Freedom of the press

Bangladesh faces fifth day without internet amid protests

Bangladesh remained without internet access for the fifth consecutive day as the government declared a public holiday on Monday. Authorities maintained strict control following a Supreme Court ruling that reduced a contentious quota system for government jobs, which had triggered violent protests. Despite an apparent calm, the nation witnessed military personnel patrolling the capital and other areas after a curfew with a shoot-on-sight order was imposed days earlier.

The protests, primarily led by students, erupted over a quota reserving 30% of government jobs for relatives of veterans from Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence. Clashes between police and protesters resulted in over a hundred deaths, according to local newspapers, though official figures have not been released. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the veterans’ quota to 5%, protesters have called for the restoration of internet services and the removal of security officials from university campuses.

Despite the court ruling, tensions in Bangladesh remain high. Protesters issued a 48-hour ultimatum for the government to end the digital crackdown and return the country to normalcy. The US Embassy in Dhaka described the situation as highly volatile, warning Americans to avoid large crowds and reconsider travel plans. The protests have presented a significant challenge to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government, highlighting ongoing political strife between her Awami League party and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

Singapore blocks 95 accounts linked to exiled Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui

Singapore has ordered five social media platforms to block access to 95 accounts linked to exiled Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui. These accounts posted over 120 times from April 17 to May 10, alleging foreign interference in Singapore’s leadership transition. The Home Affairs Ministry stated that the posts suggested a foreign actor influenced the selection of Singapore’s new prime minister.

Singapore’s Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, enacted in October 2021, was used for the first time to address this issue. Guo Wengui, recently convicted in the US for fraud, has a history of opposing Beijing. Together with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, he launched the New Federal State of China, aimed at overthrowing China’s Communist Party.

The ministry expressed concern that Guo’s network could spread false narratives detrimental to Singapore’s interests and sovereignty. Blocking these accounts was deemed necessary to prevent potential hostile information campaigns targeting Singapore.

Guo and his affiliated organisations have been known to push various Singapore-related narratives. The coordinated actions and previous attempts to use Singapore to advance their agenda highlighted their capability to undermine Singapore’s social cohesion and sovereignty.

Supreme Court delays ruling on state laws targeting social media

The US Supreme Court has deferred rulings on the constitutionality of laws from Florida and Texas aimed at regulating social media companies’ content moderation practices. The laws, challenged by industry groups including NetChoice and CCIA, sought to limit platforms like Meta Platforms, Google, and others from moderating content they deem objectionable. While the lower courts had mixed decisions—blocking Florida’s law and upholding Texas’—the Supreme Court unanimously decided these decisions didn’t fully address First Amendment concerns and sent them back for further review.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, questioned Texas’ law, suggesting it sought to impose state preferences on social media content moderation, which could violate the First Amendment. Central to the debate is whether states can compel platforms to host content against their editorial discretion, which companies argue is necessary to manage spam, bullying, extremism, and hate speech. Critics argue these laws protect free speech by preventing censorship of conservative viewpoints, a claim disputed by the Biden administration, which opposes the laws for potentially violating First Amendment protections.

Why does it matter?

At stake are laws that would restrict platforms with over 50 million users from censoring based on viewpoint (Texas) and limit content exclusion for political candidates or journalistic enterprises (Florida). Additionally, these laws require platforms to explain content moderation decisions, a requirement some argue burdens free speech rights.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to rule marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battle over digital free speech rights, following earlier decisions regarding officials’ social media interactions and misinformation policies.

New Zealand pushes bill for tech platforms to pay for news

New Zealand’s conservative coalition government plans to introduce a bill mandating digital technology platforms to pay media companies for news. The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, initially proposed by the previous Labour government, aims to support local media companies in generating revenue from the news they produce. Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith stated that the bill would be amended to align more closely with Australia’s similar digital bargaining law, which forces internet firms like Meta and Google to negotiate content supply deals with media outlets.

