#also crooked media has links to volunteer and more if donating is not your thing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

queuepeaceandcandy · 5 years

Text

Take Down That

I wrote most of this post up for private consumption, but given the recent news about: http://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies-falsely-report-more-than-550-archive-org-urls-as-terrorist-content/ it spurred me to make it more public.

So reposting with some minor edits, plus one large additional note, to my zen blog to try and find some zen by venting. I’m just so very tired of the world right now.

So firstly I just want to say I like the Internet Archive a lot. I find it very soothing for the "is my memory faulty or is this person saying something that is untrue" - http://web.archive.org/

So when they do their fundraiser I generally donate to it these days as I have the cash flow to support it, and it’s helped me out significantly over the years, even when I didn’t have the cash flow. So here is a cup to The Web Archive, who’s helped protect many sanity for many years, and I hope will continue for many years to come. They accept donations year round here: https://archive.org/donate/

This is a correction to a bit of misinformation that I’ve seen lately that’s annoying me, even though some of the posts that talk about it are quite nice. Disclaimer: while I was in fandom at the time, I was not involved in OTW and in fact at the time all of this happened I was a bit skeptical of it’s chances of long term success - I’m glad to have been proven wrong. I do volunteer for OTW now but not for either of their Policies or Legal teams. Ao3/OTW is also not affiliated as far as I’m aware to Internet Archive in any way.

OTW was not started because of https://fanlore.org/wiki/Strikethrough_and_Boldthrough where a lot of stuff was being deleted from LJ, especially if it was LGBT content, including things that should have been fine according to their terms of service. Much like Tumblr insisting on banning the truth emerges from her well, even though technically it should be find if you took the CEO's letter seriously about classic art being fine.

OTW was started because of https://fanlore.org/wiki/FanLib - this pre-dates strike through. You can see this in the very initial post where they were talking about OTW here: https://fanlore.org/wiki/An_Archive_Of_One%27s_Own_(post_by_astolat)

Think of it as like Pillowfort - Pillowfort was not created because of the https://fanlore.org/wiki/Tumblr_NSFW_Content_Purge, it predated it significantly, but it got a lot of support because of said tumblrpocalpse, since people had a specific need that they were concerned about, which meant that an alternative being available was super useful!

Who was fanlib? Fanlore article here, https://fanlore.org/wiki/FanLib but to summarise... Fanlib was a couple of dudes who wanted to basically incorporate fandom for purposes of making money.

A lot of people at the time, were extremely concerned that this was going to get fandom sued out of existence, and increase the likelihood of militant take down notices. There was also the concern that by submitting work there, you lost any future rights to it - because that’s what the TOS effectively said.

If you wonder if that seems a bit extreme, yeah well, here is a news article from May 1, 1989, about disney suing a, day care center, for putting up some art of disney characters on the walls of the center. https://www.apnews.com/4d98c8dee1c72fa5ac42ce01dff143fd

Like, this is effectively fanart done on the walls. The way it's described - it's not in advertising, not sold directly, just to help make the place brighter and more friendly.

I always remember this example because it's one that tends to get people outraged, but I really want to emphasis that it wasn’t a once off situation, this used to be extremely common that people would link or gossip to me about these kinds of things.

That’s still an issue, by the way. Now days it's less about "fandom" stuff - but take down notices for "criticism" which are protected by fair use*, the same thing that OTW claims helps enable fandom, are still not that uncommon here’s one that’s quite recent with some of the publicity that it’s gotten: https://torrentfreak.com/vox-targets-the-verge-critic-with-dubious-youtube-takedown-190215/

In fact in some countries, criticism technically has more protection via fair use equivilents than fandom does.

This is Anne Rice: https://fanlore.org/wiki/Anne_Rice

I have nothing to say about Anne Rice that has not already been said. She’s not an isolated case.

In general I’ve found if people want to take down one thing - they won’t stop at one, they won’t draw boundaries, they won’t use judgement, because they don’t care - they’ll try to take down everything they can. It’s become an emotional issue in some cases, or a financial one. Neither provide incentive for trying to be diplomatic or fair.

