Margaret Court defends right to religious freedom of speech, slams media over 2021 Australia Day Honours leak


Former tennis great Margaret Court has welcomed the decision to promote her to the highest level of the Order of Australia, after the decision came under fire from two state premiers and LGBT groups concerned about her past criticisms of same sex marriage.

Earlier today it was revealed Ms Court is set to be promoted from an Officer of the Order of Australia, to a Companion.

The information was embargoed but was tweeted by a freelance journalist, and then put to Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews at a press conference.

Speaking to the ABC, Ms Court said the early announcement of the honours was “sad” and was not fazed about the backlash.

Ms Court will receive a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC), which has sparked backlash due to her controversial views on the LGBT community.(Supplied: Chris Brown Photography)

“I’m not upset and I haven’t even read it,” she said.

“I am disappointed in the media that it was released because they’re not supposed to do that.”

State premiers speak out over award

Earlier today, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and WA Premier Mark McGowan said they did not support the honour being awarded to Ms Court.

Mr Andrews said he did not believe she had views that accorded with the vast majority of people in Australia.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
Daniel Andrews condemns Margaret Court’s inclusion in Australia Day honours list

Mr McGowan, from Ms Court’s home state, said he did not share her views on gay and lesbian people.

“I think extra Order of Australia awards should go to unsung heroes across the country and there’s a great many of them,” he said.

The 78-year-old, who is now a reverend in Perth, wrote an open letter in 2017 saying she would boycott Qantas over its support of same-sex marriage.

In 2013, Ms Court wrote a letter to the editor in a newspaper lamenting the birth of Australian tennis player Casey Dellacqua’s child in a same-sex relationship.

“It is with sadness that I see that this baby has seemingly been deprived of a father,” Ms Court wrote.

‘I am not going to change my views’

Ms Court said today her views were based on her religious beliefs, and it was important for freedom of speech that she could share them.

“I am a minister of the Gospel, I have been a pastor for 30 years,” she said.

“I teach the bible, what God says in the Bible and I think that is my right and my privilege to be able to bring that forth.

But she also said it was time for people to “move on”.

“I think it’s very sad people hold on to that and still want to bully, and I think it’s time to move on,” she said.

A woman holds a large trophy aloft under lights on a tennis court with a large number of spectators in the stands.
Margaret Court is set to be recognised with Australia’s highest honour on Australia Day.(AAP: Scott Barbour)

Ms Court said she was “honoured” to learn she would receive the award and wanted people to focus on her tennis achievements and her work off the court instead.

“I represented my nation, I always stand for my nation, and I love my nation,” she said.

“I don’t think anyone will ever take that away from me, and I just appreciate it so much.

Margaret Court and Evonne Goolagong at Wimbledon, 1971
Margaret Court playing doubles with Evonne Goolagong at Wimbledon(Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo, CC-BY-SA-3.0)

“I still represent my nation, I pray for my nation, I pray for the LGBT, I pray for the premiers in this nation and the Prime Minister,” she said.

“We pray for them, and so we’re here and we love our nation.”

When asked about the hurt her views on homosexuality may cause to LGBT people, Ms Court said she never turned people away.

“I have them come in here, I have them into community services from every different background, I never turn them away,” she said.

“And I was never really pointing the finger at them as an individual. I love all people, I have nothing against people, but I’m just saying what the bible says.”

The 78-year-old said she was disappointed about how her views had been portrayed in the media and feels she was singled out due to her “high profile”.

Ms Court did not wish to comment on what consequences she thought the journalist who leaked the information should receive, but said she “doesn’t have anything against him”.

Ms Court remains one of Australia’s greatest tennis players, holding a record 24 grand slam titles after being the first female to win Wimbledon in 1963.

Thank you for stopping by and seeing this news update involving National and local news and updates named “Margaret Court defends right to religious freedom of speech, slams media over 2021 Australia Day Honours leak”. This post is posted by My Local Pages as part of our national news services.

