我今天早上在香港電台英文台的《給香港的信》,向香港人警告政府和保皇黨企圖以「假新聞」作藉口而引入對互聯網內容審查!
Beware: Hong Kong government and pro-establishment politicians are drumming up against "fake news" to justify introducing Internet censorship
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\
You may have recently seen a series of so-called government announcements in the public interest, or API, on TV, cautioning the public to be careful about the information they receive on the internet. The API tells the public to verify and fact-check before believing these information, and not to spread misinformation, or the consequences can be devastating.
The advice is reasonable. But the intention may be dubious. Why? It is because the government and especially the police force but have been one of the biggest sources of misinformation in Hong Kong, during the last six months of pro-democracy protests which followed the government’s attempt to ram through the extradition bill. Needless to say, government claims about the extradition bill must have been some of the best examples of spreading misinformation, or simply lies. Likewise, many of the recent claims made by the police about their actions in their almost daily press conferences since this summer must be also justifiably classified as misinformation.
So, it is quite clear to many that what the government is trying to do is to monopolise what is true and what is not. In recent weeks, more and more government officials and senior police officers, running out of arguments to justify their own versions as their truths, simply resort to attacking the other sides’ views as “fake news.”
Some may remember about two month ago, a letter from the police to Facebook was leaked on social media. In the letter, the Police requested the global social media company to remove a number of posts made by different users, based on the allegation that these posts were critical of the police and would potentially harm their reputation. Fortunately, the social media company did not comply with these requests.
The issue at hand is not fake news. The issue at hand is freedom of expression, disguised by the authority in the name of countering misinformation.
This week in the Legislative Council, in a written question put up by the Honourable Ted Hui, the police admitted to 621 removal requests made this year up to the end of November to local and international Internet and social media platforms, a whopping 18 times more than in 2018. The government response puts the blame on “a vast amount of fake news and baseless accusations that targeted the Police.” It is simply ludicrous for a government with the lowest approval and credibility ratings in history to say that. To many, this government which refuses to even allow an independent commission to investigate the police is itself the biggest source of fake news, and not to be trusted.
The government seems to be saying that truth must be approved by authority, and its version of facts cannot be disputed by anyone, especially those who hold a different political view.
So really, where do fake news come from? In August, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed over 200,000 accounts which were tied to the China government or state media, that were used purposely to smear the Hong Kong anti-extradition protests, and to spread misinformation about the protests.
Yet, it is now the Hong Kong government and pro-establishment political figures that are making noises about fake news, saying that in order to counter these so-called misinformation, legislation should be passed to ban fake news. They would point to such legislation in other countries such as Germany and France, or Singapore.
When I was in Berlin, Germany, two weeks ago, for the Internet Governance Forum, in a summit with legislators around the world, we compared notes about censorship attempts by different governments in the name of protecting the people, but in fact at the expense of curtailing freedom of expression. A German member of parliament told me in no uncertain term that, quote, misinformation is legal is Germany, end of quote. She said that freedom of expression is enshrined in the German Basic Law and not to be compromised by any other legislation. The new law was just an attempt to regulate contents that are narrowly defined such as relating to criminal defamation, hate crimes, or Holocaust denial. But, criticising the government is certainly a right that is legally protected at the highest level of their constitution. Even so, the legislations of such laws in Germany or France were still very controversial.
When I told this German legislator that pro-government politicians in Hong Kong are justifying removal of content on social media by quoting the German example, her response was — this must be an example of using misinformation to justify laws against misinformation, that is, plain censorship. Her conclusion, laws in one land cannot be copied to another, or there will be abuse.
Hong Kong, by comparison with Germany or France, does not have the democracy and the power vested in the people to protect our people’s own rights. One can reference the recent case of Singapore, where it also passed an anti-fake news law, and in recent weeks have started to enforce it against people posting messages on Facebook. When a member of the opposition party posted an opinion opposing certain government investment decisions, the Singaporean government decided that was fake news.
So beware of the government’s evolving attempts to censor the Internet and social media, by drumming up the negative side. The Big Brother wants to stifle opinions against it, because that is the rule number one of hanging on to the authority they wish to continue to dominate. We must continue to guard against Internet censorship because no one else will save us. It is our — the people’s own — free opinion vs the government’s version of the only truth — that is what it is all about. And it’s worth the fight.
