Six times Facebook ignored their own community standards when removing content

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Facebook has received much criticism recently around the removal of content and its lack of transparency as to the reasons why. Although it maintains their right as a private company to remove content that violates community guidelines, many critics claim this disproportionately targets marginalised people and groups. A report by ProPublica in June 2017 found that Facebook’s secret censorship policies “tend to favour elites and governments over grassroots activists and racial minorities”.

The company claims in their community standards that they don’t censor posts that are newsworthy or raise awareness, but this clearly isn’t always the case.

The Rohingya people

Most recently, almost a year after the human rights groups’ letter, Facebook has continuously censored content related to the Rohingya people, a stateless minority who mostly reside in Burma. Rohingya have repeatedly been banned from Facebook for posting about atrocities committed against them. The story resurfaced amid claims that Rohingya people will be offered sterilisation in refugee camps.

Refugees have used Facebook as a tool to document the accounts of ethnic cleansing against their communities in refugee camps and Burma’s conflict zone, the Rakhine State. These areas range from difficult to impossible to be reached by reporters, making first-hand accounts so important.

Rohingya activists told the Daily Beast that their accounts are frequently taken down or suspended when they post about their persecution by the Burmese military.

Dakota Access Pipeline protesters

In September 2016 Facebook admitted removing a live video posted by anti-Dakota Access Pipeline activists in the USA. The video showed police arresting around two dozen protesters, although after the link was shared access was denied to viewers.

Facebook blamed their automated spam filter for censoring the video, a feature that is often criticised for being vague and secretive. 

Palestinian journalists

In the same month as the Dakota Access Pipeline video, Facebook suspended the accounts of editors from two Palestinian news publications based in the occupied West Bank without providing a reason. There are no reports of the journalists violating the networking site’s community standards, but the editors allege their pages may have been censored because of a recent agreement between the US social media giant and the Israeli government aimed at tackling posts inciting violence.

Facebook later released a statement which stated: “Our team processes millions of reports each week, and we sometimes get things wrong.” 

US police brutality

In July 2016 a Facebook live video was censored for showing the aftermath of a black man shot by US police in his car. Philando Castile was asked to provide his license and registration but was shot when attempting to do so, according to Lavish Reynolds, Castile’s girlfriend who posted the video.

The video does not appear to violate Facebook’s community standards. According to these rules, videos depicting violence should only be removed if they are “shared for sadistic pleasure or to celebrate or glorify violence”.

“Facebook has long been a place where people share their experiences and raise awareness about important issues,” the policy states. “Sometimes, those experiences and issues involve violence and graphic images of public interest or concern, such as human rights abuses or acts of terrorism.”

Reynold’s video was to condemn wrongful violence and therefore was appropriate to be shown on the website.

Facebook blamed the removal of the video on a glitch.

Swedish breast cancer awareness video

In October 2016, Facebook removed a Swedish breast cancer awareness campaign that had depictions of cartoon breasts. The breasts were abstract circles in different shades of pinks. The purpose of the video was to raise awareness and to educate, meaning that by Facebook’s standards, it should not have been censored.

The video was reposted and Facebook apologised, claiming once again that the removal was a mistake.

The Autumn issue of Index on Censorship magazine explored the censorship of the female nipple, which occurs offline and on in many areas around the world. In October 2017 a Facebook post by Index’s Hannah Machlin on the censoring of female nipples was removed for violating community standards

“Napalm girl” Vietnam War photo

A month earlier, in a serious blow to media freedom, Facebook removed an iconic photo from the Vietnam War. The photo is widespread and famous for revealing the atrocities of the war, especially on innocent people like children.

In a statement made following the removal of the photograph, Index on Censorship said: “Facebook should be a platform for … open debate, including the viewing of images and stories that some people may find offensive, is vital for democracy. Platforms such as Facebook can play an essential role in ensuring this.”

The newspaper whose post was censored posted a front-page open letter to Mark Zuckerberg stating that the CEO was abusing his power. After public outrage and the open letter, Facebook released a statement claiming they are “always looking to improve our policies to make sure they both promote free expression and keep our community safe”.

Facebook’s community standards claim they remove photos of sexual assault against minors but don’t mention historical photos or those which do not contain sexual assault.

