16

Freedom of Speech in Retreat Globally

48 comments, 263 views, posted 9:30 pm 12/08/2019 in Politics by griffin
griffin has 15572 posts, 2187 threads, 539 points

Free speech and privacy on the wane across the world
Autocratic rule, increased media restrictions and use of mass surveillance affect almost half global population, researchers find

Nearly half the world’s people are living in countries where their freedom of speech and right to privacy are being eroded, researchers have found.

“Strongman” regimes seeking to squash voices of dissent and solidify political power are increasingly monitoring citizens through technology, cracking down on protests and jailing journalists, according to a ranking of 198 countries on issues including mass surveillance and data privacy.

The report, launched on Thursday by global risk analysis company Verisk Maplecroft, found that about 3.38bn people, or roughly 46% of the global population, live in countries deemed to be at “extreme risk” in relation to right to privacy and freedom of expression.

Out of 198 countries, 58 were categorised as “extreme risk” when it came to citizens’ right to privacy, a jump of 9% from 2017 levels.

The same number of countries were ranked as “extreme risk” in the report’s freedom of opinion and expression index. The rise from from 52 in 2017 to 58 in 2019 represents an increase of 11%.

However, just 28 countries were identified as “extreme risk” on the democratic governance index, which identifies and measures authoritarian regimes.

The figures represent a “worrying” trend in the global erosion of rights and freedoms that goes “beyond the most hardcore autocratic states”, the report says.

“This tells us that more countries are now prioritising control of the public narrative and the quashing of public dissent above the rights of citizens.”

The report highlights Cambodia, where national elections last year prompted Hun Sen, who has been the country’s prime minister for 34 years, to crack down on “fake news” by fining offenders and jailing them for two years. Hun Sen has also strangled dissenting speech online by extending cyber surveillance, and ordered all internet traffic to be transmitted through a state-owned data management centre.

China had the lowest aggregate score for both freedom of expression and right to privacy, according to the report. Home to one-fifth of the world’s internet users, the nation already faces the most severe internet restrictions. However, the study warns of the impact the 2020 rollout of the controversial social credit system – a mass surveillance and AI programme that gives citizens a social credit score based on their social, political and economic behaviour – could have, both within and beyond the country’s borders.

In Turkey, more journalists were jailed last year than in any other country, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The government this week destroyed more than 300,000 books linked to the 2016 failed military coup; last year, a report from the Pen foundation found that 200 media outlets and publishing organisations had been shut down, 80 writers subjected to investigations and prosecutions, and more than 5,800 academics dismissed from 118 public universities.

Cambodia, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania and Zambia have all dropped into the “extreme risk” in terms of right to privacy.

Countries that were classified as at “extreme risk’ on freedom of expression included Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Mozambique, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Uganda and Venezuela.

Sofia Nazalya, Verisk Maplecroft’s human rights analyst, said Donald Trump’s increasingly authoritarian stance on media freedoms risked encouraging similar behaviours in other countries where freedom of expression and right to privacy are already the subject of concern.

“What’s happening with Trump and his anti-media stance is contradictory to how we think a leader of a democratic nation should act and it does set a dangerous precedent for other countries to be more open in criticising the press,” said Nazalya.

The report also underscored human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region, where an estimated 1 million ethnic Uighurs have been held in detention centres. The report warns multinational companies of tainted apparel supply chains. China is the world’s largest producer of cotton, with three-quarters produced in Xinjiang, and the industry has been linked to forced labour.

Yet companies seeking to clean up their supply chains may find the process extremely difficult, said Nazalya.

“Conducting standard due diligence may prove problematic for the region, as the Chinese government will likely make any manufacturing that occurs in the region untraceable to other supply chains. This situation is fairly unique. It will pose a real challenge for companies as it constitutes a major reputational issue for those that are caught up.”

Extra Points Given by:

HariSeldon (5), Quaektem (5), tricpe (5)

Comments

2
12:20 am 13/08/2019

Quaektem

Quote by griffin:
Autocratic rule, increased media restrictions and use of mass surveillance affect almost half global population, researchers find



Let's not forget to add the corporate censorship!

-2
1:05 am 13/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Quaektem:
Let's not forget to add the corporate censorship!


Let's not add make-believe wah-wah trumpist nonsense to a serious issue.

1
4:47 am 13/08/2019

Quaektem

Really?

Are you going for your ostrich badge of issue avoidance?

Facebook, Youtube, Google and Twitter have all been outed as censoring 'uncomfortable' speech. Youtube bans and demonetizes, Facebook and Twitter 'shadow-bans ©', Google fucks with search results.

