It is not the first instance when&nbsp;China had to eat crow because of its propaganda. Take for example the numerous times when top Chinese ministers thought it was apt to speak in favour of Huawei while defending the conglomerate's association with the Chinese communist party.

There have also been instances where China was caught red-handed trying sell clips from Hollywood movies as its Air Force drill.

So many boomerangs later, why does China still indulge or devour propaganda?&nbsp;Over the years, propaganda has become an essential tool for the survival of the Chinese Communist Party.

In 1945&nbsp;Mao Zedong said: "We should carry on constant propaganda among the people."

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-propaganda-is-chinas-favorite-tool-311466/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Seven decades on, the leaders of China are following in Mao's footsteps. Propaganda continues to be China's favourite tool be&nbsp;it for promoting the Communist Party, the military, Chinese orthodoxy or curbing dissent - at home and outside.

Propaganda is the safest bet while lying. It also is a very handy tool when covering the dirt. The Wuhan virus is an example.

When one shady lab and one wet market whitewashed an entire year for the world, China posted videos of the Chinese military delivering aid overseas. Not a word was said about the&nbsp;aid being faulty.

When the US questioned Beijing over its mishandling of the coronavirus. It replied with a lego video.&nbsp;When the world criticised China for quashing the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement, it&nbsp;scripted a video of the global media coverage on "Black Lives Matter" protest.

There was not a single frame on Taiwan, Tibet or Hong Kong.&nbsp;

Propaganda is the CCP's ventilator. Fake news is intrinsic to its survival. Facts, on the other hands, are poisonous. PLA propaganda videos are&nbsp;an example.&nbsp;The videos project the idea of the PLA as an invincible force -&nbsp;that's propaganda but&nbsp;the fact is the PLA has no combat experience.

But Beijing cannot tell you this. It goes to any lengths to hide this truth. Back in 2011, China tried to pass off a video from Tom Cruise starer 'Top Gun' as an Air Force drill.

It&nbsp;was an F-5 being passed off as a J-10 and of course, China was called out. History repeated itself a couple of days ago.

&nbsp;A video resurfaced that claimed the Chinese had administered oxygen to the Indian troops during the Galwan clash. It turns out, the video was from 2017.

There is another takeaway from this example. The role of individuals as propaganda machines.

This Twitter handle, 
<img alt="akj" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e6daf95d-3391-4601-9cb9-0efc21b602ab" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/sajk.JPG" /> 
Her bio is vague, but bias crystal clear.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Days after Indian govt announced creation of Ladakh as a separate Union Territory, on September 11 2019, PLA told Indian patrolling border troops to go back from China side of LAC on north bank of Pangong Lake. 10 Indian security personnel were injured n 3 army boats were damaged <a href="https://t.co/LR7lfwIJ3t">pic.twitter.com/LR7lfwIJ3t</a>
— Eva Zheng 郑怡斌 عائشة (@evazhengll) <a href="https://twitter.com/evazhengll/status/1280361239588360192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

India apparently occupied Chinese land in Ladakh.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
According to <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@narendramodi</a> ji, "the clash didn't happen in Indian side", so Indian army crossed LAC unarmed to China side, indeed they were "brave", though unreasonable. <a href="https://t.co/GyifjG0qmf">https://t.co/GyifjG0qmf</a>
— Eva Zheng 郑怡斌 عائشة (@evazhengll) <a href="https://twitter.com/evazhengll/status/1280412180374884354?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Indian troops apparently crossed over to the Chinese side. And have a look at the latest tweet.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
A combined arms brigade under PLA 81st Group Army receives Type 99A MBT on Tianshan Mountain Xinjiang. <a href="https://t.co/56flEmXAlk">pic.twitter.com/56flEmXAlk</a>
— Eva Zheng 郑怡斌 عائشة (@evazhengll) <a href="https://twitter.com/evazhengll/status/1280452378660081665?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Also leading China's propaganda campaign is what China calls news agencies and the Global Times takes the cake.

It's latest editorial talks about the politicisation of Hong Kong security law. An 836-word-long article which has not a single mention of the Sino-British agreement or the 50-year promise.

Similar reports can be found in Xinhua or CCTV or any Chinese media agency.&nbsp; It blindly follows&nbsp;the instructions of their supreme leader.

According to Chinese President Xi Jinping, "spread positive propaganda for the correct guidance of public opinion".

It is not the first instance when China had to eat crow because of its propaganda. Take for example the numerous times when top Chinese ministers thought it was apt to speak in favour of Huawei while defending the conglomerate's association with the Chinese communist party.

It is not the first instance when China had to eat crow because of its propaganda. Take for example the numerous times when top Chinese ministers thought it was apt to speak in favour of Huawei while defending the conglomerate's association with the Chinese communist party. There have also been instances where China was caught red-handed trying sell clips from Hollywood movies as its Air Force drill. So many boomerangs later, why does China still indulge or devour propaganda? Over the years, propaganda has become an essential tool for the survival of the Chinese Communist Party. In 1945 Mao Zedong said: "We should carry on constant propaganda among the people." Seven decades on, the leaders of China are following in Mao's footsteps. Propaganda continues to be China's favourite tool be it for promoting the Communist Party, the military, Chinese orthodoxy or curbing dissent - at home and outside. Propaganda is the safest bet while lying. It also is a very handy tool when covering the dirt. The Wuhan virus is an example. When one shady lab and one wet market whitewashed an entire year for the world, China posted videos of the Chinese military delivering aid overseas. Not a word was said about the aid being faulty. When the US questioned Beijing over its mishandling of the coronavirus. It replied with a lego video. When the world criticised China for quashing the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement, it scripted a video of the global media coverage on "Black Lives Matter" protest. There was not a single frame on Taiwan, Tibet or Hong Kong. Propaganda is the CCP's ventilator. Fake news is intrinsic to its survival. Facts, on the other hands, are poisonous. PLA propaganda videos are an example. The videos project the idea of the PLA as an invincible force - that's propaganda but the fact is the PLA has no combat experience. But Beijing cannot tell you this. It goes to any lengths to hide this truth. Back in 2011, China tried to pass off a video from Tom Cruise starer 'Top Gun' as an Air Force drill. It was an F-5 being passed off as a J-10 and of course, China was called out. History repeated itself a couple of days ago. A video resurfaced that claimed the Chinese had administered oxygen to the Indian troops during the Galwan clash. It turns out, the video was from 2017. There is another takeaway from this example. The role of individuals as propaganda machines. This Twitter handle, Her bio is vague, but bias crystal clear. Days after Indian govt announced creation of Ladakh as a separate Union Territory, on September 11 2019, PLA told Indian patrolling border troops to go back from China side of LAC on north bank of Pangong Lake. 10 Indian security personnel were injured n 3 army boats were damaged pic.twitter.com/LR7lfwIJ3t — Eva Zheng 郑怡斌 عائشة (@evazhengll) July 7, 2020 × India apparently occupied Chinese land in Ladakh. According to @narendramodi ji, "the clash didn't happen in Indian side", so Indian army crossed LAC unarmed to China side, indeed they were "brave", though unreasonable. https://t.co/GyifjG0qmf — Eva Zheng 郑怡斌 عائشة (@evazhengll) July 7, 2020 × Indian troops apparently crossed over to the Chinese side. And have a look at the latest tweet. A combined arms brigade under PLA 81st Group Army receives Type 99A MBT on Tianshan Mountain Xinjiang. pic.twitter.com/56flEmXAlk — Eva Zheng 郑怡斌 عائشة (@evazhengll) July 7, 2020 × Also leading China's propaganda campaign is what China calls news agencies and the Global Times takes the cake. It's latest editorial talks about the politicisation of Hong Kong security law. An 836-word-long article which has not a single mention of the Sino-British agreement or the 50-year promise. Similar reports can be found in Xinhua or CCTV or any Chinese media agency. It blindly follows the instructions of their supreme leader. According to Chinese President Xi Jinping, "spread positive propaganda for the correct guidance of public opinion".

Propaganda: Chinese Communist Party's key survival tool

88,000 Saudi-backed accounts have been banned by Twitter over peddling propaganda. These accounts were aimed to boost the Saudi government's popularity. #SaudiArabia #UAE #Twitter #WION

88,000 Saudi-backed accounts banned by Twitter over peddling propaganda

Singapore's new law to combat <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-closes-thousands-of-accounts-worldwide-250847">"fake news"</a> came into effect today despite criticism from tech giants and activists, who labelled the tough rules a "chilling" attempt to stifle dissent.

The law gives government ministers powers to order social media sites to put warnings next to posts authorities deem to be false, and in extreme cases get them taken down.

Facebook, Twitter and Google -&nbsp;who have their Asian headquarters in Singapore - were given temporary exemptions from a handful of provisions in the act to give them time to adapt.

If an action is judged to be malicious and damaging to Singapore's interests, companies could be hit with fines of up to $720,000, while individuals could face jail terms of up to 10 years.

Authorities in the tightly controlled country - long criticised for restricting civil liberties - insist the measures are necessary to stop the circulation of falsehoods that could sow divisions in society and erode trust in institutions.

But the laws have sparked outrage from rights groups, who fear they could stifle online discussion, tech companies and media organisations.