The young woman shown in the photo, who now lives in Canada, released her own statement saying: “I’m saddened by those who would focus on the nudity in the historic picture rather than the powerful message it conveys. I fully support the documentary image taken by Nick Ut as a moment of truth that capture the horror of war and its effects on innocent victims.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1509981254255-452e74e2-3762-2″ taxonomies=”1721″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Ceri Thomas: Trust and trustworthiness

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96199″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]
In 1976 All The President’s Men was released, barely two years after investigative journalism had claimed the biggest scalp on the planet, Richard Nixon’s. The film won four Academy Awards, and the American public awarded a gong to the news media: the highest trust rating journalists would ever enjoy. Seventy two per cent of people told Gallup they trusted the media a great deal or a fair amount. The corresponding figure is now 32%.

That, in a nutshell, is how the case is framed. A noble profession won the trust of the public on a hard road through Vietnam, Watergate and Thalidomide – and blew it by taking short cuts through self-regard, sloppiness and other people’s voicemails.

Does the case stack up? Some of it may, but here’s the rub. It rests on the belief that trust is a reliable guide to good journalism, and there’s precious little evidence that’s the case. The relationship between the trustworthiness of the media and the trust people invest in it is a very uncertain one.

At times in the past, the British public have trusted almost recklessly. Before the Second World War, when the BBC connived with the government to keep Winston Churchill and his anti-appeasement views off air, trust in the BBC was stratospherically high, the trustworthiness of the BBC somewhat lower. The dramatic collapse in trust, post-2000, had a lot to do with globalisation and wage stagnation and very little to do with new insights into media behaviour. Those came later.

Now the public hoards trust, and hands out little parcels to friends and “trusted sources” rather than the mainstream media. I worked at the BBC for 25 years and I saw its journalism become more trustworthy in most important respects: more accurate, more accountable, more open. Its reward? Higher trust ratings than any other news organisation in this country, but still a decline.

In this hostile terrain there are new and troubling factors, not least the arrival on the scene of media outfits, often aligned with populist political causes, which see trust as a zero-sum game. Part of their purpose, and part of the populist playbook, is to bleed trust from the institutions that came before. Often, what people worry about in that polarised environment is the erosion of a common baseline of facts. How do we have a democratic debate when we can’t even agree what facts we’re debating? But the worries shouldn’t obscure a genuine problem: what came before, politically and journalistically, was too narrow. The consensus excluded too many people.

To any part of the media that cares about being trusted, I’d say this: forget about a 72% trust rating, you’ll never see it again because the world has changed too much. In fact, forget about trust. The only thing you can control is trustworthiness; focus on that. Focus on integrity, accuracy, transparency, diversity, breadth. Trust will come and go, trustworthiness is forever.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Battle of Ideas 2017″ use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.battleofideas.org.uk%2F|||”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_column_text]A weekend of thought-provoking public debate taking place on 28 and 29 October at the Barbican Centre. Join the main debates or satellite events.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Political activism and protest today
Recent years have seen something of a revitalisation of political protests and marches, but just what is protest historically and today?

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Do YOU trust the news media?
How can we know whether journalism, particularly reporting on complex issues or assessing notoriously difficult ideas such as risk, is accurate?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Censorship and identity: Free speech for you but not for me?
Is identity politics the new tool of censorship and, if so, how should we respond?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]

International Association of Prosecutors urged to promote adherence to their own standards

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

The Hague, 5 September 2017

Dear members of the International Association of Prosecutors members, executive committee and senate,

In the run-up to the annual conference and general meeting of the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) in Beijing, China, the undersigned civil society organisations urge the IAP to live up to its vision and bolster its efforts to preserve the integrity of the profession.

Increasingly, in many regions of the world, in clear breach of professional integrity and fair trial standards, public prosecutors use their powers to suppress critical voices.

In China, over the last two years, dozens of prominent lawyers, labour rights advocates and activists have been targeted by the prosecution service. Many remain behind bars, convicted or in prolonged detention for legal and peaceful activities protected by international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Azerbaijan is in the midst of a major crackdown on civil rights defenders, bloggers and journalists, imposing hefty sentences on fabricated charges in trials that make a mockery of justice. In Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey many prosecutors play an active role in the repression of human rights defenders, and in committing, covering up or condoning other grave human rights abuses.

