Siddaramaiah didn't condemn attack on Congress MLA's house, asked 'irrelevant' questions to BJP: BL Santhosh

News Network
August 14, 2020

Bengaluru, Aug 14: BJP leader BL Santhosh on Thursday said that former Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah did not condemn the attack on Congress MLA Akhand Srinivas Murthy's house but asked 'irrelevant' questions to the BJP.

"Ex-CM of @INCKarnataka has tagged me in 13 tweets. Not one condemning riots or attack on his own party's Dalit MLA or asking Govt for tough actions. Same beating around the bush asking irrelevant questions to BJP. Fear of votes & Policy of appeasement.

#CongressAgainstDalits," Santhosh tweeted.
Recently, Congress MLA Srinivas Murthy's residence in Bengaluru was vandalised, allegedly over an inciting social media post by his nephew.

Murthy's house was attacked by people for an alleged controversial post on Facebook regarding Prophet Muhammad by his nephew Naveen.

On August 12, Murthy demanded police security after his house was set on fire.

The MLA said the miscreants were not from his party but were outsiders. Expressing concern, he questioned if this could happen to an MLA then what would happen to others.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 13,2021

654.jpg

San Francisco Jan 13: As the world adjusts to a Twitter without @realdonaldtrump, the next big question is: “Now what?"

Major tech platforms, long accused of giving President Donald Trump special treatment not allotted to regular users, have shown him the door in the wake of his incitement of violence by supporters at the US Capitol on January 6. He's gone from Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat — even Shopify.

But in many ways, booting the president was the easy part.

Will companies now hold other world leaders to the same standard? Will they wade further into deciding what is and isn't allowed on their platforms, potentially alienating large swaths of their user base? Will all this lead to further online splintering, pushing those flirting with extreme views to fringe sites and secret chat groups?

Although they've long sought to remain neutral, Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms are slowly waking up to the active role they and their algorithms have played in shaping a modern world filled with polarised, angry groups and huge factions falling for bogus conspiracies and misinformation about science, politics and medicine.

“What we're seeing is a shift from the platforms from a stance of free-speech absolutism, towards an understanding of speech moderation as a matter of public health," said civic media professor Ethan Zuckerman of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

None of this can be fixed soon, if ever. Certainly not by blocking a president with just a few days left in his term.

But there are blueprints for future action. Remember “Plandemic?" That was the slickly-produced, 26-minute, misinformation-ridden video promoting COVID-19 conspiracies that emerged seemingly out of nowhere and racked up millions of views in a matter of days.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube scrambled to take it down — too late. But they were ready for the sequel, which failed to attract even a fraction of the attention of the first.

“Sharing disinformation about COVID is a danger because it makes it harder for us to fight the disease," Zuckerman said.

“Similarly, sharing disinformation about voting is an attack on our democracy.”

Unsurprisingly, it's been easier for tech giants to act decisively on matters of public health than on politics. Corporate bans of the US president and his supporters have led to loud, if generally unfounded, cries of censorship as well as charges of left-wing bias.

It's even attracted criticism from European leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel — not exactly a friend of Trump's.

Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of “elementary significance.”

“This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators — not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” he told reporters in Berlin.

“Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the US president have now been permanently blocked.”

From that German perspective, it should be the government, and not private companies like Facebook and Twitter, who decides what counts as dangerous speech on social platforms.

That approach might be feasible in Europe, but it's much more complicated in the US, where the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of expression from government interference, although not from corporate policy on privately owned communication platforms.

Governments, of course, remain free to regulate tech companies, another area of ferment. Over the past year, Trump, other Republicans and some Democrats have called for revoking a fundamental 1996 legal provision known as Section 230.

That protects social platforms, which can host trillions of messages, from being sued into oblivion by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted. But so far there's been more heat than light on the issue.

Still, few are happy with the often sluggish, after-the-fact, three-strikes takedowns and suspensions that have characterized Twitter and Facebook for years.

Particularly in the light of the Capitol insurrection, the deadly Charlottesville rally in 2017 and live-streamed mass shootings.

Sarita Schoenebeck, University of Michigan professor who focuses on online harassment, said it might be time for platforms to reevaluate how they approach problematic material on their sites.

“For years, platforms have evaluated what kinds of content are appropriate or not by evaluating the content in isolation, without considering the broader social and cultural context that it takes place in,” she said.

“We need to revisit this approach. We should rely on a combination of democratic principles, community governance and platform rules to shape behavior.”

Jared Schroeder, an expert in social media and the First Amendment at Southern Methodist University, thinks the Trump bans will encourage his base of followers to move towards other social platforms where they can organise and communicate with fewer — if any — restrictions.

“It's likely the bans will fuel the us-against-them narrative – and it's also likely other forums will get a boost in traffic, as we saw after the 2020 election," he said.

“The bans have taken away the best tools for organizing people and for Trump to speak to the largest audiences, but these are by no means the only tools."

Comments

robert Riepe
 - 
Wednesday, 13 Jan 2021

You look at the pictures of the doos to congress you will see the pictures of Antifa thugs wearing trump supporter gear and the guards letting them in.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 12,2021

mcms.jpg

New Delhi, Jan 12: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the implementation of three farm laws and asked the committee formed by it concerning the three farm laws to submit its report within two months.

The court said the first sitting of the committee, formed to listen to the grievances of farmers and views of the government, should be held within 10 days.

"The committee should file the report within two months before the Supreme Court. First sitting to be held within 10 days," the three-judge bench of the Apex Court, led by CJI S A Bobde said in its order today.

The court also expressed hope that the farmers' protests will be called off after it stayed the operation of the new farm laws.

It said that the MSP system as it existed before the enactment of the laws must be continued.

"No farmer must be dispossessed or deprived of his title as a result of any action taken under the laws," the bench of the Apex Court today said.

The top court said that the committee will comprise of Bhupinder Singh Mann, Pramod Kumar Joshi, Ashok Gulati, Anil Ghanwant.

The committee has been constituted for the "purpose of listening to the grievances of farmers relating to the farm laws and views of the government to make recommendations".

The court said the panel shall be provided a place in Delhi and government will bear its expenses and provide secretarial assistance.

The representatives of farmer bodies, whether they are holding a protest or not and whether they support or oppose the laws, shall participate in the deliberations of the committee and put forth their viewpoint, the court said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 10,2021

Speaking on the issue of rapes in India and how to reduce such crimes against women, Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut on Saturday said that India needs to set some strong examples and follow something like Saudi Arabia-model which, she claims, is that those who commit crimes against women are hanged to death in public.  

"We still have the old legal system where cases enter files and the process goes on for years. Also the victim is often subjected to harassment as the burden of proving the allegation lies on the victim," she told ANI.

She also said that half of the complaints get registered and the rest get away with the crimes.

"India needs to set four or five examples like that of Saudi Arabia where the perpetrators are hanged to death at intersections," Kangana said.  

The actress also added that the current legal system adds further harassment for the victim as she is often asked to narrate the incident in details.

"Such crimes are committed even in case of silly disagreements because it is easy to get away with them," she said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.