Legend of Wuhan Coronavirus Whistleblower Will Live Forever on Ethereum Blockchain

Li Wenliang was an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital who became something of a national hero amidst the turmoil of the Coronavirus. His legend has only been further galvanized following his recent death where he succumbed to the dreaded virus.

According to the Washington Post, the Chinese doctor was silenced by police and charged with “rumor-mongering” after he tried to share news of the Coronavirus outbreak prior to Chinese health authorities coming to terms with the severity of the spread of the disease. Here is a copy of the original letter he received from the Wuhan police.

While Li’s attempts to warn his country about the deadly disease was met with anger from the Chinese Communist Party, there was an equally vicious outcry by the people who grow tired of the CCP’s censorship solutions to most of their problems.

Immutable Ethereum Monument

On Jan. 31, someone honored the late Dr. Li Wenliang when they created a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain, aligning the source codes in the shape of a monument in his memory.

The source code of the Monument describes the life of Dr.Li and honors him for his defiance of the CCP censorship to alert the public to the dangers of the virus. 

The monument that now exists on the Ethereum blockchain will serve as Dr. Li’s last act of defiance, as his memory will now be preserved in blockchain immutability. The story of his courage and compassion for his people at his own risk will now live forever beyond the scope of those who would seek to censor the truth.

Blockchain for Greater Transparency in China

As previously reported by Blockchain.News, there has been concern that the millions of dollars being donated for the public, as well as the protective equipment to combat the outbreak are not being put to use where needed, and it has been reported that the equipment has been misdirected. 

The Red Cross in China has previously mishandled billions of dollars donated for the Wenchuan earthquake in Sichuan province in Western China in 2008. The Red Cross in China reflected, “One of the lessons learned was that emergency response must be better developed at the local level.”

With the issues in the chain of donations, the public in China has been angered as their contributions have not ended up where they expected, which diverts the objective of addressing the crisis. This, in turn, also impacts the public’s willingness to donate in the future. 

Syren Johnstone, the Executive Director of the Masters of Law (Compliance and Regulation) Program the University of Hong Kong has recently suggested that a private blockchain network would “enable the recording and tracking of anything that is donated, from donation dollars to N95 masks.” By holding the person or organization accountable, donations for delivery could be tracked from the donor all the way to its final-use. Blockchain would also enable transparency for the general public to understand how their donations have been used and its progress. While a private blockchain is strictly controlled, it can also allow for public transparency for donors and receivers, as well as authorities.

Image via Hong Kong Free Press

EARN IT Act Introduced in US House of Representatives, Critics View It as Threat—What This Means for Crypto

Despite being perceived as an “anti-security bill” by many, the EARN IT Act has made its way to the US House of Representatives and currently awaits approval.

Blockchain and industry critics disapprove of bill

The EARN IT Act is a bill that has been proposed by Attorney General William Barr in conjunction with other law enforcement entities to regulate internet activity. If passed, it will enable law enforcement to read users’ online messages, bypassing encryption.

The EARN IT Act will supersede the Communications Decency Act if approved by US law enforcement. The Communications Decency Act decrees that website owners and social media platforms will not be held accountable for posts and content uploaded by web users leveraging their platforms.

Numerous critics have shunned the bill, calling it a direct threat to encryption protection. If the proposed bill were passed by US regulators, it would entail that social media platform providers, from Twitter, Facebook to small website owners, would be held accountable for everything published on its network. As most have reiterated, this would be a threat to freedom of speech as censorship across the internet would undoubtedly increase.

Furthermore, experts have said that legislation regulating the internet could be inherently dangerous.

What the EARN IT Act entails

The EARN IT Act, which was examined by the Senate Judiciary Committee, made its way to the House of Representatives last week. If passed, platforms would be held accountable for users’ content, as long as the potential complaints were linked to crimes against children, such as child abuse, child pornography, etc. In addition, the bill suggests a last-minute amendment that guarantees legal protection to platforms leveraging end-to-end encryption for security purposes, a feature that prevents platforms from accessing users’ messages.

