“One day they might come for you”
*“One day they might come for you” */Digital rights activist Andrew Lowenthal on progressives' support for the censorship-industrial complex / Thomas Fazi Aug 05, 2024 In this guest post, Maike Gosch, a German communication strategist, writer and former lawyer — whose article on the banning of the German magazine Compact I published recently — interviews Andrew Lowenthal, the founder and managing director of the digital civil liberties organisation liber-net. Lowenthal is an Australian digital rights activist of German-Jewish descent. For almost 18 years he was the Executive Director of EngageMedia, an Asia-based NGO focused on human rights online, freedom of expression and open technology. The digital rights environment in which Lowenthal spent most of his adult life was avowedly progressive — as was Lowenthal himself. [...] continua qui: https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/one-day-they-might-come-for-you
Buongiorno, felice di vedere che, seppur faticosamente, pian piano "conspiracy is the new normal", specialmente quando è di stampo POPULISTA :-D perché inutile girarci in giro: Lowenthal è l'archetipo del complottista (a sua insaputa?), con decisi tratti populisti... o no?!? "J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin@polito.it> writes:
*“One day they might come for you” */Digital rights activist Andrew Lowenthal on progressives' support for the censorship-industrial complex / Thomas Fazi
Aug 05, 2024
In this guest post, Maike Gosch, a German communication strategist, writer and former lawyer — whose article on the banning of the German magazine Compact I published recently — interviews Andrew Lowenthal, the founder and managing director of the digital civil liberties organisation liber-net.
Lowenthal is an Australian digital rights activist of German-Jewish descent. For almost 18 years he was the Executive Director of EngageMedia, an Asia-based NGO focused on human rights online, freedom of expression and open technology. The digital rights environment in which Lowenthal spent most of his adult life was avowedly progressive — as was Lowenthal himself. continua qui: https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/one-day-they-might-come-for-you
siccome non vorrei che i lettori si perdessero il nocciolo della questione, ovvero la metamorfosi del progressismo di sinistra, l'articolo continua così: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Then came the pandemic, and Lowenthal, as many of us, experienced an anthological shock that led him to reconsider much of his worldview — especially about his activist milieu and the progressive left more in general. [...] Increasingly estranged from the progressive former-digital-rights-now-turned-pro-censorship movement, Lowenthal began to focus his work on the emerging digital censorship regime — or censorship-industrial complex — even collaborating with journalists like Matt Taibi and Michael Shellenberger on the Twitter Files. This eventually led to the founding of liber-net. To stay on top of all things online censorship-related, make sure to follow Lowenthal’s great Substack, Network Affects [1]. Lowenthal: [...] got very interested in left-wing activism [...] and particularly what was known was “anti-globalisation”. [...] I helped organise, in Melbourne against the World Economic Forum [...] then I started liber-net, which focuses on digital civil liberties and digital authoritarianism in the West, issues including censorship, free speech, surveillance, ways in which technologies increasingly create digital gates and barriers around access, such as what we saw during Covid with the vaccine passports, that are now coming more, in terms of digital ID issues around programmable currency, so essentially systems of digital social control. Lowenthal: [...] (sulla Westminster Declaration [2], n.d.r.) the media on the other hand rather dismissed it, or they just focus on the right-wing people who signed it and ignored the left-wing people who signed it to try and suggest that it was very bad, and you should stay away from it. MG: Often the reaction in Germany when people hear about the censorship-industrial complex is that it gets called a conspiracy theory. What would your reply be to that? What do you think of that criticism? Lowenthal: There’s huge amount of evidence now that there are a massive number of organisations coordinating to censor content on the internet. In fact, a lot of liberal and progressive groups now acknowledge that this is happening. At the start of the Twitter Files, the line was, “Oh, no, it’s a conspiracy theory. None of this is happening, etc.”