Latest news with #freedomOfExpression
Asharq Al-Awsat
4 days ago
- Business
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Rise in 'Harmful Content' Since Meta Policy Rollbacks, Survey Shows
Harmful content including hate speech has surged across Meta's platforms since the company ended third-party fact-checking in the United States and eased moderation policies, a survey showed Monday. The survey of around 7,000 active users on Instagram, Facebook and Threads comes after the Palo Alto company ditched US fact-checkers in January and turned over the task of debunking falsehoods to ordinary users under a model known as "Community Notes," popularized by X. The decision was widely seen as an attempt to appease President Donald Trump's new administration, whose conservative support base has long complained that fact-checking on tech platforms was a way to curtail free speech and censor right-wing content. Meta also rolled back restrictions around topics such as gender and sexual identity. The tech giant's updated community guidelines said its platforms would permit users to accuse people of "mental illness" or "abnormality" based on their gender or sexual orientation. "These policy shifts signified a dramatic reversal of content moderation standards the company had built over nearly a decade," said the survey published by digital and human rights groups including UltraViolet, GLAAD, and All Out. "Among our survey population of approximately 7,000 active users, we found stark evidence of increased harmful content, decreased freedom of expression, and increased self-censorship". One in six respondents in the survey reported being the victim of some form of gender-based or sexual violence on Meta platforms, while 66 percent said they had witnessed harmful content such as hateful or violent material. Ninety-two percent of surveyed users said they were concerned about increasing harmful content and felt "less protected from being exposed to or targeted by" such material on Meta's platforms. Seventy-seven percent of respondents described feeling "less safe" expressing themselves freely. The company declined to comment on the survey. In its most recent quarterly report, published in May, Meta insisted that the changes in January had left a minimal impact. "Following the changes announced in January we've cut enforcement mistakes in the US in half, while during that same time period the low prevalence of violating content on the platform remained largely unchanged for most problem areas," the report said. But the groups behind the survey insisted that the report did not reflect users' experiences of targeted hate and harassment. "Social media is not just a place we 'go' anymore. It's a place we live, work, and play. That's why it's more crucial than ever to ensure that all people can safely access these spaces and freely express themselves without fear of retribution," Jenna Sherman, campaign director at UltraViolet, told AFP. "But after helping to set a standard for content moderation online for nearly a decade, (chief executive) Mark Zuckerberg decided to move his company backwards, abandoning vulnerable users in the process. "Facebook and Instagram already had an equity problem. Now, it's out of control," Sherman added. The groups implored Meta to hire an independent third party to "formally analyze changes in harmful content facilitated by the policy changes" made in January, and for the tech giant to swiftly reinstate the content moderation standards that were in place earlier. The International Fact-Checking Network has previously warned of devastating consequences if Meta broadens its policy shift related to fact-checkers beyond US borders to the company's programs covering more than 100 countries. AFP currently works in 26 languages with Meta's fact-checking program, including in Asia, Latin America, and the European Union.
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
No room for debate: The quiet crisis of academic freedom on campus — Khoo Ying Hooi
JUNE 17 — The recent decision by Universiti Malaya (UM), Malaysia's oldest university, to cancel a student-organised documentary screening and forum on assembly rights illustrates a worrying narrowing of academic space. When the student collectives Mandiri and Liga Mahasiswa tried to examine the practical and civic significance of the Peaceful Assembly Act, administrators abruptly pulled the plug, citing vague concerns about 'security and public order.' Student organisers framed the move not merely as an isolated act of censorship but as symptomatic of a deeper institutional reluctance to accommodate critical engagement. Their response was uncompromising. Describing the cancellation as 'a blatant violation of academic freedom and freedom of expression,' the students demanded assurances that neither participants nor speakers would face disciplinary repercussions and urged the university to reaffirm its commitment to open dialogue. The incident quickly drew national attention. PKR Youth called on the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) to investigate, pointing out that students should not be denied the opportunity to debate public issues in a civil, accountable setting. Unfortunately, the episode is not unique. Just two months earlier, a campus-based forum exploring Malaysia's constitutional identity – whether the state is fundamentally secular or religious –– was similarly aborted on the grounds that it touched on the sensitive '3R' trifecta of race, religion, and royalty. Despite official warnings, the organisers moved the discussion off-campus, vowing 'no surrender' in their effort to protect