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\
https://www.rthk.hk/…/progr…/lettertohongkong/episode/612602
#RTHK #LTHK #censorship #fakenews
同時也有2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過231的網紅Juno Lin,也在其Youtube影片中提到,The M.E. Series (The Millennial Experience). Created all on Mobile with #iPhone12ProMax Weekend. Raining. Work had been hectic. Needed to take some t...
「are we there yet? (tv series)」的推薦目錄:
- 關於are we there yet? (tv series) 在 Charles Mok 莫乃光 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於are we there yet? (tv series) 在 Charles Mok 莫乃光 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於are we there yet? (tv series) 在 Familystaysg Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於are we there yet? (tv series) 在 Juno Lin Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於are we there yet? (tv series) 在 pennyccw Youtube 的最佳解答
are we there yet? (tv series) 在 Charles Mok 莫乃光 Facebook 的最佳解答
我今天早上在香港電台英文台的《給香港的信》,向香港人警告政府和保皇黨企圖以「假新聞」作藉口而引入對互聯網內容審查!
Beware: Hong Kong government and pro-establishment politicians are drumming up against "fake news" to justify introducing Internet censorship
--------
You may have recently seen a series of so-called government announcements in the public interest, or API, on TV, cautioning the public to be careful about the information they receive on the internet. The API tells the public to verify and fact-check before believing these information, and not to spread misinformation, or the consequences can be devastating.
The advice is reasonable. But the intention may be dubious. Why? It is because the government and especially the police force but have been one of the biggest sources of misinformation in Hong Kong, during the last six months of pro-democracy protests which followed the government’s attempt to ram through the extradition bill. Needless to say, government claims about the extradition bill must have been some of the best examples of spreading misinformation, or simply lies. Likewise, many of the recent claims made by the police about their actions in their almost daily press conferences since this summer must be also justifiably classified as misinformation.
So, it is quite clear to many that what the government is trying to do is to monopolise what is true and what is not. In recent weeks, more and more government officials and senior police officers, running out of arguments to justify their own versions as their truths, simply resort to attacking the other sides’ views as “fake news.”
Some may remember about two month ago, a letter from the police to Facebook was leaked on social media. In the letter, the Police requested the global social media company to remove a number of posts made by different users, based on the allegation that these posts were critical of the police and would potentially harm their reputation. Fortunately, the social media company did not comply with these requests.
The issue at hand is not fake news. The issue at hand is freedom of expression, disguised by the authority in the name of countering misinformation.
This week in the Legislative Council, in a written question put up by the Honourable Ted Hui, the police admitted to 621 removal requests made this year up to the end of November to local and international Internet and social media platforms, a whopping 18 times more than in 2018. The government response puts the blame on “a vast amount of fake news and baseless accusations that targeted the Police.” It is simply ludicrous for a government with the lowest approval and credibility ratings in history to say that. To many, this government which refuses to even allow an independent commission to investigate the police is itself the biggest source of fake news, and not to be trusted.
The government seems to be saying that truth must be approved by authority, and its version of facts cannot be disputed by anyone, especially those who hold a different political view.
So really, where do fake news come from? In August, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed over 200,000 accounts which were tied to the China government or state media, that were used purposely to smear the Hong Kong anti-extradition protests, and to spread misinformation about the protests.
Yet, it is now the Hong Kong government and pro-establishment political figures that are making noises about fake news, saying that in order to counter these so-called misinformation, legislation should be passed to ban fake news. They would point to such legislation in other countries such as Germany and France, or Singapore.
When I was in Berlin, Germany, two weeks ago, for the Internet Governance Forum, in a summit with legislators around the world, we compared notes about censorship attempts by different governments in the name of protecting the people, but in fact at the expense of curtailing freedom of expression. A German member of parliament told me in no uncertain term that, quote, misinformation is legal is Germany, end of quote. She said that freedom of expression is enshrined in the German Basic Law and not to be compromised by any other legislation. The new law was just an attempt to regulate contents that are narrowly defined such as relating to criminal defamation, hate crimes, or Holocaust denial. But, criticising the government is certainly a right that is legally protected at the highest level of their constitution. Even so, the legislations of such laws in Germany or France were still very controversial.
When I told this German legislator that pro-government politicians in Hong Kong are justifying removal of content on social media by quoting the German example, her response was — this must be an example of using misinformation to justify laws against misinformation, that is, plain censorship. Her conclusion, laws in one land cannot be copied to another, or there will be abuse.
