#So err what happened to curate every interaction?

[cirkkaa]

I'm going to ramble a about something that bothers me a bit about rayemma so if you're not in for me being overly invested in fictional characters, this is your cue to not read this lol. Also I might sound like I'm taking it too seriously, but it's just me talking out loud, dw. I'm drinking coffee as I write :)

This contains manga spoilers!

I've already vented a little on twitter but now that days passed and I could notice other things, I want to talk about it here bc I think is calmer and I feel a little self conscious bringing ship related matters there. ( also I would've making a long ass thread no one wants to see lmao)

Let's state something first: I love Ray. He's my favorite tpn character, and I'm multishipper. Either if I'm being biased or not, I love rayemma, and I also love noremma and other ships. But RE has a soft spot for me for obvious reasons. And I'm not only talking only about romance here, tho of course I can't take it out of the frame bc, well is just another layer of their relationship. But my primary concern has to do with the interaction between both as it is.

Now, you may know about Shirai's and Sugita's commentary on the forest arc RE, if you don't it's here. Let's go to what is my perception.

Ray and Emma shared an unique bond like no other, would they have spent all those arcs on building their relationship from a very unstable/chaotic one to one which showcased a level of trust so deep that they were able to enter another realm and defy time and space......... that Ray out of all people was the one who felt her presence, was literally GUIDED to find her in a context in which realistically they might as well never ever see each other again to show us.. A sibling relationship? COMRADES? I felt like a bucket of ice was thrown at me. 

I've always loved that they didn't emphasize the sibling part of tpn when it came to the trio bc in no way it feels sibling-like. I always considered them as best friends, the kind that life puts in your way and you can feel it's different from any other bond you may have. And besides, story-wise, it makes sense since ehem NE exists, so that would be a weird concept to praise while putting characters on a shippy moment. Now, I think it's only fair for all 3 to be considered under the same context. But looks like NE gets a free pass, RE doesn't, and NR is close to nonexistent so we'll never know.

RE bonding was one of the best ones I've ever seen and probably my favorite, I have no words to describe how much I loved Shirai for taking this path with them. But this commentary?? Honestly, wouldn't you feel at least a little salty if this happened to a couple that means a lot to you? imagining that exactly this description was used to describe NE. Sounds incredibly ridiculous and just nonsensical doesn't it? Like hell, it can be anything but not this.

"Hey but NE is sorta canon and RE never existed" Well that doesn't mean that they aren't friends FIRST and foremost, which is the kind of relationship they showed ALL the time throughout the story. Not of siblings, not of comrades. Of course Emma referred to all GF as her family, but that I remember, she never considered Norman or Ray as her brothers, explicitly.

So in short, I felt sad and in disbelief. Nothing to do about it, it's done.

“But he said it´s okay to interpret it the way you want” Yes, which is very nice of him. But after reading that, I felt so drained and confused that romance in RE at this point sounded like a joke, when their friendship is pretty much.. Just there.

On a more selfish note, RE doesn't get half the credit it deserves. Their friendship goes under the rug most of the time, and considering canon events and how Ray fell on the sides, and now this commentary over a relationship in which in  2 arcs it might as well have been a central point, being diminished with this.. Just what even??

Not that I have power over someone else likings or interpretations, but man I wish they could appreciate them more.. I also would love to see Shirai taking his time to describe their relationship not focusing on the " there's definetly not romance here if that's what you want to know"I feel like there is much more to it that just the explanation he and Sugita gave, but that's just me being hopeful.

I think this is the only thing I highly disagree on with canon facts so far. Not that it matters what random fan on tumblr says, but yeah

A side note: this commentary was part of the fanbook, which is not translated officially and the parts that are, were made by fans. So maybe there is more info about them, for which I will say take my input with a grain of salt. Also, I'm not hating in any tpn ship or Shirai or Sugita. This is just a way for me to express my feelings over my disagreement with their answers. Do not take this as me about to break into Shirai´s house trying to validate a ship, or forcing ppl to ship them. I'm just voicing my thoughts and maybe regretting making this post later on 🤠

I do believe in the potential of all kind of fictional relationships, so I don't think siblings or comrades are in any way less important than lovers, for instance. However in my reflection, if you read the manga, you will know how not fitting those term are for RE. At least, in my opinion, they aren´t.

Thank you for reading, have a nice day.

#Not wanting to mention it but to all of that add the fact that even rayanna was sneaked in even though it was not canon #So err what happened to curate every interaction? #Hello? #Anyway I avoided addressing ships as much as I could bc this ain't about it #But since I need to make comparisons to get my point I thought it was necessary #I still love Shirai and Sugita but this one is a hard pill to swallow #Personal #The promised neverland #yakusoku no neverland #Ray #Emma #Rayemma #Tpn #Manga #Anime #レイエマ

[shirlleycoyle]

Twitter’s Covid Misinformation Filter Was So Broken It Became a Meme

Early Friday morning, Twitter became fun for the first time in months thanks to the introduction of an algorithm that tagged nearly every tweet mentioning “5G” or “oxygen” with a misinformation warning.