. Now, most people are saying: “Well, yes, the government and NGOs are involved in content moderation. But it’s okay. It’s legal. Governments should be paying attention and protecting people from misinformation”. So now it’s very hard to find people saying this is not happening. I think the battle about the recognition of its existence is kind of being won in many respects. Now people are debating whether or not it’s a good or a bad idea. MG: The other criticism is that this whole fight is being driven by a right-wing/populist agenda. What would your response be to that? Lowenthal: Well, conservatives sense and experience the censorship probably more than progressives. But that’s only part of the story. A lot of people and groups on the left are also increasingly censored, for example around the Israel-Gaza question. So, it impacts anyone who’s outside of the power core. Right now, it effects the so-called right a bit more, but it can easily switch in the other direction. And this is one of the key arguments for progressives who still think this kind of system of government-sponsored content moderation is a good idea: “One day they might come for you”. And I think that has certainly already happened around the Palestine question. And as to the “populist” accusation: it is populist, it’s popular voices that are being censored by elites. That is actually the main thing. It’s not left or right. It is populist in the sense of “for the people”. It is a threat to the elites. MG: How do you see the situation around censorship and free speech evolving in Europe and Germany right now, if you follow them from Australia? Lowenthal: Well, Germany from afar it looks quite bad, possibly the worst in Europe. Germany is extremely important, because of Germany’s power in the EU and because the cultural work that is leveraged to justify new systems of censorship (mostly through NGOs and academia) has a very large presence in Germany. It seems to me that it is the US, then the UK, then Germany in importance. There have also been victories — there is a lot more understanding of the censorship-industrial complex and what it does, and there are more people who are speaking up and out against it. The Stanford Internet Observatory, a key player in the complex, is closing down. At the same time the new Labour Government in Britain plans to repeal the Free Speech Act that was designed to protect free speech on university campuses and the censors aren’t giving up the fight easily at all. So, there’s a lot of work still to be done. MG: How do you see the situation in Europe and Germany evolving? Where do you see this going? Lowenthal: I think there’s going to be a very big battle. It does not seem like the elites want to back down from trying to censor the internet. So, I think, if they’re not willing to leave the internet open, more and more people are going to mobilise, to demand that the internet remain free and open. [...] The problem, of course, is that many people on the left have decided that they want the government to get involved in curtailing speech on the internet. And I think until a significant number of progressives actually realise just how dangerous that is, it’s going to be very hard to win this fight and renormalise free speech. The easiest and practical way to support free speech is to speak freely. The power is right there in your very own body. MG: [...] “Hate is not an opinion”. What’s your response to that? Lowenthal: Well, who defines hate? What is hate? And is the government defining it? Are political parties defining it? What’s the threshold? What’s the barrier? Wasn’t it Ursula von der Leyen who said: “Hate is hate”? If that’s the definition, that is a very poor definition. I also think that repression so often fuels hate speech. If you try and repress it, it actually grows rather than subsiding. I think there are better tactics and strategies than censorship. [...] one is just for the government to be less coercive. Because I think the coercion actually encourages more hate speech and bad actors. The other one is a very neutral form of education. The third thing is to pay less attention to hate speech, because again, like with coercion, attention will actually foster it. It then becomes a great way to get attention. Like with children, when they learn that breaking their toys gets them attention, they will do it more. I think having open conversations is much better. I understand that a lot of times on the internet that can be hard. But the other thing is, you can turn the internet off. You don’t have to read and look at all of this stuff. A lot of it, you can just ignore. And I think that not creating a moral panic about it is probably one of the key things, and learning how to have calm and open conversations across differences. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- estremamente interessante il parallelo che usa: i bambini che rompono i giocattoli per ottenere attenzione... quindi siamo tutti MINORATI gestiti da innumerevoli tutori istituzionali, giusto? saluti, 380° [1] https://networkaffects.substack.com/ [2] https://westminsterdeclaration.org/ -- 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.
