Category: Media

India’s covert military offensive, known as “Operation Sindoor,” caused discernible damage to Pakistani military installations and gave New Delhi a tactical advantage during a brief but intense four-day conflict with Pakistan, according to a report by The New York Times, which cited satellite imagery to support its claims.

The report, based on high-resolution before-and-after satellite images, highlighted that Indian airstrikes had indeed damaged key Pakistani military sites. “The four-day military clash between India and Pakistan was the most expansive fighting in half a century between the two nuclear-armed countries. As both sides used drones and missiles to test each other’s air defences and hit military facilities, they claimed to inflict severe damage,” the NYT article noted.

While both nations engaged in a series of drone strikes and missile exchanges aimed at testing each other’s air defense systems, the report suggested India emerged with a stronger hand, having struck critical Pakistani military targets with precision. The assessment indicated that although the fighting saw numerous attacks from both sides, India appeared to have done the most tangible damage.

According to the New York Times, the visuals from satellite images confirmed that India had indeed inflicted “clear damage” on Pakistani sites. Although both countries engaged in what was described as precisely targeted strikes, the results on the ground seemed to favor India’s strategic execution.

The report stated, “Where India appears to have had a clear edge is in its targeting of Pakistan’s military facilities and airfields, as the latter stretch of fighting shifted from symbolic strikes and shows of force to attacks on each other’s defence capabilities.” This indicates that India’s offensive tactics transitioned from demonstrative force to operationally significant assaults on military infrastructure.

One of the central targets in India’s campaign was the Bholari air base. Indian defense officials claimed they struck an aircraft hangar at this facility with a pinpoint strike. The NYT analysis supported this, stating, “The visuals showed clear damage to what looks like a hangar,” validating India’s account of the operation.

Perhaps the most notable strike came at the Nur Khan air base, situated near the Pakistani Army’s central headquarters and the office of the Pakistani Prime Minister. The New York Times emphasized the sensitivity of this target, describing it as “perhaps the most sensitive military target that India struck.” This base is also in proximity to a critical Pakistani military division tasked with managing the country’s nuclear command and control structure, underlining the potential gravity of India’s move.

The satellite evidence reviewed by the NYT showed signs of damage to various infrastructure elements, including runways and other vital components at multiple locations. One such instance was Pakistan’s Rahim Yar Khan air base. Following India’s strikes, Pakistan issued a notice on May 10, designating one of the runways as non-operational, which the NYT cited as further evidence corroborating India’s claim of having successfully targeted that location.

At the Sargodha air base in Pakistan’s Punjab Province, the Indian military reportedly struck two distinct sections of the runway using precision-guided weaponry. These claims were again supported by corresponding satellite images, further reinforcing the narrative that India’s attacks were both deliberate and impactful.

In addition to runways, India also targeted radar installations, vital for air defense and military surveillance. Radar sites at Pasrur and the Sialkot aviation base came under attack, with India deploying precision munitions to disable them. The NYT stated that these strikes “caused massive damage,” suggesting a significant degradation in Pakistan’s air surveillance capability during the conflict.

While India’s strikes were backed by visual and satellite data, Pakistan’s retaliatory claims did not appear to hold up under similar scrutiny. According to the report, “Satellite images of the sites Pakistan claimed to have hit are limited, and so far do not clearly show damage caused by Pakistani strikes even at bases where there was corroborating evidence of some military action.” This line cast doubt on the extent or even the occurrence of successful strikes by Pakistani forces on Indian soil.

Among Pakistan’s key claims was the alleged destruction of India’s Udhampur air base. However, the New York Times disputed this assertion. “An image from May 12 does not appear to show damage,” the report said, refuting Pakistan’s statement and implying that the counterstrike might have either missed its intended target or was far less effective than suggested by Islamabad.

Overall, while both nations engaged in rapid military escalation over four days, the satellite evidence reviewed by the NYT leaned strongly in favor of India having executed more effective and damaging strikes. The report did not downplay the risks involved in such confrontations between two nuclear powers but highlighted the strategic and precise nature of India’s operations.

India’s use of precision weapons and targeting of key Pakistani defense facilities not only demonstrated its military capabilities but also appeared to set the tone for the brief conflict. With sensitive sites like Nur Khan air base and radar installations in Sialkot and Pasrur visibly damaged, India’s actions were viewed as bold and well-coordinated.

On the other hand, the absence of verifiable evidence supporting Pakistan’s claims of having struck Indian targets undermined its narrative. The limited imagery and lack of observable damage at the sites it claimed to have hit raised questions about the efficacy of its retaliatory actions.

In summary, the NYT report paints a picture of a conflict in which India held the tactical upper hand, both in terms of military execution and target selection. By focusing its efforts on degrading Pakistan’s defense infrastructure rather than just engaging in symbolic strikes, India appeared to have adopted a strategy aimed at longer-term deterrence rather than short-term retaliation.

The brief conflict, while not escalating into a full-scale war, demonstrated the volatility of relations between the two neighbors and the potential consequences of any future confrontations. The NYT’s satellite imagery-based analysis adds an objective layer to the evaluation of the military actions, offering rare insight into the real outcomes of what both countries initially portrayed as tit-for-tat military exchanges.

Asia Society has announced that the 2025 Osborn Elliott Prize for Excellence in Journalism on Asia will be awarded to The Associated Press and FRONTLINE, the investigative documentary series aired on PBS and produced by GBH in Boston. The honor is being bestowed for their collaborative project, South Korea’s Adoption Reckoning, which encompasses a series of investigative reports, an online interactive experience, and a documentary. This extensive work was led by journalists Kim Tong-Hyung and Claire Galofaro, with Lora Moftah serving as the director and producer.

The project sheds light on the long-standing practice of international adoptions from South Korea, a program that originated in the aftermath of the Korean War. Over time, more than 200,000 children were sent abroad, primarily to Europe and North America. Through years of meticulous document analysis and over 100 interviews with adoptees, the investigation exposed widespread fraud and systemic failures within the adoption system. Many parents had their children taken away without consent, while adoptees often spent their lives searching for the truth about their origins.

In a statement accompanying the announcement, the Osborn Elliott Prize Jury highlighted the profound impact of the investigation: “This tour de force of reporting by Associated Press reporters Kim Tong-Hyung and Claire Galofaro and FRONTLINE (PBS) documented the costs of a generations-long South Korean program of sending children abroad for adoption. Started in the years after the Korean war, the program eventually sent more than 200,000 children to new homes mostly in Europe and North America. Years of painstaking document review and interviews with more than 100 adoptees revealed systemwide fraud and wrongdoing in the program, which in turn imposed a lifetime emotional toll on parents whose children were taken from them, sometimes without consent, and on the adoptees themselves, many of whom were never told or could never find the truth about their origins.”

The investigation also brought attention to a serious issue involving adoptees in the United States. The report uncovered that many adopted individuals from South Korea and other nations were never granted U.S. citizenship due to legal oversights. These lapses have had life-altering consequences for some adoptees, leading to deportation threats and legal uncertainty. As the jury stated, “The AP also found that many U.S. adoptees—from South Korea and other countries—were left without citizenship because of legal lapses that Congress failed to fix.”

This reporting has already yielded tangible results. The exposure prompted the South Korean government to unseal records and initiate reviews of past adoption practices. Furthermore, it has encouraged families across the globe to reassess their own histories, prompting a broader conversation about transparency, identity, and justice. As the jury noted, “The work of these journalists has caused Seoul to open up records, countries to review past adoption practices, and families around the world to re-examine their personal histories.”

Asia Society will recognize the winners during a special event in New York on Tuesday, June 5. The Osborn Elliott Prize includes a $10,000 cash award and is presented annually by an independent panel to honor outstanding journalism on Asia produced in the previous year.

In discussing the range and quality of submissions for the 2025 Osborn Elliott Prize, the jury also gave special mention to an entry from Bloomberg News titled The Egg. This investigative piece examined the global trade in human eggs, which is part of the booming $35 billion fertility industry in which Asia plays a central role. The jury drew a compelling parallel between historic adoption trends and today’s fertility practices: “In particular, the Jury recognizes another powerful example of transnational reporting by Bloomberg News, whose reporters tracked the international commerce in human eggs, part of a $35 billion global fertility industry in which Asia plays a crucial role. In much the same way that wealthy countries once patronized Korea for babies, today wealthy families may acquire eggs or pay for surrogates from people in other countries.”

The selection of winners was made by a distinguished panel of judges. This year’s jury was chaired by Marcus Brauchli, managing partner of North Base Media and former top editor at both The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Other jurors included Dorinda Elliott, Executive Director of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University and a former Newsweek journalist; Nisid Hajari, author, Bloomberg editorial board member, and past top editor at Newsweek; Zuraidah Ibrahim, Executive Managing Editor at the South China Morning Post; and Norman Pearlstine, a seasoned media executive and former senior editor at the Los Angeles Times, Time Inc., and The Wall Street Journal.

The Osborn Elliott Prize, affectionately known as the “Oz Prize,” commemorates the legacy of Osborn Elliott, a celebrated journalist, author, and editor-in-chief of Newsweek. Elliott was instrumental in advancing the concept of “civic journalism,” a form of reporting focused on addressing pressing public policy issues and engaging communities in the process. His enduring influence continues through this annual recognition of journalistic excellence in Asia-related reporting.

In recent years, the Oz Prize has recognized a diverse range of impactful journalism. In 2024, The Outlaw Ocean Project was honored for “China: The Superpower of Seafood,” an in-depth report on China’s dominance in the global seafood trade. In 2023, The Economist’s Sue-Lin Wong and David Rennie were awarded for their insightful reporting on China. The 2022 winners, Matthieu Aikins and Jim Huylebroek of The New York Times Magazine, were recognized for their powerful coverage titled “Inside the Fall of Kabul.” In 2021, Alice Su of the Los Angeles Times received the prize for her comprehensive reporting on China.

Additional information about the Osborn Elliott Prize and profiles of previous winners can be found at AsiaSociety.org/OzPrize.

This year’s winning project has not only revealed previously hidden truths but also sparked international reflection on the consequences of adoption practices, the need for legal reform, and the enduring quest for identity among those affected. The collaboration between The Associated Press and FRONTLINE stands as a powerful testament to the enduring value of investigative journalism in uncovering injustice and prompting change.

“Every child deserves to see the world with clarity and purpose. Let’s join hands to eradicate childhood blindness and unlock a brighter future for generations to come,” said Dr. Vadrevu K. Raju, a world-renowned ophthalmologist, philanthropist, and the founder of the Eye Foundation of America (EFA)m during a Spring Fundraiser Gala in New Rochelle, New York on April 12, 2025.

The gala, organized under the leadership of Dr. Surendra Sharmaand Dr. Rachana Shukla, Eye Foundation of Americaraiseed funds to help support a new state-of-the-art green hospital in India, as well as outreach programs in Ghana and the Dominican Republic.

“Close your eyes for a moment. Now imagine never being able to open them to the vibrant colours of life, a loved one’s smile, or the pages of a favourite story,” said Dr. Rachana Shukla, who coordinated the efforts leading up to the fundraiser in India. “For millions of premature babies, this is their reality. Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) is a silent thief of sight, making it one of the leading causes of childhood blindness. Your kindness today can save a child’s sight, their future, and their dreams.”

“Childhood blindness is a solvable problem, but it requires our collective action,” said Dr. Surendra Sharma, a key organizer of the gala. “Together, we can ensure that every child has access to quality eye care and a chance to reach their full potential.” He along with Dr. Shukla offered ongoing collaboration and support to the Eye Foundation and its efforts to eradicate childhood blindness.

Dr. Leela Raju, in her address, stressed the importance of ensuring that more people know about the causes and the means to reduce childhood blindness and work towards eradicating it. Dr. Leela Raju stated that the discussions today focused on “not just glaucoma, but cornea and pediatric ophthalmology. And of course, regarding retinopathy and prematurity, which is our real push in both in India and around the world to reduce the burden of childhood blindness.”

Soumya Kadiyala, a 12 year old girl who attended the gala, shared her own experiences with the Eye Foundation of America. She said, “Each time I come, I learned something new about the incredible work The Foundation is doing and the new accomplishments since the last time, I am excited to continue being part of it as I grow older,” she said. Soumya told the audience about how she learned from her mother that the money being raised at the Gala is being spent towards eye exams, glasses and even surgeries are provided at no cost to the patients. I thought that was very pretty cool, she said.

The young child, Soumya inspired by the works being done by the Foundation spoke about a paper that she wrote for the school. She went on to do some research on the Eye Foundation. Soumya said, “What I discovered was humbling, inspiring and incredibly motivating. The work that Dr Raju and the Foundation continue do is truly admirable. For the last two years, I have gotten to know Dr Raju better and definitely enjoy receiving his postcards from his travels. As someone who has had several eye surgeries at a very young age, I understand the importance of early detection, education and access to care. Our eyes are how we experience the world. Taking care of them is not just about vision. It’s about how we live, connect, and thrive. Thank you, Dr. Raju, for having me here today,” she said.

“I was born in a rural village in India, poor and legally blind, with no opportunity to exist,” Sam Maddula, Pharm.D., a distinguished leader, visionary entrepreneur, and dedicated philanthropist, said. Sam went on to add, how his life turned from darkness to light as his parents stumbled upon an Eye Camp that the Eye Foundation of America had set up in 1987 in rural Andhra Pradesh. “It is this organization that rescued me from a life of darkness. The Eye Foundation of America helped me get a visa to the United States. The esteemed Dr. VK Raju himself, performed dual corneal transplant surgery on me two weeks after my second birthday in the United States. He did it, working with the Eye Foundation for free. He cured me just like that, with the magic of his hands. I could see my life went from literal darkness to pure sunlight.”

