Preparing for Media and

Technology Debates

Table of Contents
How to use this research package ................................................................................................................ 2
Key concepts related to Media and Technology........................................................................................... 2
Role of the media and the 5th estate in a democracy............................................................................ 2
The Internet .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Copyright ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Technologies ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Video Games and Multi-media ................................................................................................................. 3
Prepping for Impromptu ............................................................................................................................... 4
Sample articles .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Social Media Does More Harm than Good ............................................................................................... 5
Social media is blinding us to other points of view .................................................................................. 6
Gaming and Gamers.................................................................................................................................. 9
Public debates about gaming and gamers .......................................................................................... 11

How to use this research package

For impromptu debate, a research package is not information about all the possible topics. Instead, it
includes a few examples of common issues that are debated related to the theme. These articles can
help your team think about what to prepare.

Key concepts related to Media and Technology

In order to be prepared to debate this topic, youll want to be familiar with the debates around the
following key ideas. More complicated topics are more commonly used in high schools, and simpler
ones are more common in elementary. For each potential topic, discuss why there are debates around
these issues and brainstorm some basic argument.

Role of the media and the 5th estate in a democracy

Fake news and political campaigns

Outing of political figures
Role of polls and election campaigns
Getting rid of public broadcasters
Advertising harming groups like children
Stereotyping and the media

The Internet

Extremist websites and publishing users of them

The dark web
Censorship
Social media benefits and harms
Cyberbullying and hate speech
Online privacy and file sharing
Right to be forgotten online

Copyright

Ownership and fair profit

Creative commons
Schools and copyright, ie mashups etc.

Technologies

Cell phones in schools

Tougher rules for driving and cell phones
Rights to search cell phones for police
Forcing telecom companies to retain data
Spy on citizens with technology, especially profiling of certain groups

Video Games and Multi-media

Video game harms (violence, obesity etc.)

Bans and censorship
Portrayal of women and minorities

Prepping for Impromptu

This page is an overview of a process you could use to prepare to debate a topic in 15 minutes or less. In
SEDA, you will be given an impromptu topic and you cant consult anyone or anything. You need to be
able to rapidly generate ideas and plan your arguments, which works best if you have general
knowledge about a topic. The structures described here can help you find good arguments, even if your
knowledge is limited.
1. Look for Important words and decide why this debate

Actor
Actor
Actor

Topic

Actor

Actor
Actor

2. Decide what standard case this is

3. Decide if you need a model (quick plan)
a. Limitations are needed
b. Implied plan in resolution
4. Check your case for contradiction
5. Ensure you have a caseline/ case stance
a. Arguments actually prove the stance
b. It is not the same as one of your arguments
6. Check to be sure your definition is fair
a. Limits justified
b. Equal to both sides
c. Not true by definition

Sample articles
This section contains sample articles about three common media and technology debates. The
arguments you might generate practicing these topics would help you preparing for many topics about
media and technology.

Social Media Does More Harm than Good

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dianna-booher/social-media_b_5375853.html
In the next 10 years, social media as we know will go the way of the 8-track tape, disposable camera,
and fax machine. And I cant say that Im sad.
Its not that I dont enjoy interacting with online friends or that businesses havent made a valiant
effort to listen to their customers online. But heres the thing:
Every morning, my eyes pop open with the thought, I need to post. Not I need to eat, call home, pray
but post. The experts tell me it has to be done no later than 8:00 Eastern time, preferably earlier. My
second thought is, Post what? What words of wisdom do I have today? If I come up short, then I hope
my wise friends are up earlier and have written a spectacular post that day that I can share.
Then of course, there are the related tasks: writing weekly blogs and guest blogs, doing BlogTalkRadio
interviews, planning online book tours, participating in affiliate book launches, responding to reporters
questions online, catching up with whats trending on Twitter, retweeting my friends tweets, circling
over to LinkedIn to check messages and my group discussions, responding to all the Like requests,
sharing some fascinating article from HuffPost, HBR, or Forbes with a witty lead-in on Google Plus, then
checking Facebook notifications to see who said what about whom.
Do I really have this kind of time? But if I disappear from this scene for a couple of weeks, people start
emailing to ask if Ive died. So I keep posting, sharing, tweeting, and liking.
But it has to stop. Why?
Its stressful.
People have become tired of being connected 24/7, of being expected to be available to respond to an
email at a sporting event on Friday night, at commenting on an angry post on Sunday morning, at
arranging a conference call while sitting in the dentist office at 7:30 a.m. getting a cavity filled, at
retweeting the bosss PR messages during the holidays.
It reduces productivity.
Spending an hour a day on social media amounts to nine weeks a year! Nine weeks! Thats enough to
complete a couple of college courses. Some people spend twice that amount of time on social media.
Think what they could create, build, give, or learn with that time.