student and academic autonomy. If universities cannot host difficult conversations, what is left of their purpose? The writer says a university should be more than a credentialing factory or neutral research hub. — File picture by Ahmad Zamzahuri Public universities elsewhere have faced comparable pressures. In 2022, auxiliary police at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) halted activist Fahmi Reza's 'Kelas Demokrasi' within minutes, forcing students to regroup in a nearby café. Malaysia's legal scaffolding amplifies these tendencies. The Sedition Act, Peaceful Assembly Act, and Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) still enshrine restrictive norms governing speech, protest, and 'political' activity on campus. The Peaceful Assembly Act, heralded as a liberalising step when introduced, continues to criminalise unnotified gatherings and impose age restrictions, limiting its value as a conduit for civic engagement. A university should be more than a credentialing factory or neutral research hub. It ought to be a crucible where students test ideas, challenge orthodoxies, and learn the habits of democratic citizenship. When spaces for honest debate on assembly rights, secularism, racial politics, religious pluralism are systematically curtailed, a chilling effect sets in. Students absorb an unspoken rule, when certain subjects are off-limits, and intellectual risk may carry personal cost. Administrations typically defend cancellations by invoking 'harmony,' 'public order,' or 'security.' Yet such rationales are rarely substantiated with concrete evidence of imminent danger. The opacity of the process breeds mistrust, leaving organisers and audiences alike with no meaningful avenue to question or appeal the verdict. Over time, this culture of precaution erodes not only student expression but also faculty autonomy. Lecturers who might propose sensitive modules or invite provocative guest speakers increasingly self-censor, anticipating institutional push-back. The resulting homogeneity undermines intellectual pluralism, precisely the quality that ought to distinguish a vibrant university. Even political actors who are not natural allies of radical speech have begun to notice. MCA Youth criticised the pattern of last-minute revocations, noting the incongruity of preaching freedom of expression while failing to safeguard academic inquiry. PKR Youth's call for ministerial oversight likewise suggests that the defence of academic freedom now resonates across partisan lines, even if institutional practice continues to lag behind rhetorical commitments. Academic freedom, of course, is not the freedom to speak without consequence; it presupposes norms of respect, reason, and scholarly integrity. But it does oblige universities to act as guardians of discourse rather than gatekeepers of orthodoxy. Malaysia's aspiration to remain a regional education hub suffers when its flagship institutions stifle dissent. Graduates who leave believing that fundamental civic questions such as peaceful assembly, constitutional identity, ethno-religious pluralism cannot be safely debated will be poorly equipped to lead a plural society. Universities can still reverse course. Clear, consistent rules should spell out the narrow circumstances under which an event can be denied, provide a timely and transparent justification, and include an appeals mechanism. If an event genuinely threatens public safety, the reasons must be articulated and open to scrutiny, not buried under generic anxieties. Such clarity would strengthen institutional credibility and reassure students that universities remain spaces for rigorous, good-faith inquiry. The forum cancellation, and the earlier 3R incident, are alarms not merely about student rights but about Malaysia's democratic health. When the gate to critical discussion closes under the cloak of order, the casualty is free thought itself. If students cannot question the architecture of civil liberties or constitutional safeguards, one must ask what kind of leadership the nation is preparing for the future. Universities are the places where difficult questions meet informed debate and future leaders learn the discipline of disagreement. To fulfil that mission, they must resist the temptation to silence. Otherwise, conformity will replace curiosity, and deference will stand in for critical thinking. That, ultimately, would threaten not only campus tranquillity but the democratic promise Malaysia still hopes to realise. * Khoo Ying Hooi, PhD is an associate professor at Universiti Malaya. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
5 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Survey: Surge in hate speech on Facebook, Instagram after Meta scraps US fact-checking and eases moderation
WASHINGTON, June 17 — Harmful content including hate speech has surged across Meta's platforms since the company ended third-party fact-checking in the United States and eased moderation policies, a survey showed yesterday. The survey of around 7,000 active users on Instagram, Facebook and Threads comes after the Palo Alto company ditched US fact-checkers in January and turned over the task of debunking falsehoods to ordinary users under a model known as 'Community Notes,' popularised by X. The decision was widely seen as an attempt to appease President Donald Trump's new administration, whose conservative support base has long complained that fact-checking on tech platforms was a way to curtail free speech and censor right-wing content. Meta also rolled back restrictions around topics such as gender and sexual identity. The tech giant's updated community guidelines said its platforms would permit users to accuse people of 'mental illness' or 'abnormality' based on their gender or sexual orientation. 