Journalist and activist Kirsten Han, who is the Editor-in-Chief of independent media outlet New Naratif, said the legislation was "extremely worrying".&nbsp;

"It’s such a broad law that it's hard to predict how it's going to be applied. What's of immediate concern is the chilling effect and the further entrenchment of self-censorship," she told AFP.

After the law was passed in May, Google said it was concerned the legislation will "hurt innovation and the growth of the digital information ecosystem".

A group of nearly 100 academics worldwide also expressed concern over the law, warning earlier this year that it could threaten academic freedom.

Activists fear the law could be used to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-facebook-twitter-rapped-for-not-doing-enough-in-european-union-fake-news-fight-219412">crackdown on dissent</a> in the run-up to elections in Singapore, which are expected within months.

Singapore's new law to combat "fake news" came into effect today despite criticism from tech giants and activists, who labelled the tough rules a "chilling" attempt to stifle dissent.

Singapore's new law to combat "fake news" came into effect today despite criticism from tech giants and activists, who labelled the tough rules a "chilling" attempt to stifle dissent. The law gives government ministers powers to order social media sites to put warnings next to posts authorities deem to be false, and in extreme cases get them taken down. Facebook, Twitter and Google - who have their Asian headquarters in Singapore - were given temporary exemptions from a handful of provisions in the act to give them time to adapt. If an action is judged to be malicious and damaging to Singapore's interests, companies could be hit with fines of up to $720,000, while individuals could face jail terms of up to 10 years. Authorities in the tightly controlled country - long criticised for restricting civil liberties - insist the measures are necessary to stop the circulation of falsehoods that could sow divisions in society and erode trust in institutions. But the laws have sparked outrage from rights groups, who fear they could stifle online discussion, tech companies and media organisations. Journalist and activist Kirsten Han, who is the Editor-in-Chief of independent media outlet New Naratif, said the legislation was "extremely worrying". "It’s such a broad law that it's hard to predict how it's going to be applied. What's of immediate concern is the chilling effect and the further entrenchment of self-censorship," she told AFP. After the law was passed in May, Google said it was concerned the legislation will "hurt innovation and the growth of the digital information ecosystem". A group of nearly 100 academics worldwide also expressed concern over the law, warning earlier this year that it could threaten academic freedom. Activists fear the law could be used to crackdown on dissent in the run-up to elections in Singapore, which are expected within months.

Singapore's 'fake news' law takes effect as critics sound alarm

Twitter said on Friday that it has closed down thousands of accounts across the world for spreading fake news as well as pro-government propaganda in places like the United Arab Emirates, China, and Spain.

Accounts coming from China seeking to sow discord among protesters in Hong Kong were closed down, as were accounts amplifying a pro-Saudi message coming from Egypt and the United Arab Emirates directed at Qatar and Yemen, Twitter said.&nbsp;

Fake news accounts were also suspended in Spain and Ecuador.

The information release is part of the company's push to improve understanding of how its platform is used by state actors to manipulate public opinion.

Twitter said they had identified 4,302 accounts based in China "attempting to sow discord about the protest movement in Hong Kong".&nbsp;

This follows the identification in August of more than 200,000 fake accounts in China engaged in fueling public discord in Hong Kong.

The announcement follows <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/facebook-shuts-dozens-of-myanmar-social-media-accounts-over-inauthentic-behavior-244753">Facebook's removal of fake accounts</a> based in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE last month for posting misinformation about regional hotspots including Libya, Sudan, and Yemen.

Twitter said on Friday that it has closed down thousands of accounts across the world for spreading fake news as well as pro-government propaganda in places like the United Arab Emirates, China, and Spain.

Twitter said on Friday that it has closed down thousands of accounts across the world for spreading fake news as well as pro-government propaganda in places like the United Arab Emirates, China, and Spain. Accounts coming from China seeking to sow discord among protesters in Hong Kong were closed down, as were accounts amplifying a pro-Saudi message coming from Egypt and the United Arab Emirates directed at Qatar and Yemen, Twitter said. Fake news accounts were also suspended in Spain and Ecuador. The information release is part of the company's push to improve understanding of how its platform is used by state actors to manipulate public opinion. Twitter said they had identified 4,302 accounts based in China "attempting to sow discord about the protest movement in Hong Kong". This follows the identification in August of more than 200,000 fake accounts in China engaged in fueling public discord in Hong Kong. The announcement follows Facebook's removal of fake accounts based in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE last month for posting misinformation about regional hotspots including Libya, Sudan, and Yemen.

Twitter closes thousands of accounts worldwide in a bid to curb fake news

India rejects Pakistani Navy video as propaganda

Even as the news of disruption caused by pro-Pakistan Khalistani demonstration in front of Indian mission comes from London and Washington, sources in New Delhi have said that currently the worst anti-India propaganda in five years is underway globally backed by Islamabad.&nbsp;

On January 26 a group 10-15 Khalistani disruptors tried to burn the Indian national flag in the presence of Pakistani media channels in Washington but the protest fizzled out due to a large number of Indian community members.&nbsp;

Not only Washington but also in London, Pakistan backed anti-India protestors tried to create disruptions.&nbsp;

In London, on January 26 a protest took place in which the Indian flag was burnt. Following this New Delhi strongly raised the matter with London.

It is believed that Pakistan is miffed with its growing isolation led by countries in South Asia.

Remember the SAARC summit of 2016 in Islamabad was cancelled after countries in the region boycotted the event due to Islamabad's support to terror in the region. After India's withdrawal Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka also issued statements boycotting the summit.

Last year an anti-India Khalistani rally was organised by Pakistani origin Lord Nazir Ahmed in Trafalgar Square of London.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, in Canada also, many anti-India events were organised by pro- Khalistan groups last year.

According to Canada government report, the country itself faces threat from Khalistanis. The 2018 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada said," Canada continues to face threats from individuals inspired to commit violence based on other forms of extremism, including from right-wing, Shia Islamist, and Sikh (Khalistani) extremists"

Even as the news of disruption caused by pro-Pakistan Khalistani demonstration in front of Indian mission comes from London and Washington, sources in New Delhi have said that currently the worst anti-India propaganda in five years is underway globally backed by Islamabad.

Even as the news of disruption caused by pro-Pakistan Khalistani demonstration in front of Indian mission comes from London and Washington, sources in New Delhi have said that currently the worst anti-India propaganda in five years is underway globally backed by Islamabad. On January 26 a group 10-15 Khalistani disruptors tried to burn the Indian national flag in the presence of Pakistani media channels in Washington but the protest fizzled out due to a large number of Indian community members. Not only Washington but also in London, Pakistan backed anti-India protestors tried to create disruptions. In London, on January 26 a protest took place in which the Indian flag was burnt. Following this New Delhi strongly raised the matter with London. It is believed that Pakistan is miffed with its growing isolation led by countries in South Asia. Remember the SAARC summit of 2016 in Islamabad was cancelled after countries in the region boycotted the event due to Islamabad's support to terror in the region. After India's withdrawal Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka also issued statements boycotting the summit. Last year an anti-India Khalistani rally was organised by Pakistani origin Lord Nazir Ahmed in Trafalgar Square of London. Meanwhile, in Canada also, many anti-India events were organised by pro- Khalistan groups last year. According to Canada government report, the country itself faces threat from Khalistanis. The 2018 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada said," Canada continues to face threats from individuals inspired to commit violence based on other forms of extremism, including from right-wing, Shia Islamist, and Sikh (Khalistani) extremists"

Worst anti-India propaganda underway backed by Pakistan, sources to WION

By&nbsp;Jon Roozenbeek* and Sander van der Linden**

The term &ldquo;fake news&rdquo; is everywhere these days. After gaining steam during the 2016 US election, it&rsquo;s become a catch-all phrase used by people from across the political spectrum. Yet &ldquo;fake&rdquo; stories &ndash; or stories that have been entirely made up &ndash; have been around since the dawn of man. And on top of that, stories don&rsquo;t have to be completely fake to be misleading. Terms such as &ldquo;propaganda&rdquo;, &ldquo;disinformation&rdquo;, &ldquo;misinformation&rdquo; and &ldquo;post-truth&rdquo; are used by many people, as though they mean the same thing.

In practice, most people are concerned about &ldquo;disinformation&rdquo;: that is, misinformation coupled with the intent to deceive. Today, it&rsquo;s easier than ever to mislead people. In the online world, posing as a credible news producer requires a bit of money and dedication &ndash; but it&rsquo;s not hard.

Meanwhile, people&rsquo;s trust in the media is declining, and a majority of Americans say that fake news has left them confused about basic facts. Add to that the growing problem of computational propaganda &ndash; where Twitter bots or other social media tools amplify certain hashtags or messages to influence what&rsquo;s trending &ndash; and the current landscape becomes very difficult for people to navigate.

Fighting back

There are many ways companies and governments are trying to combat this growing threat. Google and Facebook are tweaking their algorithms to stop promoting &ldquo;fake news&rdquo;. France is in the process of passing a controversial &ldquo;fake news law&rdquo;, which limits media activity during election time. And the UK government has announced it&rsquo;s setting up an &ldquo;anti-fake news&rdquo; unit. Yet each of these efforts comes with its own problems.

From our perspective, as researchers studying the fake news phenomenon, we think the best way to fight the bad effects is at the individual level. So, we&rsquo;re experimenting by combining psychology with technology in a new area of research, which some scholars are calling &ldquo;technocognition&rdquo;.