Crypto and blockchain critics still wary

Despite the amendment, blockchain experts have been reported to be cautious regarding the bill, as they claim that website surveillance will go up, with owners avoiding regulatory complications and being sued in the first place. If that were to happen, censorship will be inevitable, and users will be closely monitored.

Furthermore, governments may be able to leverage the bill to charge networks that do provide encrypted communication, posing a huge threat to privacy. As some blockchain and cryptocurrency platforms leverage encryption for digital transactions, the bill may hinder the crypto industry.

So far, the silver lining appears to be that through the EARN IT Act, online child exploitation can be halted. However, the trade-off may be that privacy provided by encryption layers may no longer be available, and censorship will be on the rise.

What this entails for the crypto and blockchain community still remains unclear, as certain crypto platforms leverage encryption to host user content.

Furthermore, with the bill possessing numerous loopholes due to amendments brought upon by public outcry, as reported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the question of whether the internet-regulating bill will even be passed still remains unanswered.

DOJ Wants to Bypass End-to-End Encryption to Fight Child Sexual Exploitation – Cause for Concern for Tech?

While end-to-end encryption has long been leveraged to deliver privacy and data protection to tech users, US government officials are attempting to find a way to bypass it, under the pretext that illicit activity revolving around child sexual abuse run unmonitored on strongly encrypted platforms.

DOJ on why it wishes to monitor content

The US Department of Justice (DOJ), along with the Home Department of the United Kingdom, the Australian Minister for Home Affairs, India, Japan, and other government officials have come together to assess encryption – a process in cryptography used to secure sensitive data and protect it from being intercepted by unauthorized viewers.

US lawmakers are saying that although “encryption is an existential anchor of trust in the digital world,” certain aspects of this technology may pose a threat to the public, in particular to “sexually exploited children.” The DOJ alleges that since encryption inhibits legal and government bodies to assess content and review it, criminals, terrorists, and child exploitation rings use platforms with strong encryption to further their illicit activities. The international statement reads:

“We urge industry (encryption technology) to address our serious concerns where encryption is applied in a way that wholly precludes any legal access to content.”

The DOJ also said that tech companies should be responsible for unlawful content that leveraged their services, as it alleges that social media and communications platforms are often used to “groom children online.” DOJ cited an example from 2018, where statistics found that Facebook Messenger was leveraged in many instances to further child sexual abuse material. US government officials stated:

“In 2018, Facebook Messenger was responsible for nearly 12 million of the 18.4 million worldwide reports of CSAM (child sexual abuse material). These reports risk disappearing if end-to-end encryption is implemented by default, since current tools used to detect CSAM do not work in end-to-end encrypted environments.”

EARN IT Act – the quest to up web surveillance

The international statement backed by many law enforcement and government officials echo the sentiments of the attorney general of the United States, William Barr, who has been actively working on getting the EARN IT Act approved in the United States.

The bill targets encryption protection and decrees that government entities and law officials should have the right to assess user content on encrypted sites, to monitor activity, and put an end to child pornography and child abuse. If passed, it would hold platform providers and website owners accountable for content published on their network.

Blockchain and tech community bite back

Cryptography and industry experts have shunned the bill, criticizing it as a direct threat to privacy. As some blockchain and cryptocurrency platforms leverage encryption for digital transactions, the bill may hinder the crypto industry. Furthermore, internet-regulating bills would hold technology companies and website hosts accountable for content on their platforms. This may subsequently result in censorship and website surveillance being amped up on platforms, with website hosts avoiding legal complications.

DOJ wants to ramp up cyber security

However, direct implications of encryption technology proposals such as the EARN IT Act still remain unclear, as the DOJ is still assessing the tradeoff of circumventing end-to-end encryption platforms at the expense of user privacy to annihilate threats to public safety, such as child sexual exploitation. The US Department of Justice said:  

“While encryption is vital and privacy and cyber security must be protected, that should not come at the expense of wholly precluding law enforcement, and the tech industry itself, from being able to act against the most serious illegal content and activity online.”

Facebook Blocks President Trump from Its Platform as Protestors Storm Capitol Hill

Following the recent riot where a wave of pro-Trump supporters stormed Capitol Hill, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has announced that the President will now be blocked from the social media platform.

In light of the presidential election opposing Trump and Biden, a large wave of white American activists and Trump supporters have angrily taken Capitol Hill under siege. US’ Capitol Hill was vandalized and police barricades were breached, as the rioters invaded Washington, preaching their support of Trump.

Following the political violence, Zuckerberg has decided to restrict Trump from using Facebook, as many of his posts have been criticized as a gateway to “incite insurrection against a democratically elected government.”

Trump has previously resorted to social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to express his ideas, as he has said that media newspaper outlets were too censored for his liking. Ironically, although he uses their services, Trump has also blasted Facebook and Twitter, saying that Big Tech has conspired to rig the presidential election.

Politicians unhappy with Twitter and Facebook censorship

Previously, Twitter and Facebook were called to testify in front of the US Judiciary Committee, as explanations were demanded of Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook’s Zuckerberg for the way political posts were handled on their platforms during the elections.

The move of the tech giants to censor both Republicans and Democratics had served to infuriate both parties, who called on a reform of Section 230.  This section protects online platform hosts like Facebook and Twitter from being held accountable for content that social media users upload.

Both the Twitter CEO and Facebook’s Zuckerberg were open to the idea of amending Section 230. However, they said that the social media platforms were not to be treated as publishers or as traditional media websites. Both tech moguls stood by their company’s action, with Zuckerberg asserting,“We strengthened our enforcement against conspiracy networks and other groups to help prevent them from using our platform to organize violence or civil unrest in the period after the election.”

Is blockchain the answer to misinformation and centralized power?

The congressional hearing comes at a time when US authorities and global legislations have increasingly attempted to curb the monopoly of tech giants, namely the Big Tech – Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple. Antitrust hearings have been conducted with US Capitol Hill to address the ways in which Big Tech leveraged their power to thwart competitive companies in the tech industry.

With the rise in power of these tech corporate giants, the question of whether decentralization is the answer has come to light. With blockchain technology, information is regulated by everyone using the chain, and there is no central power. As the concentration of power on distributed ledger technology is technologically impossible, blockchain may provide more security in an environment where the trust in centralized authorities is questioned.

Censorship, Cancel Culture, and Common Sense

It’s nearly impossible to engage in any meaningful online discussion these days without bumping up against so-called “cancel culture.” There is a perception, which may or may not be real, that people, brands, and institutions that don’t live up to the internet’s prevailing social mores can be “canceled” or publicly shamed into silence.

As with most hot-button cultural issues, the topic of cancel culture is far more complicated than our Twitter-obsessed society is willing to admit.

Before diving into my thoughts on the subject, we must first understand how we arrived at this unique moment in history.

For my American friends, the concept of freedom of speech is as integral to their being as any idea can be. For better or worse, the American definition has shaped much of the internet’s views on how we communicate. Whether this is due to the distributed nature of our online interactions or the fact that the major tech platforms were developed in the U.S. is neither here nor there.

The truth of the matter is that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and countless others have given almost everyone a megaphone and imbued them with the belief that freedom of speech extends to their behaviors.

Of course, when the American Founders developed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they couldn’t imagine a world in which a single message, regardless of veracity, could be transmitted to billions of people instantaneously.

So we find ourselves in an interesting position. We have billions of people, connected despite different cultures and geographies, all grappling with the ability to share anything far and wide. Meanwhile, we have public figures and businesses operating on a global stage, subject to the whims of the crowd like never before. Finally, all of this is happening in an unregulated, chaotic free zone without central authority or even shared understanding.

There are multiple forces at play here. The first is the tech company itself, which can “de-platform” anyone who violates its terms of service. The second is the crowd itself, which exerts influence through what can only be described as a twenty-first century “mega boycott.”

As someone who has a foot in both the worlds of Western, liberal democracy and Chinese centralized leadership, I feel as though I have a unique perspective on the matter.

Tech companies like Twitter have, in my opinion, the right to regulate their platforms as they see fit. If they feel that former President Trump used their platform to sow the seeds of insurrection and violence, then they have the absolute right to kick him off for good.

Of course, this leads to accusations of censorship and circles back to cancel culture.

To those who complain of censorship, let’s keep things in perspective. In China, for example, censorship has a very different meaning. The worst-case scenario of being “canceled” in that part of the world entails a bit more than losing your Twitter account.

As with most things in life, everything comes down to common sense.

First, we must all conduct ourselves with dignity and honor and avoid pointless incendiary interactions.

Next, companies, public figures, and institutions must realize that there are consequences for their words and deeds. The Twitter mobs may come for them, calling for their heads, but ultimately, those individuals control how they choose to respond. If a company like Disney wants to fire an actor or actress for making controversial comments, that’s their decision. They’re merely making the most practical business decision.

Finally, we have to recognize that the tech platforms are independent organizations, and again they can choose how they want to respond to controversial figures. Yes, there is room for a double standard here, but as long as they operate in the context of a free and open society, the decision and power are theirs.

We must all work to encourage common sense and remain mindful of the environment in which we operate.

OKX Website Blocked in Russia with Unknown Reason

The trading website of the OKX exchange has been blocked in Russia, according to Roskomsvoboda, a platform that keeps track of censored platforms.

The blockage remains unclear why the platform was being stopped and when it will be back online soon. However, the situation can offset the cryptocurrency ecosystem with the notion that the Russian government is all out for crypto-linked trading platforms.

Hasty conclusions may not serve users right as Russia is gradually beginning to wake up to the embrace of cryptocurrencies, with the sanctions from Western regulators still crippling the national economy. 

Since the war in Ukraine started, both countries have relied heavily on digital currencies for transactions as banks in the most affected areas were halted. 

It is unclear how Russia will want to sabotage crypto trading with the censorship of some of the biggest crypto exchanges around, considering the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Russia have recently found grounds for adopting Bitcoin as a means of transactions.

While the Ministry of Energy is advocating for the mining of Bitcoin using excess energy, the ministry in charge of trade is also considering adopting the coin for international settlements for goods and services.

The evolution of cryptocurrencies has gone through many phases this year alone, and it has gone from attempts by the Bank of Russia advocating for its ban to a stage where it is now being considered a viable avenue to survive the current economic and financial hardship rocking the local economy.

Notably, digital currencies now occupy a crucial part of most countries’ financial ecosystems. With countries like Ukraine, El Salvador, and the Central African Republic pioneering the legalization of Bitcoin and digital assets, the narrative is changing as key regions like the European Union are actively working on implementing its regulatory framework tailored for the crypto industry through the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation.

Reversing Censorship on Ethereum

Since October 11, the proportion of Ethereum blocks that are compliant with orders made by the United States Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) has decreased to its current level of 47%, which is the lowest level since that date.

The most recent achievement in the fight against censorship comes about two and a half months and one day after the proportion of OFAC-compliant blocks reached its all-time high of 79% on November 21.

OFAC-compliant blocks are ones that do not include any transactions that involve parties who have been blacklisted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the United States Treasury Department.

Those individuals who are opposed to censorship inside the Ethereum ecosystem may see a decrease in the number of compliant blocks as a victory.

According to a statement released by the blockchain consulting company Labrys, the originator of MEV Watch, the decline may be linked to more validators choosing to utilize MEV-boost relays that do not filter transactions in compliance with OFAC standards.

The majority of the shift in market share has been taken up by the BloXroute Max Profit relay, the Ultrasound Money relay, and the Agnostic Boost relay in particular.

MEV-boost relays play the role of trustworthy middlemen between block producers and block builders, which paves the way for Ethereum validators to delegate the construction of their blocks to third-party block builders.

The Chief Executive Officer of Labrys, Lachlan Feeney, issued a statement on February 14 in which he expressed his satisfaction with the manner in which the Ethereum community has reacted to the censorship problem ever since it first appeared during the Merge event.

He pointed out that the recent decline of censorship-compliant blocks was especially noteworthy since it was accomplished without the involvement of a user-activated soft fork (UASF). He made the observation that “many individuals” of the Ethereum community had requested the soft fork prior to the Merge in order to resist censorship.

“I am incredibly proud of the Ethereum community for the progress we have made with this issue,” said Feeney, adding: “When we released the MevWatch tool drawing attention to a flaw within Ethereum, the community did not stick its head in the sand but instead rose to the occasion and made significant progress addressing the issue.” “When we released the MevWatch tool drawing attention to a flaw within Ethereum, the community did not stick its head in the sand but instead rose to the occasion and made significant progress

However, as Feeney emphasized, “there is still a great deal more work to be done.”

On August 8, OFAC sanctioned wallet addresses that transact using the Ethereum-based privacy mixing technology Tornado Cash. These wallet addresses are associated with Ether (ETH) and USD Coin (USDC).

On September 16, during the first 24 hours of Ethereum’s new proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, just 9% of blocks were filtered by OFAC.

Nevertheless, this number shot up dramatically over the subsequent two months, reaching its highest point of 79% on November 21.

After then, the proportion of OFAC-compliant blocks stayed anywhere between 68 and 75% until the 29th of January, when it dropped to 66%. Since then, in spite of a few brief increases, it has been consistently going down.

AI Image Service Bans Xi Jinping Pictures

Midjourney, an artificial intelligence (AI) service that generates images from natural language descriptions, has recently found itself in the midst of controversy. The company has banned users from creating pictures of Chinese President Xi Jinping, citing concerns about deepfakes. Deepfakes are manipulated digital representations produced by sophisticated machine-learning techniques that can be used to spread false information and propaganda.

While Midjourney’s ban was intended to prevent the proliferation of deepfakes on its platform, users have found a way to circumvent the ban by creating deepfakes of Xi using other methods. Midjourney has responded by disabling access to its free trial version. Although the platform still allows the creation of images featuring world leaders, the Chinese President is notably excluded. Any attempt to generate an image with his likeness or even mention his name in a prompt is strictly prohibited by Midjourney.

Critics, like Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), have argued that the ban constitutes a form of censorship, undermining the fundamental principles of free speech and expression. While Midjourney’s intentions may have been to prevent the spread of deepfakes, the ban has sparked debate about whether it is ever appropriate to limit access to technology in this way.

In messages exchanged on the chat service Discord last autumn, Midjourney’s founder and CEO, David Holz, revealed that the firm had received complaints from local users about “various topics in different countries,” prompting them to block numerous related words. However, according to chat logs examined by The Washington Post, Holz refrained from listing the prohibited terms to prevent unnecessary controversy. Holz also mentioned that the prohibited words were not solely connected to China. Nonetheless, he recognized that China was a particularly sensitive matter, as political humor might put Chinese users at risk.

In response to the criticism, Midjourney has attempted to explain its decision. In a statement, the company stated that its ban on Xi Jinping images was not motivated by financial gain. Instead, the company claims that it was “for the greater good” to ensure that access to this technology was available to Chinese individuals. However, critics argue that this reasoning is flawed, as it assumes that Chinese individuals are incapable of using the technology responsibly.

Despite the ban, users of Midjourney’s platform have found a workaround by creating deepfakes of Xi using other methods. Some users have used the /imagine function and provided the full URL of an existing photo of Xi in the prompt. Others have used the /blend function to combine two existing photos. While these methods are not as seamless as generating an image directly from a description, they still allow users to create images of Xi.

In conclusion, Midjourney’s ban on Xi Jinping images has sparked debate about the limits of technology and free speech. While the company may have had good intentions, its decision has been criticized as a form of censorship. As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether Midjourney will reconsider its decision or if users will continue to find ways to create deepfakes of Xi.

Exit mobile version