Sam shared his life story virtually with the audience during the Gala.This life-changing miracle is one of the millions of Eye Surgeries that The Eye Foundation of America, led by the legendary Dr. VK Rajuhas done in the past half a century, transforming the lives of millions of children, who are born every year with vision impairment.

Dr. SankuRao, a Board member of the Eye Foundation; Dr. Indrajit Saluja, Publisher and Chief Editor of The Indian Panorama; Parveen Chopra, Publisher and Chief Editor of Lotus in the Mud were others who felicitated the Eye Foundation and the organizers of the event for their tireless efforts to eradicate childhood blindness.

The Gala and Fundraising Event, attended by several community and business leaders, who joined the mission to help eliminate childhood blindness, included, entertainment, silent auction, raffles, fundraising, and a delicious cocktail dinner at the beautiful Surf Club on The Sound in New Rochelle, New York.The Eye Foundation of America (EFA) was started in 1977 by Dr. VK Raju in the hopes of improving accessibility and affordability in eye care in and around his hometown in southern India. Since then, EFA has grown and collaborated with doctors and non-profit organizations in over 30 countries.

For the past four decades, Dr. Raju and the EFA have been actively and tirelessly on a crusade to eliminate avoidable blindness in areas plagued by poverty and poor access to medical care. The EFA’s mission is to eliminate avoidable blindness under the guiding principles of service, teaching, and research.

This noble mission is accomplished through eye camps and brick-and-mortar hospitals in developing countries, training of medical personnel to serve the needy, and educating the population at large on preventative eye care and healthy lifestyle choices. With adequate education, patients are empowered to take charge of their lives and their own health and prevent further deleterious consequences of their poor lifestyle choices, while sharing this knowledge with their friends and families.

Through the efforts of the Eye Foundation, the public is educated on eye care and injury prevention, and local teachers are taught how to screen for early eye problems in children. Patients, their families, and the greater community benefit from preventative medical care, free procedures, and access to education.

The EFA has served approximately 2.5 million patients and performed 340,000+ vision-saving surgeries, with 30,000+ surgeries performed on children alone. His over 40 years of noble work has helped restore vision to millions in India and abroad.

With all of Dr. Raju’s momentous achievements, he has also ensured that his life’s work and vision are self-sustaining. The Goutami Institute, which has been honoured as the Best Eye Hospital in the state of Andhra Pradesh by the state Government continues to add new buildings, more staff and equipment, and mobile clinics to meet the growing demand for treatment for children and adults.

“I feel so incredibly thankful for my personal and professional gifts, and I make great efforts to share those gifts with those in need of my services,” says Dr. Raju. “I am ever grateful to India for giving me stellar medical education for almost free. The work of EFA and the Goutami Eye institute wouldn’t be possible without the support of our Board Members, who go beyond to enhance and help realize our mission to make the world free of blindness.”

Dr. Raju says, childhood blindness has far-reaching consequences. 75% of blind children never attend school.  Blindness reduces employability by 50%. Blindness increases poverty and social isolation. Urging everyone to be part of this noble mission, Dr. Raju says, “Together, Let Us Illuminate Young Lives and Create A World Without Childhood Blindness. Your Support Can: Change Lives, Restore Vision, And Empower Futures. Now, Let’s All Join the Movement; Be Part of Something Extraordinary.”

To donate or would like to know more about the foundation, please Visit: www.EyeFoundationofAmerica.org.

Prominent film producer Pritish Nandy passed away on Wednesday at the age of 73 due to a cardiac arrest at his residence in South Mumbai. His death marks the end of a remarkable career that spanned across the film industry and journalism.

Nandy was behind the production of several iconic and successful films, including Jhankaar Beats, Chameli, Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi, Ek Khiladi Ek Haseena, Ankahee, Pyaar Ke Side Effects, and Bow Barracks Forever. These films established him as a key figure in the Indian film industry.

On Wednesday, his close friend and veteran actor Anupam Kher shared the heartbreaking news of Nandy’s passing on his Instagram. In a deeply emotional post, Kher expressed his shock and sorrow, writing, “Deeply deeply saddened and shocked to know about the demise of one of my dearest and closest friends #PritishNandy!”

Kher described Nandy as a brave individual and reflected on their close bond. He shared memories of how Nandy had been a pillar of support during his early days in Mumbai. “Amazing poet, writer, filmmaker and a brave and unique editor/journalist! He was my support system and a great source of strength in my initial days in Mumbai. We shared lots of things in common. He was also one of the most fearless people I had come across. Always larger than life,” Kher wrote in his tribute.

The actor also recalled a special moment when Nandy surprised him by featuring him on the cover of Filmfare magazine, as well as in The Illustrated Weekly, calling it a gesture he would never forget. “I learnt so many things from him. Off-late we didn’t meet much. But there was a time when we were inseparable! I will never forget when he surprised me by putting me on the cover of Filmfare and more importantly #TheIllustratedWeekly,” Kher added in his heartfelt message.

Kher concluded his tribute by referring to Nandy as the “true definition of yaaron ka yaar” (a friend’s friend) and expressed how much he would miss their time together. “He was the true definition of yaaron ka yaar! I will miss you and our times together my friend. Rest well. #HeartBroken,” Kher’s post ended.

Veteran journalist Sheela Bhatt also paid tribute to Nandy, acknowledging his significant contributions to journalism. She said, “Pritish Nandy was a game changer. He injected tremendous energy into staid magazine journalism of early 80s.” Her statement highlighted Nandy’s impact on the media industry, especially during a transformative time in Indian journalism.

Dibang, another veteran journalist, shared his own fond memories of Nandy. He credited him with revamping The Illustrated Weekly, making it one of the most influential magazines of its time. “He revamped The Illustrated Weekly, making it one of the most influential magazines of its time. Sometimes, he would take me to meet some of the most powerful politicians,” Dibang recalled in his tribute.

Pritish Nandy was born on January 15, 1951, in Bhagalpur, Bihar. Beyond his work in films, he was a well-known journalist and a significant media personality. In the 1990s, Nandy hosted The Pritish Nandy Show on Doordarshan, where he interviewed prominent figures from various fields. His television career also helped solidify his status as a multi-talented individual in both the entertainment and media sectors.

In addition to his work in the film and media industries, Nandy was also involved in politics. He served as a member of the Rajya Sabha, representing the Shiv Sena party, from 1998 to 2004. His political career further showcased his versatility, as he engaged in public life in multiple capacities.

The passing of Pritish Nandy has left a void in both the film industry and journalism. His contributions to cinema, media, and politics will continue to be remembered by his friends, colleagues, and fans. His legacy as a pioneering filmmaker, influential journalist, and politician will inspire future generations in these fields.

As the news of his death spreads, tributes from across the industry continue to pour in. Pritish Nandy’s contributions to cinema, media, and his personal friendships have left an indelible mark on the cultural landscape.

Eunji Kim sparked Chris Wiggins’ interest during an event on artificial intelligence and democracy when she brought a fresh perspective to the discussion of memes and their role in information ecosystems. Reflecting on the event, Wiggins, an associate professor of applied mathematics at Columbia Engineering, remarked, “A string of fellow technologists — including myself — got up and made various technical claims about how technology is useful for understanding the information ecosystem. Then Professor Kim got up and said, in academic terms, none of you has any idea how Americans actually interact with information.”

This moment of academic candor has since led to a collaborative teaching effort between Kim and Wiggins. Together, they are co-teaching a new course at Columbia University titled “Persuasion at Scale: Causal Inference, Machine Learning, and Evidence-Based Understanding of the Information Environment.” The course brings together data science and political science to examine how information influences public opinion and behavior. Both professors are members of Columbia’s Data Science Institute (DSI).

Kim, an assistant professor in political science, highlights a common challenge in computational social science: the risk of drawing incomplete or inaccurate conclusions without considering the political and social context behind the data. “It’s very common for researchers in computational social science to use big data to draw conclusions about society,” Kim explained. “But if you don’t consider political context and meaning that influences your data, the analysis will be incomplete and your conclusions could be wrong.”

The course is designed to bridge this gap by equipping students with the skills to critically analyze the impact of political communication, ranging from campaign advertisements to partisan media and social media content. As Wiggins pointed out, “Persuasion is happening at scale on information platforms, so we now have the chance to understand this question statistically.”

A significant component of the course is machine learning, a branch of artificial intelligence. Students will delve into the role of machine learning in content recommendation and moderation systems, which are fundamental to modern information platforms. Additionally, they will employ these techniques to analyze and interpret complex datasets.

The course blends theoretical insights with practical applications. Students will explore the academic literature on political persuasion while also engaging with statistical methods to study real-world data. By doing so, they will examine the effects of partisan media, social media, advertising, and political campaigns on public opinion. The course also takes a historical perspective on how persuasion strategies have evolved over time.

“When we actually bring data to these questions and look at them objectively, we sometimes find that conventional wisdom isn’t supported — or that it’s wrong,” Kim stated. For instance, there is a widespread belief that Americans are deeply entrenched in partisan echo chambers, where half the population consumes conservative media like Fox News, while the other half tunes in to liberal outlets like MSNBC. However, Kim noted, “If you look at actual behavior-level data, the extent to which echo chambers exist is very limited because most people do not consume news to begin with. Consumption of news content is very low relative to other media, like sports or entertainment.”

Another surprising discovery in political science is the limited impact of political campaigns on voter decisions, even when those campaigns spend enormous sums of money. “There’s a lot of discrepancy between what people believe versus what empirical social science has been discovering,” Kim said.

To address such discrepancies, students will learn causal inference techniques, enabling them to differentiate between correlation and causation when working with real-world data. This methodological rigor will help students draw more accurate and meaningful conclusions.

The course is part of Columbia’s Provost’s Cross-Disciplinary Frontiers Initiative and is open to undergraduates from across the university. With an anticipated enrollment of about 70 students, the professors hope to foster an environment of interdisciplinary collaboration. Kim emphasized the importance of such cross-disciplinary learning, stating, “Engineering students don’t often take classes in political science, and our own social science students do not often take many math classes. These types of classes are critical for them to learn how to fix the many complex problems facing our society.”

For Wiggins, the course represents an opportunity to bring mathematical and statistical precision to a field often dominated by assumptions and anecdotal evidence. “I think it’s useful to zoom out and see how persuasion — whether it’s political persuasion or marketing — has some universal aspects that we can understand using mathematics,” he said. By combining this mathematical framework with historical and contextual insights, the course aims to empower students to move beyond sensational anecdotes and instead adopt a methodical approach to understanding persuasion.

The professors also aim to challenge the conventional wisdom that often pervades discussions of political communication. By applying statistical methods and analyzing real-world data, students will be better equipped to question prevailing assumptions and develop evidence-based conclusions.

Ultimately, “Persuasion at Scale” is more than just a course on political communication; it is a training ground for the next generation of interdisciplinary thinkers. Students from diverse academic backgrounds will learn not only the technical skills required for data analysis but also the critical thinking needed to navigate the complex intersections of technology, media, and politics.

By encouraging collaboration across disciplines, Kim and Wiggins hope to create a new wave of scholars who can tackle pressing societal challenges with a blend of quantitative rigor and contextual understanding. As Wiggins concluded, “By combining that context with the language of probability, we hope to enable students to look past inflammatory anecdotes in order to think methodologically and historically.”

In the early hours of Friday, an Israeli airstrike targeted a guesthouse in southeastern Lebanon, killing three journalists while they slept, marking a rare assault on a region previously untouched by recent hostilities. The strike occurred around 3 a.m., leveling a series of guesthouses occupied by journalists covering the ongoing Gaza and Lebanon conflicts. Vehicles marked with “PRESS” were left overturned and covered in dust, with no prior warning issued by the Israeli military, who later stated they were investigating the incident.

The victims were Ghassan Najjar, a camera operator, and Mohammed Rida, a broadcast technician, both employed by Al-Mayadeen TV, a Beirut-based pan-Arab network. The third casualty was Wissam Qassim, a camera operator for Al-Manar TV, which is associated with Hezbollah. The Israeli strike came shortly after an earlier airstrike on an Al-Mayadeen office on Beirut’s outskirts. Both Al-Mayadeen and Al-Manar have ties to Hezbollah and its primary ally, Iran.

This incident drew immediate condemnation from officials, press advocacy groups, and journalists. The attack occurred in Hasbaya, a region considered safe from the intense Israeli airstrikes impacting southern Lebanon. Many media crews had relocated to Hasbaya following Israel’s evacuation orders for nearby towns. According to Elsy Moufarrej, the coordinator for Lebanon’s Alternative Press Syndicate, “They want to prevent the journalists from covering and having presence in the south of Lebanon.” Moufarrej argued that this strike was “a direct targeting” intended to drive journalists out of the area.

Lebanese Information Minister Ziad Makary condemned the strike, alleging it was a calculated attack on journalists covering what he described as “Israel’s crimes.” Makary emphasized that the journalists were part of a larger group, writing on social media, “This is an assassination, after monitoring and tracking, with premeditation and planning, as there were 18 journalists present at the location representing seven media institutions.”

Among the journalists at the scene was Imran Khan, a senior correspondent for Al Jazeera English. Khan shared on social media that the strike hit without warning around 3:30 a.m., while the journalists were resting after a long day of coverage. “These were just journalists that were sleeping in bed after long days of covering the conflict,” he posted, noting that his team was unharmed.