So far, one of us found that it&rsquo;s possible to &ldquo;inoculate&rdquo; people against misinformation by warning and exposing them to a weakened version of the &ldquo;real&rdquo; misleading argument, and then revealing to them why it&rsquo;s misleading. In other words, a small dose of fake news can inoculate you against it &ndash; just like a real vaccination would protect you against a disease.

Tricks of the trade

There are many reasons why people produce disinformation: they can be financial, political, personal and even &ldquo;just for fun&rdquo;. But the techniques that are being used to mislead people are remarkably similar across the board.

One of the simplest is impersonation: imitating a public figure or organisation with the intent of misleading the public. They might also create &ldquo;emotional content&rdquo;, which deliberately plays on people&rsquo;s basic emotions &ndash; such as fear or anger &ndash; to get a response. Next, there&rsquo;s &ldquo;polarisation&rdquo; &ndash; when fake news merchants stir up existing political tensions, to drive people further apart.&nbsp;

Then there are conspiracies: misleading theories, which often hold a large organisation responsible for some kind of covert agenda &ndash; like saying NASA faked the moon landing to win the space race. Then, people whose credibility is under attack will often try to discredit their opponents by engaging in &ldquo;whataboutism&rdquo; or personal attacks. And lastly we have trolling, which involves disrupting discussions and provoking reactions from people, combining all of the techniques mentioned above.

Good news, bad news

When people use these techniques themselves, it really improves their ability to recognise them in other contexts. So, together with DROG (a Dutch organisation working against the spread of disinformation), we developed an online game called Bad News (click here to play it), where players use misleading tactics to build their own fake news empire.

The game is free to play in any browser and on any device and takes about 15 minutes to complete. You start as an anonymous Twitter user who goes professional by starting their own news site, and gradually becomes a fake news tycoon. On the way, you earn badges and learn how the techniques mentioned earlier can be used to suit your purposes.

We figured that once you know how the magic trick works, you won&rsquo;t be fooled by it again. So we put our ideas to the test by doing a pilot study in a high school in the Netherlands. Some classes were assigned to the treatment group and played our game. Others were assigned to the control group, and didn&rsquo;t play the game.

Although our study was only a starting point, the results so far have been positive: students who played the game thought the fake news articles they read afterwards were less reliable. We hope that our game will play a role in stopping the spread of misleading information: just as misinformation replicates, vaccines can spread, too. The more people that play the game, the further the vaccine spreads &ndash; until one day, we may achieve societal resistance against fake news.

*Jon Roozenbeek is a PhD Candidate in Slavonic Studies, University of Cambridge

**Sander van der Linden is the Director of Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, University of Cambridge

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Researchers have developed a game to 'vaccinate' people against fake news – by showing them how to become a fake news mogul.

By Jon Roozenbeek* and Sander van der Linden** The term “fake news” is everywhere these days. After gaining steam during the 2016 US election, it’s become a catch-all phrase used by people from across the political spectrum. Yet “fake” stories – or stories that have been entirely made up – have been around since the dawn of man. And on top of that, stories don’t have to be completely fake to be misleading. Terms such as “propaganda”, “disinformation”, “misinformation” and “post-truth” are used by many people, as though they mean the same thing. In practice, most people are concerned about “disinformation”: that is, misinformation coupled with the intent to deceive. Today, it’s easier than ever to mislead people. In the online world, posing as a credible news producer requires a bit of money and dedication – but it’s not hard. Meanwhile, people’s trust in the media is declining, and a majority of Americans say that fake news has left them confused about basic facts. Add to that the growing problem of computational propaganda – where Twitter bots or other social media tools amplify certain hashtags or messages to influence what’s trending – and the current landscape becomes very difficult for people to navigate. Fighting back There are many ways companies and governments are trying to combat this growing threat. Google and Facebook are tweaking their algorithms to stop promoting “fake news”. France is in the process of passing a controversial “fake news law”, which limits media activity during election time. And the UK government has announced it’s setting up an “anti-fake news” unit. Yet each of these efforts comes with its own problems. From our perspective, as researchers studying the fake news phenomenon, we think the best way to fight the bad effects is at the individual level. So, we’re experimenting by combining psychology with technology in a new area of research, which some scholars are calling “technocognition”. So far, one of us found that it’s possible to “inoculate” people against misinformation by warning and exposing them to a weakened version of the “real” misleading argument, and then revealing to them why it’s misleading. In other words, a small dose of fake news can inoculate you against it – just like a real vaccination would protect you against a disease. Tricks of the trade There are many reasons why people produce disinformation: they can be financial, political, personal and even “just for fun”. But the techniques that are being used to mislead people are remarkably similar across the board. One of the simplest is impersonation: imitating a public figure or organisation with the intent of misleading the public. They might also create “emotional content”, which deliberately plays on people’s basic emotions – such as fear or anger – to get a response. Next, there’s “polarisation” – when fake news merchants stir up existing political tensions, to drive people further apart. Then there are conspiracies: misleading theories, which often hold a large organisation responsible for some kind of covert agenda – like saying NASA faked the moon landing to win the space race. Then, people whose credibility is under attack will often try to discredit their opponents by engaging in “whataboutism” or personal attacks. And lastly we have trolling, which involves disrupting discussions and provoking reactions from people, combining all of the techniques mentioned above. Good news, bad news When people use these techniques themselves, it really improves their ability to recognise them in other contexts. So, together with DROG (a Dutch organisation working against the spread of disinformation), we developed an online game called Bad News (click here to play it), where players use misleading tactics to build their own fake news empire. The game is free to play in any browser and on any device and takes about 15 minutes to complete. You start as an anonymous Twitter user who goes professional by starting their own news site, and gradually becomes a fake news tycoon. On the way, you earn badges and learn how the techniques mentioned earlier can be used to suit your purposes. We figured that once you know how the magic trick works, you won’t be fooled by it again. So we put our ideas to the test by doing a pilot study in a high school in the Netherlands. Some classes were assigned to the treatment group and played our game. Others were assigned to the control group, and didn’t play the game. Although our study was only a starting point, the results so far have been positive: students who played the game thought the fake news articles they read afterwards were less reliable. We hope that our game will play a role in stopping the spread of misleading information: just as misinformation replicates, vaccines can spread, too. The more people that play the game, the further the vaccine spreads – until one day, we may achieve societal resistance against fake news. *Jon Roozenbeek is a PhD Candidate in Slavonic Studies, University of Cambridge **Sander van der Linden is the Director of Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, University of Cambridge (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Here is a game to protect you from fake news

Twitter Inc said on Wednesday it had expanded notifications to about 1.4 million people, who were exposed to content generated by a suspected Russian propaganda service.

The company had said earlier this month it would email 677,775 people in the United States who followed, retweeted or liked content from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency (IRA) during the election.

The IRA is a Russian organisation that according to lawmakers and researchers, employs hundreds of people to push pro-Kremlin content under phoney social media accounts.

The company said it would not notify every person who saw the content and would instead focus its efforts on certain types of interactions.

Two senior Democratic lawmakers had asked Facebook Inc and Twitter to answer questions about potential Russian involvement in social media campaigns.

&nbsp;

Twitter Inc expanded notifications to about 1.4 million people, who were exposed to content generated by a suspected Russian propaganda service

Twitter Inc said on Wednesday it had expanded notifications to about 1.4 million people, who were exposed to content generated by a suspected Russian propaganda service. The company had said earlier this month it would email 677,775 people in the United States who followed, retweeted or liked content from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency (IRA) during the election. The IRA is a Russian organisation that according to lawmakers and researchers, employs hundreds of people to push pro-Kremlin content under phoney social media accounts. The company said it would not notify every person who saw the content and would instead focus its efforts on certain types of interactions. Two senior Democratic lawmakers had asked Facebook Inc and Twitter to answer questions about potential Russian involvement in social media campaigns.

Twitter notifies more users exposed to Russian propaganda

In the past week, Silicon Valley has faced renewed calls for greater regulation of social media platforms amid the growing scandal of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Given rising awareness of the serious problems inherent within U.S. internet giants&rsquo; business models, it&rsquo;s an opportune time to discuss how best to regulate these companies.

I&rsquo;m a researcher who studies regulation on the internet. For my book, Chokepoints: Global Private Regulation on the Internet, I&rsquo;ve interviewed representatives from internet firms and their trade associations, along with policymakers in Canada and the U.S. in regards to what responsibility intermediaries should have for content on their platforms.

Internet intermediaries typically frame their opposition to legislation as protecting freedom of expression, but no right of speech is absolute. This debate is a battle over the control over information: What data should be collected and sold, what content should be permitted online, and who should decide?

Last week the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee grilled senior legal counsel for Facebook, Google and Twitter about their roles in Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election.

In a startling development, after months of denying and downplaying their responsibility, executives from each of the three companies grudgingly admitted that they had not yet determined the full extent of Russian activities on their platforms.

The executives&rsquo; testimony starkly reveals that the companies have few controls on the advertisements and so-called &ldquo;fake news&rdquo; that they accept on their platforms.

These candid admissions from the social media giants focus much-needed attention on the serious problems inherent in big intermediaries&rsquo; data-intensive business models.