Restando a un livello molto generale, premesso che: - in anni recenti (post 2016, a spanne) il termine "populista" è stato volutamente distorto per essere usato per squalificare a priori posizioni sgradite, evitando di entrare nel merito; - da molto tempo, ma anche in questo caso con una recrudescenza in questi ultimi anni, il termine "complottista" è usato per squalificare a priori posizioni sgradite, evitando di entrare nel merito; sono convinto che ci siano forti motivi per essere preoccupati per il futuro della libertà di espressione anche nelle nostre democrazie liberali. Argomento che va discusso - come tutti gli altri - facendo attenzione solo al merito delle questioni, evitando etichettature e altre fallacie argomentative. E credo che, restando nel merito, ormai ci siano parecchi fatti, iniziative e dichiarazioni a giustificazione della mia preoccupazione. juan carlos On 12/08/24 11:32, 380° via nexa wrote:
Buongiorno,
felice di vedere che, seppur faticosamente, pian piano "conspiracy is the new normal", specialmente quando è di stampo POPULISTA :-D
perché inutile girarci in giro: Lowenthal è l'archetipo del complottista (a sua insaputa?), con decisi tratti populisti... o no?!?
"J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin@polito.it> writes:
*“One day they might come for you” */Digital rights activist Andrew Lowenthal on progressives' support for the censorship-industrial complex / Thomas Fazi
Aug 05, 2024
In this guest post, Maike Gosch, a German communication strategist, writer and former lawyer — whose article on the banning of the German magazine Compact I published recently — interviews Andrew Lowenthal, the founder and managing director of the digital civil liberties organisation liber-net.
Lowenthal is an Australian digital rights activist of German-Jewish descent. For almost 18 years he was the Executive Director of EngageMedia, an Asia-based NGO focused on human rights online, freedom of expression and open technology. The digital rights environment in which Lowenthal spent most of his adult life was avowedly progressive — as was Lowenthal himself. continua qui: https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/one-day-they-might-come-for-you siccome non vorrei che i lettori si perdessero il nocciolo della questione, ovvero la metamorfosi del progressismo di sinistra, l'articolo continua così:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Then came the pandemic, and Lowenthal, as many of us, experienced an anthological shock that led him to reconsider much of his worldview — especially about his activist milieu and the progressive left more in general.
[...] Increasingly estranged from the progressive former-digital-rights-now-turned-pro-censorship movement, Lowenthal began to focus his work on the emerging digital censorship regime — or censorship-industrial complex — even collaborating with journalists like Matt Taibi and Michael Shellenberger on the Twitter Files. This eventually led to the founding of liber-net.
To stay on top of all things online censorship-related, make sure to follow Lowenthal’s great Substack, Network Affects [1].
Lowenthal: [...] got very interested in left-wing activism [...] and particularly what was known was “anti-globalisation”. [...] I helped organise, in Melbourne against the World Economic Forum [...] then I started liber-net, which focuses on digital civil liberties and digital authoritarianism in the West, issues including censorship, free speech, surveillance, ways in which technologies increasingly create digital gates and barriers around access, such as what we saw during Covid with the vaccine passports, that are now coming more, in terms of digital ID issues around programmable currency, so essentially systems of digital social control.
Lowenthal: [...] (sulla Westminster Declaration [2], n.d.r.) the media on the other hand rather dismissed it, or they just focus on the right-wing people who signed it and ignored the left-wing people who signed it to try and suggest that it was very bad, and you should stay away from it.
MG: Often the reaction in Germany when people hear about the censorship-industrial complex is that it gets called a conspiracy theory. What would your reply be to that? What do you think of that criticism?
Lowenthal: There’s huge amount of evidence now that there are a massive number of organisations coordinating to censor content on the internet. In fact, a lot of liberal and progressive groups now acknowledge that this is happening. At the start of the Twitter Files, the line was, “Oh, no, it’s a conspiracy theory. None of this is happening, etc.”. Now, most people are saying: “Well, yes, the government and NGOs are involved in content moderation. But it’s okay. It’s legal. Governments should be paying attention and protecting people from misinformation”. So now it’s very hard to find people saying this is not happening. I think the battle about the recognition of its existence is kind of being won in many respects. Now people are debating whether or not it’s a good or a bad idea.