#Margaret #Court #defends #religious #freedom #speech #slams #media #Australia #Day #Honours #leak



Source link

Google Search threatened to be removed in Australia over media bargaining code


Asked on Friday about Google’s threat, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the government would not respond to threats.

“Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That’s done in our Parliament. It’s done by our government, and that’s how things work here in Australia,” he said.

“People who want to work with that, in Australia, you’re very welcome. But we don’t respond to threats.”

Ms Silva described the ultimatum as a “worst case scenario”, adding: “It’s not a threat. It’s a reality”.

“We have had to conclude after looking at the legislation in detail we do not see a way, with the financial and operational risks, that we could continue to offer a service in Australia,” she said.

Ms Silva reiterated Google’s long-running argument the code would “break” Google’s business model by forcing it to pay news outlets to provide links to their news content – a move the trillion-dollar company claims undermines the concept of a free and open internet.

Loading

“This provision in the code would set an untenable precedent for our businesses and the digital economy. It’s not compatible with how search engines work or how the internet works,” Ms Silva said.

Facebook executives, who also gave evidence to the inquiry on Friday morning, also vehemently rejected the code in its current form.

Simon Milner, Facebook’s vice president for public policy Asia-Pacific, restated the company’s ultimatum – first made in September – that it may resort to blocking news content on its Australian site.

Mr Milner said the move would be “a potential worse case consequence”, adding it was “absolutely not a threat” but designed to inform the policy process.

“The great majority of people who are using Facebook would continue to be able to do so, but we would no longer be able to provide news as part of the Facebook product,” Mr Milner said.

Loading

He told the inquiry that having news content on Facebook provided “almost no commercial value to Facebook”.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg introduced the bill to legislate the code during the final sitting week of Parliament last year, with a vote expected early this year after the committee delivers its report on February 12. It comes amid a push by global governments to rein in the power of digital monopolies.

The code sets out a framework to force digital platforms to pay media companies for news content, and follows a 12-month review into Google and Facebook by the competition watchdog.

It requires Google and Facebook to enter mandatory arbitration with media companies if they cannot reach agreement over the value of their content within three months.

It also requires the platforms to give the news businesses 14 days’ notice of algorithm changes, and non-discrimination provisions have been put in place to stop the tech giants taking retaliatory action such as removing content or punishing organisations that participate in the code.

More to come

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading

Thank you for visiting My Local Pages. We hope you enjoyed checking this news update about Victorian news titled “Google Search threatened to be removed in Australia over media bargaining code”. This story was presented by MyLocalPages Australia as part of our national news services.

#Google #Search #threatened #removed #Australia #media #bargaining #code



Source link

Facebook and Google to face Senate inquiry over proposed media bargain code



Executives from Google and Facebook will front a Senate committee hearing today as they continue to push back against the Morrison government’s plans for a mandatory media bargaining code.

Thank you for stopping by to visit My Local Pages and checking this news release regarding National news named “Facebook and Google to face Senate inquiry over proposed media bargain code”. This article is presented by MyLocalPages as part of our national news services.

#Facebook #Google #face #Senate #inquiry #proposed #media #bargain #code



Source link

AFL news 2021: Jonathon Patton allegations, lewd images, videos, women come forward, social media, Hawthorn statement


A woman who claims she was sent lewd messages by Jonathon Patton has opened up further about her interactions with the AFL star, saying she was asked to send him naked pictures of herself and photos of her feet.

The Hawthorn forward has been stood down while the club investigates allegations of inappropriate behaviour on social media after several women came forward and alleged the 27-year-old sent them unsolicited images and videos.

Patton vehemently denies sending unsolicited images and videos of himself, the Herald Sun reports.

One of the women, Elle Coonan, told Nine “from the get-go he was talking to me in such a sexual nature that I never reciprocated — he would send me photos of him in bed exposed”. She added she “would make it really clear that I didn’t want that from him”, and has now alleged Patton asked if she would travel from Brisbane to Melbourne during the height of the COVID-19 lockdown to meet him.

Round 1

Coonan said the backlash she’s received since making the allegations has been severe, but stood by her decision to go public because sending allegedly unsolicited, lewd material is “never OK”.