Few safeguards, financial interest in status quo

As the U.S. election scandal shows, big social media platforms not only have few safeguards to prevent the deliberate manipulation of information, but they also have financial interests in maintaining the status quo. Unfettered flows of information and unconstrained advertising revenue are key to their business models. And this model is tremendously profitable.

Facebook&rsquo;s third-quarter profit was an astounding US$4.7 billion, the vast majority coming from advertisements relating to its 1.3 billion average daily users. Viral stories, whether factual or false, attract clicks and advertising revenue.

Given the seemingly intractable challenges of regulating social media platforms, what can be done? In the United States, three members of Congress have proposed a bipartisan response, the Honest Ads Act, that would require platforms to publish information about their advertisers and maintain a public archive of political advertisements.

This is a step in the right direction, and the Canadian government should consider similar measures in advance of the 2019 federal election. Facebook has already announced a program, the Canadian Election Integrity Initiative, to counter the spread of misinformation that focuses on media literacy and training.

Deliberate misinformation

While these projects appear useful, they likely will do little to address the underlying problem: The bad-faith spread of online misinformation. That&rsquo;s because the fundamental problem lies with Facebook&rsquo;s business model. Efforts to constrain the flow of information, especially information that generates advertising revenue, are contrary to their business model.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who initially dismissed claims of Russian interference as &ldquo;crazy&rdquo; just after the 2016 U.S. election, said on Nov. 1 that Facebook&rsquo;s new security features to counter so-called fake news will have a &ldquo;significant impact our profitability.&rdquo;

While the big platforms can afford to take a financial hit to restore their reputations and work to get rid of the worst offenders, they can&rsquo;t fully solve the problem without fundamentally changing how &mdash; and with whom &mdash; they do business.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/file-20171106-1017-774va4-20171117092609.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Facebook ads linked to a Russian effort to stir tensions on divisive social issues during the U.S. election campaign. (AP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

In response to what has become a fundamental challenge to the survival of liberal democracy, Facebook, Twitter and Google have all committed to voluntarily implementing measures to address the spread of misinformation and targeting accounts that troll other users with often bigoted, racist content.

Google, for example, is creating a public database of election advertising content that appears on its services. These companies prefer self-regulation to legislation and they&rsquo;ve lobbied the U.S Federal Election Commission in the past to have online political advertising exempt from disclosure. It&rsquo;s only the political pressure from the Senate inquiry that is forcing these platforms into action.

Internet companies, algorithms are black boxes

While these developments may seem like attempts by these major companies to be responsible, they amount to Google et al saying: &ldquo;Trust us to fix the problem we created.&rdquo;

However, while Google, Facebook and Twitter are all creating algorithms to, in the words of Zuckerberg, &ldquo;detect bad content and bad actors,&rdquo; these algorithms operate as so-called &ldquo;black boxes.&rdquo; This means that the criteria the algorithms use to make decisions are off-limits to public scrutiny.

Is &ldquo;trust us&rdquo; a good enough response, given the problem? With so much at stake, it may be time for a fundamental rethink of how these indispensable 21st-century companies are regulated and what they&rsquo;re allowed to do.

At the very minimum, governments and citizens should reconsider whether the lack of oversight into how these companies shape our speech rights is really in the public interest.

Social media platforms &ldquo;are an enabler of democracy,&rdquo; says Margrethe Vestager, the European Union&rsquo;s Commissioner for Competition, but we&rsquo;re seeing that &ldquo;they can also be used against our very basic beliefs in democracy.&rdquo;

It&rsquo;s time to start taking that threat to democracy seriously.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/regulate-social-media-platforms-before-its-too-late-86984" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

In a fight for the global flow of information, social media firms must be regulated. Their billions of dollars in revenue put their financial interests in conflict with truth and democracy

In the past week, Silicon Valley has faced renewed calls for greater regulation of social media platforms amid the growing scandal of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Given rising awareness of the serious problems inherent within U.S. internet giants’ business models, it’s an opportune time to discuss how best to regulate these companies. I’m a researcher who studies regulation on the internet. For my book, Chokepoints: Global Private Regulation on the Internet, I’ve interviewed representatives from internet firms and their trade associations, along with policymakers in Canada and the U.S. in regards to what responsibility intermediaries should have for content on their platforms. Internet intermediaries typically frame their opposition to legislation as protecting freedom of expression, but no right of speech is absolute. This debate is a battle over the control over information: What data should be collected and sold, what content should be permitted online, and who should decide? Last week the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee grilled senior legal counsel for Facebook, Google and Twitter about their roles in Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election. In a startling development, after months of denying and downplaying their responsibility, executives from each of the three companies grudgingly admitted that they had not yet determined the full extent of Russian activities on their platforms. The executives’ testimony starkly reveals that the companies have few controls on the advertisements and so-called “fake news” that they accept on their platforms. These candid admissions from the social media giants focus much-needed attention on the serious problems inherent in big intermediaries’ data-intensive business models. Few safeguards, financial interest in status quo As the U.S. election scandal shows, big social media platforms not only have few safeguards to prevent the deliberate manipulation of information, but they also have financial interests in maintaining the status quo. Unfettered flows of information and unconstrained advertising revenue are key to their business models. And this model is tremendously profitable. Facebook’s third-quarter profit was an astounding US$4.7 billion, the vast majority coming from advertisements relating to its 1.3 billion average daily users. Viral stories, whether factual or false, attract clicks and advertising revenue. Given the seemingly intractable challenges of regulating social media platforms, what can be done? In the United States, three members of Congress have proposed a bipartisan response, the Honest Ads Act, that would require platforms to publish information about their advertisers and maintain a public archive of political advertisements. This is a step in the right direction, and the Canadian government should consider similar measures in advance of the 2019 federal election. Facebook has already announced a program, the Canadian Election Integrity Initiative, to counter the spread of misinformation that focuses on media literacy and training. Deliberate misinformation While these projects appear useful, they likely will do little to address the underlying problem: The bad-faith spread of online misinformation. That’s because the fundamental problem lies with Facebook’s business model. Efforts to constrain the flow of information, especially information that generates advertising revenue, are contrary to their business model. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who initially dismissed claims of Russian interference as “crazy” just after the 2016 U.S. election, said on Nov. 1 that Facebook’s new security features to counter so-called fake news will have a “significant impact our profitability.” While the big platforms can afford to take a financial hit to restore their reputations and work to get rid of the worst offenders, they can’t fully solve the problem without fundamentally changing how — and with whom — they do business. Facebook ads linked to a Russian effort to stir tensions on divisive social issues during the U.S. election campaign. (AP) × In response to what has become a fundamental challenge to the survival of liberal democracy, Facebook, Twitter and Google have all committed to voluntarily implementing measures to address the spread of misinformation and targeting accounts that troll other users with often bigoted, racist content. Google, for example, is creating a public database of election advertising content that appears on its services. These companies prefer self-regulation to legislation and they’ve lobbied the U.S Federal Election Commission in the past to have online political advertising exempt from disclosure. It’s only the political pressure from the Senate inquiry that is forcing these platforms into action. Internet companies, algorithms are black boxes While these developments may seem like attempts by these major companies to be responsible, they amount to Google et al saying: “Trust us to fix the problem we created.” However, while Google, Facebook and Twitter are all creating algorithms to, in the words of Zuckerberg, “detect bad content and bad actors,” these algorithms operate as so-called “black boxes.” This means that the criteria the algorithms use to make decisions are off-limits to public scrutiny. Is “trust us” a good enough response, given the problem? With so much at stake, it may be time for a fundamental rethink of how these indispensable 21st-century companies are regulated and what they’re allowed to do. At the very minimum, governments and citizens should reconsider whether the lack of oversight into how these companies shape our speech rights is really in the public interest. Social media platforms “are an enabler of democracy,” says Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s Commissioner for Competition, but we’re seeing that “they can also be used against our very basic beliefs in democracy.” It’s time to start taking that threat to democracy seriously. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Why social media needs to be regulated urgently

A New York Times article, headlined &quot;In India, Fashion Has Become a Nationalist Cause&quot;, has been met with tremendous anger on social media.&nbsp;

The article claims that ever since the current BJP government came to power in 2014, &quot;the Indian fashion industry has been pressed to aggressively promote traditional attire and bypass Western styles.&quot;&nbsp;

The article adds that &quot;The effort aligns with the party&rsquo;s broader political program: to project multi-faith India, a country of more than 1.3 billion, as a Hindu nation.&quot;

&quot;Fashion, and how Indians think of it, has not been exempt. Mr. Modi has made traditional dress a priority and, as many in the country want to please him, the fashion industry has followed along,&quot;&nbsp;the New York Times story goes on to say.&nbsp;

The story finally hones in on the Banarsi sari -- Varanasi is also Modi&#39;s parliamentary constituency -- with the New York Times reporter travelling to the town to check on whether anything has changed for the artisans (largely Muslim) who make the saris in the three years that Modi has been in power.&nbsp;

Nothing much has, he writes, saying that they continue to live in poverty.&nbsp;

He adds that things have got better for the Varanasi&#39;s merchants who employ the workers. And that they have reaped the benefits -- demand for the sari has gone up -- of the government&#39;s support for the Banarsi sari.&nbsp;