Patterns of abusive practices by prosecutors in these and other countries ought to be of grave concern to the professional associations they belong to, such as the IAP. Upholding the rule of law and human rights is a key aspect of the profession of a prosecutor, as is certified by the IAP’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, that explicitly refer to the importance of observing and protecting the right to a fair trial and other human rights at all stages of work.

Maintaining the credibility of the profession should be a key concern for the IAP. This requires explicit steps by the IAP to introduce a meaningful human rights policy. Such steps will help to counter devaluation of ethical standards in the profession, revamp public trust in justice professionals and protect the organisation and its members from damaging reputational impact and allegations of whitewashing or complicity in human rights abuses.

For the second year in a row, civil society appeals to the IAP to honour its human rights responsibilities by introducing a tangible human rights policy. In particular:

We urge the IAP Executive Committee and the Senate to:

  • introduce human rights due diligence and compliance procedures for new and current members, including scope for complaint mechanisms with respect to institutional and individual members, making information public about its institutional members and creating openings for stakeholder engagement from the side of civil society and victims of human rights abuses.

We call on individual members of the IAP to:

  • raise the problem of a lack of human rights compliance mechanisms at the IAP and thoroughly discuss the human rights implications before making decisions about hosting IAP meetings;
  • identify relevant human rights concerns before travelling to IAP conferences and meetings and raise these issues with their counterparts from countries where politically-motivated prosecution and human rights abuses by prosecution authorities are reported by intergovernmental organisations and internationally renowned human rights groups.

Supporting organisations:

Amnesty International

Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice, Benin

Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa, Kwekwe

Article 19, London

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

Asia Justice and Rights, Jakarta

Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Chiang Mai

Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong SAR

Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong SAR

Association for Legal Intervention, Warsaw

Association Humanrights.ch, Bern

Association Malienne des Droits de l’Homme, Bamako

Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement, Kyiv

Associazione Antigone, Rome

Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius

Belarusian Helsinki Committee, Minsk

Bir-Duino Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Sofia

Canadian Human Rights International Organisation, Toronto

Center for Civil Liberties, Kyiv

Centre for Development and Democratization of Institutions, Tirana

Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Moscow

China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, Hong Kong SAR

Civil Rights Defenders, Stockholm

Civil Society Institute, Yerevan

Citizen Watch, St. Petersburg

Collective Human Rights Defenders “Laura Acosta” International Organization COHURIDELA, Toronto

Comunidad de Derechos Humanos, La Paz

Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Lima

Destination Justice, Phnom Penh

East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, Kampala

Equality Myanmar, Yangon

Faculty of Law – University of Indonesia, Depok

Fair Trials, London

Federation of Equal Journalists, Almaty

Former Vietnamese Prisoners of Conscience, Hanoi

Free Press Unlimited, Amsterdam

Front Line Defenders, Dublin

Foundation ADRA Poland, Wroclaw

German-Russian Exchange, Berlin

Gram Bharati Samiti, Jaipur

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor, Yerevan

Helsinki Association of Armenia, Yerevan

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Warsaw

Human Rights Center Azerbaijan, Baku

Human Rights Center Georgia, Tbilisi

Human Rights Club, Baku

Human Rights Embassy, Chisinau

Human Rights House Foundation, Oslo

Human Rights Information Center, Kyiv

Human Rights Matter, Berlin

Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Vilnius

Human Rights Now, Tokyo

Human Rights Without Frontiers International, Brussels

Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Budapest

IDP Women Association “Consent”, Tbilisi

IMPARSIAL, the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor, Jakarta

Index on Censorship, London

Indonesian Legal Roundtable, Jakarta

Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Jakarta

Institute for Democracy and Mediation, Tirana

Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, Tbilisi

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Partnership for Human Rights, Brussels

International Service for Human Rights, Geneva

International Youth Human Rights Movement

Jerusalem Institute of Justice, Jerusalem

Jordan Transparency Center, Amman

Justiça Global, Rio de Janeiro

Justice and Peace Netherlands, The Hague

Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, Almaty

Kharkiv Regional Foundation Public Alternative, Kharkiv

Kosovo Center for Transparency, Accountability and Anti-Corruption – KUND 16, Prishtina

