! 1 hour ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Two users approach the situation with a bit more humor.

    @Tao23
    S A Barton    India: ‘Dear entire internet, please remove anything critical of our politics or society before anyone sees it.’ http://t.co/mE8h8paW 15 hours ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto

    @GlobalMouthful
    GlobalMouthful    *** This Tweet has been screened by Indian Telecommunications Minister #Kapil Sibal and deemed inappropriate! ****** 11 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    A request to Google for further comment has not yet been answered. Check back later for more information as this story continues to develop.

    (Image credit: Amit Agarwal.)

  • Google, Facebook Asked to Screen User Content in India

    In a disturbing move, the government of India has apparently reached out to representatives of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo in hopes of preventing certain kinds of material from being posted by users. The New York Times is reporting that Kapil Sibal, acting minister of telecommunications, will meet with executives from the internet companies on Monday afternoon.

    Today’s meeting will be third in a series of meetings that began six weeks ago, when Sibal gathered lawyers from the companies and from India’s main internet service providers. At this meeting he reportedly displayed a Facebook page critical of Sonia Gandhi, president of India’s Congress Party, as an example of the sort of content he wanted removed.

    At the second meeting, which reportedly took place in November, Mr. Sibal insisted that the companies employ human screeners – rather than any sort of automated system – to identify, intercept, and remove content his office deems objectionable.

    The executives are expected to tell Mr. Sibal at today’s meeting that the sheer volume of content produced in India makes the project impossible, especially in absence of a court order or law requiring them to do it. The request also raises legal questions. While free speech protections are not as robust in India as they are in the United States, there remain concerns that Mr. Sibal’s request violates those protections. One Twitter user points to a Supreme Court ruling that protects free speech on the internet:

    @pranesh_prakash
    Pranesh Prakash    http://t.co/GDbIax7r screams “unconstitutional”, as Sibal well knows. Pre-screening of content illegal, Supreme Court has held. 1 hour ago via Hotot · powered by @socialditto

    Others used Twitter to express their anger at the project, as well as their skepticism that it was even possible:

    @samitbasu
    samit basu    Only our government could make religious fundamentalists and illiterate proto-fascists look good http://t.co/ntughTut 1 hour ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    @harikunzru
    Hari Kunzru    Funniest part of ministerial instruction to screen Indian #facebook content, Sibal ‘expected them to use human beings’ http://t.co/wWAFGqsp 1 hour ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    @KeHay
    Katherine Hay, India    India telecon minister asks Google/ Facebook to screen user content before posting. Um…of 125 million users? http://t.co/CQTOxcOW 1 hour ago via Tweet Button · powered by @socialditto

  • What’s Facebook Have Against This Effin Town?

    Over the weekend, a story emerged about a woman, and small town in Ireland, and some odd Facebook censorship. Ann Marie Kennedy is incensed that Facebook will not allow her to list her hometown as Effin, Ireland.

    No, she isn’t trying to make a joke, as in “I’m from f*cking Ireland.” She’s referring to Effin, Ireland, a civil parish in County Limerick, Ireland. Kennedy says that she can list her hometown as County Limerick, but Facebook will not allow her to put “Effin.”

    Has Facebook banned the word “Effin,” because it’s a slang contraction of “f*cking?”

    According to the reports, Kennedy set up a page called “Please get my hometown Effin recognized,” which was promptly removed. There was speculation as to whether this was a manual or automatic deletion – but either way, she was pissed –

    I would like to be able to put Effin down on my own profile page and so would many other people around the world who proudly say that they are from Effin – but it wouldn’t recognise that. It keeps coming up as Effingham, Illinois; Effingham, New Hampshire; and it gives suggestions of other places. It will recognise Limerick but I’m not from Limerick city, I’m from Effin. I’m a proud Effin woman. And I always will be an Effin woman.

    All jokes about her being an “effin woman” aside, it’s clear that there’s a problem when it comes to Facebook and Effin. Right now, if I try to list my hometown as Effin, Kennedy’s observations hold true. It suggests places like Effingham, but no Effin, Ireland.

    Does Facebook have a ban on the word Effin, as so many folks over the weekend have suggested?

    The simple answer is no, probably not. Facebook has responded, saying –

    From time to time we are alerted to oversights such as this in our mapping system. We will look to correct it to ensure places like Effin can be ‘liked’ on Facebook.

    According to Facebook, it’s simply a problem of omission. Effin, Ireland is not an option because someone has failed to make it so.   It has nothing to do with some incredible Facebook aversion to profanity.  I tend to believe their explanation, and here’s why:

    First, the word Effin (used in the f*cking substitute context) is all over pages.

    And for that matter, so is “f*cking.”

    And there are plenty of locations around the world that are just as if not more risque than “Effin” that Facebook allows users to put as their hometown. Just a few:

    It’s tempting to think sinister thoughts about Facebook’s motivations, but sometimes an oversight is just an oversight.

    [Image Credit]

  • Google Has Other Ideas Concerning Internet Censorship

    As the buzz around the government’s attempt to govern the content of the Internet increased in volume, a number of tech companies increased their volume concerning their disapproval of how SOPA/PIPA goes about its business. The most notable of the objecting tech giants is Google, who, along with other giants like AOL, eBay, Facebook, and Yahoo formed the Protect Innovation group, which was created to speak out against the online piracy acts.

    Should Google stand strong in their opposition of SOPA/PIPA or is their position too defiant? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    While this may be an exercise in repetition, apparently some are missing the point about the opposition. This is not a response asking to perserve the rights to download illegal files. Instead, the way in which SOPA/PIPA goes about protecting intellectual property is at question. Or, in the words of the opposing consortium:

    We support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue” websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting…. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written…

    It’s important that this message doesn’t get misconstrued or misunderstood. This, again, isn’t about the acquisition of “free” files, it’s about the way in which PIPA/SOPA goes about its enforcement.

    This point was further clarified by Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, who, while speaking at the University of Minnesota, clarified Google’s position while offering an alternative approach to what the government is trying to enact. Essentially, Schmidt, and Google’s, position is that the bills would be ineffective, scattering the illegal file enablers to other sites where their activities would continue. Killing a site out of the Ukraine, for instance, one that’s offering Blu-Ray rips and other illegal content, wouldn’t stop the individuals who populated the site with the illegal files, it would just remove one of their supply chains.

    Creating a new site to further host these illegal files would be a very small hurdle for pirates, which should help demonstrate the ineffectiveness of SOPA/PIPA.

    Furthermore, Google is still resolute in its position that SOPA/PIPA, or at least the methods the bills suggest for policing the Internet, threatens the safety of the web, something Schmidt reiterated during his University of Minnesota speaking engagement. Schmidt also offered an alternative approach to the slash-and-burn tactics of these online piracy acts:

    “There are a whole bunch of issues involved with breaking the Internet and the way it works. The correct solution, which we’ve repeatedly said, is to follow the money,” Schmidt said. “Making it more explicitly illegal to make money from that type of content is what we recommend.”