MG: The other criticism is that this whole fight is being driven by a right-wing/populist agenda. What would your response be to that?
Lowenthal: Well, conservatives sense and experience the censorship probably more than progressives. But that’s only part of the story. A lot of people and groups on the left are also increasingly censored, for example around the Israel-Gaza question. So, it impacts anyone who’s outside of the power core. Right now, it effects the so-called right a bit more, but it can easily switch in the other direction. And this is one of the key arguments for progressives who still think this kind of system of government-sponsored content moderation is a good idea: “One day they might come for you”. And I think that has certainly already happened around the Palestine question.
And as to the “populist” accusation: it is populist, it’s popular voices that are being censored by elites. That is actually the main thing. It’s not left or right. It is populist in the sense of “for the people”. It is a threat to the elites.
MG: How do you see the situation around censorship and free speech evolving in Europe and Germany right now, if you follow them from Australia?
Lowenthal: Well, Germany from afar it looks quite bad, possibly the worst in Europe. Germany is extremely important, because of Germany’s power in the EU and because the cultural work that is leveraged to justify new systems of censorship (mostly through NGOs and academia) has a very large presence in Germany. It seems to me that it is the US, then the UK, then Germany in importance. There have also been victories — there is a lot more understanding of the censorship-industrial complex and what it does, and there are more people who are speaking up and out against it. The Stanford Internet Observatory, a key player in the complex, is closing down. At the same time the new Labour Government in Britain plans to repeal the Free Speech Act that was designed to protect free speech on university campuses and the censors aren’t giving up the fight easily at all. So, there’s a lot of work still to be done.
MG: How do you see the situation in Europe and Germany evolving? Where do you see this going?
Lowenthal: I think there’s going to be a very big battle. It does not seem like the elites want to back down from trying to censor the internet. So, I think, if they’re not willing to leave the internet open, more and more people are going to mobilise, to demand that the internet remain free and open.
[...] The problem, of course, is that many people on the left have decided that they want the government to get involved in curtailing speech on the internet. And I think until a significant number of progressives actually realise just how dangerous that is, it’s going to be very hard to win this fight and renormalise free speech. The easiest and practical way to support free speech is to speak freely. The power is right there in your very own body.
MG: [...] “Hate is not an opinion”. What’s your response to that?
Lowenthal: Well, who defines hate? What is hate? And is the government defining it? Are political parties defining it? What’s the threshold? What’s the barrier? Wasn’t it Ursula von der Leyen who said: “Hate is hate”? If that’s the definition, that is a very poor definition. I also think that repression so often fuels hate speech. If you try and repress it, it actually grows rather than subsiding. I think there are better tactics and strategies than censorship. [...] one is just for the government to be less coercive. Because I think the coercion actually encourages more hate speech and bad actors. The other one is a very neutral form of education. The third thing is to pay less attention to hate speech, because again, like with coercion, attention will actually foster it. It then becomes a great way to get attention. Like with children, when they learn that breaking their toys gets them attention, they will do it more. I think having open conversations is much better. I understand that a lot of times on the internet that can be hard. But the other thing is, you can turn the internet off. You don’t have to read and look at all of this stuff. A lot of it, you can just ignore. And I think that not creating a moral panic about it is probably one of the key things, and learning how to have calm and open conversations across differences.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
estremamente interessante il parallelo che usa: i bambini che rompono i giocattoli per ottenere attenzione...
quindi siamo tutti MINORATI gestiti da innumerevoli tutori istituzionali, giusto?
saluti, 380°
Buongiorno, "J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin@polito.it> writes:
Restando a un livello molto generale, premesso che:
- in anni recenti (post 2016, a spanne) il termine "populista" è stato volutamente distorto
[...]
- da molto tempo, ma anche in questo caso con una recrudescenza in questi ultimi anni, il termine "complottista" è usato per squalificare a priori posizioni sgradite, evitando di entrare nel merito;
è necessario dire che nell'usare quei termini sono stato appositamente sarcastico? :-) Per la precisione, aggiungo che ho dimenticato di etichettare Andrew Lowenthal come no-vax, mea culpa! [...]