It costs money and it going to start costing much more as sites find new ways to monetize.
All the social media sites started out free to users. Now that users have been enticed and hooked,
Facebook has started to monetize its business pages. LinkedIn also has an upgraded plan. Before long,
all will be charging except for the very basic features. In addition to the monetization by the social media
sites (who can blame them; every business needs to make money), many individuals and businesses
now even hire marketing teams to participate for them online.
That is, the marketing team posts and responds for them online and becomes their online presence
another cost of social media. This is not to mention those sites that even extort money from businesses
to remove bad reviews from complaining customers (sometimes even up to $100k!) without allowing
the business to respond to the complainer.
It has become noise and clutter, not communication.
Individuals and small businesses used to say that the internet and social media leveled the playing field
that they could occasionally toss in a mention about their product or service on their personal pages
or blog and no one would mind. But now, everyone uses social media for that purpose. Every day, you
get messages about free webinars, free teleseminars, free BlogTalkRadio shows, free reports, free white
papers, and free downloadable ebooks. People beg you to take their giveaways. Its all noise and clutter.
It reduces creativity.
Thinking creatively with all the social media noise around you is the equivalent of writing a dissertation
in the middle of speeding traffic on a super highway. You may get the stimulation of new ideas, but
executing them becomes another matter.
Its no longer real.
Do you really have 87,000 followers on Twitter who respond when you suggest they take action? Do
you even have 500 close connections on LinkedIn who would take your call tomorrow? How many of
your 18,237 friends on Facebook would recognize your name if they saw it on a billboard?
Dont get me wrong: Im a social person. Its just that social media is fast evolving into a cacophony that
drowns out communication and drains productivity.

Social media is blinding us to other points of view

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/u-s-election-social-media-biases-1.3848120
Were you surprised by the results of last week's U.S. presidential election? If so, you're not alone. Many
people found the results were a stark contrast to what they'd been seeing in their social media feeds.
But for everyone who was shocked by the election of Donald Trump, there are equal numbers of people
who weren't surprised.
That is what's notable about the election: Everyone saw a different reality, depending on their world
views, which were amplified by social media's tendency to reinforce people's existing opinions.

This was the first U.S. presidential election in which the majority of voting adults got their news from
social media. In North America, an estimated 170 milllion users log onto Facebook each day, and 44 per
cent of U.S. adults get their news from the site.