    While Schmidt’s example is a simplified, Google’s position is spelled out clearly in the Protect Innovation letter:

    We support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue” websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.

    The idea of going after the people who are providing access to the very files the entertainment industry is so desperate to protect for further monetization purposes is a concept that doesn’t get discussed enough. Granted, Schmidt would be better served by expanding on Google’s idea for pursuing the people who fuel piracy content, but his and Google’s stance concerning the legislation in question is one of common sense.

    Perhaps that’s why you don’t see such an angle in either of the online censorship bills.

    Should the IP protection acts do more about pursuing the money involved in illegal file-sharing or is that another subject for another time? Share your comments here.

  • NBC Wants Partners To Support SOPA Or Else

    Apparently, if you want your content to appear on NBC’s family of networks, you had better be resolute in your support of the PROTECT-IP/SOPA bills that are currently polluting the both branches of the U.S. government. According to an email that’s been leaked to the Internet, the NBC family, which includes NBC Universal, NBC Interactive, and all of the distribution properties they own, is adamant that their content suppliers support the anti-piracy acts that threaten the very nature of how the Internet functions.

    The email, which was pointed out by TechDirt, was posted on Emmet Lollis’ Google+ account and there’s really no mistaking NBC’s postion.

    Simply put, NBC wants their content partners to actively support these acts by visiting CreativeAmerica.org, which has a function allowing users to contact their representative to demonstrate just how supportive they are. The email, in its entirety; any bold sections were added by us:

    To Our Suppliers:

    We are writing to ask you for help on an issue that is one our top business priorities – content theft on the Internet, which is a major threat to the strength of our business. Our major guilds and unions are joining us in the fight to keep our businesses strong so that the tidal wave of content theft does not kill jobs. But if the current trend continues, it’s not too strong to say that this threat could adversely affect our business relationship with you.

    We’re writing today to ask you to do two things:

    1) Visit creativeamerica.org, a new initiative to build grassroots support for the fight against content theft, and join the fight. Creative America is a place for the people who make their living in this industry to come together with a single voice to speak out against content theft, and that includes you. In addition to NBCUniversal, the members of this unprecedented coalition are CBS, Disney, Fox, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Viacom, and Warner Brothers, along with AFTRA, the DGA, IATSE, and SAG.

    2) While you are at the creativeamerica.org site, click on the “Contact your Legislator” button to let your representative and senators in Congress know that you support an important new piece of legislation called the PROTECT IP Act, which would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to go after foreign websites that are dedicated to the illegal distribution of our movies and TV shows. The website makes this very easy to do by providing you with a customizable letter along with a tool to let you automatically send a message to your specific legislators, based on your zip code.

    We will be sure to keep you informed about our efforts to fight the growing problem of content theft. You can share your thoughts, concerns, or ideas by sending an email to [email protected].

    Or if you’d like to discuss specific ways you can help, please feel free to contact either Phil Tahtakran in our Washington, DC office at [email protected], or 202-524-6404, or John McKay in New York at either [email protected] or 212.664.6202.

    Thank you for your support.

    Sincerely,

    Rick Cotton
    Executive Vice President and General Counsel

    Marcia Haynes
    Executive Vice President, Sourcing

    John Wallace
    President, Media Works_

    Of course, the part that stands out is the threat of business relationship damage. In other words, if a company that supplies NBC with content, giving it its much-need outlet for consumption, doesn’t go out of its way to show support for SOPA/PIPA, there’s a good chance NBC won’t be doing business with that company any longer.

    If that doesn’t sound like strong-arming/blackmail at its finest, someone should provide a better example.

    What’s next? Visits from NBC thugs, threatening to break the legs of partners that don’t believe SOPA/PIPA is an effective means of governing the Internet? As pointed out by TechDirt, not only is NBC’s position incredibly bold, it also borders on hypocrisy:

    When NBC Universal’s General Counsel, Rick Cotton — who famously once claimed that piracy was destroying the lowly corn farmer, since people who watch pirated movies don’t eat popcorn (or something) — is threatening suppliers who don’t sign on? That’s not grassroots. That’s just insane.

    Unfortunately, because NBC’s distribution arm is so strong, it stands to reason most of these content suppliers will play ball and support SOPA/PIPA; although, one hopes these same companies might revolt against NBC’s strong-arm tactics and find another distributor.

    Hey, Netflix is always looking for original content.

  • Lieberman Urges Google To Ban Terrorist Content

    Following the arrest of Jose Pimentel earlier this month for plotting a bomb attack in New York City, Sen. Joe Lieberman is now calling upon Google to ban all terrorist material. Citing Google’s prior crack-down on terrorist content on YouTube, Lieberman has charged Google to apply that standard to their other services. Pimental’s pro-terrorist website, www.trueislam1.com, was hosted by Google’s blog service (the site has since been removed).

    In a letter sent to Google, Lieberman goes so far to accuse the company of dropping the ball in the war on terrorism by permitting sites like the one belonging to Pimentel. The full text of the letter follows:

    On Saturday, the New York Police Department arrested Jose Pimentel for constructing a pipe bomb to be used against U.S. military service members. Pimentel allegedly used the Internet to access instructions to make bombs and share his support for violent Islamist extremism.

    Pimentel’s Internet activity – both his spreading of bomb-making instruction links and his hate-filled writings – were hosted by Google. On his site www.trueislam1.com, Pimentel stated, “People have to understand that American and its allies are all legitimate targets in warfare. This includes facilities such as army bases, police stations, political facilities, embassies, CIA and FBI buildings, private and public airports, and all kinds of buildings where money is being made to help fund a war.” As demonstrated by this recent case, Google’s webhosting site, Blogger is being used by violent Islamist extremists to broadcast terrorist content. Pimental’s site is just one of the many examples of homegrown terrorists using Google-hosted sites to propagate their violent ideology.

    In September 2008, in response to a previous request that YouTube not allow terrorist content on its servers, Google changed its YouTube Community Guidelines to expressly ban terrorist content. In November 2010, Google introduced a “flag” button for terrorist content on YouTube. I continue to appreciate and commend these important first steps but I am disappointed that Google has not developed a consistent standard throughout its many platforms. Unlike YouTube’s Community Standards, Blogger’s Content Policy does not expressly ban terrorist content nor does it provide a “flag” feature for such content.

    Google sets its own standards for materials allowable on its servers. Through your updated YouTube standards, Google has affirmatively stated that terrorist content will not be permitted on some of your sites. I strongly believe that Google should expand that standard to include your other platforms. The private sector plays an important role in protecting our homeland from the preeminent threat of violent Islamist extremism, and Google’s inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.

