Category Archives: Censorship

Or what?

Oddly enough this wasn’t an April Fool’s article. Apparently the IOC told China that it must open the Great Firewall of China during the Olympics:

The IOC “discussed and insisted” with the Chinese government again this morning that the Internet is required to be “open at all times during Games time,” IOC coordination commission vice chairman Kevan Gosper told Reuters. “There was some criticism that the Internet closed down during events relating to Tibet in previous weeks, but this is not Games time.”

Or what? Really, what can the IOC do about it if they don’t? The Olympics will happen regardless of what slivers of freedom the Chinese government will allow their people. The world governments will mostly shutup and go along because of China’s economic clout. The mainstream media will by and large stay quiet because they stand to gain financially by covering this travesty.

While I wish all the athletes well, I will be personally boycotting this Olympics and I hope you do too. And by boycotting I don’t just mean not watching it on TV. I will try to avoid visiting any site whose main business is covering it (such as Sports Illustrated and ESPN). I don’t expect my personal boycott to make any difference of course. But a principle is principle and I stand by my principles.

What continues to amaze me is how many people and organizations who claim to care about human rights give countries like China a pass. I won’t.

Cartoon Identity Selectors

I was watching my oldest plan Disney Toon Town, which is an MMOG for young kids. If you are a subscriber you get to have up to 6 six different avatars that you can choose from when entering the game world.

It occurs to me that this is really an identity selector. I have a feeling that Cardspace or other identity selectors will be an easy transition for them when they are ready.

I guess Google doesn’t consider censorship evil

Here is an interesting story about a small news service that has been de-listed from Google News, apparently for being too critical of the UN. From the article:

Since 2005, he’s been focusing almost entirely on stories that deal with internal corruption inside the U.N., posting several stories online almost daily.

He’s been especially interested in the inner workings of what could be called the practical-applications arm of the international organization, the United Nations Development Programme.

Many of Lee’s stories were featured prominently whenever Web users looked for news about the U.N. using the powerful Google News search engine, a vital way for media outlets both large and small to get their articles read.

But beginning Feb. 13, Google News users could no longer find new stories from the Inner City Press.

“I think they said, ‘If we can’t get this guy out of the U.N., let’s disappear him from the Internet,’” Lee said.

Absolute market share corrupts absolutely.

Staying out of legal trouble

Jeff Jarvis points to this great resource for staying out legal trouble while blogging. Here are the 10 ten things you can do:

The 10 rules to blog by:
1. Check your facts.
2. Avoid virtual vendettas.
3. Obey the law.
4. Weigh promises.
5. Reveal secrets selectively.
6. Consider what you copy.
7. Learn recording limits.
8. Don’t abuse anonymity.
9. Shun conflicts of interest.
10. Seek legal advice.

All great advice, except that 10 is not that practical. Until faced with a legal action I don’t think many bloggers are going to consult a legal expert.

Free speech for me but not for thee

I am continually shocked (though I probably shouldn’t be) by how many people in the media are willing to deny free speech to others that they claim for themselves. For instance there this opinion piece by David Hazinski in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution that advocates media control of bloggers:

The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people “journalists.” This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a “citizen surgeon” or someone who can read a law book is a “citizen lawyer.” Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.

Mr. Hazinski, I hate to burst your bubble here, but you guys just aren’t that important. I have consumed your product for the last 30 years and it’s just not that good. Much of what the media produces today is opinion dressed up as news. A lot of the rest is just aggregation from various wire services.

Opinion and aggregation. Sounds a lot like what bloggers do.

And then, ironically, there are these whoppers:

CNN’s last YouTube Republican debate included a question from a retired general who is on Hillary Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender steering committee. False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school became so widespread that CNN and other news agencies did stories debunking the rumors. There are literally hundreds of Internet hoaxes and false reports passed off as true stories, tracked by sites such as snopes.com.

Yes there was a breach of journalistic ethics in allows a campaign staffer ask a question in the CNN/YouRube Republican debate. But this breach was made by CNN who selected the question but did zero background checking. This example is actually contrary to his point.

Yes there are a lot of hoaxes in the internet. But a lot of these get reported by the media as well with little fact checking. And snopes.com is a great example of a citizen journalist who regularly out-performs his media counter-parts.

Here is a question for Mr. Hazinski; what do journalistic ethics say about a newspaper publishing an editorial proposing regulation that would benefit them directly?

Clever deception, if intentional

A blogger is accusing the SF Chronicle of one of the most clever deceptions I have heard of in a long time (via Instapundit). Apparently their commenting system has a feature where a deleted comment is still visible to the original poster, but not to anyone else. In other words the original poster thinks his comments are still there but to everyone else the comment appears to have been deleted.

I have never seen this kind of comment system behaviour before. Probably because it would be highly unethical and very easy to get caught. Of course it’s entirely possible that this is an unintentional flaw in the system.

Has anyone else ever seen anything like this?

(Mirrored from TalkBMC)

Privacy and the Shield

There is a proposed federal shield law winding its way through congress right now. Unfortunately the debate is being framed in terms of whether a reporter should be able to protect sources that leak information about issues involved in intelligence gathering and other clandestine operations. While that is an important debate there is another more mundane side of this of this that is getting lost, privacy.

While the legislation is still in flux, if passed in it current form, it would protect reporters from subpoena not only in cases of intelligence gathering, but also in cases of the release of privacy related information. In other words, if someone in the IRS gave your entire tax return to a reporter, the federal government could not subpoena the reporter to find out who gave him your return. If you where the subject of a federal investigation, and false information about you was leaked to the media to make you look guilty, the same rules would apply.

You think that last example is far-fetched? That is exactly what happened with Richard Jewell.

Of course left unasked in this debate is exactly who qualifies as a reporter. Presumably that would be left to the courts to sort out on a case by case basis.

The media is framing this as freedom of the press. It isn’t. The media wants the freedom to not answer questions under oath about clearly illegal activities. I’m sorry, but I don’t think a J-School degree and a stint at the NYT should grant you special legal privileges. I also don’t think freedom of the press means the freedom to cover up a crime.

(Mirrored from TalkBMC)

Another censorship flap for Google

Google is catching heat for their spiking of ads critical of the political action committee MoveOn.org. There is a good editorial about it here. What is getting Google in trouble in not so much that they spiked the ad, but their professed justification. They are claiming that they had to remove the ad because it violated MoveOn.org trademark.

Clearly the ads offended the political beliefs of someone at Google. Fine. Google is free to not do business with anyone they don’t want to. But why not be honest about it? By claiming the decision was based on trademark infringement they are setting a very dangerous precedent that will harm both free speech and Google’s profits.

Higher Orthodoxy

The continued erosion of the quality of college education in this country is highlighted by this George Will column. It’s a devastating critique about students being forced to adhere to a rigid orthodoxy imposed on them by their professors:

In 1943, the Supreme Court, affirming the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses children to refuse to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag in schools, declared: “No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Today that principle is routinely traduced, coast to coast, by officials who are petty in several senses.

They are teachers at public universities, in schools of social work. A study prepared by the National Association of Scholars, a group that combats political correctness on campuses, reviews social work education programs at 10 major public universities and comes to this conclusion: Such programs mandate an ideological orthodoxy to which students must subscribe concerning “social justice” and “oppression.”