Connect with us

Media

A majority of Americans think social media sites are politically biased: Report – Yahoo Canada Finance

Published

on



<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Americans increasingly believe social media companies like Facebook (FB) and Twitter (TWTR) are censoring political speech despite a lack of any hard evidence of such bias.&nbsp;” data-reactid=”16″>Americans increasingly believe social media companies like Facebook (FB) and Twitter (TWTR) are censoring political speech despite a lack of any hard evidence of such bias. 

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="According to a recent survey of 4,708 U.S. adults conducted by the Pew Research Center between June 16 and June 22, 73% of respondents say that it is somewhat or very likely that social media sites purposely censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.” data-reactid=”17″>According to a recent survey of 4,708 U.S. adults conducted by the Pew Research Center between June 16 and June 22, 73% of respondents say that it is somewhat or very likely that social media sites purposely censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="The survey results come at a fraught time for social networks like Twitter and Facebook as they attempt to clamp down on misinformation and foreign interference ahead of the 2020 elections, and as President Trump continues his attack on the sites via his order to find a way to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” data-reactid=”18″>The survey results come at a fraught time for social networks like Twitter and Facebook as they attempt to clamp down on misinformation and foreign interference ahead of the 2020 elections, and as President Trump continues his attack on the sites via his order to find a way to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

<h2 class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Americans of both parties believe there’s bias” data-reactid=”19″>Americans of both parties believe there’s bias

While conservative politicians, including Trump, and pundits have been banging the drum the loudest about supposed bias on social media sites, the survey found that a majority of respondents from both sides of the political spectrum believe there is some form of censorship against political viewpoints.

Still, a larger percentage of respondents who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning believe there is a bias, versus Democrat and Democrat-leaning respondents. What’s more, Pew found an increasing percentage of republican and republican leaning Americans surveyed believe social media sites are biased, compared with a reduction in Democrat and Democrat-leading respondents.

There has been a steady stream of complaints regarding social media sites and claims of bias for some time now. During a recent hearing before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law investigating antitrust violations among Big Tech firms, a number of conservative lawmakers pressured Facebook and Google about perceived bias.

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="But according to Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit civil liberties organization dedicated to protecting online speech, there’s been no real evidence of any partisan political bias from social networks.” data-reactid=”23″>But according to Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit civil liberties organization dedicated to protecting online speech, there’s been no real evidence of any partisan political bias from social networks.

FILE - In this Sept. 5, 2018, file photo Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifies before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in Washington. "While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions," Dorsey said Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2019, in a series of tweets announcing Twitters new policy of banning all political advertising from its service. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
Twitter has come under fire for blocking tweets by President Trump that violated the company’s terms of service. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“I’m not surprised that many Americans think this, given that there are plenty of political leaders and pundits who are insisting it is true. But as a practical matter, we haven’t seen evidence that social media platforms moderate on a partisan basis,” she told Yahoo Finance.

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Instead, McSherry says the EFF has found that traditionally marginalized groups are the ones that are silenced in the U.S., as well as in countries where citizens don’t have First Amendment rights like those e Americans enjoy The group is asking online platforms to provide transparency reports covering when content is taken down and why.” data-reactid=”36″>Instead, McSherry says the EFF has found that traditionally marginalized groups are the ones that are silenced in the U.S., as well as in countries where citizens don’t have First Amendment rights like those e Americans enjoy The group is asking online platforms to provide transparency reports covering when content is taken down and why.

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="What’s more, a July study found that there was little evidence of bias against conservative voices on Twitter in particular. Facebook and Google have similarly denied accusations in the past.” data-reactid=”37″>What’s more, a July study found that there was little evidence of bias against conservative voices on Twitter in particular. Facebook and Google have similarly denied accusations in the past.

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Facebook, in fact, has gone to such lengths to appease conservative voices who complain of censorship that, according to NBC News, the company ignored its own rules about misinformation when it came to posts by conservative outlets like Breitbart.” data-reactid=”38″>Facebook, in fact, has gone to such lengths to appease conservative voices who complain of censorship that, according to NBC News, the company ignored its own rules about misinformation when it came to posts by conservative outlets like Breitbart.