Social media in India exploded with anger -- with most people not agreeing with the NYT article -- after the story began to do the rounds:&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This kind of idiotic story in the New York Times confirms the Modi government&rsquo;s suspicion that foreign newspapers lie about it. <a href="https://t.co/Xoj0oeL7Lc">pic.twitter.com/Xoj0oeL7Lc</a>
&mdash; Tavleen Singh (@tavleen_singh) <a href="https://twitter.com/tavleen_singh/status/929958020016197632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Before 2014, no man wore a Kurta and no woman a saree? Because this &#39;fashion aesthetic&#39; is apparently part of &#39;pol program of Hindu nationalism&#39; <a href="https://t.co/BUMwSZWXss">https://t.co/BUMwSZWXss</a>
&mdash; Padmaja joshi (@PadmajaJoshi) <a href="https://twitter.com/PadmajaJoshi/status/930340015120506882?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Burqa is a sign of GLOBAL women empowerment, saree is a TOOL of Hindu Nationalism. Wearing Saree is communal, so dear Indian ladies if you want to be secular wear jeans, skirts, minis etc as per <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@narendramodi</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/vijayrupanibjp?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@vijayrupanibjp</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/smritiirani?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@smritiirani</a> <a href="https://t.co/a2TvgAPO6J">https://t.co/a2TvgAPO6J</a>
&mdash; Aditi Pathak (@AditiPathaak) <a href="https://twitter.com/AditiPathaak/status/930308818378022913?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Everyone wears the Banarasi saree <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a> this is incredibly biased writing. &quot;the Banarasi sari, the traditional garment known for its fine silk and opulent embroidery &mdash; and primarily worn by Hindu women.&quot;
&mdash; Kiran Manral (@KiranManral) <a href="https://twitter.com/KiranManral/status/930278284981440512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Wearing Saree is communal, so dear Indian ladies if you want to be secular wear jeans, skirts, minis etc as per <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a> <a href="https://t.co/xWJTklrqfP">https://t.co/xWJTklrqfP</a>
&mdash; Avinash (@avinashbhat01) <a href="https://twitter.com/avinashbhat01/status/929968222438285313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This asinine <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a> article links the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/saree?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#saree</a> with Hindu Nationalism! 
Real issue is that Indians sticking to traditional attire get in the way of pushing Western attire. Pathetic drivel<a href="https://t.co/UefV1ntwJv">https://t.co/UefV1ntwJv</a>
&mdash; Smita Barooah (@smitabarooah) <a href="https://twitter.com/smitabarooah/status/929997610777174016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
What is this journalist <a href="https://twitter.com/qadri_asgar?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@qadri_asgar</a> been smoking? <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a> do you even verify what your reporters write? <a href="https://t.co/WwcH4mtyQq">pic.twitter.com/WwcH4mtyQq</a>
&mdash; India First (@OurIndiaFirst19) <a href="https://twitter.com/OurIndiaFirst19/status/929970811221417985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

'Mr. Modi has made traditional dress a priority and, as many in the country want to please him, the fashion industry has followed along,'?a New York Times story said

A New York Times article, headlined "In India, Fashion Has Become a Nationalist Cause", has been met with tremendous anger on social media. The article claims that ever since the current BJP government came to power in 2014, "the Indian fashion industry has been pressed to aggressively promote traditional attire and bypass Western styles." The article adds that "The effort aligns with the party’s broader political program: to project multi-faith India, a country of more than 1.3 billion, as a Hindu nation." "Fashion, and how Indians think of it, has not been exempt. Mr. Modi has made traditional dress a priority and, as many in the country want to please him, the fashion industry has followed along," the New York Times story goes on to say. The story finally hones in on the Banarsi sari -- Varanasi is also Modi's parliamentary constituency -- with the New York Times reporter travelling to the town to check on whether anything has changed for the artisans (largely Muslim) who make the saris in the three years that Modi has been in power. Nothing much has, he writes, saying that they continue to live in poverty. He adds that things have got better for the Varanasi's merchants who employ the workers. And that they have reaped the benefits -- demand for the sari has gone up -- of the government's support for the Banarsi sari. Social media in India exploded with anger -- with most people not agreeing with the NYT article -- after the story began to do the rounds: This kind of idiotic story in the New York Times confirms the Modi government’s suspicion that foreign newspapers lie about it. pic.twitter.com/Xoj0oeL7Lc — Tavleen Singh (@tavleen_singh) November 13, 2017 × Before 2014, no man wore a Kurta and no woman a saree? Because this 'fashion aesthetic' is apparently part of 'pol program of Hindu nationalism' https://t.co/BUMwSZWXss — Padmaja joshi (@PadmajaJoshi) November 14, 2017 × Burqa is a sign of GLOBAL women empowerment, saree is a TOOL of Hindu Nationalism. Wearing Saree is communal, so dear Indian ladies if you want to be secular wear jeans, skirts, minis etc as per @nytimes. @narendramodi @vijayrupanibjp @smritiirani https://t.co/a2TvgAPO6J — Aditi Pathak (@AditiPathaak) November 14, 2017 × Everyone wears the Banarasi saree @nytimes this is incredibly biased writing. "the Banarasi sari, the traditional garment known for its fine silk and opulent embroidery — and primarily worn by Hindu women." — Kiran Manral (@KiranManral) November 14, 2017 × Wearing Saree is communal, so dear Indian ladies if you want to be secular wear jeans, skirts, minis etc as per @nytimes https://t.co/xWJTklrqfP — Avinash (@avinashbhat01) November 13, 2017 × This asinine @nytimes article links the #saree with Hindu Nationalism! Real issue is that Indians sticking to traditional attire get in the way of pushing Western attire. Pathetic drivelhttps://t.co/UefV1ntwJv — Smita Barooah (@smitabarooah) November 13, 2017 × What is this journalist @qadri_asgar been smoking? @nytimes do you even verify what your reporters write? pic.twitter.com/WwcH4mtyQq — India First (@OurIndiaFirst19) November 13, 2017 ×

Fashion in India has become a nationalist cause, says NYT, Twitter erupts in anger

Facebook is banned in China but the country uses the social networking website outside of its borders, a New York Times report said Thursday, to spread &quot;state-produced propaganda&quot;.

The New York Times report said the Chinese government, through its state media agencies, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each quarter to buy Facebook ads.&nbsp;

The report added that China is Facebook&#39;s biggest advertising market in Asia, even as the service remains proscribed within the country.&nbsp;

Foreign powers&#39; use of Facebook and other social media is in the spotlight in the US with President Donald Trump currently visiting China and with America currently investigating whether Russia had swayed the 2016 presidential election.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-usa-can-solve-world-problems-together-trump-says-23813" target="_blank">Also read: China, USA can solve world problems together, Trump says</a>

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-urges-china-russia-to-act-fast-on-north-korea-23791" target="_blank">Also read: Trump urges China &amp; Russia to act fast on North Korea, warns &#39;time is quickly running out&#39;</a>

Last week, the report said, executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter were grilled in Washington about Russia&#39;s use of technolgoy to sway voters during the 2016 presidential elections.&nbsp;

During the hearing, Facebook was asked if China too had used the social networking website to sway American voters.&nbsp;

Facebook&rsquo;s general counsel replied that, to his knowledge, it had not.&nbsp;

Facebook is just as keen on China as the New York Times report says the country is on the social networking site.&nbsp;

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has spent years courting Facebook.&nbsp;

The Times report said Facebook executives even set up a page to show CCTV, &quot;one of Beijing&rsquo;s chief propaganda outlets&quot;, how to use the platform during President Xi Jinping&rsquo;s 2015 trip to the United States.

The report said &quot;a look at the Facebook pages of China Central Television, the leading state-owned broadcast network better known as CCTV, and Xinhua, China&rsquo;s official news agency, reveals hundreds of English-language posts intended for an English-speaking audience&quot;.

The Times report said China&#39;s use of propaganda on Facebook and other social media is nowhere near as subtle as Russia&#39;s but that their &quot;techniques are nonetheless instructive&quot;.

It said that China does not post divisive advertisements on Facebook, but instead does what it does at home -- &quot;replicate the sort of news propaganda delivered at home: articles stressing China&rsquo;s stability and prosperity mixed with posts highlighting chaos and violence in the rest of the world&quot;.

&quot;A similar blend of stories &mdash; pandas and idyllic Chinese landscapes next to heavy coverage of the mass shooting in Texas &mdash; has proliferated across China&rsquo;s official Facebook channels in the lead-up to Mr. Trump&rsquo;s visit to Beijing, which began on Wednesday,&quot; the Times report said.

&quot;While much of it is unlikely to sway the average American&rsquo;s mind, such posts reach people across the world, many of whom are newer to the internet and may have a less sophisticated understanding of media. China&rsquo;s state media has Facebook channels dedicated to Africa and other regions of the world, and it seems evident that it is offering itself as an alternative to the Western media for a more global audience.&quot; the Times report added.