Facebook 'error' says users are dead

But as Facebook keeps reminding us, it's not in the news business. Facebook and Twitter are in the
business of clicks and data. Their mandate isn't to deliver balanced news or information that is
representative of what is really happening in the world.
The recent slew of fake news stories suggests they're not even all that concerned with how accurate or
truthful stories are. Their priority is to give users access to the media they want. It turns out the stories
people want are the ones that align with their beliefs.
Often, a catchy headline is enough. According to a recent study from Columbia University, 59 per cent
of links shared on the internet have never actually been read.
Users tend to click links that affirm their existing opinions. "Facebook is designed to prevent you from
hearing others," says media scholar Douglas Rushkoff. "It creates a false sense of agreement, a
'confirmation bias' when you are only seeing stuff that agrees with you or makes the other side look
completely stupid."
The trouble is, when your pre-existing opinions shape the news you see, you're not getting an accurate
picture of what is really happening.
Two nights before the election, on the CBS program 60 Minutes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said
the election was about people wanting to be heard. Unfortunately, while everyone wanted to be heard,
no one wanted to listen. Thanks to social media, those who previously felt unheard now had a platform
to share their views, but more often than not, the only ones listening were those who already agreed.
'A soapbox culture'
"We've developed a soapbox culture," says Elamin Abdelmahmoud, editor of news curation for
BuzzFeed News. "We get to share what we want to share, and have the desire to be heard while
forgetting that everyone else has that desire."
By design, platforms like Facebook and Twitter promote this kind of soapbox behaviour. As we
encounter news and media through the self-selected group of friends that make up our social networks,
we subject ourselves to what's become known as the filter bubble, whereby we come across
information from people who think like us and more often than not vote like us.

Only Facebook knows how it spreads fake news

As a result, despite having more access to information than ever, we're not engaging with points of view
that differ from our own. In a recent Pew Research study, 79 per cent of social media users said they
have never changed their views on a social or political issue because of something they saw on social
media.

It's not just self-selected social network that creates this echo chamber. Facebook filters the news we
see on the site, by suggesting media like the ads we see that is tailored to our preferences. If
you're curious to know what Facebook thinks you'll like (or what your political learnings are) you can go
into the ad preferences and see how they tailor content to you based on your interests and opinions.
In the election, filters blinded half the population to what was hidden in plain sight.
All the major U.S. newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, and that confirmed the world view of her
supporters. But the comments under the articles in all those news outlets were full of opposing views.
'Don't read the comments'
Many of these comments were vile and hateful, and "don't read the comments" has become a coping
mantra for dealing with online toxicity. But by doing so, we choose not to see what is right in front of us.
No doubt, the polls and predictions contributed to the election result surprise, too. Social media users
were cushioned in their own world views, and got solace and confidence knowing their perspective was
backed up with data. But data is not infallible. Ask the wrong question, and you get the wrong answers.
So, instead of the discomfort of breaking out of bubbles, we opted for the comfort of agreement, of
sameness, even if what we were hoping for, fighting for, was the preservation of diversity.
How do we begin to reconcile what Harvard Neiman Lab's Joshua Benton calls "segregated social
universes"?
A researcher of technology and society at Microsoft Research, danah boyd, who spells her name
without capital letters, says that while many critics think that the answer is to get rid of social media,
"we need to actively work to understand complexity, respectfully engage people where they're at, and
build the infrastructure to enable people to hear and appreciate different perspectives. This is what it
means to be truly informed."
Let's shape our tools
The xenophobic, racist and sexist voices that some found disturbing during the U.S. election
campaign didn't come out of nowhere. They were there all along, but perhaps confined to someone
else's bubble. If some people were surprised by them, it was probably because the filters and data
designed to please us had weeded them out.
Even Mark Zuckerberg, who has adamantly maintained that Facebook is not a news provider, responded
to the election saying he is deeply concerned about how Facebook could affect democracy, and the
company could do a better job of distributing news.
"There's a real weight to the idea of letting people who are programmers and coders and engineers
design how we interact with each other," says Abdelmahmoud. "They will do it with a painful attention
to strict logic that defies, at least to some extent, the social norms of being in person."
He suggests that we remember what a big role listening plays in the way we engage offline.

"We can listen to understand, not listen to respond. That's really difficult behaviour to encourage, since
platforms do better when you contribute and respond, so of course they'll encourage the responding."