Source link

Jonathon Patton allegations, lewd images, videos, women come forward, social media, Hawthorn statement


A woman who claims she was sent lewd messages by Jonathon Patton has opened up further about her interactions with the AFL star, saying she was asked to send him naked pictures of herself and photos of her feet.

The Hawthorn forward has been stood down while the club investigates allegations of inappropriate behaviour on social media after several women came forward and alleged the 27-year-old sent them unsolicited images and videos.

Patton vehemently denies sending unsolicited images and videos of himself, the Herald Sun reports.

One of the women, Elle Coonan, told Nine “from the get-go he was talking to me in such a sexual nature that I never reciprocated — he would send me photos of him in bed exposed”. She added she “would make it really clear that I didn’t want that from him”, and has now alleged Patton asked if she would travel from Brisbane to Melbourne during the height of the COVID-19 lockdown to meet him.

Coonan said the backlash she’s received since making the allegations has been severe, but stood by her decision to go public because sending allegedly unsolicited, lewd material is “never OK”.

“I didn’t sleep for over 40 hours (after going public) … I was in tears all day,’ Coonan told the Daily Mail.

“At times I regretted coming forward and wished I kept my mouth shut … but I know I did the right thing.

“He said wanted to see me in heels and kiss my feet.”

Coonan says Patton first contacted her in June last year, and alleges he sent her videos of a sexual nature without her consent. She also alleges Patton “wanted to suck my toes”.

“Even though we exchanged numbers, this was done so under the guise that he would speak to me respectfully,” she said. “It was not an invitation for him to gratify himself sexually to my discomfort.”

Coonan says she has been inundated with messages from social media trolls, who are suggesting she has to share the blame for her interactions with Patton — especially after giving him her phone number.

However, she defended her conduct and her reasons for speaking out.

“This story is bigger than money, I allowed my experience to be shared in the hopes that other women would feel safer to come forward and speak out,” she told the Daily Mail.

“I want nothing more than to see a change in people’s attitudes and for women to be treated with the respect that they deserve.”

Patton, who only joined Hawthorn from GWS ahead of last season, has deleted his social media accounts with the club confirming an investigation by its integrity committee had begun.

On Sunday night Jacqueline Kearton also alleged she was sent photos and videos via social media by Patton, which she did not want.

Kearton told Channel 7: “He just needs to be made an example of so these young guys who are coming up and looking at these older players think they’d better not do that sort of stuff.

“Unfortunately it’s not something that’s uncommon but it makes you feel uncomfortable.”

Hawthorn’s investigation was based around the allegations of another woman.

“Hawthorn Football Club is aware of allegations made on social media regarding the behaviour of Jonathon Patton,” the statement read. “The allegations are of behaviour that does not reflect the values and standards of Hawthorn Football Club.

“As soon as the club became aware of the allegations it addressed the matter with Patton directly and clearly communicated that any behaviour of this nature would not be tolerated.

“The club takes these allegations seriously and has referred the matter to Hawthorn’s Integrity Committee.

“Hawthorn advocates for equality and respect for everyone and demands this same behaviour from all involved with the club.”

Patton was an inaugural member of the GWS Giants side after being the first overall selection in the 2011 AFL National draft.

Injuries, including three knee reconstructions, restricted him to just 89 games over eight seasons but he snared 130 goals before being traded to the Hawks for the 2020 season for a future fourth-round pick.

He played six games for the Hawks in 2020 with three goals.



Source link

Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election


At 38, Wine is half the age of President Yoweri Museveni and has attracted a large following among young people in a nation where 80 per cent of the population are under 30, rattling the ruling National Resistance Movement party.

Wine is considered the frontrunner among 10 candidates challenging Museveni, the former guerrilla leader who seized power in 1986 and brought stability to a country after the murderous reigns of dictators Milton Obote and Idi Amin.

While security forces have intimidated the opposition at previous elections, the run up to this year’s vote has been especially violent. In November, 54 people were killed as soldiers and police quelled protests after Wine was detained.