    While the ongoing debate about free speech and censorship continues (and will likely always continue), Google has made efforts for transparency by providing statistics and examples of some removal requests submitted by governments. Still, they did comply either completely or partially with over 60% of government requests in the United States to remove content, although few of those are indexed as “Hate Speech,” “National Security,” or “Violence.”

    Do you think Google should comply with Lieberman’s request and do more to prohibit speech deemed to be insightful of terrorism? Do you think Google’s already doing enough with their current policy? Tell us what you think.

  • Google, Internet Censorship & Pee Games

    Today’s video round-up includes Google’s own look at the evolution of search (as well as where search is headed), some pee-controlled games in London, and Internet censorship in Turkey (among other things).

    View more daily video round-ups here.

    Google’s evolution of search:

    Internet censorship:

    Pee Games:

    Seconds of Beauty:

    Seconds Of Beauty – 1st round compilation from The Beauty Of A Second on Vimeo.

    An interesting artistic approach (and probably good exercise as well):

    Google has launched Google Catalogs for Android Tablets. It was previously available for the iPad:

    Toyota talks the Swagger Wagon video development with Google:

    How YouTube is driving innovation:

    Dumb Ideas:

  • SOPA’s Internet Censorship Finds Bipartisan Opposition On Twitter

    We’ve been following the massive internet backlash to the SOPA (PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE) bill currently being debated in Congress, and it’s coming from all sides. Not only has the internet community rallied against the bill in the form of online petitions and various sites like Tumblr and Boing Boing devoting graphics to censorship, but tech giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter and AOL have submitted a joint-letter speaking in opposition to the measure.

    Today, House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi voiced her opposition to SOPA on Twitter. Responding to a question from another user, Pelosi said that we need to find a better solution (presumably speaking of piracy) –

    @NancyPelosi
    Nancy Pelosi    Need to find a better solution than #SOPA #DontBreakTheInternet MT @jeffreyrodman: Where do you stand on Internet censoring and #SOPA? 2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Pelosi, a Democrat, received backup on Twitter from Republican House member Darrell Issa – an influential conservative from California. He responded to Pelosi’s tweet –

    @DarrellIssa
    Darrell Issa    If even we agree… RT @NancyPelosi: Need to find a better solution than #SOPA #DontBreakTheInternet Cc @jeffreyrodman 2 hours ago via Twitterrific · powered by @socialditto

    Issa has been a vocal opponent to the bill, tweeting about “ctrl+alt+delete”ing the measure. He also tweeted out this video of his opposition during the debates taking place in committees as we speak.

    @DarrellIssa
    Darrell Issa    I tweeted last night about my strong opposition to #SOPA…got video of my stand against it in yesterday’s judiciary hearing…stand by 2 hours ago via Twitterrific · powered by @socialditto

    Speaking of Tumblr, they announced today that their efforts led to 87,834 calls to representatives to voice opposition to SOPA. One of those calls even lasted 31 minutes – which signals a pretty healthy discussion.

    It’s interesting to see bipartisan opposition to SOPA, considering that its proponents in Congress have been touting it as a bipartisan effort. What do you think about SOPA? Let us know in the comments.

  • SOPA Meets Massive Resistance

    SOPA Meets Massive Resistance

    The Stop Online Piracy Act, or any of its many variations, something WebProNews has discussed before, is finally meeting a great deal of resistance as various online movements, and the long-awaited push back from entities like Google, Facebook, and Mozilla have (finally?) decided to throw their own weight around.

    Where do you stand concerning the Stop Online Piracy Act? Do you side with the web giants or the government? Does the power SOPA give to stop piracy go too far? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    It looks like the American public is also getting wise about the consequences of such a bill to pass, as the SOPA acronym is currently the top Google Trend. One hopes this isn’t a case of too little, too late. The resistance that’s getting the most coverage has to do with the rebellious responses of a consortium of well-known — and powerful — web companies, all of which banded together to create the following letter as their opening means of disagreement.

    The letter, found under the Protect Innovation TLD, is signed by the following entities:

    Google
    Facebook
    Twitter
    AOL
    eBay
    LinkedIn
    Yahoo
    Zynga
    Mozilla

    The stance of this group is one of disapproval concerning SOPA, and the crux of their position is here, with our own emphasis added:

    We support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue” websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.

    Essentially, these companies would like to stop piracy as well, they just don’t want it to be under the guise of “The Great Firewall of America,” which is what some entities have started calling SOPA.

    The push back doesn’t stop there, however. With Mozilla, besides co-signing the letter, they also created a page that clearly states their position in relation to SOPA in its current form. The page links to an Electronic Frontier Foundation page that, in part, generates letters of opposition to whatever state representatives are applicable. The page also features valuable information about the potential harm SOPA can cause.

    An example:

    As drafted, the legislation would grant the government and private parties unprecedented power to interfere with the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users’ attempts to reach certain websites’ URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the reliability and universality of the DNS evaporates.

    I urge you to continue reading.

    Google, which also signed the letter of opposition, has also posted about their intentions over at their public policy blog, which includes Google copyright policy counsel Katherine Oyama testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. Oyama was scheduled to testify earlier today, and the post has a link to her written and oral testimony.

    An example from the written portion explains Google’s position quite well:

    We support SOPA’s stated goal of providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign rogue websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement and counterfeiting. Unfortunately, we cannot support the bill as written, as it would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that could require monitoring of web sites and social media. Moreover, we are concerned that the bill sets a precedent in favor of Internet censorship and could jeopardize our nation’s cybersecurity. In short, we believe the bill, as introduced, poses a serious threat to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation.

    These more well-known companies are not the only voices of dissension concerning SOPA. Even Vice President Joe Biden spoke out against the spirit of the act, and although the White House clearly supports the reduction of online piracy, at least one component of the United States Government disagrees with how SOPA goes about its prevention:


    Biden, apparently, is on the side of the pirates. Levity aside, while he’s not operating from the same stance as Google, Mozilla, et al, but the fact remains, a visible member of the White House has spoken out — quite articulately, I might add — about how the ideas that help give structure to SOPA are harmful and do not represent such standards like freedom and due process.

    It doesn’t stop here, either. Websites all over are using “No Censorship” graphics for their logos, including such well known properties as Reddit and Boing Boing. There are a veritable avalanche of articles speaking out against SOPA as the backlash continues to build.

    If you’re still wondering what all the hubbub is about, watch this video — in its entirety — and if, after finishing it, you still don’t understand why Google and their cohorts are against it, watch it again:


    Remember, if you’re as against SOPA as our Internet benefactors are, there are a number of ways to speak out against it.

    Are you for or against SOPA? Do you stand with the tech industry or not? Does being against SOPA mean you support online piracy? Is there no middle ground? Let us know what you think.

  • Does Anyone Support SOPA?

    Does Anyone Support SOPA?