Kosova Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims, Prishtina

Lawyers for Lawyers, Amsterdam

Lawyers for Liberty, Kuala Lumpur

League of Human Rights, Brno

Macedonian Helsinki Committee, Skopje

Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (Mappi FH-UI), Depok

Moscow Helsinki Group, Moscow

National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders, Kampala

Netherlands Helsinki Committee, The Hague

Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University, Utrecht

NGO “Aru ana”, Aktobe

Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Oslo

Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization (PRWSWO), Bahawalpur

Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS), Bogotá

Pen International, London

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), Seoul

Philippine Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), Manila

Promo-LEX Association, Chisinau

Protection International, Brussels

Protection Desk Colombia, alianza (OPI-PAS), Bogotá

Protection of Rights Without Borders, Yerevan

Public Association Dignity, Astana

Public Association “Our Right”, Kokshetau

Public Fund “Ar.Ruh.Hak”, Almaty

Public Fund “Ulagatty Zhanaya”, Almaty

Public Verdict Foundation, Moscow

Regional Center for Strategic Studies, Baku/ Tbilisi

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Lagos

Stefan Batory Foundation, Warsaw

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Petaling Jaya

Swiss Helsinki Association, Lenzburg

Transparency International Anti-corruption Center, Yerevan

Transparency International Austrian chapter, Vienna

Transparency International Česká republika, Prague

Transparency International Deutschland, Berlin

Transparency International EU Office, Brussels

Transparency International France, Paris

Transparency International Greece, Athens

Transparency International Greenland, Nuuk

Transparency International Hungary, Budapest

Transparency International Ireland, Dublin

Transparency International Italia, Milan

Transparency International Moldova, Chisinau

Transparency International Nederland, Amsterdam

Transparency International Norway, Oslo

Transparency International Portugal, Lisbon

Transparency International Romania, Bucharest

Transparency International Secretariat, Berlin

Transparency International Slovenia, Ljubljana

Transparency International España, Madrid

Transparency International Sweden, Stockholm

Transparency International Switzerland, Bern

Transparency International UK, London

UNITED for Intercultural Action the European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of migrants, refugees and minorities, Budapest

United Nations Convention against Corruption Civil Society Coalition

Villa Decius Association, Krakow

Vietnam’s Defend the Defenders, Hanoi

Vietnamese Women for Human Rights, Saigon

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Harare[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1504604895654-8e1a8132-5a81-8″ taxonomies=”8883″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Playlist: Music and revolution

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”As the Summer 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at the modern implications of the Russian revolution 100 years on, Margaret Flynn Sapia lists 10 global songs inspired by revolutions of the last century”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2wneBVssPc&list=PLCY0ZVWasL3FginL7uuYQJy6JfXGIWmGu”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Music has an undeniable ability to move people; musicians can reach across borders and boundaries, pull at the heartstrings and say the unsayable. As a result, music has long been used to call for revolution, urging listeners to rise up against injustice and power. For the launch of Index on Censorship magazine’s summer 2017 issue, 100 Years On: What difference Russia’s revolution makes to our freedom today, we have compiled a playlist themed around the idea of revolution.

Tracy Chapman – Talkin ‘Bout A Revolution

In a world gripped by the denouement of the Cold War, Tracy Chapman saw change on the horizon. “Poor people gonna rise up /And get their share/ Poor people gonna rise up/And take what’s theirs” sums up the sentiment of Talkin ‘Bout A Revolution. Optimistic, perhaps, but the song arrived in 1988, at the cusp of a global uprising that saw the fall of Apartheid South Africa, the Soviet Union and several smaller communist regimes, as well as a Western ideological shift away from the ruthless capitalism of Thatcher and Reagan.

Gil Scott-Heron – The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was released in 1970, at the end of a turbulent decade that saw the assassinations of several civil rights heroes including John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Fred Hampton. It calls on people to unite and take action beyond watching a television screen, warning that the revolution will not come with the glitz and glamour of television, and that the television will not be on their side.  Gil Scott-Heron, an important figure and musician during the US Civil Rights movement, is keen to call for realistic understandings of how change can be achieved in this song.