On Tuesday, Wine said soldiers raided his home in Kampala and arrested his guards while he was giving an interview to a Kenyan radio station. He also said a team member who works mainly as a mechanic was shot dead by the military overnight.

Bobi Wine, 38, is considered the frontrunner among 10 candidates challenging Museveni.Credit:AP

Reuters was not immediately able to verify the claims and a military spokesmen did not respond to a call seeking comment.

Patrick Onyango, police spokesman for the capital Kampala, denied Wine’s home had been raided or that anyone was arrested, saying: “We were just rearranging our security posture in the area near his home, specifically removing some checkpoints.”

‘Unacceptable breaches’

A source in Uganda’s telecom sector said the government had made clear to executives at telecoms companies that the social media ban was in retaliation for Facebook blocking some pro-government accounts.

Neither Ibrahim Bbossa, Uganda Communications Commission spokesman nor government spokesman Ofwono Opondo answered calls requesting comment. An aide to Minister of Information Judith Nabakooba said she was unable to comment at the moment.

The US social media giant said on Monday it had taken down a network in Uganda linked to the country’s ministry of information for using fake and duplicate accounts to post ahead of this week’s election.

A Facebook spokeswoman said the company had no comment on reports users were facing difficulties accessing the platform.

“Any efforts to block online access to journalists or members of the public are unacceptable breaches of the right to information,” the International Press Institute, a global media watchdog, said in a statement.

Wine has been using Facebook to relay live coverage of his campaigns and news conferences after he said many media outlets had declined to host him. Most radio and TV stations are owned by government allies and Uganda’s leading daily is state-run.

Museveni, 76, has won every election since the first under his presidency in 1996, though they have been tarnished by intimidation of the opposition and accusations of vote rigging.

Loading

Uganda is a Western ally, a prospective oil producer and is considered a stabilising force in a region where war has plagued some neighbours. It also contributes the biggest contingent of an African Union force fighting Islamist insurgents in Somalia.

Museveni said on Twitter that he would address the nation at 7pm local time on Tuesday.

The European Union is not deploying election observers as advice from previous observers about how to make the polls fair went unheeded, the bloc’s ambassador to Uganda has said. The African Union will deploy observers.

At a news conference on Tuesday, Wine and two other opposition candidates – Patrick Amuriat and Mugisha Muntu – urged Ugandans to turn out and “protect their vote” by staying at polling stations to observe counting.

Reuters

Start your day informed

Our Morning Edition newsletter is a curated guide to the most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up to The Sydney Morning Herald’s newsletter here, The Age’s here, Brisbane Times’ here, and WAtoday’s here.

Most Viewed in World

Loading

Thanks for stopping by and reading this story involving National and Queensland News and updates titled “Uganda bans social media ahead of presidential election”. This story was shared by MyLocalPages as part of our local and national news services.

#Uganda #bans #social #media #ahead #presidential #election



Source link

How to Hold Social Media Accountable for Undermining Democracy


The problem with social media isn’t just what users post — it’s what the platforms decide to do with that content. Far from being neutral, social media companies are constantly making decisions about which content to amplify, elevate, and suggest to other users. Given their business model, which promotes scale above all, they’ve often actively amplified extreme, divisive content — including dangerous conspiracy theories and misinformation. It’s time for regulators to step in. A good place to start would be clarifying who should benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has been vastly over-interpreted to provide blanket immunity to all internet companies — or “internet intermediaries” — for any third-party content they host. Specifically, it’s time to redefine what an “internet intermediary” means and create a more accurate category to reflect what these companies truly are, such as “digital curators” whose algorithms decide what content to boost, what to amplify, how to curate our content.

The storming of the U.S. Capitol Building on Wednesday by a mob of pro-Trump insurrectionists was shocking, but it was not surprising to anyone who has followed the growing prominence of conspiracy theorists, hate groups, and purveyors of disinformation online.