 
&nbsp;

China is Facebook's biggest advertising market in Asia, even as the service remains proscribed within the country

Facebook is banned in China but the country uses the social networking website outside of its borders, a New York Times report said Thursday, to spread "state-produced propaganda". The New York Times report said the Chinese government, through its state media agencies, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each quarter to buy Facebook ads. The report added that China is Facebook's biggest advertising market in Asia, even as the service remains proscribed within the country. Foreign powers' use of Facebook and other social media is in the spotlight in the US with President Donald Trump currently visiting China and with America currently investigating whether Russia had swayed the 2016 presidential election. Also read: China, USA can solve world problems together, Trump says Also read: Trump urges China & Russia to act fast on North Korea, warns 'time is quickly running out' Last week, the report said, executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter were grilled in Washington about Russia's use of technolgoy to sway voters during the 2016 presidential elections. During the hearing, Facebook was asked if China too had used the social networking website to sway American voters. Facebook’s general counsel replied that, to his knowledge, it had not. Facebook is just as keen on China as the New York Times report says the country is on the social networking site. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has spent years courting Facebook. The Times report said Facebook executives even set up a page to show CCTV, "one of Beijing’s chief propaganda outlets", how to use the platform during President Xi Jinping’s 2015 trip to the United States. The report said "a look at the Facebook pages of China Central Television, the leading state-owned broadcast network better known as CCTV, and Xinhua, China’s official news agency, reveals hundreds of English-language posts intended for an English-speaking audience". The Times report said China's use of propaganda on Facebook and other social media is nowhere near as subtle as Russia's but that their "techniques are nonetheless instructive". It said that China does not post divisive advertisements on Facebook, but instead does what it does at home -- "replicate the sort of news propaganda delivered at home: articles stressing China’s stability and prosperity mixed with posts highlighting chaos and violence in the rest of the world". "A similar blend of stories — pandas and idyllic Chinese landscapes next to heavy coverage of the mass shooting in Texas — has proliferated across China’s official Facebook channels in the lead-up to Mr. Trump’s visit to Beijing, which began on Wednesday," the Times report said. "While much of it is unlikely to sway the average American’s mind, such posts reach people across the world, many of whom are newer to the internet and may have a less sophisticated understanding of media. China’s state media has Facebook channels dedicated to Africa and other regions of the world, and it seems evident that it is offering itself as an alternative to the Western media for a more global audience." the Times report added.

Facebook banned in China but it uses it elsewhere to spread 'state-produced propaganda': NYT

Under Hitler, Germany experienced the consequences of a nation caving into propaganda and hate speech. This may explain its government&rsquo;s urgency to enact a new law, known as the &ldquo;Facebook Act,&rdquo; in response to the recent alarming rise of hate speech online.

Canada is experiencing a similar rise.

Media marketing company Cision documented a six-fold rise - that&rsquo;s a 600 per cent increase - in the amount of intolerant and hate speech in social media postings by Canadians between November 2015 and November 2016. Hashtags such as #banmuslims, #siegheil, #whitegenocide and #whitepower were widely used on popular social media platforms such as Twitter.

Some analysts blame Trump. But Canadian media outlets shouldn&rsquo;t be too smug about their adherence to the practice of fair and balanced journalism.

A group of scholars at Ryerson University conducted a critical analysis of how the Canadian media covered the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Canada between September 2015 and April 2016. They found several news outlets played a major role in reinforcing the negative image of Syrian refugees and Muslims in the public eye.

The refugees were subject to &quot;othering,&quot; the practice of depicting nonwhite cultures as &quot;alien,&quot; and highlighting differences rather than shared values or interests. The new arrivals from Syria were stereotyped, criminalised (especially men) and perceived as passive, lacking agency, vulnerable, needy and a drain on government resources. Male Syrian refugees were viewed as security threats and female Syrian refugees as voiceless, oppressed and desperate.

My research study investigates the way youth view their role in society as it relates to refugees, and how they regard and interpret online propaganda.

The $74 million question

The European Commission recently announced a new set of guidelines and principles for online platforms to prevent content inciting hatred, violence and terrorism, and Twitter began implementing its new rules for fighting hate on Nov. 1.

Should Canada follow in Germany&rsquo;s footsteps and enact a law that would pressure social networks to remove offensive posts within 24 hours or risk fines of up to $74 million for failing to comply? Adopting new regulations forcing social media platforms to respond swiftly could be an effective intervention to halt the spread of hate speech online. However, it could also prove to be challenging, as moderators wade into complex language and often get it wrong. Ultimately, we need to adopt a systematic response to hateful and dangerous rhetoric online.

The German social media law has been the subject of criticism since it was announced. Some critics say the law is too broad while others warn it could be the executioner of free speech. The thin line between hate speech and free speech is the focus of many concerned Canadians.

In Canada, hate speech is addressed in the recently updated Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). However, the applicability of this law to online hate speech is a frequent subject of debate that produces conflicting conclusions. In particular, the Defenses section of the code outlines cases where the proponents of hate speech could be exempted.

Distinguishing hate speech from fear speech - speech originating from fear and masked with terms and expressions usually associated with hate - is by itself a great challenge. Motion 103 (M-103), which condemns Islamophobia in Canada, and was passed in the House of Commons this Spring, is perceived by some Canadians to be suppressing free speech.

How to stop hate online?

Extremist parties, politicians and their fans have all successfully taken advantage of social media platforms to spread messages filled with racism and intolerance - even incitement to radical views.

Right-wing activists and the movements they espouse now total more than 100 organised groups in Canada. They are more visible and also better connected than ever before.

Stopping hate speech and extremist views on social media may be an impossible mission.

Yet, a majority of Canadians get their news about politics through social media giants such as Facebook. Facebook says 84 per cent of young Canadians actively use the social media platform.

&quot;The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it,&quot; said Joseph Goebbels, Hitler&rsquo;s minister of propaganda and national enlightenment.

According to the Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication, created in 1948 by mathematician and electronic engineer Claude Elwood Shannon and scientist Warren Weaver, every communication includes an information source, a message, a transmitter, a receiver, a destination and a noise source.

If we apply the communication model to online hate speech, we can identify the information sources as the propagandists, including extremist parties. They craft a simple, direct message such as &ldquo;Muslims are terrorists&rdquo; and transmit it through social media posts.

The destination is the audience the propagandists are focused on manipulating. This audience belongs to a whole spectrum, ranging from supporters of the idea to an audience that is outraged by it.

The receiver is the system used by the audience to decode the message and interpret it. The noise source includes the laws, acts, filtering and flagging strategies put in place to prevent the message from reaching the destination.

So far, it has been proven that the sender of hate speech is unstoppable and the noise source lacks efficiency since hate speech not only persists but also is on the rise.

Therefore, we must shift our tactics. We could, for example, focus on the receiver and the destination of the hate-filled message. We could teach the audience - youth in particular - how to withstand digital hate speech propaganda.

Youth need to be part of the solution

Conversations that characterise millennials as passive consumers of news with little and incidental exposure to world events could not be more wrong. A study conducted by the Media Insight Project in 2015 found youth between the age of 18 and 24 are &quot;anything but &#39;newsless&#39;&quot; passive or uninterested in civic issues.

Instead, they consume news and information in strikingly different ways than previous generations and their paths &quot;to discovery are more nuanced and varied than some may have imagined&quot;.&nbsp;Social media plays a large role in their news consumption.

Many youths are critical of media content and their choice of the information and the news they read online is far from random. They often see or experience direct or indirect racial discrimination online or witness unproductive, uncivil or disturbing Facebook discussions.

They recognise the agendas and algorithms behind the posts that pop up on their walls, and they hunger for an influential voice that would disrupt the discourses about issues that affect their lives.

Yet, fearing a backlash, a majority of youth choose to remain bystanders in an era where their social media presence and skills are needed the most. They remain &quot;power users (frequent users),&quot; instead of &quot;powerful users (influential users).&quot;

Youth could be our best candidates to be these agents of change, given their familiarity with social media. For this to happen, young people need to develop civic online reasoning and identify ways to leverage the power of social media for &quot;greater control, hate speech and ugly online conversations around Syrian refugees are mainly orchestrated to spread fear among people who might otherwise be members of actual or prospective welcoming communities. A campaign to counter propaganda, led by agents of change, is important to counterbalance the negative influence and allow host societies to make informed choices.voice and influence over issues that matter most in their lives.&quot;

They need to understand where their political tolerance and intolerance comes from and understand the concerns, emotions and values that generate public attitudes.

Many argue that education is not enough. However, equipping and empowering youth to disrupt the messaging transmitted by radical extremists or parties with racist agendas start with the pedagogy of understanding oneself.

The power of self-knowledge

My research study involved 126 in-depth interviews with 42 youth between 18 and 24 years old from Canada, the U.K., France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Greece and Lebanon. During the interviews, I engaged these young participants in the process of learning about themselves using tools I adapted from Personal Construct Psychology.

I wanted to understand how they viewed their role in the integration and inclusion of refugees in their societies, in a context where the image of refugees was deeply influenced by social media, especially after terror attacks.

I also wanted to discover what knowledge and skills they developed through the process of understanding themselves by identifying their construct systems - the &quot;lenses&quot; they used when decoding digital propaganda targeting sensitive and controversial issues such as the Syrian refugee crisis.

Through our discussions, each of these 42 young people had an &quot;aha moment.&quot;

Regardless of their geographical locations or the ways they experienced the refugee crisis and the recent terror attacks, they had the same sudden realisation. Not only could they control how social media influenced them, but they also had a role to play in shaping the image of refugees through what they shared online.