Hussein Hoteit, a cameraman for Egypt’s Al-Qahira TV, described waking up to the weight of the building’s collapsed walls and ceiling around him. Hoteit recounted his narrow escape, with colleagues freeing him from debris minutes later. Speaking from his hospital bed, where he was receiving treatment for thigh injuries, he shared that two missiles hit the chalet next door, though he hadn’t heard them due to the chaos of the collapse.

This attack adds to a troubling list of journalists killed by Israeli forces over the past year. A recent report from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) recorded the deaths of at least 128 journalists and media workers in Gaza and Lebanon. Released on October 4, the report described Israel’s war conduct as having inflicted “an unprecedented and horrific toll on Palestinian journalists and the region’s media landscape.” The CPJ noted that, with few exceptions, these deaths were caused by Israeli forces, making this the deadliest year for journalists since the organization began tracking fatalities in 1992.

The death toll among journalists has sparked global condemnation from press advocacy organizations and international bodies, including the United Nations. Israeli officials, however, maintain that they do not target journalists deliberately. Lebanon’s Health Minister reported that over the past year, Israeli attacks had claimed the lives of 11 journalists and injured eight others.

This strike follows a string of fatal incidents involving journalists in the region. In November 2023, two Al-Mayadeen TV journalists lost their lives in a drone strike, and a month earlier, Israeli shelling killed Issam Abdallah, a videographer for Reuters, in southern Lebanon. That attack also wounded journalists from Agence France-Presse and Qatar’s Al-Jazeera.

Israel recently leveled allegations against Al Jazeera journalists, accusing them of affiliation with militant groups based on documents supposedly found in Gaza. Al Jazeera has dismissed these allegations as a tactic aimed at silencing the few journalists still covering the conflict. “This is a blatant attempt to silence the few remaining journalists in the region,” the network stated in response to the accusations. The Committee to Protect Journalists has also rejected these allegations, stating that “Israel has repeatedly made similar unproven claims without producing credible evidence.”

Jad Shahrour, a spokesperson for the Samir Kassir Eyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom, condemned the targeting of press centers as an attempt to silence the truth. He explained to The Associated Press that targeting journalists in this manner suggests “a media blackout” is being enforced, describing it as a troubling shift from targeting press in Gaza to now focusing on Lebanon.

Al-Mayadeen’s director, Ghassan bin Jiddo, asserted that Friday’s strike was a deliberate attack aimed at silencing coverage of Israel’s military operations. Ali Shoeib, a well-known Al-Manar correspondent stationed in southern Lebanon, shared a video taken on his cellphone, reporting that his camera operator of several months was among those killed in the strike. Shoeib alleged that the Israeli military was aware that multiple media outlets housed journalists in the area. In the video, Shoeib poignantly stated, “We were reporting the news and showing the suffering of the victims, and now we are the news and the victims of Israel’s crimes.”

On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against TikTok and its parent company ByteDance, accusing them of breaching children’s online privacy regulations. The DOJ claims that TikTok allowed users younger than 13 to create accounts, gathered data from these children, and did not comply with parental requests to delete the accounts and associated data.

The lawsuit alleges that TikTok’s practices violate the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and breach a 2019 settlement concerning the app’s predecessor, Musical.ly. The filing states, “To put an end to TikTok’s unlawful massive-scale invasions of children’s privacy, the United States brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and other relief.”

According to the DOJ, TikTok “knowingly allowed children under 13 to create accounts” and “collected extensive personal information” without informing their parents or obtaining consent. The lawsuit contends that when parents requested the deletion of their children’s accounts and data, TikTok obstructed and failed to honor these requests.

The DOJ criticized TikTok’s process for account deletion, asserting, “Parents must navigate a convoluted process to figure out how to request deletion of their child’s account and information.” It further noted, “Even if a parent succeeded in submitting a request to delete their child’s account and information, [TikTok] often did not honor that request.”

The lawsuit follows a 2019 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation that resulted in a consent order against TikTok for prior COPPA infractions. FTC Chair Lina Khan stated, “TikTok knowingly and repeatedly violated kids’ privacy, threatening the safety of millions of children across the country.” She added, “The FTC will continue to use the full scope of its authorities to protect children online—especially as firms deploy increasingly sophisticated digital tools to surveil kids and profit from their data.”

In response, TikTok released a statement denying the allegations, asserting, “We disagree with these allegations, many of which relate to past events and practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed.” The company emphasized its commitment to child safety, stating, “We are proud of our efforts to protect children, and we will continue to update and improve the platform. To that end, we offer age-appropriate experiences with stringent safeguards, proactively remove suspected underage users, and have voluntarily launched features such as default screentime limits, Family Pairing, and additional privacy protections for minors.”

Additionally, TikTok is embroiled in an ongoing legal dispute regarding its future in the United States. In May, TikTok sued the U.S. government following Congress’s passage of legislation mandating that its China-based parent company divest or face a ban from American networks and app stores. This ban could potentially be implemented as early as January 2025.

A declining share of U.S. adults are following the news closely, according to recent Pew Research Center surveys. And audiences are shrinking for several older types of news media – such as local TV stations, most newspapers and public radio – even as they grow for newer platforms like podcasts, as well as for a few specific media brands.

Pew Research Center has long tracked trends in the news industry. In addition to asking survey questions about Americans’ news consumption habits, our State of the News Media project uses several other data sources to look at various aspects of the industry, including audience size, revenue and other metrics.

How we did this

The latest data shows a complex picture. Here are some of our key findings:

• For the most part, daily newspaper circulationnationwide – counting digital subscriptions and print circulation – continues to decline, falling to just under 21 million in 2022, according to projections using data from the Alliance for Audited Media (AAM). Weekday circulation is down 8% from the previous year and 32% from five years prior, when it was over 30 million. Out of 136 papers included in this analysis, 120 experienced declines in weekday circulation in 2022.
• While most newspapers in the United States are struggling, some of the biggest brands are experiencing digital growth.AAM data does not include all digital circulation to three of the nation’s most prominent newspapers: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. But while all three are experiencing declines in their print subscriptions, other available data suggests substantial increases in digital subscriptions for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. (Similar data is not available for The Washington Post.) For example, The New York Times saw a 32% increase in digital-only subscriptions in 2022, surpassing 10 million subscribers and continuing years of growth, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). There are many reasons this data is not directly comparable with the AAM data, including the fact that some digital subscriptions to The New York Times do not include news and are limited to other products like cooking and games. Still, these brands are bucking the overall trend.
• Overall, digital traffic to newspapers’ websites is declining.The average monthly number of unique visitors to the websites of the country’s top 50 newspapers (based on circulation, and including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post) declined 20% to under 9 million in the fourth quarter of 2022, down from over 11 million in the same period in 2021, according to Comscore data. The length of the average visit to these sites is also falling – to just under a minute and a half in the last quarter of 2022.
• Traffic to top digital news websites is not picking up the slack.Overall, traffic to the most visited news websites – those with at least 10 million unique visitors per month in the fourth quarter of a given year – has declined over the past two years. The average number of monthly unique visitors to these sites was 3% lower in October-December 2022 than in the same period in 2021, following a 13% drop the year before that, according to Comscore. The length of the average visit to these sites is getting shorter, too. (These sites can include newspapers’ websites, such as that of The New York Times, as well as other digital news sites like those of CNN, Fox News or Axios.)
• Across several years of data, there has been a drop in audiences for local TV news, affecting morning, evening and late-night time slots alike.For example, the average number of TVs tuning into ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates for the evening news was just over 3 million in 2022, down from just over 4 million in 2016.
• Audience trends are a little more mixed when it comes to TV news on cable and network stations.Prime-time and daytime audiences for CNN, Fox News and MSNBC all grew in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, before declining in 2021. Fox News’ audiences ticked back up in 2022, while the audiences for the other two channels continued to decline.
• Audiences for news programming on ABC, CBS and NBChave been relatively stable in recent years, with some variation depending on the time slot. Audiences for evening news are up slightly since 2016 on all three networks, but they are modestly down for morning news.
• The story is mixed when it comes to audio, too.The share of Americans who listen to terrestrial radio has declined in recent years, as has listenership on NPR and PRX. But there has been a clear rise in audiences for podcasts and other types of online audio. Although podcasts often are not news-related, about two-thirds of S. podcast listeners say they hear news discussed on the podcasts they listen to.

Economic trends in the news industry

Declines in audience don’t necessarily mean declines in revenue, with some industries faring better than others in 2022. The newspaper industry and network television, for example, saw losses in advertising revenue, while local TV revenue followed typical patterns associated with election years.

Here are some data points on how these media sectors are faring economically, based on data from filings with the SEC, industry tracking companies and other sources:

• Advertising revenue for newspapershas continued to decline steadily. In 2020, projections of circulation revenue surpassed advertising revenue for the first time since at least 1956 (the first year for which data is available), and that pattern has held steady in recent years. The makeup of advertising revenue is changing as well: Nearly half of newspaper companies’ advertising revenue (48%) came from digital advertising in 2022, up from 19% in 2012.
• For local television, advertising revenue has remained roughly stable on the whole,bolstered by increased digital advertising and consistent spikes in political advertising revenue during election years. Political advertising, in particular, has grown over the past decade, increasing from roughly $600 million in the 2012 presidential election year to about $1.9 billion in 2022 (a midterm election year). Local TV stations also have seen increasing revenue from retransmission fees, paid by cable and satellite systems to carry local channels.
• Local public radio station revenuehas increased, from roughly $1.1 billion in 2020 to about $1.2 billion in 2021. Revenue for NPR, specifically, increased 8% between 2021 and 2022.
• Revenue trends for cable TV newsvary depending on the network. Among the three major cable news networks, Fox News led in both total revenue and net advertising revenue, which increased from 2020 to 2022. CNN and MSNBC saw slight declines over the same period.
• Advertising revenue has generally declined for ABC, CBS and NBC news programmingsince 2020, in both the morning and evening time slots.

CBS News President and co-head Neeraj Khemlani, who has guided the news division and local TV stations for a little over two years, made a sudden announcement on Sunday regarding his departure from his current position.

In a memo addressed to the staff, Khemlani conveyed his decision with clarity, stating, “I have some news to share today, and I don’t want to bury the lede. After an exhilarating run, and before the next season starts, I’ve decided to step back from my current role and start a new exciting chapter.”

Khemlani disclosed that he has entered into a “multi-year, multi-platform first look deal with CBS to develop content” for the network, encompassing projects such as “documentaries, scripted series, and books for Simon & Schuster.”

The successor to Khemlani remains uncertain, although Wendy McMahon, who shares the same title as president and co-head of CBS News and TV stations, is being considered as a potential candidate.

George Cheeks, the CEO of CBS, lauded Khemlani’s contributions in a separate memo to the staff, assuring them that he would soon provide updates regarding “information about the new leadership and structure for the division.”

The absence of an immediate announcement about a new network chief or interim leadership team following Khemlani’s unexpected departure on Sunday underlines the abrupt nature of his decision.

Noteworthy news programs like “60 Minutes,” “CBS Sunday Morning,” “Face the Nation,” and the “Evening News” fall under the purview of the CBS News president.

While CBS News holds a dominant position in Sunday programming, the network has struggled to secure a higher position against NBC and ABC in daily programming. However, it managed to enhance its ratings under Khemlani’s leadership.

During his tenure, Khemlani bolstered the reporting team at CBS News, successfully attracting well-known journalists such as Robert Costa and Cecilia Vega to the network. Despite his ability to draw esteemed reporters to the organization, Khemlani encountered challenges along the way. Earlier this year, he became the subject of a human resources investigation.

Khemlani’s departure marks the third instance of a network news chief exiting in 2023. Chris Licht was dismissed from CNN earlier in the year following a tumultuous period, and in January, Noah Oppenheim left NBC News.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has published a report detailing the lack of accountability held by the Israeli military regarding their killings of at least 20 journalists over the past 20 years. The report, titled “Deadly Pattern,” exposes a distressing trend in which “a pattern of the killings of journalists by Israel Defense Forces (IDF), after which no accountability is taken,” according to a CPJ press release. The press advocacy group reveals that although the IDF has taken out 20 journalists since 2001, only Palestinian reporters have been affected by such killings, with no one charged or held accountable for the deaths. These events lead to concerns about the reporters’ safety, as the CPJ emphasizes that the lack of accountability and uncooperative nature of the Israeli military regarding the inquiries makes it exceptionally challenging and incredibly dangerous for journalists to report in the region.

The report states that there is a typical pattern when a journalist is killed in the occupied territories at the hands of the IDF. “Israeli officials discount evidence and witness claims, often seeming to clear soldiers for the killings while inquiries are still in progress; IDF’s procedure for examining military killings of civilians such as journalists described as a “black box,” with the results of any such probe kept confidential.” Furthermore, the report highlights that Israeli military investigations into such incidents often take years, and families of the mostly Palestinian journalists have little to no recourse to pursue justice. The IDF’s Military Advocate General’s Office made a statement in September 2021 stating it does not intend to prosecute any of the soldiers involved.

In May of 2021, CNN conducted an investigation after Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh, a 51-year-old Palestinian-American, was shot and killed by the IDF while covering an Israeli military operation in Jenin. The investigation uncovered footage and testimonies that proved no active combat or Palestinian militants were present at the time of her death. The report also features a quote by the CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa representative Ignacio Miguel Delgado, stating that “The deliberate targeting of journalists, whether through the use of live rounds, rubber bullets, or tear gas, is unacceptable and must stop.”