While the blame for President Trump’s incitement to insurrection lies squarely with him, the biggest social media companies — most prominently my former employer, Facebook — are absolutely complicit. They have not only allowed Trump to lie and sow division for years, their business models have exploited our biases and weaknesses and abetted the growth of conspiracy-touting hate groups and outrage machines. They have done this without bearing any responsibility for how their products and business decisions effect our democracy; in this case, including allowing an insurrection to be planned and promoted on their platforms.

This isn’t new information. I, for one, have written and spoken about how Facebook profits by amplifying lies, providing dangerous targeting tools to political operatives seeking to sow division and distrust, and polarizing and even radicalizing users. As we neared the 2020 election, a chorus of civil rights leaders, activists, journalists, and academics wrote recommendations, publicly condemned Facebook, and privately back channeled content policy proposals; employees resigned in protest; advertisers boycotted; legislators held hearings.

The events of last week, however, cast these facts in a new light — and demand an immediate response. In the absence of any U.S. laws to address social media’s responsibility to protect our democracy, we have ceded the decision-making about which rules to write, what to enforce, and how to steer our public square to CEOs of for-profit internet companies. Facebook intentionally and relentlessly scaled to dominate the global public square, yet it does not bear any of the responsibilities of traditional stewards of public goods, including the traditional media.

It is time to define responsibility and hold these companies accountable for how they aid and abet criminal activity. And it is time to listen to those who have shouted from the rooftops about these issues for years, as opposed to allowing Silicon Valley leaders to dictate the terms.

We need to change our approach not only because of the role these platforms have played in crises like last week’s, but also because of how CEOs have responded — or failed to respond. The reactionary decisions on which content to take down, which voices to downgrade, and which political ads to allow have amounted to tinkering around the margins of the bigger issue: a business model that rewards the loudest, most extreme voices.

Yet there does not seem to be the will to reckon with that problem. Mark Zuckerberg did not choose to block Trump’s account until after the U.S. Congress certified Joe Biden as the next president of the United States. Given that timing, this decision looks more like an attempt to cozy up to power than a pivot towards a more responsible stewardship of our democracy. And while the decision by many platforms to silence Trump is an obvious response to this moment, it’s one that fails to address how millions of Americans have been drawn into conspiracy theories online and led to believe this election was stolen — an issue that has never been truly addressed by the social media leaders.

A look through the Twitter feed of Ashli Babbit, the woman who was killed while storming the Capitol, is eye-opening. A 14-year Air Force veteran, she spent the last months of her life retweeting conspiracy theorists such as Lin Wood — who was finally suspended from Twitter the day after the attack (and therefore has disappeared from her feed) — QAnon followers, and others calling for the overthrow of the government. A New York Times profile paints her as a vet who struggled to keep her business afloat and who was increasingly disillusioned with the political system. The likelihood that social media played a significant part in steering her down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories is high, but we will never truly know how her content was curated, what groups were recommended to her, who the algorithms steered her towards.

If the public, or even a restricted oversight body, had access to the Twitter and Facebook data to answer those questions, it would be harder for the companies to claim they are neutral platforms who merely show people what they want to see. Guardian journalist Julia Carrie Wong wrote in June of this year about how Facebook algorithms kept recommending QAnon groups to her. Wong was one of a chorus of journalists, academics, and activists who relentlessly warned Facebook about how these conspiracy theorists and hate groups were not only thriving on the platforms, but how their own algorithms were both amplifying their content and recommending their groups to their users. The key point is this: This is not about free speech and what individuals post on these platforms. It is about what the platforms choose to do with that content, which voices they decide to amplify, which groups are allowed to thrive and even grow at the hand of the platforms’ own algorithmic help.

So where do we go from here?

I have long advocated that governments must define responsibility for the real-world harms caused by these business models, and impose real costs for the damaging effects they are having on our public health, our public square, and our democracy. As it stands, there are no laws governing how social media companies treat political ads, hate speech, conspiracy theories, or incitement to violence. This issue is unduly complicated by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has been vastly over-interpreted to provide blanket immunity to all internet companies — or “internet intermediaries” — for any third-party content they host. Many argue that to solve some of these issues, Section 230, which dates back to 1996, must at least be updated. But how, and whether it alone will solve the myriad issues we now face with social media, is hotly debated.