<h2 class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Increased scrutiny of social media sites” data-reactid=”39″>Increased scrutiny of social media sites

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Trump, meanwhile, has called for a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides online platforms that host user-generated content, which is virtually all internet sites, with liability protection. His distaste for the law peaked when Twitter blocked one of his tweets that stated in part, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” in reference to early protests that saw rioting following the death of George Floyd.” data-reactid=”40″>Trump, meanwhile, has called for a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides online platforms that host user-generated content, which is virtually all internet sites, with liability protection. His distaste for the law peaked when Twitter blocked one of his tweets that stated in part, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” in reference to early protests that saw rioting following the death of George Floyd.

Twitter blocked the tweet saying that it glorified violence. The move came shortly after Twitter labeled a previous tweet by Trump with a fact-check marker after he claimed that mail-in voting would lead to election fraud.

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Facebook, which has taken heat for its stance on allowing politicians to spread misinformation, also took action against Trump’s campaign for using a symbol associated with Nazism to decry a supposed Antifa uprising, and spreading misinformation about children being immune to COVID-19.” data-reactid=”46″>Facebook, which has taken heat for its stance on allowing politicians to spread misinformation, also took action against Trump’s campaign for using a symbol associated with Nazism to decry a supposed Antifa uprising, and spreading misinformation about children being immune to COVID-19.

But Americans surveyed by Pew say they don’t trust social media sites to accurately label misinformation, with 66% saying they have “not too much” or “no confidence” in the ability of social media sites to label such content.

Social media sites certainly haven’t made it easy to trust them either, thanks to a seemingly endless line of issues ranging from data misuse to foreign interference in national politics. And there are times when internet platforms remove content by accident.

Until social networks can regain users’ trust, the perception of bias will likely continue to percolate unabated.

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Got a tip? Email Daniel Howley at&nbsp;dhowley@yahoofinance.com&nbsp;over via encrypted mail at&nbsp;danielphowley@protonmail.com, and follow him on Twitter at&nbsp;@DanielHowley.” data-reactid=”50″>Got a tip? Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@yahoofinance.com over via encrypted mail at danielphowley@protonmail.com, and follow him on Twitter at @DanielHowley.

<p class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)–sm Mt(0.8em)–sm" type="text" content="Follow Yahoo Finance on&nbsp;Twitter,&nbsp;Facebook,&nbsp;Instagram,&nbsp;Flipboard,&nbsp;SmartNews,&nbsp;LinkedIn,&nbsp;YouTube, and&nbsp;reddit.” data-reactid=”56″>Follow Yahoo Finance on TwitterFacebookInstagramFlipboardSmartNewsLinkedIn, YouTube, and reddit.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Media

Three charged with intimidation for social media post – My North Bay Now

Published

on



A social media post has led to three people being charged by North Bay police for Intimidation of a Justice Participant.

Police began an investigation in August to look into the intimidation of someone involved in a court case. Police say that someone who provided information to an ongoing court case had been the subject of a social media post that garnered negative comments, creating a safety concern.

Constable John Schultz says that it was the negative comments on the social media post that warranted investigation.

“Part of what the individual had provided as information, [the accused] posted that information online. That in and of itself may or may not be an offence, but it’s the way they posted it and the fact that it created a lot of feedback that created a safety concern for this person,” Schultz said.

As a result of the investigation, a 54-year-old woman from North Bay, a 42-year-old woman from East Ferris and a 42-year-old man from Powassan have all been charged with one count each of Intimidation of a Justice Participant.

Schultz says that the three people charged “worked together” on the social media post. He was unable to comment on what the court case is as it is still ongoing, and says that the social media post hasn’t impacted the case “at this point”.

Schultz says that Intimidation of a Justice Participant is not a commonly-used charge by North Bay police.

“The charge has been laid here in North Bay another time, but I’ve been involved in policing for 36 years and I’ve never laid it. It doesn’t happen too often,” he said.