Argomento che va discusso - come tutti gli altri - facendo attenzione solo al merito delle questioni, evitando etichettature e altre fallacie argomentative.
in una civiltà matura ogni questione andrebbe discussa /nel merito/ ma noi siamo oltre, da _moltissimi_ anni: l'importante non è l'informazione e l'analisi, l'importate è LA PERCEZIONE che le persone ottengono attraverso la narrazione distorta della realtà... roba che il falso "massacro di Timisoara" è un lavoretto dei bambini alle scuole elementari.
E credo che, restando nel merito, ormai ci siano parecchi fatti, iniziative e dichiarazioni a giustificazione della mia preoccupazione.
sì ma per quanti fatti (iniziative, dichiarazioni) ci siano, ci sono altrettante contro-narrative che ANESTETIZZANO... l'alienazione comunque... [...]
siccome non vorrei che i lettori si perdessero il nocciolo della questione, ovvero la metamorfosi del progressismo di sinistra,
siccome a mio modesto parete il VERO nocciolo dell'analisi di Lowenthal è _precisamente_ la metamorfosi del progressismo di sinistra (ah, che malinconia!), mi permetto ancora di insistere /fastidiosamente/ su questo tema, perché l'analisi è molto azzeccata... riporto quindi uno stralcio di un "vecchio" articolo di Lowenthal, il cui titolo è in oggetto: https://brownstone.org/articles/the-censorship-industrial-complex/ «The Censorship Industrial Complex» By Andrew Lowenthal April 27, 2023 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Disinformation does of course exist and does need to be addressed. However, the biggest source of disinformation are governments, corporations, and increasingly anti-disinformation experts themselves, who have through COVID-19 and many other issues gotten the facts wrong. [...] It wasn't always like this. Over the past century the primary advocates of free speech have been liberals and progressives like myself, who frequently defended the rights of people whose values they sometimes differed from and were highly unpopular with mainstream American society at the time, such as the over-policing of the Muslim community during the War on Terror. At the most basic level, the idea that one day the shoe might be on the other foot seems beyond the comprehension of most. The result is a court of clowns. Feedback is not being taken in, pivots are not made, epistemological entropy ensues. While progressives might believe they are in charge, I think it's much more the case that we are being used. Under the cover of social justice, the corporate machine rolls on. The US government and its allies, realizing that information was the future of conflict, slowly but surely engineered a takeover of the independent, adversarial organisations that should be holding them to account. Some say this shift began under the “humanitarian intervention” rubric built for the Balkan conflicts. This was stepped up further when Condoleezza Rice provided a feminist cover for invading Afghanistan. The elites grab the ideas that serve their purposes, hollow them out, and get to work. Wealth inequality became much worse under COVID-19, even as the halls of power became more diverse. “Progressives” hardly said a word. The cultural shift is only partly organic. The Virality Project shows how powerful people cynically harnessed well-intentioned ideas about protecting people's health, when in reality, they were protecting and advancing the interests of Big Pharma and expanding the infrastructure for future information control projects. In February 2021 I met with a leading anti-disinformation organization, [FirstDraft] — now called the [Information Futures Lab] at Brown University — to discuss collaborating. The meeting became awkward when they claimed the Philippine [#Kickvax] campaign was anti-vaccination. Nearly half of EngageMedia's staff and most of the leadership team were Filipino. The campaign had come up in conversations with them, so I knew it was actually an anti-corruption drive focusing on the Chinese vaccine, hence the name: SinoVac + kickbacks = #Kickvax. The campaign was making serious allegations regarding the SinoVac procurement process. In 2021 Transparency International [ranked] the Philippines 117th for corruption out of 180 countries surveyed. Left-wing activism in the Philippines has long taken aim at corruption among elites. Despite this, FirstDraft staff told me very firmly again that #Kickvax was spreading anti-vaccine misinformation. I was given an “Are you from outer-space and/or a potential menace?” -type look before the meeting wrapped up. No collaborations were pursued. From the #TwitterFiles I've since seen just how deeply involved FirstDraft were in trying to squash valid questions around the vaccine. It was a core focus. FirstDraft were also part of the Trusted News Initiative, a kind of Virality Project for the legacy media. The Information Futures Lab runs a project to “ [increase vaccine demand].” Co-founder Stefanie Friedhoff