One solution I continue to push is clarifying who should benefit from Section 230 to begin with, which often breaks down into the publisher vs. platform debate. To still categorize social media companies — who curate content, whose algorithms decide what speech to amplify, who nudge users towards the content that will keep them engaged, who connect users to hate groups, who recommend conspiracy theorists — as “internet intermediaries” who should enjoy immunity from the consequences of all this is beyond absurd. The notion that the few tech companies who steer how more than 2 billion people communicate, find information, and consume media enjoy the same blanket immunity as a truly neutral internet company makes it clear that it is time for an upgrade to the rules. They are not just a neutral intermediary.

However, that doesn’t mean that we need to completely re-write or kill Section 230. Instead, why not start with a narrower step by redefining what an “internet intermediary” means? Then we could create a more accurate category to reflect what these companies truly are, such as “digital curators” whose algorithms decide what content to boost, what to amplify, how to curate our content. And we can discuss how to regulate in an appropriate manner, focusing on requiring transparency and regulatory oversight of the tools such as recommendation engines, targeting tools, and algorithmic amplification rather than the non-starter of regulating actual speech.

By insisting on real transparency around what these recommendation engines are doing, how the curation, amplification, and targeting are happening, we could separate the idea that Facebook shouldn’t be responsible for what a user posts from their responsibility for how their own tools treat that content. I want us to hold the companies accountable not for the fact that someone posts misinformation or extreme rhetoric, but for how their recommendation engines spread it, how their algorithms steer people towards it, and how their tools are used to target people with it.

To be clear: Creating the rules for how to govern online speech and define platforms’ responsibility is not a magic wand to fix the myriad harms emanating from the internet. This is one piece of a larger puzzle of things that will need to change if we want to foster a healthier information ecosystem. But if Facebook were obligated to be more transparent about how they are amplifying content, about how their targeting tools work, about how they use the data they collect on us, I believe that would change the game for the better.

As long as we continue to leave it to the platforms to self-regulate, they will continue to merely tinker around the margins of content policies and moderation. We’ve seen that the time for that is long past — what we need now is to reconsider how the entire machine is designed and monetized. Until that happens, we will never truly address how platforms are aiding and abetting those intent on harming our democracy.



Thank you for dropping in to My Local Pages and seeing this story about the latest World Business News items published as “How to Hold Social Media Accountable for Undermining Democracy”. This news update was presented by MyLocalPages Australia as part of our World news services.

#Hold #Social #Media #Accountable #Undermining #Democracy



Source link

Christensen social media posts ‘putting Qlders at risk’: MP


Pressure is mounting on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to rein in Dawson MP George Christensen over his “conspiracy theory” social media posts about Trump and COVID-19.

Mackay MP Julieanne Gilbert is the latest politician to call out Mr Christensen’s recent activity on Facebook and far-right social media platform Parler. 

It comes after the Dawson MP launched a campaign to pressure the federal communications minister to further restrict the powers of social media companies.

“We’re at a crucial time in fighting this pandemic in Queensland and yet the Federal Member for Dawson continues to mock public health advice, putting the safety of Queenslanders at risk,” Mrs Gilbert posted on her official Facebook page on Monday.

“People here aren’t stupid – they know the devastating consequences this virus can have; we only have to look at new figures which show that more than 80,000 people in the United Kingdom have died within 28 days of getting a positive test for COVID-19.

“Unfortunately, all the Federal Member for Dawson is interested in is sharing countless conspiracy theory posts saying Trump was cheated and the US election was rigged.

“Is this what we want from our elected parliamentarians?”

In recent months, several of Mr Christensen’s social media posts about Donald Trump and the pandemic have been flagged as ‘false information’.

In response, the Dawson MP attacked Mrs Gilbert’s Queensland Labor Government, saying it was “apparently going to fine Brisbanites for not wearing masks while driving their cars, even if driving alone”.

Mr Christensen went on to say this rule deserved to be ridiculed.