The importance of the charge, however, is significant. Schultz says that the charge is in place to protect the court system.

“If you’re going to be involved in a court case, no matter who you are, you should not feel afraid because you’re involved in a court case,” he explained. “If you intimidate somebody to a point where they’re concerned, maybe they’ll recant on their statement.”

Scott Tod, Chief of the North Bay Police Service, also stresses the importance of the charge.

“Public confidence in our courts being ethical and trustworthy means police have the added responsibility of identifying and charging people who try to intimidate or threaten a person involved in our judicial process. North Bay Police Service, like all our provincial and national policing partners, will vigorously investigate these types of offences that protect the integrity of our judicial system,” Tod said in a statement.

The two women who were charged will appear in North Bay court on October 20, with the man set to appear on November 3.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Mi'kmaw journalist assesses media coverage of fisheries dispute – CBC.ca

Published

on


Some media coverage of tension between Mi’kmaw and non-Indigenous fishermen, like what’s happening right now in Saulnierville, N.S., fails to tell the true story, says Trina Roache.

She’s a long-time journalist with APTN News who has covered the implications of the 1999 Marshall decision for years. The historic ruling recognized a First Nations’ right to earn a moderate living from fishing but the government has never defined what that means. 

Last year, Roache released a documentary on the 20th anniversary of the Marshall decision asking what had changed. 

Now, she’s covering the same tensions in Saulnierville where the Sipekne’katik First Nation launched their moderate livelihood fishery on Thursday. It’s being opposed by non-Indigenous fishermen who’ve cut traps and paraded their boats around the harbour in protest. 

Roache spoke with host CBC Mainstreet host Jeff Douglas about what the journalist can do to better report on Indigenous issues and why an understanding of the treaties is so important.  

Their conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

In general, are we driving you nuts?

A little bit, to be honest. A little bit. 

It’s a story I’ve spent a lot of time on, and then sometimes when I read the headlines and when I see the mainstream coverage, it’s frustrating because there’s an imbalance sometimes or a language that happens in the coverage that to me creates a narrative that the Mi’kmaw are doing something wrong, which isn’t the case. 

Can you give us an indication of some of that coverage or the imbalance? 

The Mi’kmaq, they have a right. The Supreme Court of Canada decided in the Marshall decision that they agree, yes, the Mi’kmaq have a treaty right to make a living from fishing and hunting and gathering. They came out with the term “moderate livelihood,” didn’t define it, so it’s a little confusing. But they upheld that treaty right. 

And so the problem is, is that when we call it an illegal fishery, that’s only because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not implemented their own law, like they haven’t addressed the Marshall decision to date. So there are no rules to govern a moderate livelihood fishery. And so in the eyes of DFO, it might be an illegal fishery, but in fact, the Mi’kmaq have a legal right, a constitutional right to go fish and make a living. 

APTN journalist Trina Roache spoke with host Jeff Douglas about what the mainstream media can do to better report on Indigenous issues at a time when many eyes are on Saulnierville, N.S. That’s where Sipekne’katik First Nation launched a self-regulated fishery this week. It’s been met with resistance and anger from commercial fishermen. 14:49

Chief Terry Paul also said that they have been waiting for essentially 21 years for DFO and for some sort of governance. 

The Mi’kmaq are doing that work themselves. And that’s what you’re seeing today down in Saulnierville, near Digby. The Sipekne’katik First Nation in particular is down there issuing these moderate livelihood licences. They’ve got a management plan, they’re celebrating the anniversary of the Marshall decision, you know, kicking off this moderate livelihood with ceremony, the Grand Council’s there. This is not an illegal fishery. They have every legal right to do what they’re doing.

The Mi’kmaq are not protesting. So, again, we have to be very careful of the words we use when we’re describing what’s happening. But the protest part is that the non-Mi’kmaw fishermen down there are out on the water in their boats and trying to sort of stymie the Mi’kmaq, and not allow them to drop their traps or maybe cut their traps and not allow them to sort of carry out this moderate livelihood fishery. So that’s the protest part. 