    I mean, besides the AAs of the world (the RIAA, the MPAA)? Granted, the backlash took a little longer to get than some of us would have liked, but it’s here now, and even though the hearings for SOPA have turned into one big, misguided circle jerk for the entertainment industry, with industry reps in the middle, basking in the glow of congressional support, the push-back is finally here.

    The question is, was the wool removed from the public’s eye with enough time to act against SOPA, or should we simply be resigned to the fate that the United State government is in a position, provided SOPA survives becoming an actual law, to wield a level of control over the content of the Internet, one it was never intended to have, all to pacify the entertainment industry. SOPA’s existence really doesn’t go beyond that. If the entertainment behemoths pulled their support for SOPA and embraced the concept of file sharing with open arms, or, conversely, agreed with tech industry in the belief the bill gives too much power to those that wield it, the act would fall apart like a house of cards.

    Here’s something very telling about SOPA and its sponsors. Recently, Lamar Smith, one of the Republican representatives from the state of Texas, and one of SOPA’s most visible sponsors, was quoted as saying, “I’m not a technical expert on this,” but yet, there’s Smith, foolishly attempting to take Google’s representative to task with an incredibly ignorant offering that says:

    …one of the companies represented here today has sought to obstruct the Committee’s consideration of bipartisan legislation. Perhaps this should come as no surprise given that Google just settled a federal criminal investigation into the company’s active promotion of rogue websites that pushed illegal prescription and counterfeit drugs on American consumers.

    Smith’s ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t so potentially harmful to the Internet’s existence, but yet, there he is, trying his hardest to regulate the content of the Internet.

    Smith, while being wholly ignorant of how Google operates its search engine index, also apparently ignores the wishes of the American people as well. In an ongoing study conducted by The American Assembly project at Columbia University, some of their early findings have been made available, and because of them, it’s pretty clear the events surrounding SOPA do not reflect the attitudes of the people it’s designed to govern.

    Some highlights are upcoming, but I urge you to read the incredibly revealing study and the initial findings. It’s pretty clear the times and the attitudes of the people have changed:

    • “Piracy” is common. Roughly 46% of American adults have bought pirated DVDs, copied files or discs from friends or family, or downloaded music, TV shows or movies for free.* These practices correlate strongly with youth and moderately with higher incomes
    • Only 1% of Americans are heavy pirates of TV/movie content (i.e. possess more than 100 movies or TV
      shows and copied or downloaded most or all of them)
    • Console-based video game piracy on any scale is rare. 48% of households surveyed owned game consoles (Xbox, Playstation). Of these, roughly 3% (1.5% overall) have consoles that have been modified to play pirated games. Of this 3%, 55% were modified at time of purchase and 33% by the owners. We did not inquire about PC or mobile games

    Aside: So much for Sony’s reasoning for locking down the PS3… Other highlights include:

    • Copyright infringement among family and friends is widely accepted. Substantial majorities of Americans say it is “reasonable” to share music files with family members (75%) and friends (56%). For movie/TV files: 70% and 54% respectively
    • Only a slim majority of Americans (52%) say “people should face punishment if they download an unauthorized copy of a song or movie from a website or file-sharing service.” 34% are opposed to penalties altogether; 7% say it depends on the circumstances; 7% did not answer
    • This support is limited to warnings and fines.
    • Even among those who support fines, 75% support amounts under $100 for downloading a song or movie. “Less than $10” attracted 32% support; “$11 to $100” attracted 43%. This contrasts sharply with U.S. copyright law, where the statutory penalty for willful infringement runs to $150,000 per act. Fine in this range were supported by less than 1% of Americans.

    As for the crux of SOPA, that is, should the government and/or the entertainment industry be allowed to block online material, the respondents are pretty unanimous in their lack of support:

    American Internet users (79%) have strong views about whether corporations or the government should monitor their Internet use “in order to prevent copyright infringement.” A large majority (69%) said no. 27% responded yes or sometimes. 3% did not know. Attitudes are softer when asking whether ISPs should “block access to sites that provide access to pirated songs and videos.” A 58% majority responded yes to this question, with 36% opposed. When asked if the government should block access, that majority vanishes (40% yes; 56% no).

    The report also indicates that when the word in the survey was changed from “block” to “censor,” support diminished even further. Even though people were more comfortable with ISPs blocking infringing users, when the word becomes a precursor to censorship, support for ISP blocking reduces as well. According to the report, with these parameters, only 46% said yes, and 49% said no.

    There’s a handy graph that helps put the study’s current findings in perspective. Click it for a larger version:

    Content Blocking

    Of course, if you were to present these findings to government officials who support SOPA, or, say, representatives of the MPAA/RIAA, the response would, in all likelihood, be the equivalent to sticking one’s fingers in their ears and yelling, all in an effort to block out the unpleasant truths they’re trying to ignore.

  • A Handy SOPA Infographic

    Do you know why are all the tech companies of note up in arms about the SOPA act? Why have Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Mozilla, among others, banded together to speak out against the SOPA bill that’s currently undergoing hearings at Capitol Hill? Is it simply a matter of wanting to pirate goods without the interference of outside government agencies?

    If you’ve been keeping up, no, it’s not. In fact, the tech companies that are so outspoken against SOPA specifically say they are against online piracy, but they disagree with the way SOPA goes about fighting it. Why would that be? What is contained within SOPA that has companies that normally compete against one another teaming up against a common foe? Hopefully, the following infographic will clear the air.

    Here’s the resized version, which you can click for a full image:

    SOPA Infographic

    Here are two of the more important sections, which I’ve clipped out of the overall graphic, which explains the extent of the “why” concerning the potential for a site being block, or, playing on the word of today, censored:

    SOPA Snippet

    A visitor/user posted a YouTube video of The Beatles performing on the Ed Sullivan Show? It’s your fault for not taking it off, therefore, your site has infringed and is subject to the punishments pointed out in SOPA. So your site’s blocked and your access to ad revenue has been cutoff. Was justice done because you didn’t remove the infringing video in time?

    Another point of concern is the broad, sweeping power SOPA provides affects all kinds of US Internet users:

    SOPA Snippet

    How would you like it if the links you send your friends in emails were subject to censorship, which means the content of them would need to be actively read? Does that appeal to you?

    With the existence of this infographic and the video from the previous article, if you aren’t informed about SOPA, then there’s no one left to blame.


    The information is out there. Go and get it.

  • PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE Act Gets A White House Petition

    The E-PARASITEs act (formerly known as the PROTECT-IP act) is still floating around Congress, and the threat of its passing has many internet denizens worried.

    The bill would essentially require service providers to block access to certain sites, dependent on the accusation that they promote copyright infringement. The Senate-introduced PROTECT IP Act stated that the target of the new laws were sites that were “dedicated to infringing activities. Once the bill got into the House and was given its fancy new name, the reach was greatly expanded to target any “foreign infringing sites.”