is also part of the White House COVID-19 Response Team. [FirstDraft] <https://firstdraftnews.org/> [Information Futures Lab] <https://sites.brown.edu/informationfutures/> [#Kickvax] <https://twitter.com/hashtag/KickVax?src=hashtag_click> [ranked] <https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/philippines> [increase vaccine demand] <https://buildingvaccinedemand.org/> [...] The even bigger problem is a culture that supports widespread censorship, particularly among its previous guardians, progressives, liberals and the left. Free speech has become a dirty word for the very people who once led the free speech movement. Changing that is a long-term project that requires demonstrating how free speech is primarily there to protect the powerless, not the powerful. For example, the Virality Project's censorship of true stories of vaccine injury left us to the predation of Big Pharma, making us less safe. More free speech would have resulted in a better informed and better protected society. Most important is to return to strong principles of free expression, including for ideas we dislike. The shoe /will/ one day again be on the other foot. When that day comes free speech will not be the enemy of liberals and progressives, it will be the best possible protection against the abuse of power. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- saluti, 380° -- 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.
Sulla stessa linea è di recente uscito "Fake You – An Activist’s Guide to Defeating Disinformation" di Simona Levi et al. https://xnet-x.net/en/fakeyou-disinformation-free-download/
Conferences about disinformation are mainstream. They are appealing, and institutions love them. They all seem to follow the same formula: a star speaker, boasting a fashionable biography (that omits the financial or client-affective ties to a political party) rattles off a list of stereotypical evils of technology, leading to a conclusion that could be summarised like this: “Given the very new danger of disinformation and fake news brought by the Internet and Artificial Intelligence (Al), for your own sake, the solution is to create institutions that ensure that internet and digital are not evil and - basically - ‘regulate’ freedom of expression in the digital era for the sake of the Truth.”
This false conclusion is the main reason for this book: fake news is used as an excuse to curtail civil rights.
rob Il 10/08/24 16:12, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto:
*“One day they might come for you” */Digital rights activist Andrew Lowenthal on progressives' support for the censorship-industrial complex / Thomas Fazi
Aug 05, 2024
In this guest post, Maike Gosch, a German communication strategist, writer and former lawyer — whose article on the banning of the German magazine Compact I published recently — interviews Andrew Lowenthal, the founder and managing director of the digital civil liberties organisation liber-net.
Lowenthal is an Australian digital rights activist of German-Jewish descent. For almost 18 years he was the Executive Director of EngageMedia, an Asia-based NGO focused on human rights online, freedom of expression and open technology. The digital rights environment in which Lowenthal spent most of his adult life was avowedly progressive — as was Lowenthal himself.
[...]
continua qui: https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/one-day-they-might-come-for-you
for your own sake, the solution is to create institutions that ensure that internet and digital are not evil and - basically - ‘regulate’ freedom of expression in the digital era for the sake of the Truth è la stessa struttura di pensiero che riguarda il cosiddetto diluvio informativo: il diluvio fa male, occorre mettere un limite, un freno, alla quantità di informazione circolante e non potendo limitare la produzione, servono dei filtri a quella che raggiunge gli utenti si chiamerebbe censura ma viene fatta passare per un'azione buona bella e protettiva Maurizio
Il 12/08/24 14:07, Roberto Resoli ha scritto:
Sulla stessa linea è di recente uscito "Fake You – An Activist’s Guide to Defeating Disinformation" di Simona Levi et al.
https://xnet-x.net/en/fakeyou-disinformation-free-download/
Conferences about disinformation are mainstream. They are appealing, and institutions love them. They all seem to follow the same formula: a star speaker, boasting a fashionable biography (that omits the financial or client-affective ties to a political party) rattles off a list of stereotypical evils of technology, leading to a conclusion that could be summarised like this: “Given the very new danger of disinformation and fake news brought by the Internet and Artificial Intelligence (Al), for your own sake, the solution is to create institutions that ensure that internet and digital are not evil and - basically - ‘regulate’ freedom of expression in the digital era for the sake of the Truth.”