Effectively if people don’t like you, they will try to find a way to make your voice go away and turn take down notices into a bully tactic even if everything you do is fine, and technically could help benefit them. There’s no incentive to not be a dick, if you want to be a dick, other than bad publicity, and the people who want to try really hard to get everything taken down will find the one thing that could be considered “acceptable to remove” to try and push the other stuff off the internet table.

If you can’t get it by hook, then you can get it by crook and they will add as much grease to the slippery slope as they can if they think it will benefit themselves.

New Note: This is why the Internet Archive being threatened on being blocked in France really concerns me, because it helps provide a lot of information and history. I know that they do respond to take down notices, but the fact that Gutenberg project is being asked to be removed in it’s entirety, and the push with the recent EU Single Market Directive makes me concerned that this is not about legitimate concerns such as terrorism, and more using buzzwords to help push copyright boundaries, even on things where that has lapsed.

Basically given the very short time frame - only one hour from receiving the notice to successfully removing the content, with the ruling their trying to implement, is basically setting it up so only one thing can be implemented to resolve - upload filters, of which, Tumblr is an excellent example of why I am extremely skeptical, given that it’s also definitely targeting platonic LGBT content at times. Also, given the stretch of what their demanding - seriously, commentary on the Quran is now considered a terrorism item.

This just in, Muslims are not allowed to talk about their religion in any way shape or form - because all of this is supposed to be taken down: https://archive.org/details/002Baqarah_201712

First comes that beautiful Surah, 15. Each chapter or portion of the Quran is called a Surah, which means a Degree Or Step, by which we mount up. Sometimes whole Surahs were revealed, and sometimes portions, which were arranged under the Prophet's directions.

That means that a lot of information is going to become harder and more expensive to find, and we’ve seen historically used to limit information the public has to make decisions. https://www.freetibet.org/news-media/na/blog-great-firewall-china

You can decide where your judgement falls on that.

I don’t really want to go into the if’s that’s about censorship which is usually why people yell about OTW and make reference to Strikethrough in the tweet/post. People generally make a choice about where they fall on it. I think that some websites may choose to be more restrictive, and some sites may choose to be less and that’s fine. I think that there should be multiple websites out there to met different peoples needs. In fact I really want there to be multiple websites - I think that makes for a much healthier fandom environment.

… I just also think it really sucks when 30,000+ sailor moon fanfics get deleted with no warning (that’s the 2012 one): https://fanlore.org/wiki/FanFiction.Net%27s_NC-17_Purges:_2002_and_2012 It also sucks when people try to make themselves an online home and are forced to move on - even when they were responsible for helping to make a product a success to begin with.

This is Ao3’s terms of service: https://archiveofourown.org/tos

If you actually read it, Archive of our own doesn’t host things that illegal in the US. That means if it’s legally defined as something that is illegal, it’s not allowed on the archive. There are also many things which the archive is willing to host, but has decided need to be marked in some way to stop people from clicking it accidentally.

Additionally some of the things that the archive may be illegal in other countries. For example, all same sex stories that are told in a way that is promotes “homonormativity — content presenting homosexuality as being a norm in society” are illegal in some countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law

I think that the latter is profoundly wrong, and if you think that the Russian law I linked to is an ideal then I don’t even know why you got to this point in my post. There’s literally nothing we have to talk about. Plus! Russia is not the only country that has these kinds of laws! It’s just one of the physically largest ones.

Also in my experience, in general, even if the censorship applies to all kinds of relationships “fairly” in theory, in practice it’s often unfairly applied.

It can be used to bully women: : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/01/xi-jinpings-authoritarian-rise-in-china-has-been-powered-by-sexism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a4174f02a74c

And it will far more often be applied to minorities than the majority: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2018/12/11/straight-male-gaze-rules-sanitized-social-media

Just.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/18/stonewall-defends-vital-lgbt-childrens-books-after-spate-of-ban-attempts

So if you’re someone who is very tired of having censorship applied unfairly to you, you’ll often when you make a new service wonder, “how can I fairly police this” and you’ll draw up some lines.

Because Ao3 is not actually interested in hosting everything - they’re specifically a non-commercial archive for fandom. Things that fall outside of that aren’t allowed to be hosted there and can/will be taken down. Ao3 decided one of it’s lines would be “is this legal in the US?”