The report concludes that the lack of accountability, refusal to cooperate with investigations, and the slow pace of military probes means that the Israeli military are complicit with the killings of journalists and impunity for the death of journalists, and this has become a distressing trend. The report also urges Israeli authorities to take action to curb such incidents and that IDF officials should be held accountable for their actions.

Report finds Israeli forces repeatedly fail to respect press insignia, resulting in deaths of journalists

The Israeli military has been accused of failing to protect journalists in the West Bank and Gaza, according to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The report states that 20 journalists have been killed in the regions since 1992, with at least 13 clearly marked as press at the time of their deaths. The report also alleges that Israeli forces continue to ignore the “press insignia” of journalists and media workers. The CPJ claims that it contacted the IDF’s press office multiple times to request interviews with military prosecutors and officials, but was always refused.

The IDF regrets any harm to civilians caused during operational activity and recognises the importance of press freedom and the work of journalists, according to a statement by the agency. The IDF is said to use live fire only as a last resort, and not to target non-combatants. It also investigates its own actions through independent and comprehensive examination and investigation mechanisms including the Fact Finding Assessment. The Israeli military has stated that whenever an allegation of unlawful harm to civilians, including journalists, is raised, an investigative procedure is initiated to clarify these allegations. When there is reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence, a criminal investigation will be opened.

“The degree to which Israel claims to investigate journalist killings depends largely on external pressure,” said Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. “There are cursory probes into the deaths of journalists with foreign passports, but that is rarely the case for slain Palestinian reporters. Ultimately, none has seen any semblance of justice.” The report also states that none of the IDF personnel involved in the deaths of the 20 journalists has ever been held accountable.

Robert Mahoney, CPJ’s director of special projects, said “The killing of Shireen Abu Akleh and the failure of the army’s investigative process to hold anyone responsible is not a one-off event. It is part of a pattern of response that seems designed to evade responsibility. Not one member of the IDF has been held accountable in the deaths of 20 journalists from Israeli military fire over the last 22 years.”

The decision by Twitter to label National Public Radio (NPR) as “state-affiliated media,” which it then changed to “government-funded media” after a barrage of criticism, underscores the need to rethink the role of major social media platforms as critical gatekeepers in the public sphere, the need for better labels for news media, and the importance of insulating these designations from political interference or mercurial interventions by billionaire founders.

When Twitter placed a state-affiliated media label on NPR last week, it put the award-winning public media outlet in the same category as Russia’s RT, the state-controlled international media network, and China’s Xinhua News Agency, providing fodder to partisans around the world who would happily denigrate public service media by equating it with state-owned media.

On April 12, NPR announced that it will no longer post on its 52 Twitter channels to protect its credibility, though its journalists are still able to use the platform for newsgathering.

Figuring out which news media are propaganda or arms of the states that fund them, and which ones provide a public service and are insulated from editorial interference by the government, has once again become a flashpoint in the debate over content moderation and discrimination on social media—not long after major social media platforms began instituting labels on some media accounts.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called it “an insult to the notion of a free press to conflate an editorially independent nonprofit organization like NPR with state-controlled propaganda mills” in Russia and China. Meanwhile, Republicans, who have long pushed to defund NPR and object to its public interest mandate, cheered the new label.

In an apparent response to the outcry, Twitter established—at least for now—a new “government funded” label on both NPR and BBC accounts, despite the fact that less than two percent of their budgets come from public funds. This term is equally misleading, since many news outlets around the world receive government funding through subsidies, state advertising, and emergency relief during the pandemic.

In Canada, for example, the government has provided millions of dollars directly to media outlets through direct cash infusions and tax breaks. The U.S. and Europe support public interest media around the world through overseas development assistance, providing critical state funding to media working in challenging conditions around the world. In these and other examples, does that make them either state-affiliated or government-funded?

The terms state-controlled and government-funded raise questions about the utility of employing such blunt terms and not including information about how other news media are funded and operate. The selective application of labels to some news media and not others also raise concerns about perception and consistency.

Public media outlets, such as NPR, are editorially independent, provide transparency into their budgets, masthead, and editorial processes, and publish their standards and provide corrections when necessary. The fact that these outlets receive some funding from the U.S. federal government does not make them “state-affiliated” in the same sense as outlets like RT and Xinhua, which are fully state-funded and provide minimal transparency regarding either their operational or editorial processes. Media outlets like NPR and the BBC are better characterized as public interest and publicly funded media.

Efforts to categorize news media are not only about labels; they also impose restrictions on advertising, targeting, and algorithmic amplification. Twitter’s move to reclassify NPR directly impacts its reach, since Twitter’s policy states it “will not recommend or amplify” accounts that receive the state media label. Shadow banning tactics, which suppress the reach of a social media account without outright deactivating it, can also affect the visibility and monetization of their news content, with implications for news media sustainability. These results could happen despite the original intent of adding such labels, which is to provide social media users with additional information about the content they were seeing and create a signal that algorithmic systems could use to moderate content or enable certain features.

Content labeling harms independent media

Media outlets care about the label they get. Al Jazeera, which was originally labeled as funded by the Qatari government, lobbied successfully to persuade Facebook it was editorially independent and shouldn’t get a label. “The reason we object so forcefully is because for us, perception is reality in the world in which we live,” Michael Weaver, Al Jazeera’s Senior Vice President Business Development and Growth, Digital Division, told me at the time. “If we’re being undermined by other platforms, it spreads across not only what Al Jazeera is doing but it spreads across all these geopolitical conflicts that are happening in the area. It could be a death blow to the network.”

The risks of conflating editorially independent outlets with state-controlled propaganda mills not only detracts from the media and information literacy goals of such labeling, but also undermines the safety of journalists working for the outlet. Labeling independent public interest media as state-affiliated provides cover to authoritarian governments to designate those organizations and their journalists as foreign agents or spies, which could have significant implications for their safety.

In this sense, NPR’s decision to withdraw, at least partially, from using Twitter sends a principled message that will help insulate its reporters in the field from backlash. Ideally more media outlets, including the BBC, which now has the same label as NPR, would consider doing the same and break out of Twitter’s stranglehold on journalism. Unlike Google and Facebook, which form the backbone of the digital advertising and audience infrastructure upon which the news media rely, Twitter is a considerably more important platform for journalists, politicians, and other elite who believe it to be the digital public square.

Indian-American Karthik Subramaniam, a San Francisco-based software engineer, has won the 2023 National Geographic ‘Pictures of the Year’ award, beating over 5,000 entries.

Subramaniam’s photo, which is titled ‘Dance of the Eagles’, shows a trio of bald eagles battling for a spot on a branch in Alaska’s Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, a press release by the magazine said.

He titled the image as a homage to a fictional dragon war in George R.R. Martin’s novel, ‘A Dance with Dragons’.

“Wherever there’s salmon there’s going to be chaos,” Subramaniam told the magazine that this was his motto as he camped out near the shore of the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, waiting for action.

The engineer-turned-hobbyist photographer said he stayed, watching as bald eagles swooped in and out of the fishing grounds in Haines, Alaska.

The area hosts the largest congregations of bald eagles in the world every fall, when around 3,000 arrive in time for the salmon run.

The photo was selected from nearly 5,000 entries across four categories: Nature, People, Places and Animals.

Subramaniam has been photographing landscapes and his travels for years.

He started experimenting with wildlife photography in 2020, grounded by the pandemic in his San Francisco home. The photo will be featured in the May issue of National Geographic magazine. (IANS)

Nine in 10 adult social media users admitted to participating in cyberbullying in their lifetime, while only 6 per cent said they would never commit the act, a research conducted in the US and India found.

The recent study by Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) showed 94 per cent of respondents admitted to participating in some form of cyberbullying in their lifetime.

Among the 313 respondents from the US and India, more than half said they often do cyberbullying while only 6 per cent said they had never committed cyberbullying.

Educated and married people, irrespective of their gender, were most likely to commit cyberbullying more frequently, but demographics were not the only factors at play, according to the research.

Published in the International Journal of Information Management, the study found other characteristics such as being outgoing or deceptive ultimately contributed to a person’s likelihood of becoming a cyberbully.

It also highlighted two of the most prevalent characteristics of a cyberbully — higher education and psychopathy.

Lead researcher Dr Mohammad Hossain of RMIT said that men, between the age groups of 23-30, were more likely to cyberbully than women.

“We found less agreeable educated married males with high psychopathy and sadism are most susceptible to committing cyberbullying.

“Alternatively, a less-educated introvert female with high emotional stability and low psychopathy is less-likely to engage in cyberbullying,” Hossain said.

However, he added that cyberbullies “possess a unique combination of characteristics that do not work in isolation”.

The study indicated that people’s online behavior from the two countries were similar.

“The research focused on two social media platforms, Facebook and YouTube, and found the distribution of those committing cyberbullying was consistent between the US and Indian sample, and between Facebook and YouTube users,” said Hossain.

He told ABC News that the two countries were intentionally chosen due to their “cultural and political differences, as well as differences in cyber law policies and implementation”.

To prevent this toxic online behaviour, the study suggested that a combination of personality and demographic factors should be considered in designing actionable and proactive policymaking to address the challenge of cyberbullying.

It added that while designing programs to reduce cyberbullying, more attention needs to be given to the users with certain combinations of characteristics. (IANS)

A gallery of Lionel Messi celebrating Argentina’s World Cup win has become the most-liked Instagram post ever. The soccer super star – who led his team to their first World Cup triumph in 36 years – received more than 57 million likes for his collection of photos. Argentina defeated France on penalties in Sunday’s World Cup final in Qatar.

One day after leading Argentina in Qatar on December 19th, Messi posted a gallery of his celebration right after his team beat France in penalties. His first picture shows him smiling while holding the tournament trophy, and others show him celebrating with teammates and enjoying the post-match ceremony.

In the caption, he wrote, “CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD! We showed once more that when Argentinians work hard together and we’re united we’re capable of achieving anything we put our minds to,” he added. “The merit of this group, which was above individualism, is the strength that we all fought for the same dream that was also the one for all Argentinians…we did it!!!”

The post amassed 62 million likes in a little over a day, resonating with Messi’s fans and beyond. The famous egg Instagram post, from January 2019, reached 56 million likes and initially grabbed the most-liked record away from Kylie Jenner. When it first appeared it seemed to be some kind of protest vote against celebrity – people were urged to engage with the picture in the hope of toppling the then-record holder, Kylie Jenner.

There was a lot of speculation about who was behind the @world_record_egg Instagram account and how it managed to attract so many likes so quickly. Some said it was a marketing ploy from a large company that had bought followers – but British advertising executive Chris Godfrey has since claimed he created it, along with two others, and that their sole purpose was to get as many likes as possible.

But while the egg overtook Jenner’s record – totaling as many as 56 million likes at the time of writing – it has finally been surpassed by a rival with several world records in his own right: Lionel Messi.

After the World Cup final, Guinness World Records posted a series of records broken by the victor, noting Messi had surpassed Germany’s Lothar Matthäus for the record of most World Cup matches played, with 26 – as well as four other records:

11 – most World Cup Man of the Match awards

19 – most World Cup appearances as captain

5 – most appearances in World Cup tournaments by a male player

First person to assist (a goal) at five different World Cups

With the success of his latest gallery on Instagram, Messi has yet another record to add to his collection.

A gallery of Lionel Messi celebrating Argentina’s World Cup win has become the most-liked Instagram post ever. The soccer super star – who led his team to their first World Cup triumph in 36 years – received more than 57 million likes for his collection of photos. Argentina defeated France on penalties in Sunday’s World Cup final in Qatar.

One day after leading Argentina in Qatar on December 19th, Messi posted a gallery of his celebration right after his team beat France in penalties. His first picture shows him smiling while holding the tournament trophy, and others show him celebrating with teammates and enjoying the post-match ceremony.

In the caption, he wrote, “CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD! We showed once more that when Argentinians work hard together and we’re united we’re capable of achieving anything we put our minds to,” he added. “The merit of this group, which was above individualism, is the strength that we all fought for the same dream that was also the one for all Argentinians…we did it!!!”

The post amassed 62 million likes in a little over a day, resonating with Messi’s fans and beyond. The famous egg Instagram post, from January 2019, reached 56 million likes and initially grabbed the most-liked record away from Kylie Jenner. When it first appeared it seemed to be some kind of protest vote against celebrity – people were urged to engage with the picture in the hope of toppling the then-record holder, Kylie Jenner.

There was a lot of speculation about who was behind the @world_record_egg Instagram account and how it managed to attract so many likes so quickly. Some said it was a marketing ploy from a large company that had bought followers – but British advertising executive Chris Godfrey has since claimed he created it, along with two others, and that their sole purpose was to get as many likes as possible.

But while the egg overtook Jenner’s record – totaling as many as 56 million likes at the time of writing – it has finally been surpassed by a rival with several world records in his own right: Lionel Messi.

After the World Cup final, Guinness World Records posted a series of records broken by the victor, noting Messi had surpassed Germany’s Lothar Matthäus for the record of most World Cup matches played, with 26 – as well as four other records:

11 – most World Cup Man of the Match awards

19 – most World Cup appearances as captain

5 – most appearances in World Cup tournaments by a male player

First person to assist (a goal) at five different World Cups

With the success of his latest gallery on Instagram, Messi has yet another record to add to his collection.

Kashmiri journalist Samaan Lateef was conferred the prestigious climate change award by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for his extensive reporting on climate.