Meta criticised the bill, arguing that it overlooked how its platforms function and the value they provide to news outlets; Google did not immediately comment. However, the proposed legislation would grant the communications minister the power to decide which digital platforms are subject to the law, with an independent regulator overseeing its enforcement.

While the right-wing ACT New Zealand party does not support the bill, the opposition Labour Party has expressed conditional support, pending a review of the amendments. Labour spokesperson Willie Jackson voiced relief that the government is progressing with legislation to create a fairer media landscape for news companies operating online.

Meta may block news in Australia over licensing fees

Meta, the owner of Facebook, is contemplating blocking news content in Australia if the government enforces licensing fees, a company representative revealed during a parliamentary hearing. Meta’s regional policy director, Mia Garlick, stated that ‘all options are on the table’ to avoid paying fees, emphasising that there are many alternative channels for news content. Meta is awaiting a decision from Canberra on whether it will apply a 2021 law that allows the government to set fees for US tech giants to pay media outlets for links.

The intention to withdraw news from its platforms mirrors Meta’s stance in Canada in 2023 when similar laws were introduced and followed by the pressure of Prime Minister Trudeau to ensure Meta complies with the Online News Act, which requires tech giants with 20 million monthly users and over C$1 billion in annual revenue to compensate Canadian news publishers.

Meta had initially struck deals with Australian media firms, including News Corp and the Australian Broadcasting Corp, but has announced it will only renew these arrangements in 2024. Australia’s assistant treasurer must now decide whether to force Meta to pay for news content, while free-to-air broadcasters like Nine Entertainment and Seven West Media are already citing revenue losses and cutting jobs in anticipation of expired deals with Meta.

In defence, Garlick explained that blocking news content would be a form of compliance with the law, stating that Meta adheres to other laws such as tax, safety, and privacy. She also defended Meta’s content moderation processes, which were managed from centres outside Australia. Addressing concerns about harmful misinformation and scams, including a lawsuit by billionaire Andrew Forrest over scam ads featuring his image, Garlick acknowledged the challenges but assured that Meta has policies and tools to combat such issues.

WikiLeaks founder agrees to plea deal over US classified documents

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of conspiring to acquire and disclose classified US national defence documents, as outlined in court documents filed in the US District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

Under the terms of a deal, Julian Assange has confessed in a US court, concluding a 14-year legal struggle, and has been granted freedom. He formally entered a plea to a single offence in the Northern Mariana Islands, an American territory in the Pacific, shortly after his release from a British prison. In exchange, he has been given credit for time served and is permitted to fly back to Australia to reunite with his family. 

US authorities had been pursuing the 52-year-old for a significant disclosure of confidential files in 2010. Prosecutors had initially sought to prosecute the Wikileaks founder on 18 counts, primarily under the Espionage Act, related to the release of confidential US military records and diplomatic messages concerning the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which they claimed endangered lives. Wikileaks had unveiled a video from a US military helicopter showing civilians being killed in Baghdad, Iraq. It also released numerous confidential documents indicating that the US military had caused the deaths of hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents during the Afghanistan war. 

Wikileaks, established by Assange in 2006, has published over 10 million documents. One of Assange’s prominent collaborators, US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, was sentenced to 35 years in prison before then-President Barack Obama commuted the sentence in 2017. 

During the hearing, Assange told the court, ‘As a journalist, I encouraged my source to provide information that was deemed classified to publish that information.’ Assange underscored his belief that he would be shielded by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, safeguarding freedom of the press. Prosecutors alleged that the WikiLeaks founder actively promoted leaks of classified information, asserting that Assange told leakers that ‘top secret means nothing.’ Following the sentencing, Assange’s attorney, Barry Pollack, affirmed that ‘Wikileaks’s work will persist, and Mr Assange, without a doubt, will remain a driving force for freedom of speech and government transparency.’