This isn't Trump, this is actual leaks and findings against these companies. I know you have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I didn't think it was mentally fatal.

0
12:15 pm 13/08/2019

griffin

Lol, what a card you are. Corporations don't censor you. That is something the government does. I don't care if someone won't publish your preferred brand of neo-nazi hatred, racism and ignorance. Go get an AZW account and make your own platform, and stop crying crocodile tears on my cornflakes.

This is not trump? You know who censors science that we pay for? Your new God trump, that's who. Yes, that worthless excuse for a human being actively censors public funded government websites.

Trump derangement syndrome - an invented term used as armor by fragile trumpers who have no cogent arguments to make.

1
2:24 pm 13/08/2019

Suckapuncha

Quote by griffin:
“Strongman” regimes seeking to squash voices of dissent and solidify political power


Quote by Quaektem:
Facebook, Youtube, Google and Twitter



Don't forget Antifa.

Quote by griffin:
Corporations don't censor you.

Quote by griffin:
I don't care if someone won't publish your preferred brand of neo-nazi hatred, racism and ignorance.

Well, do they censor you or not? Because you say they don't, but then say you don't care that they do.

0
2:28 pm 13/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Suckapuncha:
Well, do they censor you or not?


No, of course not. ONLY the government can censor. Youtube telling you they won't post your videos is not censorship.

cen·sorship
/ˈsensərSHip/

noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Youtube cannot do any of these things.

2
3:24 pm 13/08/2019

Flee

What YouTube etc do is censorship. Not to the strict definition but since they are so huge , they censor.

If it wasn't the case, they wouldn't be testifying in front of the government about it

2
3:40 pm 13/08/2019

Suckapuncha

Quote by griffin:
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

That definition says nothing about the government doing all of that. It just says the act of it happening at all is censorship. Companies all the time take down and refuse to host content they decide that others should not be allowed to see, hear, or read. They make the decisions on what is obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security unilaterally. If it makes you feel better to say they only censor on their platforms, then fine. But they still enforce censorship.

From the National Coalition Against Censorship: "Censorship happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their political or moral values on others by suppressing words, images, or ideas that they find offensive." So basically, what all of those companies do all day long.

0
10:47 pm 13/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Flee:
What YouTube etc do is censorship.


Wrong. See the handy dandy definition I supplied above. Someone refusing to publish you or your nonsense does not constitute 'censorship'. If you think otherwise, seek help.

Quote by Suckapuncha:
That definition says nothing about the government doing all of that.


It lists things that only government can do. Youtube does not permit pornography. Is anyone stupid enough to think youtube is suppressing pornography? I certainly hope not. Only governments can do this shit. The catholic church is opposed to pornography, and has millions of adherents nationwide. Once again, is anyone dumb enough to think the catholic church is suppressing pornography? Before you make a stupid answer, consider that as part of their opposition to pornography they petition the government to enact stricter regulations concerning pornography. It is not something they themselves can do, and neither can youtube, and that is what censorship is.

Quite clearly the National Coalition Against Censorship are talking out of their asses. I don't define what censorship is, and neither do they. The difference is I know what it is, and they don't.

1
3:31 am 14/08/2019

Quaektem

Quote by griffin:
cen·sorship
/ˈsensərSHip/

noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

You know that feeling when you are making an argument, and the person you are arguing with makes your point for you and then still wants to argue...

Yeah.

All the corporations I mentioned censor speech based on things they consider "obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Quote by griffin:
Is anyone stupid enough to think youtube is suppressing pornography?



Uh, yeah... they are. You may have missed the outcry over them censoring the breasts of cancer victims while allowing trans-male nipples on their site. They consider it obscene... which fits the definition YOU provided.

Quote by griffin:
Once again, is anyone dumb enough to think the catholic church is suppressing pornography?

They tried, so did the evangelicals. The case made it to the Supreme Court before it was stopped.

The issue with Youtube in particular is that it arbitrarily changes rules then holds content creators to task for any video that breaks those rules even those posted before the rules were in place then removes their ability to make income or kicks them off entirely. Imagine a landlord deciding that griffins were gay and kicking out a D&D store on a whim and without notice? Youtube (and Facebook) are more than just social platforms, they are storefronts, workplaces, and public squares. They are, for all intents and purposes, utilities in all but legal recognition and regulation. Do they have a right? Yes. Is it in the public interest that they do?

Quote by griffin:
Quite clearly the National Coalition Against Censorship are talking out of their asses. I don't define what censorship is, and neither do they. The difference is I know what it is, and they don't.