Trina Roache reports for the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, or APTN. (Trina Roache)

In addition to language use, like substituting the word protest instead of celebration or ceremony, illegal fishery, is there just a lack of understanding surrounding treaty issues? 

We have a really important job in providing that balanced view. You sort of have the tenets of journalism, right? We all want to do fair, balanced, accurate, objective reporting. And as an Indigenous journalist, well, that’s what I do, too. And so sometimes what can happen, though, I think, is that we sort of assume that somehow mainstream journalism, predominantly white journalism, that is just sort of unbiased … Because I’ve been asked, well, how do you keep your journalism from turning into advocacy? And I’m like, that’s a terrible question, because you’re making an assumption somehow that because I’m Mi’kmaw reporting on Mi’kmaw issues that I can’t be fair and accurate and balanced. 

And instead, when CBC or other media are calling this fishery an illegal fishery or keep referring to it within the report as this illegal fishery, to me that’s bias, right? That betrays an inherent bias in the reporting and not including enough Mi’kmaw voices. If you’re going to do a story about the Mi’kmaw, you have to make sure you’re talking to the Mi’kmaw. And you have to make sure that if you’re going to do a story about this, I hope you’ve read the treaties … So even if you’re not going to do Indigenous stories, as a journalist in Canada or wherever, you should know the history of the land that you’re standing on.

To be dismissive or refer to it as an illegal fishery is really covering over all this backstory and history and this treaty relationship that’s very important and really matters today. The treaties might have been signed before but they still count today, and if we’re going to report on these stories then we really need to understand what it means. 

The Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs declared a state of emergency on Friday in response to “violence occurring over Mi’kmaq fisheries across the province.” (Steve Lawrence/CBC)

Going back to your point about where people get their information from, particularly on Indigenous issues, it’s from us and so we are then mis-educating, inadvertently?

It’s true because we do play an important role in just public information … I was thinking of this earlier because the battle cry of the non-Mi’kmaw fishermen or fish harvesters back in 2000 after the Marshall decision came down was they’re going to ruin the lobster stocks. I mean, I remember hearing that again and again on the wharves from fishermen up near Burnt Church: the Mi’kmaq are going to ruin the lobster stocks. 

And you still hear that today … and so as a journalist, sometimes, like, you have to question and educate yourself and question DFO so that the listener has a full picture and education because it’s misinformation. They haven’t ruined the lobster stocks in 21 years. What the Mi’kmaw do is a drop in the bucket compared to the commercial fishery … There’s only conflict when there’s money at stake, right? This is a multi-billion dollar industry, and so there’s a lot at stake. When inherent rights butt up against Canadian interests, that’s when it’s a problem. 

Everyone can be nice and talk about reconciliation and all that nice stuff, but it’s when we butt up against the larger interests that you start to see the media sort of breakdown in how it’s reporting on these issues.

MORE TOP STORIES

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Three charged with witness intimidation over social media – BayToday.ca

Published

on


North Bay Police have charged two women and a man after an investigation found that a witness involved in a criminal case was being intimidated over social media.

Police began an investigation in August and say “an individual who had provided information during an investigation before the courts had been the subject of a post shared on a social media site attracting several comments from people that created a safety concern.”

The investigation resulted in the arrest of three people in early September.

North Bay Police have arrested and charged Cindy Morin,  54, of North Bay, Lisa Cormier, 42, of East Ferris, and Raymond Prudhomme, 42, of Powassan with “Intimidation of a Justice Participant.”

All three were released from custody. Morin and Cormier will appear in the North Bay Courthouse on October 20.

Prudhomme will appear in the North Bay Courthouse on November 3.

Chief Scott Tod said “Public confidence in our courts being ethical and trustworthy means police have the added responsibility of identifying and charging people who try to intimidate or threaten a person involved in our judicial process. North Bay Police Service, like all our provincial and national policing partners, will vigorously investigate these types of offences that protect the integrity of our judicial system.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending