political discourse

The Risks Of Employee Political Discourse On Social Media

Bradford Kelley and James McGehee discuss the potential risks for employers when employees use social  media for political purposes.

Law360

View (Subscription required)




political discourse

'How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter' authors say platform is 'a tool for controlling political discourse'

'Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter' explores what went wrong under the entrepreneur's ownership of the social media platform.




political discourse

Reflections on the State of Political Discourse




political discourse

Online Disinformation and Political Discourse: Applying a Human Rights Framework

Online Disinformation and Political Discourse: Applying a Human Rights Framework Research paper sysadmin 5 November 2019

Although some digital platforms now have an impact on more people’s lives than does any one state authority, the international community has been slow to hold to account these platforms’ activities by reference to human rights law.

A man votes in Manhattan, New York City, during the US elections on 8 November 2016. Photo: Getty Images.

This paper examines how human rights frameworks should guide digital technology.

Summary

  • Online political campaigning techniques are distorting our democratic political processes. These techniques include the creation of disinformation and divisive content; exploiting digital platforms’ algorithms, and using bots, cyborgs and fake accounts to distribute this content; maximizing influence through harnessing emotional responses such as anger and disgust; and micro-targeting on the basis of collated personal data and sophisticated psychological profiling techniques. Some state authorities distort political debate by restricting, filtering, shutting down or censoring online networks.
  • Such techniques have outpaced regulatory initiatives and, save in egregious cases such as shutdown of networks, there is no international consensus on how they should be tackled. Digital platforms, driven by their commercial impetus to encourage users to spend as long as possible on them and to attract advertisers, may provide an environment conducive to manipulative techniques.
  • International human rights law, with its careful calibrations designed to protect individuals from abuse of power by authority, provides a normative framework that should underpin responses to online disinformation and distortion of political debate. Contrary to popular view, it does not entail that there should be no control of the online environment; rather, controls should balance the interests at stake appropriately.
  • The rights to freedom of thought and opinion are critical to delimiting the appropriate boundary between legitimate influence and illegitimate manipulation. When digital platforms exploit decision-making biases in prioritizing bad news and divisive, emotion-arousing information, they may be breaching these rights. States and digital platforms should consider structural changes to digital platforms to ensure that methods of online political discourse respect personal agency and prevent the use of sophisticated manipulative techniques.
  • The right to privacy includes a right to choose not to divulge your personal information, and a right to opt out of trading in and profiling on the basis of your personal data. Current practices in collecting, trading and using extensive personal data to ‘micro-target’ voters without their knowledge are not consistent with this right. Significant changes are needed.
  • Data protection laws should be implemented robustly, and should not legitimate extensive harvesting of personal data on the basis of either notional ‘consent’ or the data handler’s commercial interests. The right to privacy should be embedded in technological design (such as by allowing the user to access all information held on them at the click of a button); and political parties should be transparent in their collection and use of personal data, and in their targeting of messages. Arguably, the value of personal data should be shared with the individuals from whom it derives.
  • The rules on the boundaries of permissible content online should be set by states, and should be consistent with the right to freedom of expression. Digital platforms have had to rapidly develop policies on retention or removal of content, but those policies do not necessarily reflect the right to freedom of expression, and platforms are currently not well placed to take account of the public interest. Platforms should be far more transparent in their content regulation policies and decision-making, and should develop frameworks enabling efficient, fair, consistent internal complaints and content monitoring processes. Expertise on international human rights law should be integral to their systems.
  • The right to participate in public affairs and to vote includes the right to engage in public debate. States and digital platforms should ensure an environment in which all can participate in debate online and are not discouraged from standing for election, from participating or from voting by online threats or abuse.




political discourse

Reflections on the State of Political Discourse




political discourse

Online Disinformation and Political Discourse: Applying a Human Rights Framework

6 November 2019

Although some digital platforms now have an impact on more people’s lives than does any one state authority, the international community has been slow to hold to account these platforms’ activities by reference to human rights law. This paper examines how human rights frameworks should guide digital technology.

Kate Jones

Associate Fellow, International Law Programme

2019-11-05-Disinformation.jpg

A man votes in Manhattan, New York City, during the US elections on 8 November 2016. Photo: Getty Images.

Summary

  • Online political campaigning techniques are distorting our democratic political processes. These techniques include the creation of disinformation and divisive content; exploiting digital platforms’ algorithms, and using bots, cyborgs and fake accounts to distribute this content; maximizing influence through harnessing emotional responses such as anger and disgust; and micro-targeting on the basis of collated personal data and sophisticated psychological profiling techniques. Some state authorities distort political debate by restricting, filtering, shutting down or censoring online networks.
  • Such techniques have outpaced regulatory initiatives and, save in egregious cases such as shutdown of networks, there is no international consensus on how they should be tackled. Digital platforms, driven by their commercial impetus to encourage users to spend as long as possible on them and to attract advertisers, may provide an environment conducive to manipulative techniques.
  • International human rights law, with its careful calibrations designed to protect individuals from abuse of power by authority, provides a normative framework that should underpin responses to online disinformation and distortion of political debate. Contrary to popular view, it does not entail that there should be no control of the online environment; rather, controls should balance the interests at stake appropriately.
  • The rights to freedom of thought and opinion are critical to delimiting the appropriate boundary between legitimate influence and illegitimate manipulation. When digital platforms exploit decision-making biases in prioritizing bad news and divisive, emotion-arousing information, they may be breaching these rights. States and digital platforms should consider structural changes to digital platforms to ensure that methods of online political discourse respect personal agency and prevent the use of sophisticated manipulative techniques.
  • The right to privacy includes a right to choose not to divulge your personal information, and a right to opt out of trading in and profiling on the basis of your personal data. Current practices in collecting, trading and using extensive personal data to ‘micro-target’ voters without their knowledge are not consistent with this right. Significant changes are needed.
  • Data protection laws should be implemented robustly, and should not legitimate extensive harvesting of personal data on the basis of either notional ‘consent’ or the data handler’s commercial interests. The right to privacy should be embedded in technological design (such as by allowing the user to access all information held on them at the click of a button); and political parties should be transparent in their collection and use of personal data, and in their targeting of messages. Arguably, the value of personal data should be shared with the individuals from whom it derives.
  • The rules on the boundaries of permissible content online should be set by states, and should be consistent with the right to freedom of expression. Digital platforms have had to rapidly develop policies on retention or removal of content, but those policies do not necessarily reflect the right to freedom of expression, and platforms are currently not well placed to take account of the public interest. Platforms should be far more transparent in their content regulation policies and decision-making, and should develop frameworks enabling efficient, fair, consistent internal complaints and content monitoring processes. Expertise on international human rights law should be integral to their systems.
  • The right to participate in public affairs and to vote includes the right to engage in public debate. States and digital platforms should ensure an environment in which all can participate in debate online and are not discouraged from standing for election, from participating or from voting by online threats or abuse.




political discourse

Online Disinformation and Political Discourse: Applying a Human Rights Framework

6 November 2019

Although some digital platforms now have an impact on more people’s lives than does any one state authority, the international community has been slow to hold to account these platforms’ activities by reference to human rights law. This paper examines how human rights frameworks should guide digital technology.

Kate Jones

Associate Fellow, International Law Programme

2019-11-05-Disinformation.jpg

A man votes in Manhattan, New York City, during the US elections on 8 November 2016. Photo: Getty Images.

Summary

  • Online political campaigning techniques are distorting our democratic political processes. These techniques include the creation of disinformation and divisive content; exploiting digital platforms’ algorithms, and using bots, cyborgs and fake accounts to distribute this content; maximizing influence through harnessing emotional responses such as anger and disgust; and micro-targeting on the basis of collated personal data and sophisticated psychological profiling techniques. Some state authorities distort political debate by restricting, filtering, shutting down or censoring online networks.
  • Such techniques have outpaced regulatory initiatives and, save in egregious cases such as shutdown of networks, there is no international consensus on how they should be tackled. Digital platforms, driven by their commercial impetus to encourage users to spend as long as possible on them and to attract advertisers, may provide an environment conducive to manipulative techniques.
  • International human rights law, with its careful calibrations designed to protect individuals from abuse of power by authority, provides a normative framework that should underpin responses to online disinformation and distortion of political debate. Contrary to popular view, it does not entail that there should be no control of the online environment; rather, controls should balance the interests at stake appropriately.
  • The rights to freedom of thought and opinion are critical to delimiting the appropriate boundary between legitimate influence and illegitimate manipulation. When digital platforms exploit decision-making biases in prioritizing bad news and divisive, emotion-arousing information, they may be breaching these rights. States and digital platforms should consider structural changes to digital platforms to ensure that methods of online political discourse respect personal agency and prevent the use of sophisticated manipulative techniques.
  • The right to privacy includes a right to choose not to divulge your personal information, and a right to opt out of trading in and profiling on the basis of your personal data. Current practices in collecting, trading and using extensive personal data to ‘micro-target’ voters without their knowledge are not consistent with this right. Significant changes are needed.
  • Data protection laws should be implemented robustly, and should not legitimate extensive harvesting of personal data on the basis of either notional ‘consent’ or the data handler’s commercial interests. The right to privacy should be embedded in technological design (such as by allowing the user to access all information held on them at the click of a button); and political parties should be transparent in their collection and use of personal data, and in their targeting of messages. Arguably, the value of personal data should be shared with the individuals from whom it derives.
  • The rules on the boundaries of permissible content online should be set by states, and should be consistent with the right to freedom of expression. Digital platforms have had to rapidly develop policies on retention or removal of content, but those policies do not necessarily reflect the right to freedom of expression, and platforms are currently not well placed to take account of the public interest. Platforms should be far more transparent in their content regulation policies and decision-making, and should develop frameworks enabling efficient, fair, consistent internal complaints and content monitoring processes. Expertise on international human rights law should be integral to their systems.
  • The right to participate in public affairs and to vote includes the right to engage in public debate. States and digital platforms should ensure an environment in which all can participate in debate online and are not discouraged from standing for election, from participating or from voting by online threats or abuse.




political discourse

Sumedha Raikar-Mhatre: Political discourse in S, M, L and XL

Jagadamb refers to the ancestral deity Tulja Bhavani whose shrine sits in the mid-size city of Tuljapur in Osmanabad district. But, in present-day Maharashtra, the term Jagadamb rises above the geographical address. It is an embodiment of the feisty street-fighting youth, belonging to the Marathas or other backward castes, who owe their allegiance to a goddess who was also the motivation for Maharashtra's most-revered Chhatrapati Shivaji. Flashed on hooded T-shirts and pullovers, 'Jagadamb' has emerged topmost among the potent watchwords currently dominating popular discourse. Online sales and offline retail purchases across the state speak for the all-seasons connect of Jagadamb, which has takers irrespective of commemorative days and morcha schedules.


Abhijit Tarphe, a Dadar-based calligraphy artist, creates tees that occupy the fun space between political discourse, street lingo and social commentary. Pic/Ashish Raje

Apparel carrying longer mantras of Maratha loyalty — Ek Maratha Lakh Maratha, Hoy Maratha and Amhi Shivrayanche Sainik — have enjoyed cyclical demand, corresponding with the calendar of the 58 silent marches held last year. As the anecdote goes, Maratha T-shirts are in a "politically dormant" state at the moment. But fiery speaker (at the Maratha Kranti Morcha) and advocate from Aurangabad, Swati Nakhate Patil, feels T-shirts are effective communication tools. "What better reminder of the time when we took to the streets for reservations and equal terms? The identifiable catch lines recap our journey so far." T-shirt messages, she thinks, help in creating a family of volunteers. She'd know considering she is head of the Akka Foundation which has initiated a reform movement against socials ills like dowry and superstition among the Marathas. The foundation's signature T-shirt, wears a generic slogan – Sarvansathi Sarva Kahi – which indicates a wider fight for everyone's rights.


Swati Nakhate Patil, seen here with volunteers wearing their signature tee with the slogan, Sarvansathi Sarva Kahi. She heads the Akka Foundation which is fighting against socials ills. She has been one of the main speakers at the Maratha Kranti Morcha over the last one year

"The Marāthās" is a collective term referring to an Indo Aryan group of Hindus, Marathi-speaking castes of warriors and peasants who created an empire, covering a major part of India. They are not alone in the fight for rights. Another rights movement that's currently finding a reflection on T-shirts through creative slogans, photographs and graphic designs concerns the Lingayat community. They are seeking legal recognition as a religion distinct from Hinduism. Inspired by the success of their counterparts in Karnataka, the Lingayats in Maharashtra (some of whom have thronged Mantralaya too) are pressing for their religious minority status on T-shirts, which sing paeans to 12th century social reformer, philosopher and statesman Basaveshwara.


The Killa brand of tees focuses on Maratha pride associated with Chhatrapati Shivaji, and his various forts

He rejected temple worship by replacing it with direct worship of Shiva in the form of the Ishtalinga necklace, the image of the linga set in a silver casket, to be worn at all times close to the heart. Little wonder that both, Basaveshwara and the Shiv linga prominently feature on the T-shirts. As a professor of history and a keen observer of progressive movement slogans, Satara-based Amrut Salunkhe points out an interesting contradiction in the Lingayat factions. Not all sub-sects recognise Basava as the founder, but they don't seem to mind the T-shirt — available in Kannada and Marathi typography — carrying the phrase, Jai Vishwaguru Dharmsansthapak Basaveshwar! "The dissident factions have not yet come up with a counter icon. At this point, two different T-shirt creatives wouldn't have helped in lobbying for the larger Lingayat brotherhood," Salunkhe feels.

Theme T-shirts honouring the men of letters in the Marathi cultural world have been in currency for two decades; a recent manifestation was seen during a death anniversary of late Namdeo Dhasal whose fans wore the poet-ideologue's world view on a memorial T-shirt. The Bharatiya brand made use of faces of popular litterateurs like PL Deshpande and Narayan Surve, just as it made good use of the Marathi Abhiman Geet, and distributed T-shirts on Ashadi Ekadashi, Holi and Ganesh Chaturthi. They fashioned kid-centric lyrical sequence tees on monsoon joys too. Bharatiya has now extended its T-shirt ideation to Hindi and is soon to come up with Tamil messages. Their fare was earlier vended at literary summits, before it grew popular online, somewhat in the provincial cosmos where the Killa T-shirts thrived. Designed by Malvan-based artist and JJ School of Applied Art alumnus Arun Amberkar, Killa garments focus on the fortresses built by Chhatrapati Shivaji. The iconic rajmudra (official signature) T-shirt has been a hit for over a decade. Amberkar calls the line "lovingly crafted, wearable and usable slivers of history."

Dadar-based calligraphy artist Abhijit Tarphe feels customised tees are a fun zone for current affairs to find a rightful space. His T-shirts displayed apt word play (Sonu, tuza mazhyavar bharvasa nay ka?) when RJ Mallishka had attacked the BMC. He captures the Mumbai commuter spirit in the line, Mili to BEST, Nahi Toh Next.
Tarphe also has a range of occasion-based T-shirts like the tricolour-filled Independence Day special or Gokulashtami's Aya Makhan Chor creative. It is another story that T-shirts for Gokulashtami and Holi usually are gifted by political party leaders, chiefly Shiv Sena Shakha Pramukhs.

Jai Bhim T-shirts as a community-building tool have worked well over the years, not just for the April 14 Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti or the December 6 Mahaparinirvan Din. The apparel also comes in handy for Buddha Jayanti and during any political rally Dalit groups organise. This year, a Goregaon-based youth association, designed a special T-shirt declaring Mazhi Chaityabhoomi, Swacchabhoomi (My clean Chaityabhoomi). It served two political purposes; an affirmation of the Swacch Bharat mantra, challenging the stereotypical notion of Dalits arriving from rural Maharashtra who converge at Dadar's Shivaji Park Chaityabhoomi and litter.

T-shirt messaging extends to a range of causes — Separate Vidarbha; Who Killed Judge Loya?; Make (Women Safe) in India; Rape Roko; India Against Corruption; Donate Eyes; Pinkathon run against breast cancer. It has also been used to add cohesion to groups (I am with Anna Hazare; Desh Me Narendra/ Pradesh Me Devendra) or merely declare strength (Dr B R Ambedkar: King Number 1) or sport a vibe (Dude Please, Thane is not Bombay!/ Delhi is about Mera Baap Kaun Hai, Mumbai is about Who I am). T-shirts can help start a conversation, from the polite to the political.

Sumedha Raikar-Mhatre is a culture columnist in search of the sub-text. You can reach her at sumedha.raikar@gmail.com

Catch up on all the latest Crime, National, International and Hatke news here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates





political discourse

Harnessing chaos: the Bible in English political discourse since 1968 / James G. Crossley

Online Resource




political discourse

Harnessing chaos: the Bible in English political discourse since 1968.

Online Resource




political discourse

Harnessing chaos: the Bible in English political discourse since 1968 / James G. Crossley

Online Resource