He was honored with a bronze Medal, a citation and cash prize for The Prince Albert II of Monaco and UNCA Global Prize for Coverage of Climate Change, as per United Nations Correspondent Association.

The journalist reports about the climate crisis in Pakistan, Afghanistan and his India for the Telegraph UK, DW Germany and other major outlets.

In addition to accounts on the unprecedented heatwave in India and flooding in Pakistan, he provided unique coverage of environmental issues threatening economic life in the disputed region of Kashmir.

Earlier in September, Samaan was nominated by the Society of Editors UK for the prestigious Freelancer of the year award.

Samaan was invited to the award ceremony at London on November 12. He has been working for Daily Telegraph London and covering south Asia for the past four years.

In a democracy where the First Amendment protects freedom of the press, government accountability to the media is critical to the survival of democracy. It is generally accepted that an independent media acts as a watchdog that can investigate and report wrongdoings by the government.

Although virtually every state has a law protecting reporters from disclosing sensitive information about their reporting to law enforcement, including the identity of confidential sources, Congress and federal courts have refused to recognize such a privilege. So is freedom of the press just a mirage?

Journalists often rely on confidential sources to write reports dealing with issues of legitimate public importance.

State shield laws are legal protections that give journalists the privilege of not being compelled to disclose confidential or unpublished information. Some states have enacted shield laws to protect the source of a journalist’s report. The Press Clause of the First Amendment ensures that everyone is protected in their right to disseminate information to the public. By favoring corporate-structured news media, Washington’s law favors institutional media, over citizen-journalists.

Still in some cases, reporters have either gone to jail or been sentenced with substantial fines. In order to make ourselves aware that journalists are not above the law as we think these days, a current scary incident needs to be mentioned here.

Priscilla Villarreal, according to a report that appeared in the Houston Chronicle, was just a freelance blogger. Villarreal is a journalist whose main job is to share newsworthy information with the public. She published it on her Facebook page after she confirmed with a Laredo police officer, some public information about a border agent who had committed suicide.

For several years, Villarreal has been embroiled in a legal dispute that raises fundamental questions about the law protecting press freedom and whether journalists in Texas are protected by the First Amendment. Any law that could be used to arrest a journalist for informing the public, could become a shocking precedent.

Villarreal’s arrest has drawn national attention for the constitutional concerns it raises. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to publish information obtained from government sources, even when the source of that information violates confidentiality.

The journalist was arrested and charged under Texas state law: Locking up a journalist for asking a question or threatening to “get out” is a misdemeanor. It would be good if citizen journalists knew that if the media workers are almost not protected, if they try to bring more courage and bring many things to light. If the government seizes the reporter and puts him in jail, there will be no legal loopholes to release, or strong media organizations to collectively respond. Freedom of the Press, if that makes any sense, it means freedom to criticize and oppose, that is the absolute  truth.

Be passionate about what you write and believe in your ability to convey timeless ideas. Governments that do not believe that freedom of speech belongs to every individual, governments that fear the writer’s words more than weapons, are suffocating and silencing journalists, and this will continue, while the media activists who have lost their responsiveness remain silent!

Indian Catholic Press Association (ICPA) will honour noted journalist, writer and human rights activist John Dayal conferring its prestigious annual Louis Careno Award for Excellence in Journalism for his bold, continuous and consistent writing against communalism and fundamentalism gaining ground globally.

The Award will be conferred on Mr Dayal during the 27th National Convention of Christian Journalists, organized by the ICPA, scheduled to be held in Chennai on Saturday, December 10, 2022.

Mr Dayal, a prophet of our times, is among India’s foremost voices against human rights violations, particularly on the persecution of religious minorities, having been a writer and activist for over four decades. He has been a member of several government bodies, including the National Integration Council, and holds senior roles in numerous non-government organisations and networks, including as co-founder and Secretary General of the All India Christian Council, 1999-2014, national president of the 1919-founded all India Catholic Union between 2004 and 2008, and a member of Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

He has had a long and distinguished career in the media and in academia. He has a long record of investigating and producing substantive and influential documents on communal violence in India, including Hindu-Muslim riots and violence against Sikhs, Muslims and Christians.

He is one of India’s leading experts on the situation in Odisha, following the communal violence in 2008. He has authored and contributed to several books, and regularly writes articles on human rights issues in India. Major books he has authored/co-authored or edited include For Reasons of State – Delhi Under the Emergency [1977], republished by Penguin in June 2018; Gujarat 2002 – Told and untold Stories [ 2002]; A Matter of Equity [2007]; Reconciliations — A journey Through Wounded India [with Harsh Mander and Natasha Badhwar, Amazon, 2018]. He has contributed to several books published in India and Europe.

He served as war correspondent and foreign correspondent in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Europe. He became editor and CEO of the Delhi Mid Day, and treasurer of the Editors’ Guild of India.

In June 1998, Mr Dayal was one of the signatories of a statement by a group of journalists calling on India to return to the global nuclear disarmament agenda. He continues to provide commentary and analysis in print and on national TV and radio.

His incisive writings on political issues have led to soul-searching debates in the civil society and the secular world. He minces no words in raising his voice against irrational, biased and unfair policies and decisions of the governments of all times. He also writes on Church-related issues without fear or favour. His fierce attack on rising fascist tendencies in the country has hit where it really matters. John Dayal is a role model Communicator in terms of craft, conviction and commitment.

Conferred annually on individuals or institutions, Louis Careno Award for Excellence in Journalism is a joint venture of the Mumbai Province of the Salesians of Don Bosco and the Indian Catholic Press Association (ICPA), a Premier Organisation of Catholic journalists, Dailies and Periodicals in India founded in 1964 by Fr John Barrett, an American Jesuit belonging to the Patna Province.

(AP) — Elon Musk tweeted Sunday that Twitter will permanently suspend any account on the social media platform that impersonates another.

The platform’s new owner issued the warning after some celebrities changed their Twitter display names — not their account names — and tweeted as ‘Elon Musk’ in reaction to the billionaire’s decision to offer verified accounts to all comers for $8 month as he simultaneously laid off a big chunk of the workforce.

“Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended,” Musk wrote. While Twitter previously issued warnings before suspensions, now that it is rolling out “widespread verification, there will be no warning.”

In fact, “any name change at all” would compel the temporary loss of a verified checkmark, the world’s richest man said.

Comedian Kathy Griffin had her account suspended Sunday after she switched her screen name to Musk. She told a Bloomberg reporter that she had also used his profile photo.

“I guess not ALL the content moderators were let go? Lol,” Griffin joked afterward on Mastodon, an alternative social media platform where she set up an account last week.

Actor Valerie Bertinelli had similarly appropriated Musk’s screen name — posting a series of tweets in support of Democratic candidates on Saturday before switching back to her true name. “Okey-dokey. I’ve had fun and I think I made my point,” she tweeted afterwards.

Before the stunt, Bertinelli noted the original purpose of the blue verification checkmark. It was granted free of charge to people whose identity Twitter employees had confirmed; with journalists accounting for a big portion of recipients. “It simply meant your identity was verified. Scammers would have a harder time impersonating you,” Bertinelli noted. “That no longer applies. Good luck out there!” she added.

The $8 verified accounts are Musk’s way of democratizing the service, he claims. On Saturday, a Twitter update for iOS devices listed on Apple’s app store said users who “sign up now” for the new “Twitter Blue with verification” can get the blue check next to their names “just like the celebrities, companies and politicians you already follow.”

It said the service would first be available in the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. However, it was not available Sunday and there was no indication when it would go live. A Twitter employ, Esther Crawford, told The Associated Press it is coming “soon but it hasn’t launched yet.”

Twitter did not respond on Sunday to an email seeking comment on the verified accounts issue and Griffin’s suspension.

Musk later tweeted, “Twitter needs to become by far the most accurate source of information about the world. That’s our mission.”

If the company were to strip current verified users of blue checks — something that hasn’t happened — that could exacerbate disinformation on the platform during Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Like Griffin, some Twitter users have already begun migrating from the platform — Counter Social is another popular alternative — following layoffs that began Friday that reportedly affected about half of Twitter’s 7,500-employee workforce. They fear a breakdown of moderation and verification could create a disinformation free-for-all on what has been the internet’s main conduit for reliable communications from public agencies and other institutions.

Twitter is delaying the rollout of account verifications for its paid Twitter Blue subscription plan until after the midterm elections, CNN reported this week The decision to push back the new feature comes one day after the platform launched an updated version of its iOS app that promises to allow users who pay a monthly subscription fee to get a blue checkmark on their profiles, a feature that CEO Elon Musk has proposed as a way to fight spam on the platform.

The app’s latest update was outlined on Apple’s App Store, stating that users will now have to pay $7.99 per month for the company’s Twitter Blue verification feature, “just like the celebrities, companies, and politicians you already follow.” The checkmark has long been used to confirm the authenticity of government officials, prominent figures and journalists.

Many companies have paused advertising on the platform out of concern it could become more unruly under Musk. Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of safety and integrity, sought to assuage such concerns in a tweet Friday. He said the company’s front-line content moderation staff was the group least affected by the job cuts.

Musk tweeted late Friday that there was no choice but to cut jobs “when the company is losing over $4M/day.” He did not provide details on the daily losses at Twitter and said employees who lost their jobs were offered three months’ pay as severance.

Twitter is the ‘porn hub’ of social media, DisinfoLab said in a new report. Shockingly, despite Indian laws and Twitter’s own policies, even child porn and rape videos are freely available. Worse, Twitter’s lax policy has allowed a massive psy-war targeting communal harmony, the report said. Twitter has a full-fledged porn industry — from live web cam to other ‘off-line services’. Numerous NSFW content selling websites openly advertise themselves on Twitter, including those who show their registration in India, it added.These activities are not run in hiding but in broad day light, advertising with hashtags! Live porn is openly sold on Twitter using the IndianCamGirl hashtag involving a nexus of ‘service providers’, it said.

The fact that the hashtag started in 2017, involves several Influencers, and is used regularly is a testament to Twitter’s unwillingness to address these concerns. In the garb of such ‘services’, personal data of the users are being mined, to be used for criminal activities from ‘sextortion’ to rape, to sexual exploitation of minors, leading to grave consequences, including suicides. Anti-social/anti-India elements are taking advantage of this ‘free porn’ environment of Twitter, weaponising the content. An elaborate psy-war is being waged to damage India’s communal harmony, particularly between Hindus and Muslims, the report said. “Hundreds of fake handles are running coordinated campaigns, dehumanising the women of both religions. These handles pretend to be Hindus (#hstuds) when demeaning Muslim girls (#mslut); and Muslim (#mstud), while demeaning Hindu girls (#hslut),” it added.

The behavioral pattern of these handles – creation date, activity, location and hashtag – clearly establishes an organized campaign designed to harm social harmony. Surprisingly, despite obvious Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior (CIB), Twitter doesn’t seem to take any actions, the report said. Twitter, the US based for-profit company, seems obliged to follow only US laws, while showing complete dis-regard to India’s IT Rules, which prohibits adult content on social media. Twitter doesn’t even make any attempt to implement the laws, doable with basic location filter, the report said. Contrast it with other social media platforms which do far better content management, and continue to strive to keep social media space clean. Shockingly, Twitter seems blind to even most obscene contents, including child porn despite a ‘child sexual exploitation policy’.

Twitter claims to have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards child pornography – and yet seems to make zero efforts to counter this menace. It’s important to remember that this content is available to even under age users, as Twitter doesn’t filter ‘sensitive content’ to even young users, the report said. Equally shocking is freely available ‘rape videos’ on Twitter, which is prohibited even under Twitter’s policy of ‘gory content’. Even those video posts, which have words that could trigger filter mechanism are freely available, including the gang-rape video of a young girl, the report said. Twitter has also failed to filter obscene content for young users. Even a minor user on Twitter can access most obscene content if they wish to. Worth noting that Twitter could easily filter particular kind of content on age and location restriction, if it wished to, DisinfoLab said. “To access Twitter Hub, one need not even own a Twitter account. An open Google search could land anyone, even a minor, to most gory and vulgar contents available on Twitter with just a click on ‘view sensitive content’. Seems #Google also needs to take measures to control it,” the report added.

The DisinfoLab said in a report that adult content industry’s symbiotic relation with Twitter goes both ways: The presence of pornography lures and keeps engaged a number of users; and secondly, it also helps create an economic eco-system, which is more loyal as user, and hence increases Twitter’s number of ‘active users’. The report said several users/accounts openly sell porn on Twitter. The mechanism is simple: The seller accounts show porn clips, thereby ‘attracting’ customers and creating a ‘brand’. Then they send messages, asking money in exchange of large amount of porn. This conversation moves to DMs. In DMs they then share the links for the pornographic content. Not surpassingly, the links at times redirects to malicious websites.

Twitter doesn’t allow for ad promotion for pornographic content, but there are multiple ‘porn services’ websites that get promoted on Twitter. Interestingly, the report came across instances where same set of people/organizations running multiple websites/platforms on Twitter – without any filtering/restrictions. For example, two different websites (www.flitz.in and www.bindastimes.com) were asking for subscription money for giving access to their content. Only fans’ accounts promote their content on Twitter by sharing their website links. Interestingly, as some of the activities are illegal in India, they claim their location to be outside India, while proving contact details and address in India.

For example, a casual look at one of the websites revealed that these sites are registered in Kolkata, and their details have both address and contact numbers from Kolkata. It is therefore again surprising how Twitter doesn’t even scan the basic data of a website’s registration, the report said. It further said that some of the porn content accounts lure the users into filling forms, asking for personal details for a range of things – from ‘one-night stand’ to chats, video and calls etc. However, in order to access these services, the users have to fill forms, such as Google forms, which is not monitored by anyone, not even by Twitter.