The Specials – Nelson Mandela

The Specials’ Nelson Mandela drew popular attention to Mandela’s mistreatment in South Africa when it was released in 1984, bringing the injustice of his then two-decade imprisonment into common knowledge. When it was performed at a Wembley concert on Mandela’s 70th birthday in 1988, its chorus of “free Nelson Mandela” became a global rallying cry for the end of apartheid. Two years later, Mandela walked out of prison, and the apartheid regime fell shortly after.

David Zé – Mwangolé (O guerrilheiro)

One of Angola’s most renowned revolutionary artists, David Zé is particularly adept in his descriptions of the suffering and abuse of Angolans under Portuguese colonial rule. Mwangolé O guerrilheiro may not call for a specific course of revolutionary action, but its representation of the enduring pain and intolerable living conditions of Angolans remind listeners of what can drive a person to risk everything and revolt for their freedom. In a country that suffered through a generation-long civil war, that context can never be forgotten.

Carlos Puebla Y en eso llego Fidel

“The fun was over, El Comandante came and ordered them to stop”, Puebla sings in this famous hymn to the Cuban revolution. Throughout the song, Carlos Puebla celebrates Castro’s arrival and overtake of the island, putting an end to capitalism’s prior corruption and exploitation of the island’s people. The droves of people who fled the subsequent corruption and exploitation by Castro’s communist regime might dispute the song’s celebratory tone.

The Korean People’s Army State Merited Chorus Defend the Headquarters of the Revolution (혁명의 수뇌부 결사옹위하리라)

In North Korea, even revolutionary music – what should be defined and expressed by the people, free of censorship – is an unyielding expression and promotion of state power. Defend the Headquarters of the Revolution provides no mention of Korean culture or history preceding Kim Jong II, instead extolling the virtue of picking up arms for the Kims and fighting to the death, viewing this fight as a revolution against the rest of the world.

Vasily Agapkin – Farewell of Slavianka

Farewell of Slavianka (Proshchaniye slavyanki) became so popular during the 1917 Revolution that, despite its non-communist roots, the Soviet Union eventually adopted it as an official national song. This piece represents two fundamental components of revolution: popular sentiment during the people’s initial rebellion, and post-revolutionary appropriation of that sentiment into state propaganda.

Yulduz Usmonova – Ayting Ayting

Songs which explicitly detail Soviet occupation in Uzbekistan are scarce. However, songs sung in Uzbek instead of Russian (especially before the country’s independence) have long served as expressions of nationalism and rejection of the Russian hierarchy. Ayting Ayting is not a typical revolutionary song, but its defiance lies in its subtle refusal to conform to Russian norms.

Yoko Ono and John Lennon – Imagine

“Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for”, sings John Lennon. This song co-written by Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono asks us to contemplate a different kind of revolution – not a singular uprising or struggle, but a new peaceful world where the divisions of religion and nationality have disappeared. The chorus of “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one” hints at the faint possibility of this future, if people could only come together long enough to realise how similar they are. In a sad irony, he was eventually assassinated by a mentally ill Christian extremist who considered this blasphemy.

Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young – Ohio

The Vietnam War and its national impact are deeply entrenched within US society, and have inspired countless pieces of art, film and music. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young’s song Ohio was written in response to the 1970 Kent State University massacre, in which national guard soldiers opened fire on anti-war student protesters leaving four dead and nine wounded. The song was released just a few weeks after the incident, and placed the blame directly on the Richard Nixon administration. It was soon adopted as an anthem of the US’s anti-establishment movement.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Print copies of Index on Censorship magazine are available on Amazon, or you can find information about print or digital subscriptions here. Copies are also available at the BFI, the Serpentine Gallery, MagCulture, (London), News from Nowhere (Liverpool), and Home (Manchester). Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship continue its fight for free expression worldwide

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”100 Years On” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F06%2F100-years-on%2F|||”][vc_column_text]Through a range of in-depth reporting, interviews and illustrations, the summer 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine explores how the consequences of the 1917 Russian Revolution still affect freedoms today, in Russia and around the world.

With: Andrei ArkhangelskyBG MuhnNina Khrushcheva[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”91220″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/magazine”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.

Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.

Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.

SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]