Gaming and Gamers

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/gaming-and-gamers/
In recent years, major debates have emerged about the societal impact of video games and the effect
they have on the people who play them. Among the disputes: whether men predominate in gaming;
whether games portray women and minorities poorly; whether violent games promote aggressive
behavior; and whether games encourage positive attributes such as problem-solving skills,
communication and teamwork.
A new survey from Pew Research Center covers these and other issues. The key results:
Equal numbers of men and women ever play video games, although men are twice as likely to call
themselves gamers

About half of American adults (49%) ever play

video games on a computer, TV, game console, or portable device like a cellphone, and 10% consider
themselves to be gamers.
A majority of American adults (60%) believe that most people who play video games are men a view
that is shared by 57% of women who themselves play video games. But the data illustrates that in some
ways this assumption is wrong: A nearly identical share of men and women report ever playing video
games (50% of men and 48% of women).

However, men are more than twice as likely as women to call themselves gamers (15% vs. 6%). And
among those ages 18 to 29, 33% of men say the term gamer describes them well, more than three
times the proportion of young women (9%) who say the same.
Four-in-ten adults believe that violence in video games is related to violent behavior
Americans are relatively divided over whether there is a possible link between violent games and actual
violence. A slight majority of the public (53%) disagree with the statement people who play violent
video games are more likely to be violent themselves. But 40% agree that there is a relationship
between video game violence and violent behavior. Some 32% of those who play video games
themselves see a connection between games and violence, along with 26% of self-identified gamers.
Women are more likely than men to agree (by a 47% to 31% margin) that people who play violent
games are more likely to be violent themselves.
Among the general public, attitudes toward games are complex and often uncertain

The public is closely split on some

other major debates surrounding the content of games and their impact on users. For instance, a
quarter of all adults (26%) think most video games are a waste of time, while 24% think most games
are not a waste of time. One-third think some games are a waste of time while others are not. And 16%
of the public is unsure what to think about this issue.
A similar pattern is evident on the question of whether or not most games help develop good problem
solving and strategic thinking skills. Some 17% of adults think this is true of most games, while 16%
think this is not true of most games. Additionally, 47% think this is true of some games but not others,
and 20% are not sure.
Asked whether games promote teamwork and communication, 23% of adults do not think most games
promote these traits more than double the 10% who think most games dopromote these qualities.
Some 37% think some games but not others promote teamwork and communication, while 28% say
they are unsure. Similarly, 30% of adults do not think most games are a better form of entertainment
than TV, almost triple the 11% who think this is true.
10

The public is much less certain on

other aspects of gaming. Fully 47% of all adults are unsure if most video games portray minorities
poorly, while 40% are unsure if most video games portray women poorly.
Compared with those who do not play video games, game players are more likely to agree with the
positives and disagree with the negatives associated with games
Those who play video games themselves are more likely than non-game players to think positively about
gaming:

25% of those who play games (and 39% of self-identified gamers) think most video games help develop
good problem solving and strategic thinking skills, compared with just 8% of those who do not play
games.
17% of those who play video games (and 34% of those who call themselves gamers) think most games
are a better form of entertainment than TV. This compares with just 5% of those who do not play games.
15% of video game players (and 28% of self-described gamers) think most games promote teamwork
and communication. Just 6% of those without gaming experience agree.
Game players are also particularly likely to disagree with negative portrayals of video games:
35% of those who play video games (and 53% of those who identify as gamers) think most games
are not a waste of time. This compares with just 13% of those who do not play video games.
33% of those who play video games (and 46% of self-described gamers) do not think minorities are
portrayed poorly in most games. At the same time, 9% of game players (and 10% of gamers) think most
games do portray minorities poorly. Fully 61% of those who do not play video games are unsure what to
think on this issue.
26% of those who play video games (and 35% of self-identified gamers) do not think women are
portrayed poorly in most games. Meanwhile, 16% of game players (and 24% of self-identified gamers)
think most games do portray women poorly. A majority of those who do not play video games (55%) are
unsure what to think on this topic.