Among the data collected through such means are mobile numbers and email ids; personal profile (age, marriage status), professional profile and payment details. The personal data so gathered could be exploited from blackmailing to phishing to selling to third parties. A number of such instances have also been reported in public, and there is a possibility that many more would be getting into traps but are not coming out openly due to public embarrassment, the report said. Other than the verified (Bluetick) services provided by Twitter to adult content handles/platforms, there is a full-fledged industry flourishing on Twitter which strives to provide authentication services to porn service providers. ‘Live webcam services’ are one of the most popular services on Twitter to sell porn. Thousands of users are offering these services openly on Twitter – selling links/means to access this service. However, every economic system needs trust, which is acquired through means of standardisation. The porn industry on Twitter too has developed its own systems of trust through standardisation, DisinfoLab said. Shockingly, despite Indian laws and Twitter’s own policies, even child porn and rape videos are freely available. Worse, Twitter’s lax policy has allowed a massive psy-war targeting communal harmony, the report said. (IANS)

The free and open internet is under attack around the world, Google CEO Sundar Pichai has warned, asserting that many countries are restricting the flow of information and the model is often taken for granted. In an in-depth interview with the BBC at the Google headquarters at Silicon Valley in California, the tech boss covered a wide range of topics, including the threat to free and open internet and also narrowed down on two developments that he feels will further revolutionise the world over the next quarter of a century as artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing.

Pichai, 49, who was born in Tamil Nadu and grew up in Chennai, has said India is deeply rooted in him and a big part of who he is.He didn’t refer to China directly but said: “None of our major products and services are available in China.” Pichai made it clear that the responsibility of steering the future of the internet should not be an onus of an individual “but rather a collective think tank that plots the course forward while taking into account the foundational pillars of the free internet”. He said that artificial intelligence is more profound than fire, electricity or the internet. “I view it as the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on. You know, if you think about fire or electricity or the internet, it’s like that. But I think even more profound,” he was quoted as saying in the report.

In an executive order signed last week, US president Joe Biden called for the restoration of net neutrality regulations. “Big providers can use their power to discriminatorily block or slow down online services. The Obama-Biden Administration’s FCC adopted ‘Net Neutrality’ rules that required these companies to treat all internet services equally, but this was undone in 2017,” the order read. In the order, “the President encourages the FCC to restore Net Neutrality rules undone by the prior administration.”

Pichai, the chief executive of one of the most complex, warned the free and open internet is under attack in countries around, the report said, adding that he said many countries are restricting the flow of information, and the model is often taken for granted. When asked about whether the Chinese model of the internet based on surveillance is in the ascendant, Pichai said the free and open internet “is being attacked”. While he didn’t refer to China directly, he said: “None of our major products and services are available in China.” On the controversial issue of tax, he said: “We are one of the world’s largest taxpayers, if you look at on an average over the last decade, we have paid over 20 per cent in taxes.

“We do pay the majority of our share of taxes in the US, where we originate and where our products are developed. I think there are good conversations and we support the global OECD conversations figuring out what is the right way to allocate taxes, this is beyond a single company to solve,” he said. He was also asked about his own personal tech habits and encouraged everyone to adopt “two-factor authentication” when it comes to passwords to ensure multiple protections and admitted he is constantly changing his phone to test out new technology.Pichai is universally regarded as an exceptionally kind, thoughtful, and caring leader, the report said.

Experts at the United Nations Office of the Human Rights Commissioner have said in a report that it is concerned that India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, in their current form, do not conform with international human rights norms. The observations were made in Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.

The report is authored by Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Clement NyaletsossiVoule, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and Joseph Cannataci, Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. “As noted in previous communications sent to your Excellency’s Government, we are concerned that these new rules come at a time of a global pandemic and of large-scale farmer protests in the country, where the enjoyment of the freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to receive information, and the right to privacy, is particularly important for the realization of several other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights,” the report said.

“We would like to recall that restrictions to freedom of expression must never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights,” the report said. The report said as a global leader in technology innovation, India has the potential to develop legislation that can place it at the forefront of efforts to protect digital rights. However, the substantially broadened scope of the Rules is likely to do just the opposite. “We would therefore encourage the Government to take all necessary steps to carry out a detailed review of the Rules and to consult with all relevant stakeholders, including civil society dealing with human rights, freedom of expression, privacy rights and digital rights”, the report said.

“We understand the new rules were issued under the Information Technology Act of 2000 and therefore, were not subject to parliamentary review or opened for consultation with stakeholders. We believe such consultations with relevant stakeholders are essential in order to ensure the final text is compatible with India’s international legal obligations, in particular with Articles 17 and 19 of the ICCPR,” it added. This observation along with India’s comment will also subsequently be made available in the usual report to be presented to the Human Rights Council, it added. Meanwhile India vigorously defended the much-debated IT Rules following critical comments by the UN special rapporteurs that certain aspects of the newly introduced regulation fall afoul of international human rights.

India’s Permanent Mission to the UN said: “The concern that the rules may be misused deliberately to make a large number of complaints so as to overwhelm the grievance redressal mechanisms created by social media platforms is misplaced, exaggerated and disingenuous and shows lack of willingness to address grievances of the users of these media platforms while using their data to earn revenues.” “The concerns alleging potential implications for freedom of expression that the new IT rules will entail is highly misplaced. India’s democratic credentials are well recognized. The right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The independent judiciary and a robust media are part of India’s democratic structure.”

The Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations, in a letter to the union government last week, had raised concerns on certain aspects of the Rules. “We are seriously concerned that Section 4 may compromise the right to privacy of every Internet user. We are notably concerned by the ability of executive authorities to issue orders to access to user data and restrict content, which seems to take place outside of any judicial oversight mechanism that would hold authorities accountable.” On Part 3 of the Rules on digital media: “We are seriously concerned that such broad powers given to the executive authorities, without judicial review, is likely to unduly restrict the free flow of information, which is protected by Article 19 (2) of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political rights].”

US-based social media platforms have been frustrated by the relentless changing rules and regulations in India, the latest being India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Microblogging site Twitter has been facing the wrath of Indian authorities ever since it flagged a tweet by BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra on a ‘COVID Toolkit’, attributed to the Congress, on how to target the Centre over its handling of the COVID crisis. The row over the purported toolkit escalated after the Special Cell visited Twitter India offices on May 24 and served a notice, asking it to share information based on which Patra’s tweet had been tagged ‘manipulated media’.

The government had asked Twitter to remove the ‘manipulated media’ tag as the law enforcement agency was looking into the issue. Twitter India Managing Director Manish Maheshwari was questioned by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell on May 24 in connection with its probe into the case. He was questioned about the company’s policy on flagging tweets as ‘manipulated media’. Indian representatives of microblogging platform Twitter appeared before the parliamentary panel chaired by Congress’ Shashi Tharoor to discuss the issue of its guidelines and the misuse of its platform. During the deposition, Twitter India’s public policy manager Shagufta Kamran and legal counsel Ayushi Kapoor represented Twitter before the panel.

During the meeting, the panel asked the company, if it follows the law or the land, to which a representative responded saying, “We follow our own policies.” The members then told Twitter that law of the land is “supreme” and asked the company to abide by them. They also asked Twitter to explain why it should not be fined for ‘violating’ rule of land. On February 25, 2021, the Central Government enacted the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which cast various obligations on internet intermediaries, especially on social media platforms. It was reported that social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter were yet to comply with their obligations under the 2021 Rules. This gave rise to an apprehension among users of such websites that these websites could either stop operations or be banned in India for such non-compliance.

A user registered on Facebook can share information with his connections without the same being edited by Facebook in any manner. This passive role adopted by Facebook is what in essence enables it to be classified as an intermediary. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, intermediaries are granted protection from incurring any liability for third-party data available on their platform or hosted by them. This protection is essential as various intermediaries such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube do not monitor the content posted by third-party users on their platforms. However, if any such content uploaded by a third-party user is in violation of any law, the intermediary does not incur any liability for such information.

Prior to the current 2021 rules, the 2011 Rules laid down the standards of due diligence required to be observed by intermediaries. The 2011 Rules required intermediaries to publish rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreements which would enjoin each user not to post information which would contravene any law in force. These rules also required intermediaries to disable access or remove information which is unlawful upon receiving actual knowledge of the same. In Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, the Supreme Court read down the requirement of actual knowledge of an intermediary to mean knowledge of a court order directing it to disable access or remove such information.

The 2021 Rules supersede the 2011 Rules. In these rules, the requirement of publication of rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreements which stipulate that no user shall post information which would contravene any law in force have been retained.  The 2021 Rules now permit the intermediaries to take down any unlawful information on a voluntary basis and such voluntary removal would not affect the protection afforded to them under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The 2021 Rules lay down additional due diligence requirements to be observed by “significant social media intermediaries”.

Any intermediary who primarily or solely enables online interaction between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information using its services and has more than 50 lakh registered users is classified as a significant social media intermediary. Thus, all popular social networking platforms such as Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter would be required to observe these additional due diligence requirements. They social media platforms were given a three-month timeline for ensuring compliance of these rules. So far, none of the major international social networking platforms have complied with these requirements. Facebook has released a statement that it aims to comply with the 2021 Rules and was in discussion with the government on certain issues.

Under Rule 7 of the 2021 Rules, if an intermediary fails to observe any of the rules laid down, it loses protection afforded to it by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. Simply put, this would mean that an intermediary like Facebook or Twitter would be open for liability if a third-party user posts unlawful content on their platforms. On June 19, experts at United Nations Office of the Human Rights Commissioner have said in a report that it is concerned that India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, in their current form, do not conform with international human rights norms.

The observations were made in Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. The report is authored by Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Clement NyaletsossiVoule, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and Joseph Cannataci, Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.

“As noted in previous communications sent to your Excellency’s Government, we are concerned that these new rules come at a time of a global pandemic and of large-scale farmer protests in the country, where the enjoyment of the freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to receive information, and the right to privacy, is particularly important for the realisation of several other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights,” the report said.”We would like to recall that restrictions to freedom of expression must never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights,” the report said.

The report said as a global leader in technology innovation, India has the potential to develop a legislation that can place it at the forefront of efforts to protect digital rights. However, the substantially broadened scope of the Rules is likely to do just the opposite. “We would therefore encourage the Government to take all necessary steps to carry out a detailed review of the Rules and to consult with all relevant stakeholders, including civil society dealing with human rights, freedom of expression, privacy rights and digital rights”, the report said.

The question here is whether freedom of speech is paramount or not. The Narendra Modi regime has been chipping away at various pillars of democracy and it is no wonder that another opportunity for the general public to voice its woes is being muzzled. Media too have been generally silenced be it through force or coercion. Popular voices have been thus silenced time and again by authoritarian governments the world over.

Bail for Delhi Riot accused

The impositions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) law against protestors have always been criticized by human rights activists and lawyers. A couple of days back, the Delhi High Court granted bail to DevanganaKalita and Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the Delhi riot case.  Pinjra Tod activists DevanganaKalita and Natasha Narwal were arrested a year ago in the Delhi riots case. They were arrested in May 2020 for allegedly being part of a premeditated conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to student activist Asif Iqbal Tanha, accused in a northeast Delhi riot case, so that he may appear for his three remaining backlog BA examinations papers.

However, the Delhi Police approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court granted bail to DevanganaKalita and Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha. While refusing to stay the Delhi High Court order, the Supreme Court observed that reading down of anti-terror law is an important issue and may have pan-India ramifications, and sought responses from three activists. It also said that the High Court judgement will “not to be treated as precedent by any court” to give similar reliefs, the Supreme Court said while hearing the Delhi Police’s appeal against the bail.

In its observation, the High Court said, “ We are constrained to say, that it appears, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the state has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’. If such blurring gains traction, democracy would be in peril.”  “Protests against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate; and though such protest are expected to be peaceful and non-violent, it is not uncommon for protestors to push the limits permissible in law,” the court had said. What the High Court observed is significant as the right to protest, just as freedom of speech, cannot be curtailed by imposing draconian laws by an all-powerful state. Let us wait for a further judgment by the Supreme Court of India in this case.

Sedition case against Aisha Sultana

Another interesting case that has come up in recent times is the one against Lakshadweep resident and activist Aisha Sultana, who has been charged with sedition for her “bioweapon” remark. The sedition case was registered against her on June 9 by the Kavaratti police following a complaint from BJP leader Abdul Khader Haji. The film director-cum-activist—a prominent face of Lakshadweep residents’ protest against a slew of draft proposals mooted by administrator Praful K Patel for the “development” of the island chain—had approached the High Court fearing arrest.

Kerala High Court had directed filmmaker Aisha Sultana to appear before the police in Lakshadweep for interrogation, but also granted her interim bail in case she is arrested. In an interim order, the court said Sultana should be released on interim bail for a week after executing a bond of Rs.50,000 in the event of arrest. She was told to appear before the Kavaratti police on June 20 for questioning. Sultana, during a debate on MediaOne TV on the proposed reforms and decisions of Patel, said the Centre has used a “bioweapon” on the island. Allegedly referring to the recent spurt in COVID-19 cases in Lakshadweep, Sultana said: “I can clearly say that Centre has used bioweapon in the island. There is already a calculation that China has used the coronavirus as a bioweapon…” she had said.