“They’ve now recognised how stupid that rule was and abandoned it, so I’m not sure why (Mrs) Gilbert is maintaining the rage other than maybe she still supports it,” he said.

 

Mackay MP Julieanne Gilbert’s Facebook post about George Christensen. Picture: Facebook

More stories:

Local politicians take on the big issues in new roles

The promises Palaszczuk has to deliver for Mackay

Moments of Mackay, Whitsunday election

The Mackay MP’s comments follow a wave of criticism against Mr Christensen and Liberal MP Craig Kelly.

Late last week, Labor Senator Kristina Keneally called on the Prime Minister via Twitter to “deal with the dangerous and extreme views” of both Mr Christensen and Mr Kelly.

Subscriber benefits:

Your dose of Harry Bruce cartoons

Five ways to get more from your digital subscription

WATCH: Your guide to reading the Daily Mercury online



Thank you for visiting My Local Pages. We hope you enjoyed seeing this story about the latest Queensland News items named “Christensen social media posts ‘putting Qlders at risk’: MP”. This story is presented by MyLocalPages Australia as part of our local and national news services.

#Christensen #social #media #posts #putting #Qlders #risk



Source link

Facebook to censor ‘stop the steal’ phrase, as social media companies boot US President Donald Trump from their platforms


Facebook will remove certain content containing the phrase “stop the steal” from its social media platforms, in response to what it says are “continued attempts to organise events against the outcome of the US presidential election that can lead to violence”.

The company, which is treating the next two weeks as a “major civic event”, says it will continue to allow “robust conversations related to the election outcome”.

“But with continued attempts to organise events against the outcome of the US presidential election that can lead to violence, and use of the term by those involved in Wednesday’s violence in DC, we’re taking this additional step in the lead up to the inauguration,” the company said in a blog post.

A Facebook spokeswoman clarified the company would allow posts that clearly share the “stop the steal” phrase to either condemn baseless claims of electoral fraud or to discuss the issue neutrally.

In November, the company removed the “Stop the Steal” group in which supporters of US President Donald Trump posted violent rhetoric.

However, it did not act against similar rhetoric in the run-up to the election and faced criticism this week for failing to remove posts spurring on the siege of Capitol Hill.

It is the latest bid to crack down on baseless claims about the presidential election in the wake of the riot.

Social media companies this week decided they had finally seen enough from the President.

Facebook and Instagram suspended Mr Trump at least until president-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20.

Twitch and Snapchat also disabled Mr Trump’s accounts.

To top it all off, Twitter ended a nearly 12-year run and closed his account, severing an instant line of communication to his 89 million followers.

Some people are crying foul.

“Free Speech Is Under Attack! Censorship is happening like NEVER before! Don’t let them silence us. Sign up at http://DONJR.COM to stay connected!” his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., tweeted on Friday (local time).

Can social media companies do this?

The short answer is yes.

As the Congressional Research Service has explained in a report for federal politicians and their staff, lawsuits predicated on a website’s decision to remove content largely fail.

That’s because the free speech protections set out in the First Amendment generally apply only when a person is harmed by an action of the government.

“The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private sector organisations. That’s not how this works,” said Chris Krebs, when asked on Sunday whether censorship by social media companies violated freedom of speech protections.

Mr Krebs oversaw election cybersecurity efforts at the Department of Homeland Security until Mr Trump fired him when he disputed election fraud claims.

Trump supporters pull a police barrier from all sides as they try to break through a police line.
In the wake of the riot at the US Capitol, Twitter banned the outgoing President over concerns two tweets he sent last week could incite violence.(AP: John Minchillo)

Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, he explained that companies enforce their own standards and policies for users.

That’s what happened at Twitter.

What was Twitter’s reasoning?

Twitter said after reviewing Mr Trump’s account in the context of the riot at the Capitol, it was concerned about two tweets he sent on Friday that Twitter said could incite violence.

They were:

  • “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
  • “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

The first tweet, the company said, was received by some supporters as further confirmation that the November 3 election was not legitimate — but in fact, the notion of widespread voter fraud is a baseless claim.