This false conclusion is the main reason for this book: fake news is used as an excuse to curtail civil rights. rob
Il 10/08/24 16:12, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto:
*“One day they might come for you” */Digital rights activist Andrew Lowenthal on progressives' support for the censorship-industrial complex / Thomas Fazi
Aug 05, 2024
In this guest post, Maike Gosch, a German communication strategist, writer and former lawyer — whose article on the banning of the German magazine Compact I published recently — interviews Andrew Lowenthal, the founder and managing director of the digital civil liberties organisation liber-net.
Lowenthal is an Australian digital rights activist of German-Jewish descent. For almost 18 years he was the Executive Director of EngageMedia, an Asia-based NGO focused on human rights online, freedom of expression and open technology. The digital rights environment in which Lowenthal spent most of his adult life was avowedly progressive — as was Lowenthal himself.
[...]
continua qui:https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/one-day-they-might-come-for-you
------------------------------------------------------------------------ many of us believe the EU remains the most extraordinary, ambitious, liberal political alliance in recorded history. where it needs reform, where it needs to evolve, we should be there to help turn that heavy wheel ian mcewan, the guardian, 2/6/2017 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli
Buongiorno Roberto, grazie per la segnalazione! devo dire che "fakeyou" è un titolo spettacolare :-) Roberto Resoli <roberto@resolutions.it> writes:
Sulla stessa linea è di recente uscito "Fake You – An Activist’s Guide to Defeating Disinformation" di Simona Levi et al.
ho aperto l'URL che hai indicato sopra ma il testo che riporti sotto non viene da quel URL: plz da dove lo hai citato?
Conferences about disinformation are mainstream. They are appealing, and institutions love them. They all seem to follow the same formula: a star speaker, boasting a fashionable biography (that omits the financial or client-affective ties to a political party) rattles off a list of stereotypical evils of technology, leading to a conclusion that could be summarised like this: “Given the very new danger of disinformation and fake news brought by the Internet and Artificial Intelligence (Al), for your own sake, the solution is to create institutions that ensure that internet and digital are not evil and - basically - ‘regulate’ freedom of expression in the digital era for the sake of the Truth.”
This false conclusion is the main reason for this book: fake news is used as an excuse to curtail civil rights.
ecco la presentazione del libro, tratta dall'URL citato sopra last but not least: il libro è distribuito con licenza CC-BY-SA 4.0 :-) --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- «#FakeYou An Activist’s Guide to Defeating Disinformation» 23 July, 2024 We have just released -> #FakeYou – Don't blame the people; don't blame the Internet. Blame the power /Governments, political parties, mass media, large corporations and fortunes: the monopolies of information manipulation and the threats to freedom of expression./ [Free download]. Please, share by all means. This is THE activist's guide to defeating fake news and blocking policies that use disinformation to curtail civil rights and freedoms. Power has lied to us since the beginning of time. The methods and technologies used have differed, but lying is in power's DNA. In the institutional agenda, disinformation is used to say that the problem is with us (as usual) but, in fact, it's with them. We have had enough. This book shows how and why power has always created disinformation and how today's fake news is just that same age-old lie and propaganda going by a different name. We provide rock-solid solutions: first, more democracy, and second, a brand new systemic labelling method. This book is the update of the Spanish version from 2019 [title translated ->] [#FakeYou] – Fake News and Disinformation – Governments, political parties, mass media, large corporations and fortunes: the monopolies of information manipulation and the threats to freedom of expression. – Editorial Rayo Verde. By Simona Levi et al. *Free download* [here]. And here: Archive <https://archive.org/details/fake-you-simona-levi-xnet> Torrent archive <https://xnet.maadix.