'These policy shifts signified a dramatic reversal of content moderation standards the company had built over nearly a decade,' said the survey published by digital and human rights groups including UltraViolet, GLAAD, and All Out. 'Among our survey population of approximately 7,000 active users, we found stark evidence of increased harmful content, decreased freedom of expression, and increased self-censorship.' One in six respondents in the survey reported being the victim of some form of gender-based or sexual violence on Meta platforms, while 66 percent said they had witnessed harmful content such as hateful or violent material. Ninety-two percent of surveyed users said they were concerned about increasing harmful content and felt 'less protected from being exposed to or targeted by' such material on Meta's platforms. Seventy-seven percent of respondents described feeling 'less safe' expressing themselves freely. The company declined to comment on the survey. In its most recent quarterly report, published in May, Meta insisted that the changes in January had left a minimal impact. 'Following the changes announced in January we've cut enforcement mistakes in the US in half, while during that same time period the low prevalence of violating content on the platform remained largely unchanged for most problem areas,' the report said. But the groups behind the survey insisted that the report did not reflect users' experiences of targeted hate and harassment. 'Social media is not just a place we 'go' anymore. It's a place we live, work, and play. That's why it's more crucial than ever to ensure that all people can safely access these spaces and freely express themselves without fear of retribution,' Jenna Sherman, campaign director at UltraViolet, told AFP. 'But after helping to set a standard for content moderation online for nearly a decade, (chief executive) Mark Zuckerberg decided to move his company backwards, abandoning vulnerable users in the process. 'Facebook and Instagram already had an equity problem. Now, it's out of control,' Sherman added. The groups implored Meta to hire an independent third party to 'formally analyse changes in harmful content facilitated by the policy changes' made in January, and for the tech giant to swiftly reinstate the content moderation standards that were in place earlier. The International Fact-Checking Network has previously warned of devastating consequences if Meta broadens its policy shift related to fact-checkers beyond US borders to the company's programs covering more than 100 countries. AFP currently works in 26 languages with Meta's fact-checking program, including in Asia, Latin America, and the European Union. — AFP
Malay Mail
7 days ago
- Entertainment
- Malay Mail
The house that indie built: Rabak-Lit isn't just publishing books — it's reviving Fung Keong sneakers too
KUALA LUMPUR, June 15 — When you talk about Malaysia's indie culture, it's clear how much it has grown over the years — fuelled by passionate youth expressing themselves through music, art, and, yes, publishing. You may have come across many indie publishing houses across the country, but here's one that goes beyond just books — meet Rabak-Lit, the boundary-pushing force reshaping the scene. Founded by Mohd Jayzuan — a well-known author, poet, and musician — Rabak-Lit began as a part-time publishing venture in Ipoh around 2012. 'The purpose of starting up Rabak-Lit was so we can dedicate ourselves to the arts and not have to work full-time at other jobs,' said Jayzuan to Malay Mail recently. The project initially focused on publishing work by a close-knit network of friends in Ipoh. It only transitioned into a full-fledged publishing house in 2019, when it was taken over by Izzat Amir, an active industry player with over 10 years of experience in publishing, having started his career with PTS Publications and Puteh Press. Now based in Seremban, Rabak-Lit stands out for its unwavering commitment to freedom of expression and the independent spirit that defines each of its book releases. Among its standout titles are Rebel Playlist by Nasir Jani and Gonzo Tanpa Fiasco by Ku Syafiq, both of which received positive reviews nationwide. Current head Izzat Amir giving a talk on the latest collaboration with SIAR, a local OTT platform. — Picture courtesy of Rabak-Lit From books to sneakers: Reviving Fung Keong Not content with being just a publishing house, Rabak-Lit has branched into other creative ventures — organising mini concerts, hosting gigs, and producing T-shirts and shoes. 'Rabak-Lit is now, I'd say, more like a cultured campaign company,' said Izzat. 'We've grown into more than just a publishing house.' Arguably its most talked-about venture is the revival of the iconic Fung Keong sneakers — once a staple in the 1980s and 1990s — through a partnership with the original rubber shoe brand. 