Public debates about gaming and gamers

Of the many conversations about video games in the public discourse, two themes have drawn
particular attention: the number of women who play games and participate in the gaming community,
as well as the question of whether some video games encourage violent behavior by the people who
11

play them. The former drew extensive attention during the ongoing Gamergate controversy, a debate
centered on the identity politics of the gaming community. The latter is a recurring conversation in the
aftermath of violent events in which the perpetrator was known to play violent video games.
Most Americans including a majority of female game players believe that most video game players
are men
Fully 60% of American adults agree with the statement most people who play video games are men.
Just 31% disagree with this statement, while another 9% dont know if it is true or not. Contextually,
men and women are equally likely to say they ever play video games, while men are twice as likely as
women to consider themselves gamers.

Interestingly, men and women are equally likely to

assume that most video game players are men regardless of whether they themselves play games. Some
59% of men (and 63% of men who play video games) agree with this statement, nearly identical to the
61% of women (and 57% of women who play video games) who say the same.
Young adults are particularly likely to agree that most people who play video games are men. Fully 71%
of 18- to 29-year-olds say this, a figure that is substantially higher than every other age group. And while
young men are more likely than young women to play games themselves, there is no difference in
opinion between the overall populations of men and women ages 18 to 29 about the gender makeup of
the gaming population.
At the same time, opinions within the gaming community closely mirror those of the general population.
Fully 60% of those who play games (and 58% of self-identified gamers) agree that most people who
play video games are men, and men and women who play games are also equally likely to agree (63% of
male game players and 57% of female game players).

12

A substantial minority believe that those who play violent video games are more likely to be violent
themselves

When it comes to the link between video game

violence and actual violence, 40% of Americans agree that people who play violent video games are
more likely to be violent themselves. A slight 53% majority disagree with that statement, while 7% say
they dont know.
In contrast to their views about men in gaming, men and women have highly divergent opinions on the
impact of violence and video games. Women are more likely than men to agree (by a 47% to 31%
margin) that people who play violent games are more likely to be violent themselves. Men, on the other
hand, are more likely to disagree (by a 62% to 44% margin) that there is a link between these behaviors.
Along with men, young adults are relatively likely to deny a link between video game violence and realworld violence. For instance, 71% of 18- to 29-year-olds disagree that violent video games are related to
violent behavior, compared with 59% of those ages 30 to 49 and 40% of those 50 and older. On the
other hand, older adults are more likely to see a link between video games and violent behavior. Almost
half (48%) of adults ages 50 or older agree that people who play violent video games are more likely to
be violent themselves.
Hispanics are more likely than whites or blacks to agree that people who play violent video games are
more likely to be violent themselves (52% vs. 39% of blacks and 37% of whites). Those with lower

13

educational attainment and household income are also more likely to see a connection between violent
games and actual violence.
Most people who play video games do not believe violent games are related to violent behavior 64%
disagree that people who play violent video games are more likely to be violent themselves. But about a
third of game players (32%) agree with this statement, including 26% of self-identified gamers.
Much like in the general population, men and women who play video games differ in their opinions on
the link between violent play and violent behavior. Female game players are almost twice as likely as
male game players to agree that people who play violent video games are more likely to be violent
themselves, 42% vs. 22%. On the other hand, fully 76% of male game players disagree with this notion.
This compares with 52% of female game players who disagree, a proportion that is substantially lower
than their male counterparts, but still a majority.
As gaming has gained exposure to a wider audience and increasingly become part of the cultural
mainstream, the content of games themselves has come under increased scrutiny. To test public
attitudes toward some of these ongoing arguments, the survey presented Americans with some
potential impacts of games and asked whether they consider these attributes to be true of most
games, not true of most games, or whether they apply to some games but not others.
Overall, the public has mixed feelings about certain aspects of video games and their relative benefits
and drawbacks. The results show:

Video games are a waste of

time About one-quarter of all adults (26%) think most video games are a waste of time, while a
similar number (24%) do not think this is true of most games. One-third thinks some video games are a
waste of time while others are not, and 16% are not sure. Whites (28%), those ages 65 or older (32%),
and those with at least a high school diploma (27%) are more likely than others to think most video
games are a waste of time.