    As TechDirt explains:

    They’re also including an “inducement” claim not found elsewhere in US regulations — and which greatly expands what is meant by inducement. The bill effectively takes what the entertainment industry wanted the Supreme Court to say in Grokster (which it did not say) and puts it into US law. In other words, any foreign site declared by the Attorney General to be “inducing” infringement, with a very broad definition of inducing, can now be censored by the US. With no adversarial hearing. Hello, Great Firewall of America.

    Many worry that this will lead to a less-than-free internet that can be censored based on the whims of the entertainment industry. A deeper discussion of the implications of the bill can be found here.

    The E-PARASITE act has a lot of people upset, and some have taken to the White House petition site We the People to express their concern.

    We the People was launched back in September as a way for citizens to propose their own ideas to the White House via online petitions. Last month, The White House responded to a particular petition regarding student loan forgiveness, that turned out to be the backbone of a plan unveiled on the same day by President Obama.

    Not every White House response to these petitions has pleased the petitioners, as one concerning the legalization of marijuana infuriated many on internet communities such as reddit.

    Nevertheless, a new petition has sprung up on the site calling for the administration to “stop the e-parasite act.”

    Here’s what they have to say:

    This Bill would allow essentially allow A Great Firewall of America and would be a shameful desecration of free speech and any sort of reasonable copyright law. The new Law would allow copyright holders to force websites which have any copyrighted material to be blocked by ISP companies around the country, without requiring that the websites be given time to take the offending material down. It would also put pressure on ISP companies to monitor their users like never before, a gross invasion of privacy. This bill is a direct assault on a free internet and a shameful attempt by copyright lobbyists to destroy net neutrality. Essentially it’s a censorship law that would end the internet as we know it in America.

    Created on Monday, the petition already has over 7,000 signatures. In order to warrant a response from the White House, it has to reach 25,000 signatures by November 30th. It looks like it will reach its goal way before that deadline.

    Another interesting example of opposition has popped up on the interwebs today, as reddit has unearthed an opposition letter for the PROTECT-IP act, written back in July of this year. The opposition letter is signed by 108 law professors from colleges across 31 different states.

    What are your thoughts on this legislation? Let us know in the comments.

  • Bill Promises To Censor the Internet

    The PROTECT-IP bill is making its way through the halls of the United States government, and besides an unfortunate name change, the bill has been altered by the House of Representatives in such a way, it would essentially allow the government and/or various corporations that feel infringed upon the ability to censor the Internet in whatever way they see fit.

    Should the United States government be allowed to censor the Internet to fit their own whims and desires? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    Perhaps that last part is wrapped in some hyperbole, but then again, after reading portions of the updated bill, as well as some of the reactions to it, it’s pretty clear that, if passed, the American public could soon be using a very different version of the Internet than what we’re used to. The sad thing is, besides a small section of informed reactions to the bill, very few in the American public seem to know and/or care about the implications of PROTECT-IP, which, thanks to input from House of Representatives, now goes by the unfortunately-named E-PARASITE Act.

    Here’s an embed of the document, although, it’s doubtful anyone outside of the tech/Internet sector will actually concern themselves with it:

    E-PARASITES Act

    Even search engines like Google are affected by the contents of the bill. When discussing foreign sites that have been suspected of infringement, the bill’s text reads:

    INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES
    A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.

    Which sounds an awful lot like if a Google search returns a link to a site like The Pirate Bay, they will be asked to remove and/or block the link, thanks to a government order. Over at TechDirt, such governmental actions are being compared to the creation of a Great Firewall of America, obviously taking its queue from China’s iron fist control of Internet content its citizens have access to.

    It should also be noted that foreign sites deemed as being an infringement tool are not given any due process to protect/defend the property. ArsTechnica has more:

    The bill gives government lawyers the power to go to court and obtain an injunction against any foreign website based on a generally single-sided presentation to a judge. Once that happens, Internet providers have 5 days to “prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.”

    Furthermore, the bill would make programs like the MafiaaFire Redirector, something Mozilla has already successfully backed in the face of Homeland Security pressure, would now be illegal. For those who may not know, when a user tries to access a site that’s been taken down by the ICE squad, those with the MafiaaFire Redirector plugin are redirected to an alternate domain for the ICE’d site.

    Under PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITES, such a program would be under attack from the Attorney General:

    To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief… against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing…

    And these scenarios are just some of the nonsense being introduced in the bill that would give the government power to censor the Internet towards its own desires, all in an effort to protect what TechDirt refers to as “a few legacy companies in the entertainment industry refuse to adapt.”

    If you are unaware of the implications of PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE, allow the following video to educate you:


    Now, before the replies of “you just want to be able to pirate without worry” start pouring in, it should be noted that I have downloaded before, but that’s not what my perspective is about. If I get caught, I’m not going to blame the site that hosted the torrent/file/content I stole. I did the crime, so I should have to pay the price for being caught, and that’s something I’ve long understood.

    It’s not Pirate Bay’s fault I download files, it’s mine, a stance that should clue you in on my position towards censoring the Internet.

    The sad thing is, if you walked down the street of any city in America, asking people their thoughts on the bill, it’s doubtful you’d get much in the way of meaningful reaction. Sure, a few would be informed, but by and large, as long as American Internet users can access Facebook and Twitter, as well as throwaway nonsense like TMZ, they don’t seem to be very interested in informing themselves about who is governing the Internet and the intentions behind the rules being passed.

    With that in mind, when reading about PROTECT-IP, I’m reminded of the following scene from Revenge of the Sith:


    However, instead of applause, it seems that apathy or ignorance rules the day. Where are the #Occupy crowds when you really need them? In other news, considering the powerful telecommunications lobbyists, and the sway they have over the US Government, one wonders why Google hasn’t tried to grease the wheels in favor of an uncensored Internet instead of just hanging out with the Net Coalition crew.

    How much control is too much? Let us know what you think.

    Lead image courtesy.

  • In The UK, Inciting Riots On Facebook Will Land You Three Years In Jail

    If you remember those riots that consumed many parts of England back in August, you probably remember all of the discussion regarding social media’s influence on their spread.

    At the height of the outbursts, triggered by social unrest, Prime Minister David Cameron discussed the possibility of censoring some elements of social media. Speaking on the subject, Cameron said that free flow of information can be good and bad and submitted that the answer might be in stopping communication via social sites like Twitter and Facebook.

    That idea received opposition from the social sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as RIM, whose BlackBerry Messenger was vital to the rioter’s communications. In the end, social media communications were not restricted.

    Which brings us to Phillip Scott Burgess.

    Today, The Telegraph reports that the 22-year-old Manchester resident has been sentenced to three years in jail for his use of Facebook during the riots.

    On August 9th, Burgess posted this as his status:

    “Message to all – we need to start riot’n we need to put Manchester on the map, first lets riot king street Manchester, haha.”