This is to try and remove as much judgement as possible, attempt to be consistent with rulings. Not the boss says this, but the minion says that. Not, the user is reporting this, but the person they’re complaining about is the founders best friend so we’re going to give them an exemption. It’s also trying to minimise the debate points. For example a length debate I’ve seen online: where “holding hands” now has to be debated over whether it’s shippy (and thus banned) or just “cute” (and thus allowed).

My example is not an exaggeration. That’s an actual argument I’ve seen in the wild, where I genuinely believed that parties implementing an adblocker to image block stuff probably would have been a lot better off mentally; rather trying to fine tune the argument with a rules lawyer who was very dedicated to the cause of annoying a particular individual and/or community. (It’s also why some maid costume outfits are banned on reddit! Like, here is an example of a banned image which I personally think is quite a bit of a stretch: https://i.imgur.com/GBxopor.jpg )

So if you’re wondering what I'm getting at… When I say that it’s not inspired by Strikethrough and instead by fanlib and then spend a lot of time talking about cases where censorship has been abused.

Yes censorship is important to many people in the OTW. But it’s not “some works being deleted” that inspired it.

It’s being tired of the threat of having all fan works being deleted.

#ao3 #otw #venting #censorship #boundaries

5 notes · View notes

elizabethcariasa · 7 years

Text

Beware of fake charities in the wake of Hurricane Harvey

Oh, Photoshop. What would the internet be without you? Sometimes, doctored images are welcome innocent examples of good humor. Other times they are cruel and divisive.

And the astounding photos tend to skyrocket during times of tragedy and disaster.

Take, for example, the photo below of what @Jeggit's Tweet says is a shark swimming in a Houston street flooded by Hurricane Harvey.

Jeggit gives us the option to believe it or not. Go with not. It's fake.

Mashable has the details on the original shark photo, which over the years has been seen in edited online images swimming through flooded streets from New Jersey to Puerto Rico.

Watch out for charity scams: Falling for a fake photo in your social media streams is one thing. A few moments of embarrassment and the next hot Instagram or Snapchap image or Tweet pushes the error off your screen.

But some other fakery that appears after every disaster is more long-lasting and potentially very costly.

I'm talking, sadly, about charity scams and the crooks who perpetrate them to take advantage of most people's inclination to want to help after a natural disaster.

So far, I've not heard of any Harvey-related charity scams, but the storm is still causing damage in many parts of Texas. Once things settle down a bit, you can be sure these despicable crooks will be out there, preying on not only folks trying to help, but also victims of the hurricane.

Scam history repeats itself, repeatedly: How can I make such a bold prediction? Because I've seen it happen again and again and again.

Criminals using disasters to take honest folks' money happened in 2009 after the devastating Haitian earthquake.

Criminals targeted charitable individuals after Hurricane Isaac hit New Orleans in 2012, as well as in the wake of Super Storm Sandy's march through the MidAtlantic region that same year.

In 2015, crooks used South Carolina floods to scam charity donors.

After the mass shooting at Pulse nightclub in June 2016, the Internal Revenue Service had to issue a consumer alert about possible fake charity scams emerging in connection with that tragedy.

So I'm adding my preemptive warning now. Be extra careful about giving if you're approached by an unknown person or group ostensibly seeking help for Hurricane Harvey victims.

These 8 tips on how to avoid a charity scam can help you ensure you give to legitimate nonprofits providing real relief.

Be wary of offers from all sources: Fake charity schemes, in which con artists impersonate charities to get money or private information from well-intentioned individuals, can show up as telephone, social media, email or in-person solicitations.

Know your charities: While some legitimate disaster-specific charities may be created, be wary of charities with names that are similar to familiar or nationally known organizations. The real charities' disaster-specific donation efforts generally are a part of the group's overall relief efforts. Phony charities' disaster scams, however, are free-standing operations that use names or websites that sound or look like those of respected, real organizations but are not connected to them. At the other end of the scam spectrum, also beware of charities that you've never heard of before. Basically, if you suspect anything is not quite right, don't give. Take your time to find a real charity that will put your contributions to good work.