14

Video games help develop good problem solving and strategic thinking skills Some 17% of adults
think most video games promote problem solving and strategic thinking skills, but a roughly equal
proportion, 16%, thinks this is not true for most games. Meanwhile, 47% say some games develop these
skills while others do not, and 20% are unsure. Those under age 50 are more than twice as likely as
those 50 or older to think most game develops problem solving and strategic thinking skills (22% vs.
10%), while men are slightly more likely than women to think so (19% vs. 14%).
Video games promote teamwork and communication Almost a quarter of all adults (23%) think
most video games do not promote teamwork and communication, more than double the 10% who think
most games do promote these qualities. However, a plurality (37%) thinks this is true of some games but
not others, and 28% are unsure. Men and younger adults are more likely than women and older adults
to believe most video games promote these qualities. Some 17% of those ages 18 to 29 think teamwork
and communication are promoted by games (compared with 9% of those 30 and older), along with 12%
of men (vs. 9% of women).
Video games are a better form of entertainment than watching TV Three-in-ten adults do not think
video games are a better form of entertainment than television, almost triple the 11% who think most
video games are indeed a better form of entertainment than TV. Still, a third of all adults (34%) think this
is true of some video games but not others, while 24% are not sure. Almost a quarter of those ages 18 to
29 say most video games are a better form of entertainment than TV (24% vs. 7% of those 30 and older),
as do 14% of men vs. 8% of women.
For some aspects of gaming such as the portrayal of minorities and women in video games the public
is much less certain:

Video games portray minority

groups poorly Fully 47% of adults say they are not sure whether video games portray minority groups
poorly. Almost a quarter of all adults (23%) think most video games do not portray minority groups
poorly, more than double the 9% of adults who think minority groups are portrayed poorly in most
games. Some 20% think minority groups are portrayed poorly in some games but not others.
Interestingly, just 13% of blacks and 11% of Hispanics think most video games portray minority groups
poorly, compared with 7% of whites. Young adults are slightly more likely than their older counterparts
to think most games portray minorities poorly 13% of those 18 to 29 say so, compared with 7% of
those 50 or older.
Video games portray women poorly Similarly, 40% of Americans say they are not sure whether
video games portray women poorly. Another 18% say this is not true for most games, while 14% say
this is true for most games. More than a quarter of all adults (27%) say this is true for some video games
15

but not others. Notably, the responses to this question show no differences by gender. Young adults are
split on the portrayal of women 24% each of those 18 to 29 think most video games do and do
not portray women poorly.
Compared with those who do not play video games, game players tend to agree with more positive
depictions of gaming
While the public is largely uncertain what to think about video games, within the gaming community
there is more consensus. Put simply, people who play video games are more likely to respond to the
positive aspects of their pastime while they disagree with certain negative portrayals. And certain
groups of game players namely men and young adults hold particularly strong and affirming beliefs
about gaming.

16

Among the benefits that game

players are more likely to value:
25% of those who play games (and 39% of self-identified gamers) think most video games help develop
good problem solving and strategic thinking skills, compared with just 8% of those who do not play
games. Among game players, men are more likely than women to think most games develop problem
solving and strategic thinking skills (28% vs. 22%). Likewise, 31% of game-players ages 18 to 29 think this
is true of most games, compared with 18% of those 50 and older.
17% of those who play games (and 34% of self-described gamers) say most video games are a better
form of entertainment than watching TV. This is triple the proportion of non-game players (5%) who
say the same. Among those who play video games, men are more likely than women to say most games
are better entertainment than TV (23% vs. 10%), along with 31% of game players ages 18 to 29.
15% of those who play video games (and 28% of self-described gamers) think most video games
promote teamwork and communication. This compares with just 6% of those who do not play video
17

games. Again, men and those ages 18 to 29 who play video games are more likely than their
counterparts to think most games promote teamwork and communication. Some 19% of male game
players think so (compared with 12% of female game players), as do 21% of game players ages 18 to 29
(compared with 11% of those 50 and older).