    Later that day, he posted derogatory remarks regarding the race and ethnicity of some of the protestors. Over the course of the next few days, he posted more racially charged statuses and ended by saying “Bring bk the riots.” He was arrested on August 16th.

    He plead guilty to three counts of “publishing written material to stir up racial hatred and encouraging or assisting the commission of a riot.” He will now reside in a cell for a maximum of 3 years.

    The sentence, according to the judge, was based on the belief that people who had a hand in organizing the riots are just as responsible as those who participated in the looting and vandalism.

    John Hepke, part of the police team that sought Burgess after he made the Facebook posts had this to say about the ruling:

    “Everyone witnessed the disgraceful scenes of violence, looting and arson and it is clear that social networking sites were used to incite certain elements of this disorder…I hope today’s sentence sends a powerful message to those who choose to follow Burgess’ example and use social networking sites irresponsibly and criminally that they will be dealt with harshly by the courts.”

    During the riots, it was clear to those watching online that some of the youth failed to keep their thinking caps on at all times. Not all social-media fails involved inciting the riots – others used Facebook and Twitter to talk about the car they had just smashed or the item they had just stolen.

    And this kind of use of social media isn’t limited to those in the UK. Folks were pretty senseless when it came to social media use during the Vancouver hockey riots as well.

    How do you feel about this case? Do Burgess’ posts make him just as guilty as those who actively participated in the violence? Let us know what you think.

  • Does This Facebook Page Promote Rape Culture?

    Social media sites and censorship has been a heavily debated topic here at WebProNews as of late. First, we discussed a particular Twitter hashtag that popped up on the top trends list, #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend. The controversial tag led to some petitioning Twitter to remove it from the top trends list.

    Days later, some screencaps were grabbed from the Fox News Facebook page that showed people making death threats toward atheists. Fox News later deleted the post containing the comments, but by then the story already had legs. It led us to ask the hypothetical question – Do these vile comments deserve free speech protection?

    The current offensive content rattling some people comes in the form of a Facebook page called “You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway.” Yes, everyone (including the admin) seems to be aware of the grammar mistake in that title, but that’s not exactly what opponents are most concerned about.

    As you can imagine, many are taking issue with the connotations of the page. It doesn’t take a genius to parse out the sexual assault and/or rape joke inherent in the page. Some people are concerned that the page even exists, but others are more concerned that is currently has over 172,000 likes.

    Some Facebook users have spoken out against the page on the wall (all posts below are from different Facebook users) –

    You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleywayThankyou to all the potential rapists and girls here who think rape is funny , why dont you go to a family gathering and make some of these jokes with your mums,grandmothers and aunties if your loud and proud. Its actually a good thing that your intellectual enough to post your “thoughts”here because this site has been reported to proper authorities and you will all be watched carefully. as supporters of rape you are possible rapists and girls who suppoprt rape (great mate you’d be ). 5 days ago · 5 likes · 23 comments

    You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleywayI am sure the police will be interested to know all your names especially those of you who are admitting to rape. Could you be any more underdeveloped evil scum of the earth individuals? But thank you for being absurd enough to post your comments up on such a public forum where you can so easily be named and shamed 5 days ago · 4 likes · 14 comments

    You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleywayi hope you’re happy with yourselves, this is sick. Rape should NOT be joked about like this. 4 days ago · 3 likes · 2 comments

    You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleywayyou’re all fucking pigs. this is absolutely atrocious, and i’m sure you’ll all burn in fucking hell for supporting this shit. honestly, do you small minded fucks even realize the seriousness rape causes on woman? (and i bet you didn’t even know that men get raped too).. there’s a lot of physical and emotional pain that NEVER leaves the girl after something like that happens, and sometimes they even feel so guilty to keep the bastard child, caused from your selfish fucking sperm and tiny little penis’. i reported this page and i’ll continue to tell whoever i have to, to shut this shit down. and btw, a man that has to rape is sure pathetic he can’t get laid without violent force. 4 days ago · 2 likes · 25 comments

    Some of the comments from fans of the page include: “Running only makes it worse,” “You call it a restraining order, I call it a challenge,” (24 likes) and “roses are red, violets are blue, I’ve got a knife, get in the van” (12 likes).

    The page’s creator issued this statement earlier today –

    You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleywayalot of people are saying this page will be gone soon? but why im just having a joke some people these days just need to relax. i did not even think of rape when i made this yous need to chill the fuck out. and the people why know this is a joke and like having a laugh i love yous 😉 <3 9 hours ago · 485 likes · 141 comments

    In an article at The Huffington Post today, Barbara Hannah Grufferman asks whether this Facebook group (and others like it) condone a “culture of rape.”

    She defines that as “a term used to describe a culture in which rape is common, and can be condoned through cultural attitudes and behaviors, including the way its victims are portrayed in the media, and the objectification of certain people (usually women) that seems to make their bodies open to violation.”

    One Facebook users discussed the concept of “Rape Culture” as follows –

    Virtually all rapists genuinely believe that all men rape, and other men just keep it hushed up better. And more, these people who really are rapists are constantly reaffirmed in their belief about the rest of mankind being rapists like them by things like rape jokes, that dismiss and normalize the idea of rape.

    Does this page promote a culture of rape? Or do people need to lighten up and take a joke? Does this joke cross the line?

    And even if you feel like this joke is a sick demonstration of how flippant people can be about a horrible thing like rape, what do you think should be done about it? Should Facebook disallow pages like this, or would that go to far toward censoring speech? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    [Image above is the group’s Facebook page image]

  • British Prime Minister Discusses Social Media Censorship

    David Cameron’s country–well, his boss’ country–has been in the grips of some widely-publicized rioting. The story played out over the Internet as the immediacy of modern technology brought us reams of startling images and additional information concerning the chaos. Another area of focus were the rioters themselves, especially the use of social media to organize their attacks.

    The Blackberry issue was well documented, as many rioters used Blackberry Messenger to coordinate. Once RIM offered to help the London authorities, the company blog was hacked for their efforts. Twitter and Facebook didn’t escape riot use, either.

    And now, the backlash from the British Government begins:


    What we have is British Prime Minister David Cameron essentially proposing the idea of allowing the police to censor these kinds of communication technologies. The methods of how are not discussed–that will be up to the geeks to figure out–but it’s clear, the London riots will have some long-felt repercussions.

    Maybe even the censorship of social media. Mr. Cameron’s exact words:

    Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can be also used for ill. So, we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at rather it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

    The bold portion is important aspect. Is it right for the government, British or otherwise, to essentially eavesdrop on social media-powered conversations, with orders to shut them down if they “are plotting violence, disorder and criminality?”