Recently, conspiracy theories have been spreading the idea that 5G was causing coronavirus. On the platform, Twitter has been getting users to delete tweets that it believes may cause harm by advocating for unproven treatments or the destruction of 5G cell towers. Sometime before 5 AM until roughly noon, however, Twitter began tagging tweets that mentioned "oxygen" and "5G" with a warning: "Get the facts about COVID-19.”

The misinformation warning would lead to a curated page meant to debunk any possible conspiracy theories connecting 5G to coronavirus and also appeared on tweets that interacted with flagged ones.

The problem was that this warning system appeared to be totally broken. The warning appeared on any tweet that mentioned “5G” and “oxygen” in any combination, even if it really had nothing to do with cellphone towers, conspiracies, or the virus. This led to Twitter users having some fun with the well-meaning but flawed moderation.

https://twitter.com/porksweats1/status/1276533147899920385?s=20

https://twitter.com/thetomzone/status/1276537763404316674?s=20

https://twitter.com/GrahamStarr/status/1276534473555947520?s=20

https://twitter.com/Akfamilyhome/status/1276427438189240320?s=20

https://twitter.com/SlimiHendrix/status/1276543985499148289?s=20

None of these tweets are advocating for anything harmful and to a human observer, are obviously a joke. But to a keyword filter or algorithm, each of these tweets presumably threatens to hurt some poor mark reading them. As Kelsey D. Atherton, a defense technology writer, noted in a tweet that ironically got flagged as misinformation: “One of the flaws of attempting moderation at scale by algorithm, a problem that has no bearing on 5G, is that it lets tech companies suck the oxygen out of efforts at reform & regulation, as they shrug & turn ‘we tried one thing with code and it did not work’ into ‘can't be done’”

By noon, the filter no longer seemed to be tagging every single mention of “5G” or “oxygen” even leaving alone tweets that really could be seen as conspiracy theories.

After this shift, Twitter spokesperson Liz Kelly told Motherboard that while Twitter’s algorithm is imperfect and constantly changing based on what’s happening on the platform, it prioritizes over-labeling to err on the side of caution and reduce harm while providing necessary context.

The algorithm may have worked on that front, but the automatic system seems to have exponentially increased the number of tweets about 5G, oxygen, and covid-19, and now that it’s done has left countless tweets that actually resemble conspiracy theories up without labels. By its own logic, this sort of algorithmic moderation, which is low-cost and hands-off, is deeply flawed.

Twitter’s Covid Misinformation Filter Was So Broken It Became a Meme syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[houstonlocalus-blog]

Pay F#$king Attention: Stop Taking Art Selfies

  “Want to play a fun game?” an artist asked me once at an international art fair. “What piece of contemporary art here is going to be the ‘selfie’ piece?” he asked. We both kept this underlining dialog going throughout the fair as we snickered and jaunted around the galleries. What is acceptable behavior in the art world, I wondered?

  At some point in the past 10 years, the ability to enjoy art in the moment has all but disappeared. Remember when you could go to a museum or gallery and actually see visitors indulging the exhibition with their eyes? Damn, I barely do! Why is it that we need to over-document every single moment? There is nothing more infuriating than walking into an exhibition and finding out it’s “selfie central.” I’m not saying that you shouldn’t snap some photos from time to time. Maybe you are writing about it later, or maybe you’re moved by it. I understand that there is sometimes a time and a place for that. However, why in the hell must you capture that moment with a selfie? We all know that when you enter a library you’re suppose to be quiet. I couldn’t tell you at what age it was that I was told this or was first scolded for talking too loud in a library or museum, but I know it was when I was quite young. So at what point did shit get so mixed up with art-viewing etiquette? Selfie sticks were banned from institutions almost as soon as they were conceived. Hmm, I wonder why I’m not allowed to bring my selfie stick into the gallery? I don’t know, maybe because it’s a 3-foot-long stick that you are going to be swinging around wildly while trying to find the right angle all while standing in a room filled with millions of dollars worth of fine art works?

  I know it’s sometimes hard to follow the rules and prevent your urges from leading you to push the proverbial “red button” in regards to what is acceptable behavior as a viewer of art in a gallery or museum. All we can think about sometimes is, “What happens if I do?” Perhaps I could just push it a little. Is it sensitive? I bet I could push on it just a tad and it would be fine. Just a halfway push? It’s stuck in your head now — the outcome of depressing that shiny red button is looming. But try to check your ego at the door of the museum, or at least take it no further inside than the umbrella receptacle — if you must. It’s worth saying that if you’re feeling the urge to take a selfie in a museum that badly, you probably aren’t at the museum for the actual art. You’re probably there so you can document your outing and post it on social media so other people can see how cultured you are.