Additionally, game players are

more likely than others to shy away from negative assertions about the impact of video games,
including:
35% of those who play games (and 53% of self-described gamers) do not think most video games are a
waste of time. Men who play games are particularly likely to feel this way 40% say games are not a
waste of time, compared with 30% of female game players. Younger game players also tend to feel
relatively strongly about this issue fully 43% of game players ages 18 to 29 say most games are not a
waste of time, compared with 31% of those 30 and older.
33% of game players (and 46% of self-described gamers) do not think most video games portray
minority groups poorly. Minority game players are more likely to agree with this statement than whites.
Some 15% of black and 12% of Hispanic game players feel that most video games portray minority
groups poorly, compared with 7% of white players. At the same time, 39% of Hispanics and 24% of
18

blacks who play games feel that most games do not portray minorities poorly. And once again, men are
particularly likely to disagree with negative views of games: 36% of men who play say most games
do not portray minorities poorly, compared with 30% of women.
One-quarter (26%) of video game players (and 35% of self-described gamers) disagree that most video
games portray women poorly. Still, 16% of game players (and 24% of gamers) think most video
games do portray women in a negative light. Some 34% of those who play video games (and 30% of selfidentified gamers) say this is true of some games but not others. Interestingly, there are few gender
differences among those who play video games women who play games are somewhat more likely to
be unsure than men (27% vs. 21%).
Despite their relatively positive views toward video games compared with non-game players, a
substantial portion of game players have mixed feelings on many of these issues. For instance, 55% of
video game players think some games develop good problem solving and strategic thinking skills, while
other games do not. Similarly, 37% of game players feel that some video games are a waste of time,
even while others are not. Finally, even people who play games are not always sure what to think for
example, 31% of game players say they are unsure whether or not most games portray minority groups
poorly.

Global internet surveillance, censorship rising, report finds

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/internet-surveillance-1.3292887
Governments around the world are expanding censorship and surveillance of the Internet as overall
online freedom declined for the fifth consecutive year, according to a report from a group that tracks
democracy and human rights.
Nearly half of 65 countries examined have seen online freedom weaken since June 2014, Freedom
House said in an annual survey released on Wednesday.
One of the steepest declines occurred in France, which passed a law that many observers likened to the
U.S. Patriot Act in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks earlier this year, according to the
report.

More state power, not free speech, the likeliest we-are-Charlie result

Ukraine, mired in a territorial conflict with Russia, and Libya also experienced sharp drops.
The report highlighted China as the country with the most severe restrictions on internet freedom,
followed by Syria and Iran. Sri Lanka and Zambia, both of which recently underwent changes in
government leadership, were credited with making the biggest improvements in overall online freedom.
New laws expand surveillance
Overall, 14 countries adopted laws in the past year to expand government surveillance, the report
found.

19

Bucking that trend, the United States passed legislation in June that effectively terminates the National
Security Agency's controversial bulk collection of U.S. phone metadata, a program exposed in 2013 by
former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Edward Snowden promotes global treaty to curtail surveillance

The new law was an "incremental step" toward digital surveillance reform, according to the report's
authors.
The report also found that critical comments about government authorities were most likely to prompt
censorship, and that private companies in 42 of the 65 countries were forced to delete or restrict online
content.
In addition, many governments took more aggressive stances against encryption and online anonymity
technologies this year.

Why the alt-right can't be ignored, much less censored

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/alt-right-censorship-keith-boag-1.3855585
What blissful days these must be for the alt-right.
Their preferred candidate for president is transitioning into the White House.
Their champion, Steve Bannon, formerly CEO of the most mainstream media platform for alt-right voices
on the internet, Breitbart.com, has secured a place in the West Wing at elbow's length from the new
president.
And the conventional media seem to be stumbling around trying to decide whether to explain the altright, ignore it, censor it or refuse to even speak its name.
Josh Marshall, at Talking Points Memo, fears the very term "alt-right" is a sinister "branding move" to
give cover to racists. Instead, he suggests journalists should use phrases such as "the alt-right, a white
nationalist, anti-Semitic movement."
The alt-right abbreviation refers to the alternative right, a term most often attributed to Richard
Spencer. You may have seen his name recently. He's a white nationalist about whom much has been
written since Twitter suspended his and other supposed alt-right accounts on Tuesday in a crackdown
on what it considers hate speech.
Was blocking a blunder?
There has been much discussion about whether that was a smart move and, indeed, so far it looks like a
blunder. The only payoff seems to be for the alt-right who, predictably, is delighted to accuse Twitter of
censorship.