    Does that overstep privacy boundaries or is it a necessary step in order to combat the occasional social unrest? Whatever the conclusion, the British Parliament needs to hurry with their decision because the disorder has spread to Manchester:


    Frivolity aside, how much power is too much? How would the British government decide which technologies to limit? What type of Blackberry Messenger conversation would cross the line and how would the watchers know if it did? Or is this a case of reacting to future reports that potential civil unrest targets are using Facebook to coordinate, therefore, the British government such off access to these miscreants?

    So many questions.

  • Do These Vile Facebook Comments Deserve Free Speech Protection? [UPDATED]

    Last week, we asked you whether or not social media sites should censor offensive content. The issue that spawned that debate was the possible removal of certain trending topics by the folks at Twitter. After a certain hashtag (#reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend) gained steam two weekends ago, a large group of users demanded that Twitter remove that topic from their trending list.

    It’s unclear whether Twitter removed the topic or it simply fell off the list naturally (evidence suggests the latter), but the question remained: Should they censor that offensive content?

    Your comments last week provided a pretty clear answer to the question: No. Although the distinction was made that social networks like Facebook and Twitter are private companies who aren’t compelled to operate under the same free speech allowances as the U.S. Government, a majority said that it would be wrong to remove the offensive content.

    This week we ask a similar question, but with raised stakes. What about content that advocates violence? Let us know in the comments.

    Let it be known, the following article will contain no religious opinions from yours truly – whether heavy-handed or carefully cloaked. At the heart of this, for me at least, is simply the issue of anonymity online and the tendency for people to say crazy things when staring at a keyboard and a monitor. Oh, and some of these posts are simply epic in their jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

    Here’s how the story goes:

    Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists made an appearance recently on America Live with Megyn Kelly on the Fox News Channel.

    The reason that he appeared was to discuss the recent lawsuit filed by the American Atheists group over the cross-shaped steel beams at the World Trade Center site know as the “World Trade Center Cross.” The cross would form part of an exhibit at the September 11th Memorial and Museum.

    The lawsuit alleges that the cross-shaped steel beam display promotes Christianity over all other religions and it diminishes the civil rights or non-Christians since it is included on public property.

    To them, it’s a matter of church and state separation. Either that or it’s about the singularity of the religious celebration. According to ABC News, the American Atheists said that they “have contacted the 9/11 Memorial and Museum requesting to display their own atheistic memorial next to the steel-shaped cross, possibly in the form of an atom or an American flag, to represent the ‘500 non-religious Americans’ who were “among the victims of the 9/11 attack.”

    They say that their request was met with silence.

    After Mr. Scott’s appearance on the show, Facebook users flooded the Fox News Facebook page with comments.

    UPDATE: Fox News has issued a statement about the comments in question:

    “We make every attempt to keep our Facebook page as safe as possible,” said Peter Drace, Fox News VP and creative director of promotion, “and we take immediate steps to remove all hateful and dangerous language.”

    Fox News deleted the post containing the comments after identifying over 200 threatening comments. The post containing the comments went up on the night of July 28th. The post was removed on the morning of July 30th.

    Although the content is no longer available as it has been removed, multiple sources managed to grab screencaps of the comments. Here are the ones culled by American Atheists themselves –

    From the mouth of one gentleman, “few groups are filled with more hatred than atheists.” Just before that, “can we start killing them now.” Isn’t it ironic? Dontcha think?

    Some bloggers who also screencapped many of the comments blurred out the names of the commenters. Others specifically brought attention to their names. Their argument is that the internet needs accountability. Basically, if you have the balls to say something, you should have the balls to answer for it. Nobody should protect people on the internet who post controversial content for public consumption.

    Anonymity: Is it the landmark achievement of the internet or its central problem? Last year, a Facebook product design manager wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times where she called for content providers to stop allowing anonymous commenting. She pushed the importance of accountability.

    And just recently, (former) Facebook employee Randi Zuckerberg said that anonymity on the internet has to go. She said that “people behave a lot better when they have their real names down” and “people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.”

    Well, the majority of the commenters above didn’t hide behind closed doors. They used their reals names to post their misguided comments. You can check out their Facebook pages – many of them aren’t set to fully private. Is the fact that people aren’t having to talk directly to people’s faces enough? Is that all the anonymity they need?

    We talked yesterday about new research linking Facebook use to aggressive behavior. Is this what they were talking about? Is all of that anger and hatred a product of Facebook use in general? Or is Facebook simply a platform that can be used for everything, good and bad – and Facebook just enables some people with certain predispositions to bad behavior?

    Motivations for the behavior aside, controversial content finds its way to social media sites. This is a fact. And once it gets out there for public consumption, decisions must be made regarding how to deal with it.

    From the various reports from people who were screencapping these comments as the rolled in, the pace at which the truly extreme “death wishes” disappeared was pretty quick. It’s much more likely that the Fox News Admins were fighting to remove the content as opposed to Facebook stepping in. But the debate remains: if the comments above had been left alone, should Facebook have removed them?

    Or do the inarguably vile comments deserve free speech protection within the realm of social media speech guidelines?

    I know that few topics of conversation could be filled with more sensitive issues than vile threats to atheists over a Christian monument at 9/11. That’s hitting all the hot spots – religion, national tragedy, politics, etc. And it’s virtually impossible to separate those sentiments from a free speech debate. But let’s try to think about this as Christians, Atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists – whatever title your identity merits.

    Does this violent speech have a place on Facebook? Even though it doesn’t advocate the death of any singular person, is it prone to incite violence?

    Should it remain as a testament to free expression? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    [Lead Image Credit]

  • Should Social Media Censor Offensive Content?

    At what point does content on social media sites become too offensive? Does the social network have an obligation to protect its users from extreme topics of conversation? Or should a social network never pull controversial content, as it is tantamount to limiting free speech?

    These are some questions that went through my mind while browsing through all the tweets and various opinion pieces concerning a specific Twitter trending topic that appeared over the weekend. That trend became incredibly controversial almost immediately after it landed on the top trends list.

    The hashtag #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend sparked a flurry of protest, many calling for @twitter to do something about the offensive trend. Most asked Twitter to remove it from the trends lists altogether.

    Is there any content on Twitter or Facebook that you think deserves to be removed? Let us know in the comments.

    The tweets containing the hashtag ranged from jokes like “…because she won’t make you a sandwich” and “because she killed your kid and got away with it” to rebukes such as “NEVER any reason” and “this is the most disgusting #TT I’ve ever seen.”

    Of course, all of the people tweeting about the hashtag being horrible helped to keep it on the trending topic list, but anyways…

    @MrAlanCooper
    Alan Cooper    So #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend is a trending topic. Almost as lame as those demanding to censor it. #moraldilemma 13 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto

    By Sunday night, the controversial hashtag was no longer on the list of trending topics either worldwide or for the United States. As of Monday morning, the hashtag wasn’t on the trending topic lists for any of the specific cities either. New tweets containing the hashtag were no longer coming in at a fast clip either – maybe a couple a minute at most.