  Marcel Duchamp, “Fountain,” 1917

That being said, artists, galleries, museums, and institutions have routinely pushed the envelope on the topic of “what is appropriate.” And sometimes, they’ve even been kind enough to invite viewers to push the red button, just when it’s appropriate and can add to the experience. Selfies aren’t usually a part of this though. In 1917, Duchamp created “Fountain,” thus changing the way we view contemporary art. And by the late 1950s, Andy Warhol could be expected to do any number of things at his openings, where the “anything goes” attitude was a given. Then in 1972, at the Sonnabend Gallery in New York City, Vito Acconci performed “Seedbed,” where he lay under the floor of the gallery masturbating and making sexual comments about the experience of the visitor walking up and down his “sexy-time” ramp. Imagine today, the hashtags, the orchestrated selfies lying on the floor: “Just me and Vito masturbating, y’all.” At his performance in 1972, the experience was fresh and raw. The viewer had only themselves, the other visitors, and their thoughts of what was unfolding just below their feet. It was an experience that you had to live and play out in your head. As with so many works of art and other performance, it’s about the time and the place. Yet it just seems like something has slipped up a bit with awareness of your surroundings and the lack of a need for a commemorative photo to prove it. Take an installation for example. Imagine a massive set of lights on a time sensor with ambient music playing as the lights change to the visitors movements. Seems great in theory, bouncing around within it triggering the sensors as the artists intended and feeling the sensation of the light and sound wash over you. Well, you’d probably be wrong in thinking that experience would actually happen. There’s a 90 percent chance there would be at least 60 people standing in place taking a blurry photo of their foreheads and about a dozen poor quality videos of the light show. ENJOY THE WORK, FOLKS! It’s you as the viewer that has to gauge what is what upon entering an exhibition. Yes, it’s all in the eyes of the beholder, but that comes with a baseline of rules.

  Clark and Mark Flood at the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston. Photo: Elizabeth Rhodes

Last year the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston hosted a retrospective exhibition for Mark Flood. The opening was a zoo — almost literally. There were folks dressed to the nines, dudes in underwear, people in costumes, and a confusion as to who was performer and who was the viewer. The idea for the most part was just that — confusion. What was allowed and what wasn’t allowed wasn’t firmly explained. It was like the red button scenario. I know it’s art, but it’s contemporary and conceptual art, so how far do I engage and what is acceptable? Yes, selfies, selfies, selfies! It’s what Flood wanted. Add the dialog of social networking in the realm of contemporary and fine art. I mean, New Media has only existed as a legitimate department for less than 15 years or so. Flood’s planned and unplanned performances were entertaining. The surrogates Mark and Clark Flood were twins in a cage. As the night began, for whatever reason, everyone just started throwing the omnipresent “LIKE” paintings into the cage. These were the small paintings that were originally part of a interactive piece in which viewers were encouraged to place the petite canvases in front of their favorite works. So I guess the crowd was saying, “We like these fellas.” I watched as the twins deflected the paintings and slowly got buried by them as the cage filled. Soon enough, guards rushed in and stopped the crowd from slowly smothering the two under a pile of tactile “LIKES.” The impromptu performance had ended, and everyone had to behave again, if only for a moment.

  We are working within the realm of technology and instant gratification. And as such, we are increasingly challenged as viewers while artists and spaces blur the lines of viewing. It was actually just recently at Atlas, Plural, Monumental, Paul Ramírez Jonas’ solo exhibition at the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, that I saw interactive symbols posted for the first time. One reads “You can touch this” and another reads “You can play this.” At first it felt as though the experience was dumbed down, as if it was needed for someone to tell the viewer which pieces were interactive, but I soon found it to be a clever museum move. You want the new or inexperienced viewer not to be afraid to get near to the work and be part of it. It also keeps the ass-hats from say, plunging their hand into a pool of mysterious liquid when you very well should not do that. Most of us are dubious viewers. Within myself is my knowledge in art preparation, handling, and curation that leads me to approach things with caution when indulging in my art viewing adventures. I assume it’s an “err on the side of caution” or “mind your P’s and Q’s” sort of situation. Moreover, it could be “don’t be that idiot when out in public, especially in places with lacquered wood floors or marble tiles.” So if you are that shining star visitor who caused $200,000 worth of damage while attempting to take a selfie a few weeks ago at The 14th Factory in Los Angeles, staged or not, maybe you should rethink the amount of likes you might get on that Instagram photo? Because as Ad Reinhardt said, “Sculpture is something you bump into when you back up to look at a painting.” Of course, this comment was made prior to the advent of smartphone culture.

Pay F#$king Attention: Stop Taking Art Selfies this is a repost