They became critical of media content. They developed empathy towards both refugees and people who rejected newcomers. They moved from passive bystanders to became confident agents of change, ready to play a leadership role in counterbalancing the digital hate speech propaganda against refugees.

To eradicate digital hate speech propaganda, we need to prevent propagandists from reaching their objectives.

Laws such as Germany&rsquo;s &quot;Facebook Act&quot; constitute one piece of the solution. The other key is to make sure audiences are trained to better withstand manipulation.

Our youth, once equipped and empowered, are our best candidates to disrupt the messages spread by propagandists and to pursue the mission of putting a stop to hate speech.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-trump-effect-in-canada-a-600-per-cent-increase-in-online-hate-speech-86026" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

Anti-hate laws and self-awareness education for audiences is essential to eradicate digital hate speech propaganda

Under Hitler, Germany experienced the consequences of a nation caving into propaganda and hate speech. This may explain its government’s urgency to enact a new law, known as the “Facebook Act,” in response to the recent alarming rise of hate speech online. Canada is experiencing a similar rise. Media marketing company Cision documented a six-fold rise - that’s a 600 per cent increase - in the amount of intolerant and hate speech in social media postings by Canadians between November 2015 and November 2016. Hashtags such as #banmuslims, #siegheil, #whitegenocide and #whitepower were widely used on popular social media platforms such as Twitter. Some analysts blame Trump. But Canadian media outlets shouldn’t be too smug about their adherence to the practice of fair and balanced journalism. A group of scholars at Ryerson University conducted a critical analysis of how the Canadian media covered the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Canada between September 2015 and April 2016. They found several news outlets played a major role in reinforcing the negative image of Syrian refugees and Muslims in the public eye. The refugees were subject to "othering," the practice of depicting nonwhite cultures as "alien," and highlighting differences rather than shared values or interests. The new arrivals from Syria were stereotyped, criminalised (especially men) and perceived as passive, lacking agency, vulnerable, needy and a drain on government resources. Male Syrian refugees were viewed as security threats and female Syrian refugees as voiceless, oppressed and desperate. My research study investigates the way youth view their role in society as it relates to refugees, and how they regard and interpret online propaganda. The $74 million question The European Commission recently announced a new set of guidelines and principles for online platforms to prevent content inciting hatred, violence and terrorism, and Twitter began implementing its new rules for fighting hate on Nov. 1. Should Canada follow in Germany’s footsteps and enact a law that would pressure social networks to remove offensive posts within 24 hours or risk fines of up to $74 million for failing to comply? Adopting new regulations forcing social media platforms to respond swiftly could be an effective intervention to halt the spread of hate speech online. However, it could also prove to be challenging, as moderators wade into complex language and often get it wrong. Ultimately, we need to adopt a systematic response to hateful and dangerous rhetoric online. The German social media law has been the subject of criticism since it was announced. Some critics say the law is too broad while others warn it could be the executioner of free speech. The thin line between hate speech and free speech is the focus of many concerned Canadians. In Canada, hate speech is addressed in the recently updated Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). However, the applicability of this law to online hate speech is a frequent subject of debate that produces conflicting conclusions. In particular, the Defenses section of the code outlines cases where the proponents of hate speech could be exempted. Distinguishing hate speech from fear speech - speech originating from fear and masked with terms and expressions usually associated with hate - is by itself a great challenge. Motion 103 (M-103), which condemns Islamophobia in Canada, and was passed in the House of Commons this Spring, is perceived by some Canadians to be suppressing free speech. How to stop hate online? Extremist parties, politicians and their fans have all successfully taken advantage of social media platforms to spread messages filled with racism and intolerance - even incitement to radical views. Right-wing activists and the movements they espouse now total more than 100 organised groups in Canada. They are more visible and also better connected than ever before. Stopping hate speech and extremist views on social media may be an impossible mission. Yet, a majority of Canadians get their news about politics through social media giants such as Facebook. Facebook says 84 per cent of young Canadians actively use the social media platform. "The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it," said Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda and national enlightenment. According to the Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication, created in 1948 by mathematician and electronic engineer Claude Elwood Shannon and scientist Warren Weaver, every communication includes an information source, a message, a transmitter, a receiver, a destination and a noise source. If we apply the communication model to online hate speech, we can identify the information sources as the propagandists, including extremist parties. They craft a simple, direct message such as “Muslims are terrorists” and transmit it through social media posts. The destination is the audience the propagandists are focused on manipulating. This audience belongs to a whole spectrum, ranging from supporters of the idea to an audience that is outraged by it. The receiver is the system used by the audience to decode the message and interpret it. The noise source includes the laws, acts, filtering and flagging strategies put in place to prevent the message from reaching the destination. So far, it has been proven that the sender of hate speech is unstoppable and the noise source lacks efficiency since hate speech not only persists but also is on the rise. Therefore, we must shift our tactics. We could, for example, focus on the receiver and the destination of the hate-filled message. We could teach the audience - youth in particular - how to withstand digital hate speech propaganda. Youth need to be part of the solution Conversations that characterise millennials as passive consumers of news with little and incidental exposure to world events could not be more wrong. A study conducted by the Media Insight Project in 2015 found youth between the age of 18 and 24 are "anything but 'newsless'" passive or uninterested in civic issues. Instead, they consume news and information in strikingly different ways than previous generations and their paths "to discovery are more nuanced and varied than some may have imagined". Social media plays a large role in their news consumption. Many youths are critical of media content and their choice of the information and the news they read online is far from random. They often see or experience direct or indirect racial discrimination online or witness unproductive, uncivil or disturbing Facebook discussions. They recognise the agendas and algorithms behind the posts that pop up on their walls, and they hunger for an influential voice that would disrupt the discourses about issues that affect their lives. Yet, fearing a backlash, a majority of youth choose to remain bystanders in an era where their social media presence and skills are needed the most. They remain "power users (frequent users)," instead of "powerful users (influential users)." Youth could be our best candidates to be these agents of change, given their familiarity with social media. For this to happen, young people need to develop civic online reasoning and identify ways to leverage the power of social media for "greater control, hate speech and ugly online conversations around Syrian refugees are mainly orchestrated to spread fear among people who might otherwise be members of actual or prospective welcoming communities. A campaign to counter propaganda, led by agents of change, is important to counterbalance the negative influence and allow host societies to make informed choices.voice and influence over issues that matter most in their lives." They need to understand where their political tolerance and intolerance comes from and understand the concerns, emotions and values that generate public attitudes. Many argue that education is not enough. However, equipping and empowering youth to disrupt the messaging transmitted by radical extremists or parties with racist agendas start with the pedagogy of understanding oneself. The power of self-knowledge My research study involved 126 in-depth interviews with 42 youth between 18 and 24 years old from Canada, the U.K., France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Greece and Lebanon. During the interviews, I engaged these young participants in the process of learning about themselves using tools I adapted from Personal Construct Psychology. I wanted to understand how they viewed their role in the integration and inclusion of refugees in their societies, in a context where the image of refugees was deeply influenced by social media, especially after terror attacks. I also wanted to discover what knowledge and skills they developed through the process of understanding themselves by identifying their construct systems - the "lenses" they used when decoding digital propaganda targeting sensitive and controversial issues such as the Syrian refugee crisis. Through our discussions, each of these 42 young people had an "aha moment." Regardless of their geographical locations or the ways they experienced the refugee crisis and the recent terror attacks, they had the same sudden realisation. Not only could they control how social media influenced them, but they also had a role to play in shaping the image of refugees through what they shared online. They became critical of media content. They developed empathy towards both refugees and people who rejected newcomers. They moved from passive bystanders to became confident agents of change, ready to play a leadership role in counterbalancing the digital hate speech propaganda against refugees. To eradicate digital hate speech propaganda, we need to prevent propagandists from reaching their objectives. Laws such as Germany’s "Facebook Act" constitute one piece of the solution. The other key is to make sure audiences are trained to better withstand manipulation. Our youth, once equipped and empowered, are our best candidates to disrupt the messages spread by propagandists and to pursue the mission of putting a stop to hate speech. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Trump effect in Canada: A 600 per cent increase in online hate speech

Former National Basketball Association star Dennis Rodman is expected to arrive in North Korea on Tuesday for a trip the State Department said was not an official US&nbsp;visit, CNN reported on Monday.

Rodman, who met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on previous trips to Pyongyang and has called him &quot;an awesome kid,&quot; declined to answer questions when he was seen by CNN reporters at Beijing International Airport, the network said.

Tensions have heightened on the Korean peninsula over Pyongyang&#39;s nuclear and missile tests and its vow to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the US&nbsp;mainland.

Four Americans are also being held in North Korea, including 22-year-old student Otto Warmbier, who was detained in January 2016 and sentenced to 15 years&#39; hard labour for attempting to steal a propaganda banner.

Representatives for Rodman did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Rodman has defended his travels, saying in an interview with CNN in 2014 they would help &quot;open the door&quot; to the reclusive state.

CNN, citing two unnamed North Korean officials, said Rodman was expected to arrive in Pyongyang on Tuesday, but gave no additional details on the purpose of the trip.

Fox News, citing a senior Trump administration official, reported that Rodman was travelling to North Korea as a &quot;private citizen&quot;.

The White House and State Department did not respond to Reuters requests for comment.