'The main purpose of the collaboration was to bring the legendary Fung Keong shoes (FK sneakers) back to the Malaysian market after being discontinued in 1990. The sneakers now are under Rabak-Lit's rights through a collaboration agreement with Fung Keong, which also allows us to use the FK name,' he added. Negotiations began in 2022, and by 2023, the first revival sneaker — the 'FK Action Nasir Jani' — was launched in collaboration with the actor-director himself. Since then, FK sneakers have featured collaborations with other Malaysian icons. Datuk M. Nasir signs the 'FK Kembara Seniman Jalanan' sneakers. — Picture courtesy of Rabak-Lit At the Kuala Lumpur International Book Fair (KLIBF) 2025, the 'FK Kembara Seniman Jalanan M. Nasir' edition drew buzz — a tribute to the 1986 cult film starring Datuk M. Nasir. Nearly 70 per cent of that release has already sold out. A limited-edition pair inspired by the character 'Osman Tikus' — played by the late Pyan Habib — was also released and quickly became a collector's item. Another hit: the 'FK Keluang Man' sneakers, launched alongside the film's gala premiere. These too received glowing reviews and have seen over 200 pre-orders since May. Rabak-Lit has also teamed up with actor Adam John and Kelantanese punk band NO GOOD for sneaker editions inspired by their distinctive styles. Coming soon: the FK SIAR Sneakers, in collaboration with local OTT platform SIAR, which celebrates Malaysian cinema across eras and genres. 'The new sneakers will be launched as part of the '50 Tahun Filem Malaysia' campaign, a special event set to take place at the end of the year, which celebrates Malaysian films.' Rabak-Lit's published titles showcased at KLIBF 2025. — Picture by Raymond Manuel What's next for Rabak-Lit The company shows no signs of slowing down. Beyond sneakers, Izzat shared that Rabak-Lit will be managing merchandise for the Tamasya Anak Muda concert at the end of June and participating in Malaysia's Art of Speed event in late July. There are also author tours planned, with upcoming stops in Johor, Ipoh, and Pahang. If you've made it this far, it's clear that this is no ordinary publishing house — Rabak-Lit is a living testament to Malaysia's indie spirit, and its momentum is only building. When asked about store expansion, Izzat explained that Rabak-Lit already distributes its books and products nationwide — from SMO Bookstore in Kelantan and Terengganu, to Gerakbudaya in Petaling Jaya, and Badan Cemerlang in Johor. 'Our distribution already covers the whole of Malaysia,' he added. With concert merchandise in the works, author tours on the road, and new sneaker drops — including the FK SIAR edition linked to a national film campaign — Rabak-Lit is charging ahead, proving that its indie mission is just getting started.
The Guardian
7 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Speaking out on Gaza: Australian creatives and arts organisations struggle to reconcile competing pressures
When Michelle de Kretser accepted the 2025 Stella prize on 23 May, the celebrated author shared a warning. 'All the time I was writing these words, a voice in my head whispered, 'You will be punished. You will be smeared with labels as potent and ugly as they're false,'' De Kretser told the Sydney writers' festival crowd. ''Career own goal,' warned the voice.' Earlier in her prerecorded speech, De Kretser had denounced what she called a 'program of suppression' against creatives, scholars and journalists for 'expressing anti-genocide views' in relation to Israel and Gaza. The speech received a standing ovation. It had been taped weeks earlier but arrived in the immediate fallout of exactly the kind of episode De Kretser was talking about. Three days before the Stella announcement, the Martu author KA Ren Wyld revealed she had been stripped of a $15,000 black&write! fellowship from the State Library of Queensland, just hours before it was due to be announced. A day earlier, the library's board received a written direction from the Queensland arts minister, John-Paul Langbroek, expressing his 'firm view' that Wyld should not receive the prize because of a Twitter post about the death of the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar in October, which referred to him as a martyr who was 'resisting colonisation until his last breath, fighting the genocidal oppressors like a hero, sacrificing his life for love of his people and ancestral land'. Wyld has said she was not fully aware of Sinwar's Hamas ties at the time of posting. By the time De Kretser's speech aired, several judges of the library's Queensland Literary awards quit in protest. Sara El Sayed, an Egyptian Australian author and three-time judge was one of them. She says the minister's intervention 'undermines the whole process' of independent judging and makes it 'impossible to continue to work with the library'. 'I don't know how someone supporting the Palestinian people, supporting an oppressed people, people who are facing starvation, genocide every day … I just don't understand how the reaction is to take an opportunity away,' El Sayed says. 'That's the ultimate form of censorship, to me.' El Sayed says many artists now grapple with a choice between taking career opportunities and standing up for their beliefs. 'I think a lot of people, especially artists, feel a moral obligation to speak out against what is occurring,' she says. A State Library spokesperson said the library 'respects the decision of judges' and 'value[s] the conversations we have had with many judges and the writing community and acknowledge the concerns they have raised'. The Wyld case highlights a growing crisis for arts organisations and their management in how they respond to political statements that range from mild to polarising, but may be entirely unconnected to the subject matter of the artist's work. From the Khaled Sabsabi-Creative Australia furore to pianist Jayson Gillham's dispute with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO), arts institutions have struggled to reconcile commitments to intellectual freedom and creative expression with official positions of political neutrality and intense scrutiny from media and politicians, who in some cases may have an influence on their funding. At the MSO, the fallout has included the resignation of its longtime chief executive, high-profile event postponements and a long legal battle. The employment lawyer Josh Bornstein, who has represented the journalist Antoinette Lattouf in her unlawful termination case against the ABC over online posts about Gaza, says in his view a 'cancel culture' fostered by pressure from sections of the media, politicians and lobby groups is leading organisations to make fast, panicked decisions. 