After the statement sparked controversy, Sultana clarified that she meant that the Centre was using administrator Patel as a “bioweapon” on the islands. The police had opposed her appeal saying that she had encouraged communalism.  The unpopular measures proposed by Praful Patel include drafts of the Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulation, Lakshadweep Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Regulation, Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation and amendment to the Lakshadweep Panchayat Staff Rules.

Even in this case, there is an attempt to silence those who speak against a ruling authority such as the Administrator in the island who has become unpopular after a slew of measures that has run foul with the peaceful people of the Union Territory. Following the Kerala High Court’s direction in the case, the Lakshadweep Administration is trying to shift the islands’ cases to the Karnataka High Court as early as possible.

Recently, TikTok made a change to its U.S. privacy policy, allowing the company to “automatically” collect new types of biometric data, including what it describes as “faceprints” and “voiceprints.” TikTok’s unclear intent, the permanence of the biometric data and potential future uses for it have caused concern among experts who say users’ security and privacy could be at risk.

On June 2, TikTok updated the “Information we collect automatically” portion of its privacy policy to include a new section called “Image and Audio Information,” giving itself permission to gather certain physical and behavioral characteristics from its users’ content. The increasingly popular video sharing app may now collect biometric information such as “faceprints and voiceprints,” but the update doesn’t define these terms or what the company plans to do with the data.

“Generally speaking, these policy changes are very concerning,” Douglas Cuthbertson, a partner in LieffCabraser’s Privacy & Cybersecurity practice group, tells TIME. “The changes are vague in a lot of ways. TikTok does not explain what it will do with this biometric information, how and when it will seek consent before taking it, and what it means by ‘faceprints and voiceprints,’ which aren’t defined.”

To put TikTok’s popularity—and the amount of information it has access to—in perspective, it has 689 million global active users and ranks as the seventh most used social network in the world as of January 2021. In the U.S. alone, over 100 million Americans use TikTok every month while 50 million are on the app every day, according to figures shared by the company in August 2020. TikTok did not immediately respond to TIME’s request for comment.

Alessandro Acquisti, a professor of information technology and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, notes that biometrics, and especially facial biometrics, are unique and permanent identifiers. He says that TikTok’s “faceprints” could potentially be used to re-identify an individual across a variety of scenarios. Since the information isn’t critical to the functioning of the app and the phrasing of the update is vague, Acquisti says it’s difficult to determine TikTok’s precise intent.

“Biometrics’ range of potential uses is vast: from benign, such as secure access to the app—think about how [Apple’s] iOS uses facial recognition for authentication—to chilling, such as mass re-identification and surveillance,” he says. The provisions for how TikTok can use the data collected under the privacy policy’s “Image and Audio Information” section are broad.

“We may collect information about the images and audio that are a part of your User Content, such as identifying the objects and scenery that appear, the existence and location within an image of face and body features and attributes, the nature of the audio, and the text of the words spoken in your User Content,” the new section reads. “We may collect this information to enable special video effects, for content moderation, for demographic classification, for content and ad recommendations, and for other non-personally-identifying operations.”It’s the last use on this list, “other non-personally-identifying operations,” that Cuthbertson says he takes particular issue with.

“It’s disingenuous to say these are ‘non personally-identifying’ operations,” he says, pointing out that a person’s unique ‘faceprint’ or ‘voiceprint’ could inherently be used to identify someone. “That’s not the way the mobile data ecosystem works anymore. You don’t need someone’s social security number to figure out who they are and how to monetize them.”

Users should also take note of the open-ended nature of the uses listed in this section, says Derek Riley, the director of the Milwaukee School of Engineering’s computer science program. “If you want to have funny face filters that engage users, gathering this kind of information is necessary. But there are a lot of other potentially alarming things that can be done with it too,” he tells TIME. “Capturing that information means TikTok could use it within their application, or they could turn and share it with another actor, government or company.”

While TikTok’s privacy policy states that it “does not sell personal information to third parties,” it also says it may share the information it collects for “business purposes.”“It’s one thing if TikTok can discreetly say, we’re taking this narrow band of information, here’s our description of the information so that you, as a user, really understand what we mean and here’s this very narrow way we’re going to use it,” Cuthbertson says. “Instead we have vague definitions of what the data even is and TikTok itself is vague about how and why they need to use it.”

The fact that TikTok is owned by the Chinese company Bytedance may also play a role in how people view this policy update, Riley says. While President Joe Biden signed an executive order on June 9 revoking former President Donald Trump’s attempts to ban TikTok in the U.S., some still view the app as a potential national security threat. TikTok has said it doesn’t share data with the Chinese government and wouldn’t do so if asked.

TikTok has also previously faced legal action over privacy-related issues. In February, the company agreed to pay $92 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that it violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, and other consumer and privacy protection laws by collecting users’ personal data, including data harvested by facial recognition technology, without consent and sharing the data with third-parties, some of which were based in China.

Now, the updated policy states that TikTok will seek user permission for this type of data collection “where required by law,” but doesn’t specify whether it’s referring to state law, federal law or both.While there’s no federal U.S. law regulating the collection and use of biometric data, some states began passing their own laws more than a decade ago. Illinois led the way in 2008, with Texas, Washington, California, New York and Virginia all enacting their own biometric privacy protections in the years since. But it’s this legal gray area that demonstrates the need for more stringent standards, Cuthbertson says.

“Is it state law? Is it federal law? Even if it’s every applicable law, it’s still highly problematic,” he says. “That they will do what’s required by law as defined under the vague term ‘U.S. laws’ really highlights the need for more robust privacy laws and regulations that govern the collection of biometric information.”

Ultimately, maintaining awareness of what you’re consenting to by using the app is crucial, Riley says, especially when it comes to the app’s younger users. “It’s really important for individuals like teachers and parents to be able to inform younger individuals who see TikTok as a fun way to engage with their friends of the implications of this type of data collection,” he says. “It has a web of tangential outcomes that could turn out to be really problematic.”

In a blow to Trump, Facebook has extended Donald Trump’s suspension for two years and says it will only reinstate him “if the risk to public safety has receded.”

In a blow to Trump, Facebook has extended Donald Trump’s suspension for two years and says it will only reinstate him “if the risk to public safety has receded.” The decision comes after Facebook’s Oversight Board told the company it had been wrong to impose an indefinite ban on Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Facebook says it is setting new rules for public figures in times of civil unrest and violence, “to be applied in exceptional cases such as this.” Trump has received the maximum penalty under those rules, “given the gravity of the circumstances” leading to his suspension. Because the company took his Facebook and Instagram accounts down on Jan. 7, the two-year suspension will last until at least Jan. 7, 2023.

At that point, Facebook will consult experts and “evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest,” said Nick Clegg, vice president of global affairs, in a statement.He was barred indefinitely from both sites in January in the wake of posts he made on the US Capitol riots, but last month Facebook’s Oversight Board criticized the open-ended penalty.Facebook said Trump’s actions were “a severe violation of our rules”. Trump said the move was “an insult” to the millions who voted for him in last year’s presidential election.

Facebook’s move comes as the social media giant is also ending a policy shielding politicians from some content moderation rules.It said that it would no longer give politicians immunity for deceptive or abusive content based on their comments being newsworthy.Trump’s ban was effective from the date of the initial suspension on 7 January, Facebook’s vice-president of global affairs Nick Clegg said in a post.”Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available,” it added.

“If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded.”  On his return, Trump will be held to “a strict set of rapidly escalating sanctions,” for any violations,  Clegg’s statement noted. In a statement issued from his Save America political action committee, Mr Trump said: “Facebook’s ruling is an insult to the record-setting 75m people, plus many others, who voted for us. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win. Our country can’t take this abuse anymore!”

In a second statement on the two-year ban, Trump attacked Facebook’s founder.”Next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife,” the former president said. “It will be all business!”The move by Facebook allows Trump to return to the platform before the 2024 presidential election. It also comes as he prepares to again hold the large scale in-person rallies that were a signature of his campaigns and presidency. One of his first is planned for Dallas, Texas, in early July, according to local media.

Earlier this week, it emerged that the communications platform set up by Mr Trump in the wake of his social media bans – From the Desk of Donald J Trump – has been permanently shut down.In addition to Facebook, which has over two billion monthly users, Mr Trump has also been banned from Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, Twitch and other social media platforms over the January riot.Last month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican Trump ally, signed the first law in the US that punishes tech companies for de-platforming politicians.

Facebook’s dilemma on Trump was complex, involved trade-offs, and was guaranteed to upset millions of people. The fact is – whatever their decision – it was bound to be polarising.But just to be clear: today Facebook, the world’s biggest social network, has denied access to its megaphone to a man who 74 million people voted for. They didn’t just know him, or approve of him; they voted for him to be US president. That is a big call.

What is Facebook’s new policy?

Facebook says public figures who violate its rules by inciting unrest or violence will be suspended for a month or, in more serious cases, up to two years.It comes as part of an effort to undo a previous policy of allowing newsworthy political speech despite a potential that it may cause harm.Posts that are deemed worthy of an exception, despite possible violations, may still be allowed but will be given a warning label by Facebook. The company says it will no longer treat “content posted by politicians any differently”.

“Instead, we will simply apply our newsworthiness balancing test in the same way to all content, measuring whether the public interest value of the content outweighs the potential risk of harm by leaving it up.”The company’s Oversight Board found that Mr Trump’s initial ban was appropriate, but that there was no rationale for the ban to remain indefinitely.The independent board, which is funded by Facebook, has 20 members who are able to make binding decisions on content. Among the members are legal scholars, journalists, freedom of speech experts and a former prime minister of Denmark.The announcement comes on the same day that regulators in Europe and the UK begin formal anti-trust inquiries into whether Facebook misused customer data.Biden Announces a Donation of 19 Million COVID-19 Vaccines to COVAX, With More to Follow

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was notified in February, with all clauses of it coming into force on May 25.Social media company Twitter has told the ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) that it is “committed to complying” with all clauses of the intermediary guidelines and asked for a week’s time, officials familiar with the matter said on Monday, days after the government issued an ultimatum to the company.

The government on Saturday said Twitter would have to face “unintended consequences” that can involve it losing its legal protection from criminal liability for user content if it does not comply with the new rules for digital content.“The company has highlighted that there have been some difficulties in making appointments for some key personnel and sought a week’s time to comply with most of the provisions, while saying that it will implement all provisions as soon as possible,” said a ministry official, who asked not to be named.

The official added that the platform has also informed the ministry that it is looking to set up an office in the country, as required under the new rules that seek a physical address for significant social media intermediaries, or companies running networks with more than 5 million registered users from India.The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was notified in February, with all clauses of it coming into force on May 25. These guidelines require digital companies such as Twitter, WhatsApp, and Facebook to change how they regulate content, appoint nodal officers for compliance and grievance redressal, and adopt features such as traceability of messages and voluntary user verification.

Twitter said in a statement on Monday that the company is making every effort to comply with the new guidelines while continuing a constructive dialogue with the government. “Twitter has been and remains deeply committed to India, and serving the vital public conversation taking place on the service,” a Twitter spokesperson said, adding, “We have assured the government of India that Twitter is making every effort to comply with the new guidelines, and an overview on our progress has been duly shared.”There have been several instances of confrontation between the United States-based company and the government of India, particularly around government’s content takedown orders and Twitter’s actions against prominent people linked to the Bharatiya Janata Party for violation of its terms of use.

Against this backdrop, the new IT rules hardened the stand-off last month, with the microblogging website earlier asking for more time to comply, raising concerns over the “core elements” of the norms, and flagging potential threats to the safety of its employees after a visit by the Delhi Police the same month.“Our intent was always clear: the company is free to do business in India, but it has to comply with the law of the land,” the official mentioned above said. The ministry earlier echoed this sentiment when it had said, “Leave alone proactively creating such a mechanism, Twitter Inc is in the inglorious bracket of refusing to do so even when mandated by law.”

Hindustan Times reported on May 29 that other significant social media intermediaries that have 5 million users or more, such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Google, have shared the details with the ministry.Under criticism over the past few months, the government has maintained that the new IT rules make companies more accountable for the online content posted on their websites and protects users from abuse. But the companies, several experts and Opposition parties believe that the norms may have a bearing on the right to free speech and privacy.WhatsApp has challenged the rules in the Delhi high court, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to Indians’ fundamental rights.

An IIT-M incubated startup, coordinating the largest online workshop the country has ever witnessed to form a Guinness world record. An estimated 10 Lakh people reportedly joined the online workshop through a series of 90-minutes slots beginning from April 24th, 6 PM to April 25th, 6 PM.

The event was open for anyone aged between 08-80 with a zeal for learning, be it a schoolkid, fresh graduate, or an experienced professional. The platform urges everyone to participate and become part of this great initiative. AI-FOR-INDIA aims to upskill 1 Billion Indians with the concept of Artificial Intelligence and to embark our country onto a path to become a global AI innovator.

In this one-day workshop, the participants were taught to build & deploy a face recognition application using Python Language from top industry experts. All the participants gained free access to GUVI‘s professionally curated course to know the basic intricacies of Python Programming. Python is an in-demand programming skill that has grown by 456% as compared to last year. The attendees learnt how to spin up Image-processing and will be able to create thumbnails, formats, filters, and apply various digital image processing techniques primarily for Face Recognition App. The event also featured free certificates of participation & additional access to GItHub’s resources worth $200.