The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters was also interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the Capitol.

The company said the second tweet could serve as encouragement to those considering violent acts that the inauguration would be a “safe” target since he would not be attending.

“Our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so,” Twitter wrote.

AP/Reuters

Thanks for dropping by and reading this news update about current national news titled “Facebook to censor ‘stop the steal’ phrase, as social media companies boot US President Donald Trump from their platforms”. This article was posted by My Local Pages as part of our local and national news services.

#Facebook #censor #stop #steal #phrase #social #media #companies #boot #President #Donald #Trump #platforms



Source link

Social Media Best Practices to Boost Your Personal Brand


A strong social media presence is the foundation from which you can build a world-conquering brand.


4 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.


As per the Digital 2020 July Global Snapshot, nearly half of the world is on social media. Today, to build a personal brand, there’s nothing quite like social media. The potential audience and exposure that the platform can generate would be unimaginable to yesteryear’s advertising and marketing teams.

Through social media, brands can connect and interact with their audience on a sincere and personal level. In turn, this creates customer loyalty, generates leads, and provides the sort of marketing and advertising money cannot buy.

Social media creates its momentum and can take what once was a niche brand and make it a household name. Here are three reasons why social media has become the most formidable and powerful tool any person can leverage when building their personal brand.

Social media adds an air of authenticity to your brand

In a digital landscape where everyone is jostling for attention, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for any brand to stand out. The biggest compliment any audience can give you is to believe in your brand. They will only do this if you’re an authentic and genuine article. “Once you have authenticity on social media, the world is your oyster,” shares wealth coach Rob Coats, founder of Connect and Grow Rich Consulting Agency. Coats made his name on social media through positivity and perseverance. “People tend to follow me on social media because I break it down in simple terms how they can generate wealth, and I make their financial goals tangible,” Rob continues. 

He further adds that you should steer clear of bluff or bluster to gain your followers’ trust on social media. “You have to be honest on social media, or you’ll be called out as a fraud,” he explains.

Related: Authenticity Is Your Brand’s Greatest Social Media Asset
 

Social media elevates your brand into a way of life

Social media is a place where people who share similar lifestyles connect and broaden their horizons. Lifestyles are a tangible commodity and encompass a broad spectrum. Social media can document a lifestyle like no other medium. Founder of TripleOne Inc, James Awad, who lives the sort of lifestyle that many entrepreneurs endeavor to emulate, uses it as an example of what his social media followers can achieve if, in his words, “They commit themselves to their passion and leave no stone unturned to master it.” 

He explains, “With the rise in social media usage, individuals, as well as brands, must figure out what cult they want to build around themselves and then work harder and be more innovative than anyone else.”

Related: 3 Tips for Building Your Personal Brand on Social Media
 

Social media gives your brand worldwide exposure

The most dynamic thing about social media is its reach. It is a platform where ambition can truly thrive. In today’s world, you do not need a marketing firm or team of advertisers to make your brand a global one; you need to be social media savvy. Above all, social media is a level playing field. It doesn’t care where you’re from or what you’ve done; it just cares about where you’re at.

“Social media offers everyone a chance to make it big,” shares business coach Julian Kuschner. The millennial mentor knows all about having his back to the wall. He has survived getting kicked out of college and being fired from a series of dead-end jobs and came out the other end as someone who has achieved great success on his own terms. Julian now inspires others on social media to find the inner strength and resolve needed to build a successful business.

He explains, “Social media has given me an opportunity to help people all over the world. More and more people are financially struggling than ever before, but I believe it’s not so much the struggle but how you respond to it. Through social media, I aim to inspire people to stay positive, stay strong, and rebuild one step at a time.”

Related: Build Your Personal Brand on Social Media, Moment By Moment

 

Thanks for seeing this article about InterInternational and World Business news and updates called “Social Media Best Practices to Boost Your Personal Brand”. This news update is posted by MyLocalPages Australia as part of our World news services.

#Social #Media #Practices #Boost #Personal #Brand



Source link