20

Spencer's thoughts can still be found all over social media, YouTube and even the established media. But
now, we should presume he's also happily reveling in his new status as a victim of what he calls
"corporate Stalinism."
"There is a great purge going on, and they are purging people based on their views," he says in a video
posted after the Twitter ousting.
It's no coincidence this has happened in the wake of Trump's election. The alt-right is skilled at social
media; social media had a role in Trump's victory, so some of its owners see Trump's success as their
failure.
But to members of the alt-right, Twitter's attack on their voices only proves the argument that big
corporate media always act to stifle dissent.
When media move in a different direction and try to unpack what the alt-right means to understand
and explain it the result can be just as unsatisfying.

'Post-truth' selected as word of the year by Oxford, beating out 'alt-right'

Twitter CEO apologizes for allowing white supremacist ad

This week, NPR invited Breitbart.com senior editor Joel Pollak onto its morning program to share some
of his insights about his former boss. When the host asked why Bannon made Breitbart.com, in
Bannon's own words "the platform for the alt-right," Pollak seemed to deny the premise.
"The only alt-right article we have is a single article out of tens of thousands of articles, which is a
journalistic article about the alt-right," he said. "[The article] basically went into this movement and
tried to figure out what it was about. That's not racist. That's journalism."

Bannon has acknowledged that the alt-right may attract some racists, homophobes and anti-Semites,
but says he does not share those opinions. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)
That answer is disingenuous in every respect.
The journalistic article he refers to, An establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right, is a smug
and flattering defence of the movement and a worthwhile read.
In a self-aggrandizing way (co-author Milo Yiannopoulos is one of the alt-right movement's most
prominent proponents), the piece shines light on what it calls a "dangerously bright" and "fearsomely
intelligent" mix of renegades, mostly white males, who object to "the established political consensus in
some form or another."
Juvenile pranksters?
It's worth reading to understand why the alt-right can't be ignored and what the terms of engaging in
battle with it are.

21

Its authors concede there are Nazi elements to the alt-right, but they argue Nazis are an unpopular
minority in an amorphous group and aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of the movement.
What should be taken seriously, they say, are the intellectual arguments behind the alt-right that are a
pushback against decades of what they consider to be the left's smothering of legitimate conversations
about race, immigration and gender.
Some of those ideas come from familiar oldsters (H.L. Mencken, Pat Buchanan), but most of the alt-right
seems to be youngsters.

Has Trump given 'a shot of adrenalin' to Canadian racists?

Trump urged to dump 'champion of racial divison' Bannon

The alt-right includes a loose collection of juvenile pranksters out for a lark online, Yiannopoulos and his
co-author, Allum Bokhari, argue. The little scamps like to provoke, and when they see boundaries
around social and political taboos, their instinct is to cross those boundaries and strike a blow against
political correctness. They might make jokes about the Holocaust, for instance.
Probably the article's most chilling insight is that the young people of the alt-right are not sincerely racist
but they do think racism can be fun. Yes, fun.
"Millennials aren't old enough to remember the Second World War or the horrors of the Holocaust," the
authors write. "They are barely old enough to remember Rwanda or 9/11. Racism for them is a monster
under the bed, a story told by their parents to frighten them into being good little children."
Can that really be true?
If it is, then those who fear the alt-right is a slippery slope back to the worst horrors of the 20th century
are only fooling themselves if they believe naming the threat makes any difference.
It can't be censored, ignored or wished away.

22