Particle teams up with Reuters to reinvent news delivery

Particle, a news-reader startup developed by former Twitter engineers, is partnering with publishers to navigate the evolving landscape of news consumption in the AI era. By leveraging AI technology, Particle aims to provide news summaries from various publishers through its app, offering readers a comprehensive understanding of current events from multiple perspectives. That approach seeks to address concerns within the publishing industry about potential revenue loss due to AI-driven news summaries.

Now, Particle has teamed up with Reuters to explore new business models in a significant move. The startup has subscribed to Reuters newswire to enhance its news delivery capabilities. Additionally, Particle secured $10.9 million in Series A funding led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, with investments from media giant Axel Springer. These partnerships and investments underscore Particle’s commitment to collaborating with publishers to address their needs and goals in the rapidly evolving media landscape.

Particle’s co-founder, Sara Beykpour, emphasises the startup’s focus on delivering value to news consumers beyond AI summaries. With a mission to help readers cut through the noise and understand the news faster, Particle offers a personalised news experience while ensuring exposure to diverse viewpoints. By presenting news stories holistically and integrating perspectives from multiple outlets, Particle aims to combat information overload and mitigate media bias.

Why does it matter?

Despite its innovative approach, Particle has yet to finalise its business model. The startup actively engages with publishers to develop a sustainable model that benefits readers and publishers. Possibilities include revenue sharing, advertising, and more, with input from industry stakeholders shaping the future direction of Particle’s business strategy.

Australia drops legal challenge against Musk’s X over violent video removal

Australia’s cyber safety regulator has decided to drop its legal challenge against Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) concerning the removal of videos depicting the stabbing of an Assyrian church bishop in Sydney. The decision follows a setback in May when a federal court judge rejected a request to extend a temporary order for X to block the videos, which Australian authorities deemed a terrorist attack.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant highlighted the issue of graphic material being accessible online, especially to children, and criticised X’s initial refusal to remove the violent content globally. Grant emphasised the original intent to prevent the footage from going viral, which could incite further violence and harm the community, defending the regulator’s actions despite the legal outcome.

Why does it matter?

The incident, which involved a 16-year-old boy charged with a terrorism offence, also led to a public clash between Musk and Australian officials, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Musk’s criticisms of the regulatory order as censorship sparked controversy, while other major platforms like Meta, TikTok, Reddit, and Telegram complied with removal requests. X had opted to geo-block the content in Australia, a solution deemed ineffective by the regulator due to users employing virtual private networks.

Former Meta engineer sues over Gaza post suppression

A former Meta engineer has accused the company of bias in its handling of Gaza-related content, alleging he was fired for addressing bugs that suppressed Palestinian Instagram posts. Ferras Hamad, a Palestinian-American who worked on Meta’s machine learning team, filed a lawsuit in California state court for discrimination and wrongful termination. Hamad claims Meta exhibited a pattern of bias against Palestinians, including deleting internal communications about the deaths of Palestinian relatives and investigating the use of the Palestinian flag emoji while not probing similar uses of the Israeli or Ukrainian flag emojis.

Why does it matter?

The lawsuit reflects ongoing criticisms by human rights groups of Meta’s content moderation regarding Israel and the Palestinian territories. These concerns were amplified following the conflict that erupted in Gaza after a Hamas attack in Israel and Israel’s subsequent offensive.

Hamad’s firing, he asserts, was linked to his efforts to fix issues that restricted Palestinian Instagram posts from appearing in searches and feeds, including a misclassified video by a Palestinian photojournalist.

Despite his manager confirming the task was part of his duties, Hamad was later investigated and fired, allegedly for violating a policy on working with accounts of people he knew personally, which he denies.

Reporters Without Borders call on Ecuador to respect investigate reporting

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) issued a statement requiring the Ecuadorean government to respect investigate reporting by journalists, and condemned the country’s president’s ‘violent diatribes’ against the independent news website La Posta.

A series of attacks against journalists were triggered by La Posta‘s 9 January publication of an investigative report titled The Big Godfather about a corrupt network. La Posta’s journalists had their personal data and photos of their loved ones being posted on websites and anonymous social media accounts in the days following the publication of their first reports with information compromising for the government.