    Did Twitter remove the hashtag at the behest of the group of outraged users? Or did the topic just run its course and die out in popularity?

    Here’s the graph of 24 hour activity surrounding the hashtag, provided by Trendistic. it seems to suggest that the chatter surrounding the hashtag died down pretty quickly.

    But Monday afternoon, Twitter users who found the hashtag offensive continued to employ strategies to combat the trend. One way was through an online petition that counted retweets as signatures. Hosted on act.ly, here’s what the retweet looked like.

    @kristinprim
    Kristin Prim    Petition @twitter 2 remove #Reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend as a trend. Domestic Violence is not a joke. http://act.ly/41k RT to sign 12 hours ago via act.ly · powered by @socialditto

    According to the site, it got somewhere around 2,500 retweets.

    Some just asked @twitter directly to delete the trend from the list. Others attempted to counteract the trend by starting new hashtags like #violenceisnotfunny and #140reasonsdvisnotajoke.

    But a sizable minority lamented people’s inability to take a joke.

    Look people, “Reasons to beat your girlfriend” isn’t a clever hashtag. It didn’t produce very funny tweets. #DescribeYourPenisWithAMovieTitle – now there’s a winner. But #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend is far from the most offensive thing I’ve seen on Twitter.

    Twitter is a wonderful resource for lightning-fast, real time communication. Its openness and free flow of information make it great. Does Twitter want to get into the usual business of censoring trending topics?

    Reports of Twitter-trend censorship aren’t new. Back in 2010, people comlained that Twitter removed #WikiLeaks trends out of the topic list. Apparently, #WikiLeaks was still seeing a flood of tweets rolling it but some users noticed that it had mysteriously vanished from the list of trends. Twitter later denied that they had pulled the trend.

    Other hashtags like #NoGod have also received attention after users claimed that Twitter had removed them from trends.

    If you want to get technical about this, #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend doesn’t break any official Twitter regulations. On their about trending topics help page, Twitter lists the abuses that could result in punishment –

  • Adding one or more topic/hashtag to an unrelated Tweet in an attempt to gain attention in search.
  • Repeatedly Tweeting the same topic/hashtag without adding value to the conversation in an attempt to get the topic trending/trending higher.
  • Tweeting about each trending topic in turn in order to drive traffic to your profile, especially when mixed with advertising.
  • Listing the trending topics in combination with a request to be followed.
  • Tweeting about a trending topic and posting a misleading link to something unrelated.

    • Nothing about offensive trends here. And on the official Twitter Rules page, the only content guideline that pertains is “You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others.” The hashtag in question is definitely not a specific threat. The Twitter content rules say nothing about offensive trends.

    So it could be a judgment call for Twitter. Should they intervene in a situation like this?

    As long as Twitter exists, offensive trends will as well. Last month the controversy was #RapistSongs and now we have #reasonstobeatyourgirlfriend. Next month there could be something even more offensive.

    Things like rape and domestic violence are terrible whenever they happen to whomever they happen to – but a joke is a joke. Twitter can’t make a habit of removing trending topics just because they ruffle some feathers. If that’s what people are talking about the most, then it should show up on the list. Offensive speech is protected speech when it comes to the law, and Twitter should follow that recommendation. Can you imagine the backlash if Twitter began to censor topics regularly?

    What about Facebook? They don’t have a “trending topics” list but that hasn’t stopped them from inviting controversy over offensive content.

    Just last week the debate emerged surrounding Holocaust denier groups on the on the social network. Should Facebook remove those groups? Should all speech be free, even that kind that is absolutely despicable to most of us?

    Another huge controversy hit Facebook when Jewish activists demanded that they take down a page entitled “Third Palestinian Intifada.” That page called for a specific date to begin an uprising against Israel. Comments and videos also called for the killing of Jews. Facebook eventually pulled the page, but was later sued for not taking it down fast enough.

    Here, the lines become even blurrier. Is free speech still free speech when it advocates actual, specific violence? The law would say no. A person can’t advocate that harm be done to another, specific person. To what extent should social networks police this type of content?

    And what about when the offensive content isn’t simply words anymore, but videos? YouTube has a policy against aggressively shocking content, but that policy was tested when they pulled an animal cruelty video uploaded by the activist group Mercy For Animals.

    The video, which shows the horrible treatment of cows at a slaughterhouse, was later reinstated by YouTube after people protested the removal. This begs the question: What do social networks do about offensive content when it is also informative or documentary in nature?

    The two issues when it comes to social media and censorship are whether offensive content is protected free speech and even if it is, should social networks model their policies on our constitutional definition of free speech?

    Even if a horrible Twitter trend or a unsettling Facebook page counts as free speech, does the social network have the obligation to let it stand? Or should they make the decision to remove it based on enough public outcry?

    I think the removal of controversial content by social media sites starts us down a slippery slope. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

  • Google Transparency Report Gets an Update

    Google has updated its Transparency Report. This was launched last September, showing the number of government inquiries for information about users and requests for Google to take down or censor content, as well as interactive traffic graphs showing info about traffic to Google from around the globe.

    The latest round of data covers the second half of 2010, but they’ve also updated the design and added details. “We’ve highlighted some significant changes in the data and provided context about why those changes may have occurred during this reporting period,” says Google’s Matt Braithwaite. “We’ve also made it easier for you to spot trends in the data yourself. For example, we’ve changed the format so you can now see data on a country-by-country basis. We’re also clearly disclosing the reasons why we’ve been asked to remove content—such as an allegation of defamation or hate speech.”

    Google updates transparency report

    “For the first time, we’re also revealing the percentage of user data requests we’ve complied with in whole or in part,” adds Braithwaite. “This gives you a better idea of how we’ve dealt with the requests we receive from government agencies—like local and federal police—for data about users of our services and products.”

    @mattcutts
    Matt Cutts    Google just released an update of its Transparency Report: http://t.co/oby0MV7 Learn which governments request the most info. 13 minutes ago via Tweet Button · powered by @socialditto

    It is quite interesting to look at which countries have increased their respective numbers of takedown requests. From July to December 2010, Argentina increased its requests by 83% compared to the prior reporting period. Requests by Hong Kong jumped 80%. Australia increased by about 72%, but Google says this was due to a change in how the company categorizes requests for data (though did not specify).

    Regarding takedown requests from Brazil, Google says, “During the Fall election period in Brazil, the number of court orders issued from electoral courts rose, ordering removal of content related to political campaigns. In addition, one court ordered removal of more than 11,500 photos from Picasa. The lawsuit alleged that the photos contained images of pages from copyrighted books.”

    Google also says it saw a significant number of content removal requests from both Croatia and Denmark for the first time.

    Here in the United States, six court orders resulted in the removal of 1,110 items from Google Groups, related to a defamation case.

    All of these and other countries can be viewed here.