Sure you do. Now... if you want to talk in terms of the First Amendment, I would agree with everything you said, but that is a very different thing. I can bitch about Youtube's and Facebook's policies. They are private entities and not yet classified as utilities despite being rather integral to the modern American lifestyle.

Another, deeper concern is their collection and profiting on data collection, an enigmatic and insidious aspect of their business that makes them more dangerous and powerful than the electric or phone companies. They know who you (and I) are. They know the sites you visit, your personality profile, the porn you like, were you travel, what your favorite brands are, what your political stance is, your underwear size, BMI, family structure, medical concerns/issues, family history and (if you have Alexa) when you took your last shit.

But hey, Amazon... am I right?

0
4:50 am 14/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Quaektem:
All the corporations I mentioned censor speech


None of them censor speech. You really don't get it.

Quote by Quaektem:
Sure you do.


Open a dictionary.

Quote by Quaektem:
You may have missed the outcry over them censoring the breasts of cancer victims while allowing trans-male nipples on their site. They consider it obscene... which fits the definition YOU provided.


Face my palm. They haven't suppressed porn. That is my point. That you believe otherwise, well I can't say I'm very surprised by anything you believe. When the government says 'we are now suppressing porn' or something to that effect, that's when porn suppression begins. Youtube's refusal to provide a platform for pornography has about as much impact as my own refusal. None at all.

Quote by Quaektem:
The issue with Youtube in particular


There is no issue with youtube. They do not censor.

Quote by Quaektem:
Uh, yeah... they are.


You said it best.

1
2:53 pm 14/08/2019

dr3n

after all of these posts.. i still dont know what free speech is..

can someone explain what it is they think they aren't getting? or tell me what free speech covers please??

1
5:51 pm 14/08/2019

Flee

@griffin. If what YouTube does inst censoring, then what is it that they are doing?

1
7:15 pm 14/08/2019

dr3n

Quote by Flee:
then what is it that they are doing?


running their company in the way that they want to run their company.. at the end of the day it's their business isn't it? if they decided tomorrow that they were going to remove all vegetable carving video's because they didn't agree with vegetable carving then... they can... they don't have to answer to you, me or the legions of vegetable carvers that know the highs of a bit of turnip turning..

let me put my earlier question another way then, can somebody tell me what they think other people cant say but *should* be able to say - but are currently being censored from saying.. just one example...

1
10:53 pm 14/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Flee:
If what YouTube does inst censoring, then what is it that they are doing?


What dr3n said.

It is censorship when the government decides you don't need to hear about climate change, and won't publish, or else distorts or mis-represents publicly funded research. That is 100% censorship.

When the government says they will put you in jail for publishing something deemed forbidden, that is 100% censorship.

When youtube decides not to host right-wing jackwad videos, ha ha, nope, that is not censorship. 0.00% censorship. It isn't like youtube can prosecute them for publishing their nonsense elsewhere, is it?

It's like saying the baker who doesn't want to bake 'gay' cakes is suppressing cake making. Forcing that baker to make that cake however, removes from them the right to communicate their own business ethos, and infringes upon their freedom of speech. And that, is censorship.

We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and cannot decide to publish. Shove your McCarthyism up your ass, because that is what it boils down to.

1
11:12 pm 14/08/2019

Flee

And I don't disagree with that, but that is censoring. Censoring is not something only a government can do. I don't get why you guys are arguing some imaginary point that a private entity can't censor.

1
11:14 pm 14/08/2019

Flee

For example, as a mod here, I have a delete button. If I used it, I am censoring.

1
11:25 pm 14/08/2019

Flee

Quote:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations.
1
11:27 pm 14/08/2019

Flee

I fully agree that the right to free speech does not exist with private entities, but censoring is done by anyone.

0
12:38 am 15/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Flee:
but censoring is done by anyone.


Believe whatever you like. I'll be over here, with actual facts.

1
1:08 am 15/08/2019

Flee

Show your work. If you have all the facts, show them.

0
1:24 am 15/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Flee:
Show your work. If you have all the facts, show them.


Already did. You don't like 'em? Go pick your own, let me know how that works out fer ya.

1
1:39 am 15/08/2019

Flee

Went over all your posts here. I think you're confusing 'facts' with 'conjecture'. Unless you're one of those that think expressing your opinion, is fact.

You've shown nothing but a definition of a word. The rest is opinion.

If you'd like to stick with the argument of "I know it is, because I know it is", then we can safely call this conversation over.

0
2:57 am 15/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Flee:
I think you're confusing 'facts' with 'conjecture'.


I already said: Believe whatever you like. I'll be over here, with actual facts.

Add Comment

via teoti, or register to add a comment!