Check out the charities: You can check out any charity by using the IRS' online Exempt Organizations Select Check. With a simple online search, you can verify whether an organization is a legitimate, IRS-qualified nonprofit. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also has a list of national voluntary organizations that are active in disasters.

Be cautious when it comes to crowdfunding: Crowdfunding is popular way to raise money for good causes. Even some government agencies use this option. But it also makes it easy for crooks to steal your money, especially when it features a heart-rending story of loss from a disaster victim. Before you donate to a crowdfunded disaster site, check out these tips from YouCaring on how to tell if an online fundraiser is a scam.

Don't give out personal financial information: Some crooks don't ask for money. They are playing a longer con, seeking to steal your identity by asking for your Social Security number, your credit card and bank account numbers, as well as passwords to your financial accounts. Don't share this with anyone seeking your help for disaster victims. Real nonprofits do not need all these personally identifying details when you donate.

Don't donate cash: Not only is giving cash an easy way to lose your money, it won't do you any good if you plan to deduct your donation. You need substantiation for deduction purposes, and that's available through copies of checks or credit card receipts showing your charitable gift details or from an official receipt from the charity. If a charity isn't prepared or doesn't want to give you a receipt, or gives you one that doesn't have the charity's details on it, that's a warning that it's fake.

Don't click on links or attachments: If you get an email with a link to a supposed website where you can make donations to disaster victims, don't go there. These bogus websites mimic the sites of or use names similar to legitimate charities. Even if you click there and decide not to donate, just clicking over there could give crooks access to your computer. Likewise, don't open an attachment that purportedly is a way to give to a charity. That's not how legitimate nonprofits operate. If you want to give online, go to the real charitable website yourself, never through a link in an unsolicited email.

Don't become a double victim: Suffering losses from a disaster is bad enough. Don't compound your troubles by falling victim to a crook pretending to be someone who can help you make disaster-related claims. Some folks pretend during every disaster to be recovery experts who can walk you through the state and local steps of getting government help. You don't need them. That's what state and FEMA officials are for. Be similarly skeptical of folks who want to help you fill out tax claims for disaster relief. Such unsolicited offers are likely from crooks, who will take all that personal info you need to file for a disaster tax help and use it to steal not only that cash you need to rebuild, but also your identity. Instead, find a real tax pro who can help you.

I know that when so much of your world has literally crashed around you, it's tempting to take any help offered. It's equally appealing for those who want to help natural disaster victims to eagerly give to groups that swear they are providing recovery services.

But regardless of whether you’re a storm victim or a good Samaritan, take your time to get and give the legitimate help that's needed to make it through such terrible circumstances.

If you hear of or are approached by crooks pushing fake charity or disaster help scams, let me know. Let the IRS (which has a tax scam web page which lists criminal tax cons and how to report them) and Federal Trade Commission (via its online scam reporting tool) know, too. We all want to get the word out about such scams so that folks aren't additionally victimized by crooked landsharks.

As for legit ways to give to help those hard hit by Harvey, my earlier post has a variety of donation options.

You also might find these items of interest:

Volunteer time is not deductible, but some expenses might be

Uncommon charitable gifts still provide donors the typical tax deduction

Charitable donation tax deduction rules apply on Giving Tuesday and year-round

Advertisement // <![CDATA[ // <![CDATA[ // &lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ // &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;![CDATA[ (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;amp;gt; // ]]&amp;gt; // ]]&gt; // ]]> // ]]>

0 notes

christophergill8 · 7 years

Text

Beware of fake charities in the wake of Hurricane Harvey

Oh, Photoshop. What would the internet be without you? Sometimes, doctored images are welcome innocent examples of good humor. Other times they are cruel and divisive.

And the astounding photos tend to skyrocket during times of tragedy and disaster.

Take, for example, the photo below of what @Jeggit's Tweet says is a shark swimming in a Houston street flooded by Hurricane Harvey.

Jeggit gives us the option to believe it or not. Go with not. It's fake.

Mashable has the details on the original shark photo, which over the years has been seen in edited online images swimming through flooded streets from New Jersey to Puerto Rico.

But some other fakery that appears after every disaster is more long-lasting and potentially very costly.

I'm talking, sadly, about charity scams and the crooks who perpetrate them to take advantage of people's natural inclination to want to help after a natural disaster.