Hong Kong, by comparison with Germany or France, does not have the democracy and the power vested in the people to protect our people’s own rights. One can reference the recent case of Singapore, where it also passed an anti-fake news law, and in recent weeks have started to enforce it against people posting messages on Facebook. When a member of the opposition party posted an opinion opposing certain government investment decisions, the Singaporean government decided that was fake news.
So beware of the government’s evolving attempts to censor the Internet and social media, by drumming up the negative side. The Big Brother wants to stifle opinions against it, because that is the rule number one of hanging on to the authority they wish to continue to dominate. We must continue to guard against Internet censorship because no one else will save us. It is our — the people’s own — free opinion vs the government’s version of the only truth — that is what it is all about. And it’s worth the fight.
--------
https://www.rthk.hk/radio/radio3/programme/lettertohongkong/episode/612602
#RTHK #LTHK #censorship #fakenews
are we there yet? (tv series) 在 Familystaysg Facebook 的最佳解答
The things we will never know if we are not a parent! I mean body checks we all know from the health booklet but eye checks? Who knew?
After knowing about Aerov and their customized kids friendly eye examination, And with Noah being over exposed to TV, iPad and phones at home, we thought maybe this should be the best way to find out his eye health!
Bringing him there was a funny experience because he was so nervous as he imagined it to be those needle poking or medicine eating kinda visit. But the friendly optometrists were really patient with him, and allowed him to take some time to relax before we started. They also explained what we were doing via 4 different machines and what's it for, which had Noah slow lower his guard down and willingly do his checks without any whining! Impressive!
From going thru a series of checking for his vision, guage the estimation of his eye power (whether he has long or shortsighted) , to checking for crossed eye or lazy eyes, and to see if he got any lashes growing inwards or possible scratches on the cornea, the entire process was simple and fast. And good news was that he's all good (for now). We were advised to practice good habits, such as cutting down on screen time and get outdoors more!
I must say, for our first time at a kids friendly optometry centre, we had a rather pleasant and very informative experience!
Having our kids to have it done as young as 4 year old is definitely a compulsory routine! What about yours? Have you got your kids check yet? Hurry book an appointment with @aerovoptometrists now!
#getitcheck
#livewellseewell
#YourtrustedAerov
#Wakeuptoclearvision
#goodeyesight
#eyecheckup
#familystaysg
#sgmums
#sgkids
#sgtoddlers
#sgbaby
#sgkidswear
#instasg
#igsg
#instafamily
#sginstagram
#instasingapore
#igkids @ Thomson V Two
are we there yet? (tv series) 在 Juno Lin Youtube 的最佳解答
The M.E. Series (The Millennial Experience). Created all on Mobile with #iPhone12ProMax
Weekend. Raining. Work had been hectic. Needed to take some time off to recharge. Covid. WFH. Blurred lines between work and personal time. No time to shut off from work completely. Found myself working from screens to screen. Laptop to phone. Even leisure is watching videos online.
In need of time for a digital detox.
Found a bookstore that was opened in Feb this year, in the heart of Orchard Road, Wheelock Place. Where the Borders flagship used to be. If you know what I’m talking about, you’re from my time. I recall the times when I was still in secondary school, hanging at Borders with my friends who love reading, and I will be there checking out the CDs.
Heard that it has a 2 storey space with a cafe and gallery as well. Heard that the ones in China open 24hours, although it’s not happening in SG yet
——
Zall Bookstore, an outlet with more than 30,000 books mostly in Chinese, also has a cafe and art gallery
——
“Ms Laura Yan Ge, 24, who is general manager of the Singapore store, said at a media preview on Friday that while the company did not anticipate the coronavirus outbreak erupting amid its expansion, it believes bookstores are especially vital during a pandemic.
‘Because of Covid-19, there is a lot of distance between people nowadays," she said in Mandarin. "We believe books will help to close this gap. They provide food for thought and people can use them to widen their worlds.’”
—
As a creator myself, I need to constantly find inspiration.
While I can readily find all sorts of information online, sometimes I found my mind being constantly overloaded instead. We read. Socialise. We basically live most parts of our lives in the virtual world, and now we have lesser and lesser reasons to get out there anymore.
So, why a new book store? When was the last time you visited a book store?
Being here made me realised that it’s not about the books. It’s about the space. It’s about the experience. It’s about being here and being present. And what happens when you unplug from the internet and be present in the moment? You’ll get involuntarily intrigued by the surroundings, the people, the architecture, the noise, the beauty of it all. You’ll find headspace. You’ll find your inspiration. You’ll even find a new you.