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/pFRkFtWJdJYKnEd> Z-Library <https://singlelogin.re/book/29319401/36110a/fakeyou-an-activists-guide-to-de...> Library Genesis [https://library.bz/main/uploads/] Amule [ed2k://|file|Fake%20You%20] *Contents* Introduction *PART 1 – Disinformation History: None of This is an Internet Invention* 1 – Propaganda. A brief history of fake news and information manipulation in the Global North 2 – Follow the money. Deconstructing the foundational cases of contemporary disinformation An industrial-scale set-up, affordable only for a few Part 1 conclusion: anywhere, everywhere, anytime, every time *PART 2 – Current Approaches To Disinformation And Why They Do Not Work* 1 – Biases in the definition of fake news and disinformation The definition of ‘disinformation' as a diversionary manoeuvre Modalities of falsehoods and human nature An action-oriented definition of ‘disinformation' 2 – Legislative moods that damage civil rights and freedoms A case study: how European institutions deal with disinformation 3 – Fact-checking is not enough Codes of practice for journalism and fact-checkers – ABC of verification *PART 3 – Let's Do The Right Thing* 1 – Preventive, compulsory labelling of institutional communication and (dis) information businesses Information, opinion, propaganda or advertising: who is who and what they do It is not about Truth; it is about the ‘duty of verification' 2 – Rules for dismantling the disinformation industry Following the money works Online and OFFLINE *Conclusion – To Combat Disinformation: More Democracy* [Free download] <https://xnet.maadix.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/HbaTHr4zscb8ZL3> [#FakeYou] <https://xnet-x.net/es/informe-fake-news-desinformacion/> [here] <https://xnet.maadix.org/nextcloud/index.php/s/HbaTHr4zscb8ZL3> [https://library.bz/main/uploads/] <https://library.bz/main/uploads/30A307F83EAF5184AF9B354F66342964> [ed2k://|file|Fake%20You%20] <http://ed2k://%7Cfile%7CFake%20You%20-%20An%20Activist's%20Guide%20to%20Defeating%20Fake%20News%20-%20Simona%20Levi%20et%20al_.opf%7C1914%7C0D91A9742769AD528A75BEAB8F1BC391%7C/> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- [...] ciao, 380° -- 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.
Il 13 agosto 2024 14:39:43 CEST, "380°" <g380@biscuolo.net> ha scritto:
Buongiorno Roberto,
grazie per la segnalazione!
Prego
devo dire che "fakeyou" è un titolo spettacolare :-)
Roberto Resoli <roberto@resolutions.it> writes:
Sulla stessa linea è di recente uscito "Fake You – An Activist’s Guide to Defeating Disinformation" di Simona Levi et al.
ho aperto l'URL che hai indicato sopra ma il testo che riporti sotto non viene da quel URL: plz da dove lo hai citato?
É l'incipit del libro, che é rilasciato in CC4.0 BY-SA e scaricabile da quella pagina. É preceduto solo da una citazione, che continua a descrivere perfettamente la nostra attualità: “Ho visto resoconti giornalistici che non avevano alcuna relazione con i fatti, nemmeno quella implicita in una normale bugia. Ho visto riportare grandi battaglie dove non c'erano stati combattimenti, e un silenzio totale dove centinaia di uomini erano stati uccisi. Ho visto truppe che avevano combattuto coraggiosamente denunciate come codarde e traditrici, e altre che non avevano mai visto sparare un colpo salutate come eroi di vittorie immaginarie, e ho visto i giornali (...) distribuire queste bugie e intellettuali impazienti costruire sovrastrutture emotive su eventi che non erano mai accaduti. Vedevo, infatti, la storia scritta non in termini di ciò che era accaduto, ma di ciò che sarebbe dovuto accadere secondo le varie "linee di partito".” - George Orwell, Ripensando alla guerra di Spagna (1943). rob
participants (4)
-
380° -
J.C. DE MARTIN -
maurizio lana -
Roberto Resoli