The event collaborated with AICTE, national-level council for technical education, under the Department of Higher Education and co-sponsored by BUDDI.AI, the leading revenue and clinical automation platform based on deep learning. AI-For-India has primarily met with a positive reaction, and more than 1 Lakh people have already registered with the online event. To register, one has to go to GUVI’s official website and pick a slot of their convenience. This event is also going to be the Official Attempt of Guinness World Record for Most users to take an online computer programming lesson in 24 hours.

Highlighting the initiative’s objective, Mr. Arun Prakash, Chief Operating Officer of GUVI, quoted, “This initiative is in memory of GUVI‘s Co-founder Sridevi Arun Prakash, who firmly believed that the only way to advance a nation is through education. Through every age, the world experiences different revolutions. Currently, we are on the brink of the coding or AI revolution. You do not need to be a developer, but you need to understand what is happening.”

Ram Swaminathan, Co-Founder & CEO of Buddi.ai said “We are excited to collaborate with GUVI on this initiative as we firmly believe that the future prospects for the healthcare, or any industry is very bright when powered by AI. We urge everyone to learn AI technologies and skill themselves to have an exciting future. After the unprecedented breakthroughs in space and medicine, we are sure that our country can become a cradle for AI Zeitgeist, especially the youth who are fascinated by its capability.” Let’s welcome this initiative and join GUVI’s cause to impart AI in every nook and corner of India. Winning a Guinness World Record for the country is like a cherry on top!

In a significant development, the independent Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld Facebook’s decision on January 7 to suspend then US President Donald Trump from its main platform and Instagram.

The Board found that Trump’s posts severely violated Facebook’s rules, and his words of support for those involved in the attack on the US Capitol building legitimised violence in a situation where there was an immediate risk to people’s lives.

While the Board concluded that Trump should have been suspended from Facebook and Instagram, it also found that Facebook failed to impose a proper penalty. The decision came as the former US President launched a new so-called social media platform, which is actually a WordPress blog on his own website.

“President Trump’s actions on social media encouraged and legitimised violence and were a severe violation of Facebook’s rules,” said Thomas Hughes, Director of the Oversight Board Administration.

“By maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. Facebook’s decision to suspend the President on January 7 was the right one,” Hughes added.

However, it said that instead of applying one of its established account-level penalties for severe violations, Facebook devised an “indefinite” suspension which is not included in their content policies.

“This arbitrary penalty gave Facebook total discretion over whether to lift or maintain the suspension, with no criteria that can be scrutinised by users or external observers,” the Board observed.

“The Board rejects Facebook’s request for it to endorse indefinite suspension, which gives the company total discretion over when to lift or impose and isn’t supported by their content policies,” said Hughes. “Anyone concerned about the power of Facebook should be concerned with the company making decisions outside of its own rules.”

The Board stated that within six months of the decision, Facebook must reexamine this arbitrary penalty and impose one consistent with its own rules.

“In the future, if a head of state or high government official repeatedly posts messages that pose a risk of harm, Facebook should either suspend the account for a definitive period or delete the account,” it recommended.

Facebook’s rules should ensure that when it imposes a time-bound suspension on an influential user, the company should assess the risk of inciting harm before the suspension ends.

“Influential users who pose a risk of harm should not be reinstated. Facebook should publish a full report on its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and political tensions that led to the events of January 6,” as per the decision.

The board, constituted by Facebook with 20 members from across the world last year, last month said it was reviewing more than 9,000 responses before it delivers the verdict on Trump’s ban on the social media.

Banned on Facebook and Twitter, former President Donald Trump has launched a new so-called social media platform, which is actually just a WordPress blog on his own website.

His followers can sign up for posts alerts on the platforms via their email and phone numbers. The new platform is designed like a generic version of Twitter but is hosted as a running blog.

A Twitter spokesperson told The Verge on Tuesday that “Generally, sharing content from the website reference is permitted as long as the material does not otherwise the Twitter Rules”. Trump has posted content dating back to March 24 on the new ‘platform’.

The latest post is a video advertising his new platform, calling it “a place to speak freely and safely, straight from the desk of Donald J. Trump.” The platform appears to have been built by Campaign Nucleus, a digital services company founded by Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale.

The Trump’s ‘platform’ went live just ahead of ruling by the independent Oversight Board on the ban concerning Trump, who was banned on Facebook following the Capitol attack on January 6.

On January 21, the Oversight Board accepted a case referral from Facebook to examine its decision to indefinitely suspend Trump’s access to post content on Facebook and Instagram, as well as provide policy recommendations on suspensions when the user is a political leader. Trump is still banned from using Facebook and its other platforms like Twitter.

(IPS) – Edmund Burke called the press the fourth estate, the fourth pillar of democracy, with an oversight role on the remaining three pillars – the legislature, executive and the judiciary. In an ideal world, this fourth estate would have unimpeded access to the other three pillars so that the citizenry could be kept informed at all times. This freedom was conceived to be so sacrosanct that many countries have included it as a fundamental right, e.g., the US Constitution enshrined it as the very first amendment.

While this is the ideal state of affairs, even under the best of circumstances press freedoms have faced considerable challenges. The traditional newspaper is threatened by shrinking readership and concentration of ownership and control which implies that profitable markets will be served first, viz. global or at best national audiences.. There has been a considerable void in news reporting, particularly on issues affecting local populations. Other forms of media are unable to fill the gap. Television combines news with entertainment – infotainment- and traditional radio has been swamped by satellite radios. Local issues areneglected and many local media outlets including newspapers and television and radio stations are facing dire conditions. There has been a steady rise in media concentration in the past few decades.

At the same time, the emergence and now overwhelming dominance of the social media and the Internet have given rise to a sharp proliferation of media outlets. Many of these are driven by the pure short-term profit motive and are difficult to regulate. All these forms of media are facilitated by the frictionless distribution enabled by the Internet and the disruptive effects of digital transformation. There is no dearth of people active on social and regular media, including some who should know better, who will, when forming an opinion about an issue, first come to their preferred conclusion and then work their way back to selectively choose evidence to support their conclusion. The world still awaits a business model that pays for accurate content at competitive rates. The overburdening with information makes it difficult for people to use discretion in the absorption of news so that the primary objective of press freedom, i.e., keeping the citizenry informed at all times, is belied. Nevertheless, in many countries with very distorted ownership patterns of traditional media social media outlets have provided a breath of fresh air and independence, especially when elements of the traditional media are themselves accused of improper conduct and reporting.

This point brings us to the issue of pressing challenges facing journalism and press freedoms. https://orca.cf.ac.uk/94201/1/DG_FoJ-Risks%20Threats%20and%20Opportunities_JJ.pdf

The first one is personalized news feeds. Facebook and Twitter have created cultures of maximal tribalism and infinite personalization. Users can silo themselves in self-made realities while taking part in collective expression of tribal outrage that often seem bewilder outsiders. The fact that such personalization can mould the opinions of large numbers of people is particularly worrisome. Second, the 24-hour news cycle forces reporters to publish articles without proper fact-checking. Even allegedly responsible media houses have had to retract stories because of the lack of proper checking. This leads to a deeper concern. Whereas the privilege of helping the citizenry to form opinions about key public issues lies with journalists, there is an implied responsibility that the information and analysis provided by the journalist is accurate and verifiable. This does not always seem to be the case. Indeed, some journalists have been accused of spreading “fake news” by pursuing their own agendas when pursuing their vocation. There have been well-known instances of both traditional and social media outlets pursuing political advocacy. The distinction between “news” and “views” has broken down in many cases and the citizenry is often ill equipped to discern the difference.

During the on-going pandemic another very serious issue has disrupted. Violence towards journalists is an old issue but the promulgation of long lockdowns has led to explosion of serious domestic violence and mental ill-health concerns. This has been described as a pandemic within a pandemic https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2024046

Under ordinary circumstances, the explosion of these domestic issues would be an important news story. However, lockdown orders have meant that many such instances all over the world get unreported. Clearly, women are the worst victims here. In particular, it has become increasingly difficult for women journalists to report on such issues. It is ironical that although women journalists are most suited to report on occurrences of domestic and sexual violence, they are the ones with minimal access to the victims of such abuse.

Even before the pandemic journalists- particularly women journalists – have been subjected to harassment and abuse.of several types: https://www.iwmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IWMF-Global-Report.pdf

On World Press Freedom Day (May 3) there is need to ponder on these and many other issues relating to the role of the fourth estate. Freedom of the Press is invaluable in society. However, as with any other freedom, constant vigil and action are the price of this freedom. If we want a robust press this price will need to be paid.

Raghbendra Jha, Professor of Economics and Executive Director, Australia South Asia Research Centre, Australian National University.

A hard-hitting editorial published in medical journal The Lancet has said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government seemed more intent in removing criticism on Twitter than trying to control the Covid pandemic.

PM Modi’s actions in attempting to stifle criticism and open discussion during the crisis are “inexcusable”, it has said.

The editorial quoting The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that India will see a staggering 1 million deaths from COVID-19 by August 1. “If that outcome were to happen, Modi’s Government would be responsible for presiding over a self-inflicted national catastrophe.”

Despite warnings about the risks of superspreader events, the government allowed religious festivals to go ahead, drawing millions of people from around the country, along with huge political rallies — conspicuous for their lack of COVID-19 mitigation measures, the editorial has said.

Throwing light on the near-collapse of health infrastructure, it also criticises the government’s complacency in tackling the crisis.

“The scenes of suffering in India are hard to comprehend… hospitals are overwhelmed, and health workers are exhausted and becoming infected. Social media is full of desperate people (doctors and the public) seeking medical oxygen, hospital beds, and other necessities. Yet before the second wave of cases of COVID-19 began to mount in early March, Indian Minister of Health Harsh Vardhan declared that India was in the “endgame” of the epidemic.

“The impression from the government was that India had beaten COVID-19 after several months of low case counts, despite repeated warnings of the dangers of a second wave and the emergence of new strains. Modelling suggested falsely that India had reached herd immunity, encouraging complacency and insufficient preparation, but a serosurvey by the Indian Council of Medical Research in January suggested that only 21% of the population had antibodies against SARS-CoV.”

The editorial also said that India squandered its early successes in controlling COVID-19 and that until April, the government’s COVID-19 taskforce had not met in months.

India’s vaccination programme, too, has come under scathing criticism. The Lancet pointed out that the message that COVID-19 was essentially over also slowed the start of India’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which has vaccinated less than 2% of the population. At the federal level, India’s vaccination plan soon fell apart. The government abruptly shifted course without discussing the change in policy with states, expanding vaccination to everyone older than 18 years, draining supplies, and creating mass confusion and a market for vaccine doses in which states and hospital systems competed.

The crisis has not been equally distributed, with states such as Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra unprepared for the sudden spike in cases, quickly running out of medical oxygen, hospital space, and overwhelming the capacity of cremation sites. Others, such as Kerala and Odisha, were better prepared, and have been able to produce enough medical oxygen in this second wave to export it to other states.

The journal has said that India must now restructure its response while the crisis rages. The success of that effort will depend on the government owning up to its mistakes, providing responsible leadership and transparency, and implementing a public health response that has science at its heart.

The editorial has further suggested a two-pronged strategy — first, a botched vaccination campaign must be rationalised and implemented with all due speed. There are two immediate bottlenecks to overcome: increasing vaccine supply (some of which should come from abroad) and setting up a distribution campaign that can cover not just urban but also rural and poorer citizens, who constitute more than 65% of the population (over 800 million people) but face a desperate scarcity of public health and primary care facilities..

The government must work with local and primary health-care centres that know their communities and create an equitable distribution system for the vaccine. The government must publish accurate data in a timely manner, and forthrightly explain to the public what is happening and what is needed to bend the epidemic curve, including the possibility of a new federal lockdown, the editorial has said.

The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC – www.iamc.com), an advocacy group dedicated to safeguarding India’s pluralist and tolerant ethos, today expressed dismay over the government of India’s continued obsession with managing the news coverage of the pandemic instead of the pandemic itself.

As the pandemic rages across India accounting for almost half of all new cases globally, the government ordered Twitter to block over 50 tweets that criticized its complete mismanagement of the pandemic. Among them was a tweet by Indian American Muslim Council, comparing the rabid Islamophobia targeting the Tablighi Jamaat and all Indian Muslims in the early days of the pandemic with the near silence over government support for the massive Kumbh Mela, that has endangered the lives of millions of Hindu devotees and their fellow citizens.

Today hundreds of thousands of Indians belonging to all faiths are literally gasping for breath, afflicted by a virus that makes no distinction on the basis of religion or caste. In this horrifying scenario, the government’s alacrity in pressuring Twitter to block tweets critical of its handling of the crisis shows the administration’s moral compass continues to point in a direction that is shamelessly self-serving.

“The catastrophic surge in Covid-19 cases across India and the collapse of the country’s healthcare system is a monumental albeit avoidable tragedy for which the responsibility lies squarely on the government’s misplaced priorities,” said Mr. Khalid Ansari, Vice-President of IAMC.  “Many precious lives lost to the pandemic might have been saved had the government not been obsessed with advancing the Hindutva agenda of subjugating minorities, and focused instead on governing for all Indians,” added Mr. Ansari.

Far from leading by example to overcome the crisis, the Modi administration promoted the spread of the virus by organizing countless super spreader events in the form of election rallies where masking was not enforced and where Mr. Modi as well as Home Minister Amit Shah addressed massive crowds.

IAMC has urged Indian Muslims, especially Muslim healthcare workers and relief organizations to rise to the occasion by serving their fellow citizens. Observance of civic duties, a commitment to defending the country and selfless service towards people of all faiths is the need of the hour.