When was the last time you stepped outside, set aside time just for yourself, and experience life beyond the screen?
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3Lp4k8FA1E/hqdefault.jpg)
are we there yet? (tv series) 在 pennyccw Youtube 的最佳解答
I have made this video of AI vs Vince Carter the Toronto Raptors in 2001 NBA Playoff. Every single points of Iverson is included from Game 1 to Game 7.
Vince Carter versus Allen Iverson is the kind of marquee matchup the NBA has been craving since the days of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.
As two of the NBA's most exciting young stars, they are dazzling spectators and TV viewers with limitless creativity and breathtaking moves in the Toronto Raptors-Philadelphia 76ers playoff series.
"This matchup is great, and people are getting turned on to it," said NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik, who was at Philadelphia's First Union Center on Wednesday night, when Iverson scored 54 points to Carter's 28 in the 76ers' 97-92 victory. "For better or worse, fans like it when you get superstars going against each other. People have been hearing about these guys for years now, but they haven't gotten this far before where they met each other at this level. That gets people interested."
With the NBA's overall popularity declining and new rules designed to make the game more appealing set to take effect next season, an Iverson-Carter matchup is what the league really needed.
"Watching these two kids, I don't think our league is in any trouble," 76ers coach Larry Brown said. "They really are exciting."
Toronto coach Lenny Wilkens feels much the same way.
"I think you are going to see more great individual matchups as the young kids we have in this league develop," he said. "We are always rushing to fix this and fix that, but maybe there is not always something wrong. The young guys have to be able to grow and make some mistakes. Let them grow up and then see what they can do. In this series, you are seeing two of the best going at each other."
It is looking increasingly likely that Michael Jordan will end a three-year retirement next season and return to the NBA as a player. Carter and Iverson will be right there, eagerly awaiting that matchup.
"You always want to test yourself against the best, and I would welcome the challenge," Iverson said.
Said Carter of Jordan: "He set the standard we are all trying to reach."
Jordan, of course, owns six championship rings and 10 scoring titles, while Carter, 24, has won nothing more than a rookie of the year award and a slam-dunk title. But Carter is one of the league's most popular players among fans, the leading vote-getter for the past two NBA All-Star Games. Iverson, 25, won his second scoring title this season and is favored to win this season's most valuable player award, as well.
And while Iverson and Carter are going head to head, other young stars such as Milwaukee's Ray Allen, the Los Angeles Lakers' Kobe Bryant, San Antonio's Tim Duncan, Dallas' Michael Finley and Dirk Nowitzki and Sacramento's Chris Webber and Peja Stojakovic also are still competing in the playoffs. In addition, the league's most improved player, Orlando's 21 year-old Tracy McGrady, was a major star of the first round even though his team lost.
"We try to promote the game and the teams and all the players," Granik said. "There are just certain players who capture people's imaginations. You can't deny that.
"We can't go out and create them. It just happens and they're doing it on the court. You can't make superstars, I don't care how good a promotion. It's what they do on the court, and here we have Iverson and Carter. They're doing it most nights on the floor. That's what people see and they love to watch it."
The personal similarities between Carter and Iverson are few other than both are mama's boys. Iverson's mother, Ann, attends almost all of her son's games while dressed in a 76ers jersey with "IVERSON'S MOM" emblazoned on it. Carter's mother, Michelle, prefers street clothes at games, but she publicly criticized Oakley when he dared to criticize her baby boy.
Though Iverson — with his corn-row hairstyle, multiple tattoos and rap albums — might appeal directly to the hip-hop generation, the more conservative Carter is Mr. Basketball in Canada. One of the Raptors' top priorities is keeping him with the franchise well beyond the 2001-02 season, when his contract expires. They have a window from Aug. 1 to Oct. 31 to re-sign him. If they don't, he will become a free agent after the 2001-02 season.
He and team officials prefer not to talk about the future just yet.
Meanwhile, he and Iverson downplay their personal rivalry.
Carter: "We try to do our thing as a team. I just try to fit in within the team concept and do what I need to do. I see what Allen is doing, but I'm not thinking about trying to outdo him personally."
Iverson: "I can't accomplish anything without my teammates. I know that, they know that and everybody knows that. Vince is a great player, but he needs his teammates just like I need mine. The things my teammates do to help us win are just as important as the things I do.
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hLvjLjFKdkw/hqdefault.jpg)