Here is video footage from North Korean&nbsp;TV of Rodman during his last trip in the totalitarian communist country. In it, he meets Kim Jung Un, and sings a strange rendition of Happy Birthday.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ViRdxGjEu2Y" width="560"></iframe>

The basketball Hall of Famer has faced ridicule and criticism for his trips to North Korea, which some US&nbsp;politicians and activists view as serving only as fodder for North Korean propaganda.

Rodman, 56, nicknamed &quot;The Worm&quot; during his playing career and known for his tattoos, body piercings and multi-coloured hair, is considered one of the best defensive players and rebounders in NBA history.

He won five league championships with the Detroit Pistons and Chicago Bulls.

(With inputs from Reuters)

The Hall of Famer has faced ridicule and criticism for his trips to North Korea, which some feel serves only as fodder for North Korean propaganda

Former National Basketball Association star Dennis Rodman is expected to arrive in North Korea on Tuesday for a trip the State Department said was not an official US visit, CNN reported on Monday. Rodman, who met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on previous trips to Pyongyang and has called him "an awesome kid," declined to answer questions when he was seen by CNN reporters at Beijing International Airport, the network said. Tensions have heightened on the Korean peninsula over Pyongyang's nuclear and missile tests and its vow to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the US mainland. Four Americans are also being held in North Korea, including 22-year-old student Otto Warmbier, who was detained in January 2016 and sentenced to 15 years' hard labour for attempting to steal a propaganda banner. Representatives for Rodman did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Rodman has defended his travels, saying in an interview with CNN in 2014 they would help "open the door" to the reclusive state. CNN, citing two unnamed North Korean officials, said Rodman was expected to arrive in Pyongyang on Tuesday, but gave no additional details on the purpose of the trip. Fox News, citing a senior Trump administration official, reported that Rodman was travelling to North Korea as a "private citizen". The White House and State Department did not respond to Reuters requests for comment. Here is video footage from North Korean TV of Rodman during his last trip in the totalitarian communist country. In it, he meets Kim Jung Un, and sings a strange rendition of Happy Birthday. The basketball Hall of Famer has faced ridicule and criticism for his trips to North Korea, which some US politicians and activists view as serving only as fodder for North Korean propaganda. Rodman, 56, nicknamed "The Worm" during his playing career and known for his tattoos, body piercings and multi-coloured hair, is considered one of the best defensive players and rebounders in NBA history. He won five league championships with the Detroit Pistons and Chicago Bulls. (With inputs from Reuters)

Dennis Rodman, Ex-NBA star, expected to arrive in North Korea Tuesday: CNN

The Islamic State confirmed the death of its propaganda chief on Monday, who the Pentagon said was killed in a US-led air strike in Syria&rsquo;s Raqqa last month.

The jihadist group posted an online statement paying tribute to Wa&rsquo;il Adil Hasan Salman al-Fayad, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Furqan.

The statement referred to him by his alias and did not disclose the details of his death, Reuters reported.

The Pentagon said last month that a US-led air strike on September 7 had killed al-Fayad.

According to Pentagon, he was minister of information, overseeing IS&rsquo;s propaganda, and a key member of its leadership group. The IS statement referred to al-Fayad as head of its media arm.

al-Fayad was targeted &nbsp;while he was on a motorcycle outside his house, the Pentagon had said, Reuters reported.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from Reuters)

The Pentagon said last month that a US-led air strike on September 7 had killed Wa'il Adil Hasan Salman al-Fayad

The Islamic State confirmed the death of its propaganda chief on Monday, who the Pentagon said was killed in a US-led air strike in Syria’s Raqqa last month. The jihadist group posted an online statement paying tribute to Wa’il Adil Hasan Salman al-Fayad, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Furqan. The statement referred to him by his alias and did not disclose the details of his death, Reuters reported. The Pentagon said last month that a US-led air strike on September 7 had killed al-Fayad. According to Pentagon, he was minister of information, overseeing IS’s propaganda, and a key member of its leadership group. The IS statement referred to al-Fayad as head of its media arm. al-Fayad was targeted while he was on a motorcycle outside his house, the Pentagon had said, Reuters reported. (WION with inputs from Reuters)

IS confirms death of propaganda chief

Dozens of Turkish demonstrators gathered in Istanbul to protest the arrests of two journalists and an academic on charges of disseminating &quot;terrorist propaganda&quot;. A fourth journalist was released after a brief detention. 
 
Yesterday, protesters chanted &quot;a free press cannot be silenced&quot; and &quot;arrests, oppression cannot intimidate us&quot;. Others held up a banner that read: &quot;Thinking cannot be jailed&quot;. 
 
The demonstration comes a day after a Turkish court ordered the pre-trial arrest of Reporters Without Borders&#39; Turkey representative Erol Onderoglu, journalist Ahmet Nesin and academic Sebnem Korur Fincanci. 
 
The three had participated in a solidarity campaign in support of Ozgur Gundem, a pro-Kurdish publication subject to multiple investigations and lawsuits. 
 
Press freedom advocates warn that freedom of expression has dramatically declined in Turkey. More than a dozen journalists are in prison, although the government insists they have been jailed for criminal activity, not journalistic work. 
 
The state-run Anadolu Agency said Onderoglu, Nesin and Fincanci had acted as chief editors for a day for the pro-Kurdish publication and issues they edited in May and June included alleged terrorist propaganda. The news agency also said the court ordered the suspects&#39; arrest on &quot;strong criminal suspicion&quot;. 
 
Reporters Without Borders condemned their arrests as &quot;an unbelievable low for press freedom in Turkey&quot;. Human Rights Watch slammed the &quot;spurious allegations&quot; that led to the detention of three out of 44 participants in the solidarity campaign and urged their immediate release. 
 
HRW Europe and Central Asia Director, Hugh Williamson, said the arrests showed that &quot;Turkish authorities have no hesitation about targeting well-known rights defenders and journalists who have played a key role in documenting the sharp deterioration in human rights in the country&quot;. 
 
In a separate development, a New York-based journalist who covers the United Nations for the Turkish Hurriyet daily was released Tuesday morning. Razi Canikligil was detained for almost a full day after flying into Istanbul airport with his family. 
 
&quot;They arrested me in front of my three boys,&quot; Canikligil told the AP. &quot;They were very afraid.&quot; 
 
The journalist said an arrest warrant had been issued against him over a 2014 Twitter post on a troll account, which was mistakenly attributed to him and deemed to be offensive to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 
 
No charges were pressed against Canikligil, and his passport was returned to him after a night in detention at Istanbul Ataturk Airport. 
 
&quot;Everyone was suggesting that this was government pressure to shut me down,&quot; added the journalist. &quot;We didn&#39;t know what the issue 
was.&quot; 
 
(AFP)

Reporters Without Borders calls the arrests 'an unbelievable low for press freedom in Turkey', which has imprisoned over a dozen journalists

Dozens of Turkish demonstrators gathered in Istanbul to protest the arrests of two journalists and an academic on charges of disseminating "terrorist propaganda". A fourth journalist was released after a brief detention. Yesterday, protesters chanted "a free press cannot be silenced" and "arrests, oppression cannot intimidate us". Others held up a banner that read: "Thinking cannot be jailed". The demonstration comes a day after a Turkish court ordered the pre-trial arrest of Reporters Without Borders' Turkey representative Erol Onderoglu, journalist Ahmet Nesin and academic Sebnem Korur Fincanci. The three had participated in a solidarity campaign in support of Ozgur Gundem, a pro-Kurdish publication subject to multiple investigations and lawsuits. Press freedom advocates warn that freedom of expression has dramatically declined in Turkey. More than a dozen journalists are in prison, although the government insists they have been jailed for criminal activity, not journalistic work. The state-run Anadolu Agency said Onderoglu, Nesin and Fincanci had acted as chief editors for a day for the pro-Kurdish publication and issues they edited in May and June included alleged terrorist propaganda. The news agency also said the court ordered the suspects' arrest on "strong criminal suspicion". Reporters Without Borders condemned their arrests as "an unbelievable low for press freedom in Turkey". Human Rights Watch slammed the "spurious allegations" that led to the detention of three out of 44 participants in the solidarity campaign and urged their immediate release. HRW Europe and Central Asia Director, Hugh Williamson, said the arrests showed that "Turkish authorities have no hesitation about targeting well-known rights defenders and journalists who have played a key role in documenting the sharp deterioration in human rights in the country". In a separate development, a New York-based journalist who covers the United Nations for the Turkish Hurriyet daily was released Tuesday morning. Razi Canikligil was detained for almost a full day after flying into Istanbul airport with his family. "They arrested me in front of my three boys," Canikligil told the AP. "They were very afraid." The journalist said an arrest warrant had been issued against him over a 2014 Twitter post on a troll account, which was mistakenly attributed to him and deemed to be offensive to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. No charges were pressed against Canikligil, and his passport was returned to him after a night in detention at Istanbul Ataturk Airport. "Everyone was suggesting that this was government pressure to shut me down," added the journalist. "We didn't know what the issue was." (AFP)

Turkish demonstrators protest arrest of 2 journalists and 1 academic for 'terrorist propaganda'

propaganda

Propaganda, News on Propaganda, stories on Propaganda, articles on Propaganda, Propaganda stories at Wion, Propaganda news, Propaganda latest news