'An organisation goes into brand management mode and the usual denouement in the post-October 7 atmosphere is to eliminate the source of complaints from the organisation,' he says, speaking generally. But Bornstein also points to the University of Queensland's treatment of the UQP publisher Aviva Tuffield, who wore a 'Readers and Writers Against the Genocide' T-shirt to the Australian Book Industry Awards in May. In response to questions from The Australian, the university said its freedom of speech policy allowed Tuffield to express her lawful, personal views, which did not represent the university's. 'That's the sort of approach that should be adopted,' Bornstein says. Louise Adler is a veteran publisher and artistic director who faced criticism for programming Palestinian voices long before 7 October 2023, including Susan Abulhawa, who called the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a 'Nazi-promoting Zionist' in a social media post. Adler says many arts organisations have tried to abstain from the issue of the war in Gaza, despite demands by many artists that they take a position and defend the artists' right to speak. 'The tensions between the boards, the management and the artists have only increased, and one arts organisation after another has either publicly buckled or privately preemptively buckled on the pretext that art is not political,' Adler says. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion 'Of course, insisting on silence on the conflict in the Middle East issue is a deeply political position – it's just one that suits particular interest groups. 'The problem for arts organisations is that artists – not all artists, but many artists – want to speak to the issues of the day. So when arts managers and their boards fail to protect the right of artists to speak, a principle that should be sacrosanct, one has to question whether they have lost sight of the fundamentals.' Adler says there are some free speech frontiers that no publicly funded arts festival or organisation would cross, but the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and the conflation of support for Palestine with support for terrorism, has made organisations shy away from defending artists' freedom of expression. 'I think there are lines for all of us; certainly in my current role, or when I was a publisher, I am not going to offer the microphone to people who are involved in hate speech or incitement to violence or racism. I don't think that's a question of free speech. 'No decent person wants to be accused of antisemitism, of any kind of racism. But once criticism of Israel is conflated with antisemitism … you've successfully manufactured the catalogue of silenced artists we have witnessed in recent years.' As with Creative Australia in response to the Sabsabi controversy, the State Library of Queensland announced an independent review following the withdrawal of Wyld's fellowship, the terms of which are still being prepared. It's the latest in a pattern of reviews and consultations in the wake of contentious decision-making. Earlier this year the State Library of Victoria unveiled a 'Ways of Working' framework, developed after it canned a Teen Writing Bootcamp in 2024. Freedom of information requests subsequently revealed that library management had scrutinised the social media posts of the three authors who were due to lead the workshops for content related to the Israel-Hamas war. In a statement the State Library of Victoria said it was 'crucial that we are a place of freedom of expression and respect for all', and that the 'sector-leading' framework established 'mutual obligations between the Library and anyone who works with us'. Since January, writers and artists engaged by the library have been obliged to agree that when making public statements, they 'clearly state that these views and opinions do not reflect or represent the views or positions of State Library Victoria, or any other person, company or organisation' from the moment a contract is signed. Jinghua Qian, one of the writers involved in the 2024 bootcamp, remains sceptical. 'If you contract someone for a one-hour panel or workshop, do you have the right to limit, police and punish them for their creative expression outside of that booking?' Qian wrote on Bluesky. For some creatives, these decisions expose contradictions in institutions that have tried to diversify their audiences and offer a platform to previously under-represented voices. Days before De Kretser's Stella speech, Nam Le, the newly crowned book of the year winner at the New South Wales Literary awards, asked a Sydney audience whether the 'goal of multiculturalism should be coexistence or cohesion'. 'If cohesion, how do we make sure that 'social cohesion' doesn't become 'social coercion' – a means of preserving the status quo, of preserving power?' Le asked, in a speech delivered by his manager. Like De Kretser's, Le's words would only become more pointed as the week progressed. 'What good is harmony if it only and always exists on terms dictated by power? If it's built on injustice, or enforced civility – enforced silence?'
